Please Stop the Biofuel Idiocy.
Okay, so Mark Steyn wasn’t just blowing smoke after all.
WASHINGTON (AP) – Some top international food scientists Tuesday recommended halting the use of food-based biofuels, such as ethanol, saying it would cut corn prices by 20 percent during a world food crisis.
But even as the scientists were calling for a moratorium, President Bush urged the opposite. He declared the United States should increase ethanol use because of national energy security and high gas prices.
The conflicting messages Tuesday highlighted the ongoing debate over food and fuel needs.
The three senior scientists with an international research consortium pushing a biofuel moratorium said nations need to rethink programs that divert food such as corn and soybeans into fuel, given the burgeoning worldwide food crisis. The group, CGIAR, is a global network that uses science to fight hunger. It is funded by dozens of countries and private foundations.
If leading nations stopped biofuel use this year, it would lead to a price decline in corn by about 20 percent and wheat by about 10 percent from 2009-10, said Joachim von Braun. He heads the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, the policy arm of CGIAR. The United States is the biggest biofuel producer.
Even the Bush administration is laying a 15 to 20 percent rise in food costs at the feet of biofuels. Nevertheless, compassionate conservatism marches on apace and we see, again, what happens when you write government policy based on emotion and not fact.
Related posts:
- Killing Poor People in the Name of Climate Change
- Oh No! Corn!
- Gosh. It Turns Out that Economics Works!
- Wait, Oil Prices Dropped This Year? When Was the MSM Going To Tell Me?
Category: Oh the Climate, It is A-Changin'
About the Author (Author Profile)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
No, he's still blowing smoke. And so is the Washington Post. When you ignore the elephant and the two 900-pound gorillas in the room, you are not making a credible argument. You cannot talk about food shortages without talking about the elephant, which is rice. But we ignore the world's most important food source because we don't like the reason why it's been rising faster than anything else. The 900 pound gorillas are meat consumption and the weak dollar. They are the primary causes of the rise in corn prices. But we can't talk about the rising meat consumption (outside of the Nation and Mother Jones). And blaming the weak dollar policy might make Bush look bad. Can't do that. The 20% reduction they are talking about won't ever happen because hog farmers who currently feed their pigs rice will switch to corn if corn prices drop (that switch is already happening and I've personally seen it). And that demand will bring the price of corn right back up. We'd be lucky to get a 5% reduction in the price of corn coupled with a 2% reduction in the price of rice if we eliminated ethanol subsidies. That would still help, but not as much as eating fewer Big Macs. And we don't even have to wait for government action to eat less meat. We can do it on our own. I still think ethanol subsidies are bad, but they are a small part of the food crisis.
If you'd like to actually engage people in a conversation about your gorillas & elephants, you should try cutting out the childish, snarky comments about Bush (and by extension – us…conservatives). If you weren't so steeped in BDS, you would have noticed by now that conservatives have plenty of criticism for Bush's liberal policies and aspects of his economic policies but I have had enough with the over the top, Bush-is-evil and has caused every ill to befall this nation since the day he took office.
The reason you are not getting any traction here on your first 2 points is I can't do anything about the weak dollar & I'm not going to stop eating meat. And even if I do, not enough people will to make a difference – it is a staple in OUR diet.
The reason the corn-ethanol thing drives me (and many conservatives) crazy is because we don't believe all of this global-warming/climate-change quackery anyway. So any steps taken in the name of "saving the planet" I'm going to fight against. Because there is absolutely NO reason, zip, zero, nada for us to put food in our cars and leave oil in the ground. To me it represents the most ridiculous indulgence ever contemplated that solves nothing; not global warming, not dependence on foreign oil. And if fact, just like these stupid florescent bulbs, it will actually cause more harm than good. And this is but the first sign of the harm that will come from it. That is why it is being pounced on by conservatives….and while there is still time to stop the lunacy!
It's true you can't do anything about the weak dollar policy now. You already voted for that policy back in 2004 (and in 2000 before that). But next time you vote, you can do something about it. John McCain proposes to not only continue Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, but to make it worse. The Federal Reserve will have no choice but to further devalue the dollar to give the appearance that the economy isn't collapsing (and to actually prevent it from collapsing). So if you vote for McCain in 2008, you will be voting to starve people in South America, where currencies are generally tied to the dollar. Fortunately, the people of Asia will be immune to your willingness to deflate the dollar (they'll benefit, actually). But they will not be immune to the dietary choices of their fellow Asians. At least they live in high growth economies, so they'll be fine in the long run.
As for your belief that you cannot make a difference by eating less meat, well it will take a lot of people to make a difference. Just like it will take a lot of people to elect John McCain. I can only hope you take the same attitude towards voting. Just don't vote, because your single vote won't make a difference. And tell your friends to do the same. If enough people like you believe that they can't make a difference, then they won't be able to. And that will be a good thing.
