Blog Entries: 1
Recognitions:
Gold Member

## Stop biofuel lunacy

This is a couple of years old but i doubt if the situation is much different, the costs may be
but not the inter change.

http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/progra...ation/tm10.pdf

 Quote by latecommer I have a problem with with the first statement that global warming would reduce the amount of land available for food production. an increase in temperature would move the "growth line further north and south. while the middle would of course suffer, the major food producing areas of the world would now be extended. Canada for instance is now producing grain further north than in the past. Is there a source you could site varifying your statement? Of course there has been no "global" warming in nearly a decade. the slight rise in temperature reported (if it is true) in the Northern Hemisphere has been more than off set by the steady decline of the Southern Hemisphere. The far more dangerous possibility is that we are actually entering a global cooling period. As a atmospheric chemist I work with has said.....CO2 is not a cause of warming and never has been. CO2 increases have always followed temperature, by as much as hundreds of years, CO2 is not chemical able to raise the temperature by more than a fraction of the natural forcing we have. And of course when the highest concentrations know of this benificial gas occured we were in the depth of an ice age. When we quite the foolish thinking of CO2 forced climate we will once again observe that the Sun is what controls the climate, and it has shown all the signs of a impending minimum. With solar activity at a 200 year low (similar to the little ice age) we need to put our limited resources toward preparing for an extended cool period. All that said I agree 100% with your point that bio-fuel will create a worse situation than the problem it attempts to solve. It is a case of the pols saying we have to do do something to appease the people, and as usuall they are doing the wrong thing. Another point I must make is that it is too simplistic to blame the U.S. and SUV's for starvation. Who sets the prices for oil? certainly not the United States. And insofar as starving the world, the United States has for many years been the greatest supplier of food aid to other countries, in fact many years supplying more free food and technology than the rest of the world combined. As I said it is the simplistic knee jerk reaction to blame the U.S. When much more obvious reasons abound.
I think if you look at the facts the USA is a net importer of food, so it is consuming the worlds food (both in bellies and gas tanks), largely on borrowed money.
So if you are indeed giving food and technology away it is probably not really yours in the first place (sorry could not resist that one).

And oh Mr Gates can I have my free copy of window VISTA please??

On second thoughts I won't bother - I have read the reviews

 Quote by Hurkyl Then don't have that argument in this forum. If you didn't want to defend your assertions regarding side issues, then you shouldn't have asserted them. If you stick to facts and reasoned arguments, and this thread might be interesting. If you attempt other methods of persuasion, then I'm going to challenge them.
Well then try challanging some of the *facts* I have posted, or just agree that they are correct.

Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
 Quote by esbo I think if you look at the facts the USA is a net importer of food, so it is consuming the worlds food (both in bellies and gas tanks), largely on borrowed money.
Please post the studies that document your statement that the US is a net importer of food. No more posts until you provide this information.

 Quote by Evo Please post the studies that document your statement that the US is a net importer of food. No more posts until you provide this information.

Oh dear that threw me
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/exports111204.cfm

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/M...ings/Fruit.htm

But I have a better idea:-

Please post the studies that document your statement that the US is a net exporter of food. No more posts until you provide this information.

Oh and before you waste your time:-

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/foo...is/2008/02/25/

"The United States is now a net importer of food"

Looks like I have my pass to post more

And don't forget this one:-
"At $2.5 trillion, the U.S. is one of the world’s largest food producers. However, it is a net importer of food, exporting only$59 billion and importing \$68 billion."

I must say I find it the hight of arrogance for you suggest my claims are unfounded
when you provide no evidence to prove otherwise.

Still, par for the course I guess.

Futhermore I would go as far as to suggest that a lot of that 'food' is not being used for
food at all, but for biofuel, unless of course you have evidence to disprove that.

i mean all that food must be going somewhere, apart from into the their fat bloated bodies, surely?

 Of course the reason why you are under the illisuion that the USA is a net importor of food is because, well the USA would rather keep that quite, not good for the President if the US and the rest of the world realise that Bush is the worst president since sliced bread. For similar reasons it would like to give you the impression that biofuels are not responsible for rocketing food prices. Afterall why tell the truth when you can lie through your teeth and continue with disasterous policies, afterall nobody might spot you are a useless liar. However I will, because I am neither.
 Mentor Blog Entries: 4 Sorry you're wrong. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/cus...accno=ED231702 One of a series on topics of concern to the U.S. media, this guide is intended to provide journalists with concise, authoritative background information on the U.S. role in the world food situation. Today the United States is the world's greatest exporter of food. The produce of one out of every three acres goes abroad, more than half of it to developing countries. Provided and discussed are tables and charts showing agricultural exports by U.S. region and their percentage share of gross farm sales for selected years; percentage share of agricultural exports by states of region (1980); regional share of agricultural exports by commodities (1980); and the contribution of agricultural exports to employment and farm sale, and state rankings as exporters of agricultural products (1977). The guide discusses debates over the descriptions of the world food situations and variations in prescription--what the well-fed West should do about those hungry millions; also examined are questions that most world food experts agree are crucial. Agricultural research projects of land grant universities are cited as being one of the handiest sources of information on world food issues for the working journalist. The guide concludes with listings of reference materials and resource persons. (RM)

 Quote by Evo Sorry you're wrong. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/cus...accno=ED231702 One of a series on topics of concern to the U.S. media, this guide is intended to provide journalists with concise, authoritative background information on the U.S. role in the world food situation. Today the United States is the world's greatest exporter of food. The produce of one out of every three acres goes abroad, more than half of it to developing countries. Provided and discussed are tables and charts showing agricultural exports by U.S. region and their percentage share of gross farm sales for selected years; percentage share of agricultural exports by states of region (1980); regional share of agricultural exports by commodities (1980); and the contribution of agricultural exports to employment and farm sale, and state rankings as exporters of agricultural products (1977). The guide discusses debates over the descriptions of the world food situations and variations in prescription--what the well-fed West should do about those hungry millions; also examined are questions that most world food experts agree are crucial. Agricultural research projects of land grant universities are cited as being one of the handiest sources of information on world food issues for the working journalist. The guide concludes with listings of reference materials and resource persons. (RM)
OK maybe I was wrong
But do you have more recent figures than that?