As for your criticism of ethanol subsidies, I'm with you. They are a very bad idea. But you should argue the point on the merits of the program rather than blaming the program for a problem that it didn't create. Your vote to elect a fiscally irresponsible president and your desire (and mine) to eat meat created the problem. And no doubt you will continue to make the problem worse. I'm already cutting down on meat and I have never voted for fiscally irresponsible candidates. And I'll gladly cross party lines to continue that voting record. In fact, I already did. I used to be a Republican, you know, but they became lunatics and I remained sane.
extra note: The person who made me a Republican was Arthur Laffer. And he's also the person who made me a Democrat. The Laffer Curve is most certainly a double edged sword. No wonder conservatives run from it now. Everything was fine when we were on the right side of the curve, but now we're on the left side, and the Republicans haven't adapted to that fact.
And you would do yourself a favor by blaming me a little less….you can only speculate that Al Gore or John Kerry might have been even slightly better on the economy than Bush has been. Either way, I was a pretty reluctant Bush voter as I am from TX and already knew what a liberal whackadoo he was before running for Prez. But with ALL topics considered each race, I ended up voting for him.
I am NOT voting for McCain, you need not worry. But again, stop with the accusations, I am not responsible for starving Central/South Americans to death. McCain plans to starve Americans to death with his cape & trade policy. Obama is going to starve us to death with his capital gains tax or any other tax he can dream up that will promote “fairness” (I.e. make middle to upper middle class just as poor as the poorest among us.)
No matter how you look at it, we do not have any good choices this election. If it comes down to McCain & Hillary, I might (no promises) come out & vote for Hillary. If it is McCain & Obama, I don't really see the point in waisting gas….I probably won't be able to afford to anyway.
I don't even eat meat every day now as it is. But I don't really see how that is helping or hurting our current situation anyway. When I'm not eating meat, I'm eating…..grains….rice….corn. So what is the difference if I eat the grain or if the cow eats the grain & I eat the cow? I grow my own tomatoes, bell peppers, blueberries & strawberries; and I got an Aerogarden this year for my birthday – so am currently growing my own lettuce too. I am about to try to grow my own potatoes this year as soon as I can figure out which variety will grow in this wretched, humid region I live in. I have a compost pile!! Why is it that you dems always assume that conservatives are not into conservation?
I am arguing the merits. If only 5 or 10 people die as a result of higher corn prices, is that not a meritorious argument? It is only 5 or 10 now, but it will only get worse if we continue down this path of stuffing food into our GAS tanks.
And if you want to argue the other point… that ethanol is better for the environment. There is plenty out there that says ethanol is not nearly as efficient as gas. (Must be transported by truck, takes more natural resources to refine, etc.) If you look down the road a ways, you can see since our vehicles can only take a small amount of ethanol….anything beyond something like a 10 or 15% mixture is going to require another kind of car; or at least modifications. How much is that going to cost our environment and/or economy?? New cars for everyone?? And what to do with the hundreds of millions of old cars….landfills?
Or maybe you would like to argue that we need to get off Saudi oil? All I ask is that the people who say this non-sense need to consider what would happen if we really did achieve that. Oil is 90% of Saudi Arabia's exports. I don't know how much of that is for US consumption but any way you look at it, if they lose that business….they are going to be hurting. And what is America going to do when Saudis start starving to death? The American president, whoever it is, is going to take the money they stole (via tax) from Americans and send it to the Saudis in the form of “relief aid”. I'd rather just buy their oil.
You are very arrogant & seem to think you know a lot about me! Perhaps you could take your blinders off & realize there is a good bit of diversity of thought on the right; stop telling me what you think & then following it with what you think I think.
I voted for Gov. Ann Richards (twice) who turned out to be a boon for Texas. I'm not a republican or a democrat – but very much to the right of both parties.
Puleeeeaaaase! Suffice to say that many pols on both sides of the isle are pretty wretched human beings….but if you mean “sane” as in fighting to make sure each girl-child has at least 1 abortion before their 16th birthday, and that all children should be removed from their evil parents & placed in government schools for 16 years of programming or that our medical care should be placed in the hands of the same folks who carried out the Tuskegee experiment – the government; or that the best way to fight an enemy who wishes to destroy us is to destroy our own weapons, raise a white flag & show them we mean no harm and only want hugs…..is that the kind of “sanity” you are talking about?
"So what is the difference if I eat the grain or if the cow eats the grain & I eat the cow? "
The difference is that you consume ten times the amount of grain when you eat it in meat form. That's a huge difference. And, no I don't want to argue that corn ethanol is better for the environment. It's not, obviously. Sugar cane ethanol probably is better, but I don't have enough information to really make that judgment. I will say that the addition of ethanol in gasoline here in the Denver area has helped reduce our pollution, although it's only one of many factors. But the good news is that when I talk about the "Brown Cloud," most people don't even know what I'm talking about. That's because there is no brown cloud anymore. And ethanol was a part of that solution.
[...] rechazan (Market Watchque sean las culpables de la subida de los precios, varios científicos han pedido (The Sundries Sack: link in English) que se disminuya la plantación de etanol y otros biofuels [...]