 Quote by wolram This is a couple of years old but i doubt if the situation is much different, the costs may be but not the inter change. http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/progra...ation/tm10.pdf
"The catch, however, is that the ethanol plants can afford to out-bid everyone else for tight corn supplies."

This is the problem, biofuel is pushing up world food costs, and the only options the people
who cannot afford those food price have is to die or go down fighting.
The second option don't look great untill you look at the first, and it won't take long for
the fight to be taken to the aggressor.
It's very simple logic.
You have a recipcy for Armageddon here.

 Mentor Blog Entries: 9 Please do not equate ethanol to biofuel. Ethanol is only ONE source of renewable fuels, and not a particularly good one. As other alternatives become available, and cheaper ethanol will go by the wayside. For the reasons you mention, and more it is simply not viable in the long term. But ethanol is not the ONLY biofuel, there are others (see some of the algae threads) which do not compete with food. To stop research in biofuels because of the problems with ethanol is simply stupid.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by Integral But ethanol is not the ONLY biofuel, there are others (see some of the algae threads) which do not compete with food. To stop research in biofuels because of the problems with ethanol is simply stupid.
I have to say that I am no expert in these things at all, and I would agree with you that research in biofuels (as research in about anything) is always a good idea. However, but I don't know in how much this is the cause for the current food price rises, it is not unthinkable that massive *state subventions* for trading food crops for biofuel crops WILL put the food market in competition with the skewed (by subventions) biofuel market, and will as such give rise to strong rises in food prices (but, again, I don't know if *this* price rise has anything to do with it).

We have witnessed similar problems in the past, when food growth is put in competition with a more lucrative market. We've seen this with tobacco, we've seen this with cotton, we've seen it with cocaine. Each time that food growth has to compete for farmer land and farmer activity with more lucrative crops, we get a regional food crisis. Because usually the "rich customer" is not local.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by esbo This is the problem, biofuel is pushing up world food costs, and the only options the people who cannot afford those food price have is to die or go down fighting.
I propose that they drink the ethanol...

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by esbo But do you have more recent figures than that?
I do. And a more detailed breakdown of your figures.

From here (from a link on this page, I observe that in 2007, the U.S. exported 84,228 million dollars worth of "food, feeds, and beverages", while importing only 81,686 million dollars worth. (Exhibit 6)

Notably (from Exhibits 7 and 8), over Jan-Feb 2008, the U.S. exported 4,941 million dollars worth of corn, rice, and wheat (and a few hundred million in other grains), and imported 0 dollars worth of major grains. (except for whatever's included in that 624 million dollars worth of 'feedstuff and foodgrains')

The grains look the same in the 2004 annual data too: 13,342 million dollars worth of exports for corn, rice, and wheat (and a billion or so worth of other misc grains), and no imported grains (except for what's masked by 'feedstuff and foodgrains', and maybe in 'other foods')

The trade deficit in 2004 is due to the massive importing of fish and shellfish, with wine (and related), meat, and 'other foods' being distant secondary contributors. (little more than half the seafood spending)

P.S. I've noticed that, since my previous post, you've made opening statements for starting at least five new side topics (u.s. debt, windows vista, obesity, Bush, armageddon) -- do you really intend to open these topics for discussion, or do you withdraw your comments?

 Blog Entries: 1 Recognitions: Gold Member

Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
 Quote by esbo But do you have more recent figures than that?
This gives some interesting stats on grain export, including corn and soy, it's from March 5th, 2008. This is some interesting information that relates to this thread.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3629

 Quote by Hurkyl I do. And a more detailed breakdown of your figures. From here (from a link on this page, I observe that in 2007, the U.S. exported 84,228 million dollars worth of "food, feeds, and beverages", while importing only 81,686 million dollars worth. (Exhibit 6) Notably (from Exhibits 7 and 8), over Jan-Feb 2008, the U.S. exported 4,941 million dollars worth of corn, rice, and wheat (and a few hundred million in other grains), and imported 0 dollars worth of major grains. (except for whatever's included in that 624 million dollars worth of 'feedstuff and foodgrains') The grains look the same in the 2004 annual data too: 13,342 million dollars worth of exports for corn, rice, and wheat (and a billion or so worth of other misc grains), and no imported grains (except for what's masked by 'feedstuff and foodgrains', and maybe in 'other foods') The trade deficit in 2004 is due to the massive importing of fish and shellfish, with wine (and related), meat, and 'other foods' being distant secondary contributors. (little more than half the seafood spending)
Seems to be at odds with the several figures I posted, also I believe you figures exclude
biofuels, if seem food used as biofuels is not included.
Also the figures are quite close and were probably effected by the falling dollar making exports easier and imports harder.

 Quote by Hurkyl P.S. I've noticed that, since my previous post, you've made opening statements for starting at least five new side topics (u.s. debt, windows vista, obesity, Bush, armageddon) -- do you really intend to open these topics for discussion, or do you withdraw your comments?
I just posted as per normal. I don't consider them 'opening statements', for what it is worth, nor side topics in particular, just a slection of words contained in my posts.
If I intended to withdraw them it is most unlikely I would have posted them in the first place.