What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
42 Comments
- nemoder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18This doesn't make sense, we are already growing more grains than we can sell!
Even if biofuel usage was to skyrocket there is still plenty more land to grow crops on, and the crops grown simply for fuel are going to be grown much differently than those used for food.
I don't see how they could be competing any time soon. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Considering the US government pays farmers to grow corn, plow it under, and start all over again, I highly doubt the validity of this article.
The world hunger problem has nothing to do with a lack of food. - robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Well goddamn.
A:"The first world pollutes too much, we're destroying the environment and people will die!."
B:"OK, lets switch to biofuels!"
A:"Great idea!"
C:"Now people are going to starve instead of die of pollution you *****!"
/sarcasm - dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It's not that we are greedy. We have given tons of food to starving countries in the past. They rejected it because it was genetically modified.
- BostonVaulter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I believe that the switch to biofuels will be slow enough that nobody will have to go hungry.
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I love this logic. By this logic, in maybe 10 years there will be like 3 billion more people that we can't feed because look at our productions, it is only enough for 6 billion. When demand increases, so will production. Look at all the subsidized farming we have now to STOP farmers from producing TOO MUCH food. PLUS, a lot of bio diesel is just using the WASTE products from farming. This is the gas companies influence here. They are scared. They got their prices up beyond $3 a gallon. That is what it costs to produce ethanol or bio diesel. We can now do it. No reason not to switch the country over now. At least a 50% reduction and force a massive drop in oil prices.
Eric Wilson - zakarria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I may be wrong about this, but all these articles recently about how dumb bio-fuels are seem to be missing something. I don't think the point of bio-fuels is really apparent yet. Growing corn we could eat and using it to fuel our car really doesn't make much sense, it's true. But my understanding is that we're just getting started with bio-fuels. The real breakthrough will be when we can produce economically viable fuel from biological -waste-, as in the husks rather than the edible corn, and from nutritionally worthless plant life grown in soil that can't sustain food crops.
Personally I expect nanotech related advances in battery technology to trump the burning of any fossil fuels for transportation, which still leaves the question of how the electricity is produced, but seems like a step forward regardless. Still though, the criticisms of bio-fuels seem a bit short-sighted about where the technology is headed. - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The sudden 'demand' for biofuels is a knee-jerk reaction to the price of gas, nothing more. And biofuels (apart from biofuels that produce only water when they combust) still create carbon dioxide when they burn - so there's not enough thinking going on at all in either case ... just selfish reflex actions. Yes biofuels recycle CO2 from the atmosphere 'over the lifecycle', but petroleum does as well, if you define 'lifecycle' right.
- Ashex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I completely agree with what you say. The only reason we have issues with world hunger is because of distribution, Central USA alone produces enough food to keep the world fed, it's just that we're greedy.
- ricksite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The corn used in the production of ethanol is field corn which is typically fed to livestock. The good news is that one of the byproducts of ethanol production is livestock feed.
On a side note...why are some people so against ethanol and other bio-fuels? I keep reading headlines saying "Bio-fuels can not meet all of America's energy demands". That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. We shouldn't expect to get all of our energy from bio-fuels. We shouldn't expect to get all of our energy to come from any one source. Bio-fuel production is constantly improving and it is proving to be very viable to meet some of our energy demands. We are also building wind farms and hydro-electric dams. If the bio-fuel production can't keep up with demand, there could be a shift to electric vehicles powered by electricity generated from windmills. The point is that we need diversity in our energy sources and energy production if we expect to have the energy to meet our future needs. - everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i only think we should use biofuel when it's from an after product, like turning fast food grease into bio deisle. i think growing food for the sake of grinding it up into fuel is grossly inefficient and a waste of our efforts and recourses. i think more effort should be put into pure electric cars and renewable sources of energy to power said cars. also they should do more research into battery technology, or at the least release the use of the battery technology we already have that places like texico are holding back.
bio fuels and hydrogen power are fads, nothing more. biofuel still pollutes,and hydrogen simply adds another degree of seperation between energy distribution and the actual energy used in the cars. why fuel cars with hydrogen to make electricity if we can just plug the cars streight in to a socket? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I saw that movie Water World and I can see myself evolving webbed hands and feet and gills in the back of ears.
- blacktone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I wouldn't mind raising kids on the moon, let's get out of here.
- jay314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Are you believing out of optimism? Or believing after seeing actual studies done on the subject?
There is a huge difference between the two. The first one is dangerous. - Moly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow! All of you must be REALLY young. Don't any of you know who Lester Brown is? Do a little research on him, his opinions, and then put up a scoreboard: Number of times Lester Brown has predicted imminent collapse of food supplies around the world due to this, that, or the other thing, and number of times he has been wrong. The score will be the same.
- CKrause, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nutritionally useless "waste" tends to get plowed back into fields, where it is broken down through decomposition, and reabsorbed by new growth as fertilizer. Same principle that makes cow manure good fertilizer - although it lacks the "extra" breaking down done by a cow's intestinal tract.
Making biofuel out of "waste material" is not "getting something for nothing". It also has costs in increased fertilizer needs.
As for improved battery technology - yes, this will help, but the ENERGY to go into the "super improved" batteries has to come from somewhere as well. Biofuels, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, whatever, has to be used to produce energy to put IN the batteries :) - dielawn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3either people starve, or we all drown.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8> 2 Billion People May Go Hungry if the World Switches to Biofuels
No... Americans will get finally be able to get to their ideal height/age weight. - theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well hang on, is this really such a bad thing? 2 Billion less people in the world plus we solve our energy problems! = less global warming, less war, less famine.
Ok I know I know, im sick, i need help, im going to the psychiatrist now. - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yea, but the smug will feel better about themselves.
- sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@aventrix: "It's not that we are greedy. We have given tons of food to starving countries in the past. They rejected it because it was genetically modified."
That's about the biggest pile of ***** I've ever read on Digg, which is really saying something. - alexthebeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I really do doubt that Bio fuels will do any damage at all.
There is enough food to feed everyone and enough to overs to make giant stock piles in every modern nation on earth. This will still be the case if everybody went organic. If we need a bit extra, then we can just cut down on the amount of land used for making fibres for clothes (giant clothes stockpiles too), tobacco (tobacco takes up a lot of farming area that can be used for making food) and cut down on fields used for making drugs (of the illegal kind).
No body needs to starve, we can literally feed the world, if that i what the first world nations really want to do, but there is profit to be made in keeping the small nations poor, so nobody is in a hurry to make changes. - doty1tm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I dont agree with this at all. The US produces a lot of surplus crop mainly corn that is unused and goes to waste. And there is plenty of farm land that could be used for corn. You wouldn't have to worry about crop rotation with these products either. Just my 2 cents.
- rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some families in 3rd World countries survive on 2 or 3 bucks a month. 20 cents an hour in a place like that and they would probably be considered wealthy.
- CaptHarlock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Look at all the subsidized farming we have now to STOP farmers from producing TOO MUCH food."
TKDWILSON Deserves some green thumbs on this comment! - kcasper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The largest volume of ethanol will be from cellulose not food supplies. The first few cellulose to ethanol production plants are already built. There are plenty of ways to get the biomass that is need that hasn't been explored as of yet. It is unfortunate that people like that have to claim we are all doomed instead of looking for ways to make it work.
I suggest everyone should bury this story. - TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1lol. Actually those 2 billion do little of anything other than try to eat. I wonder what those dictators would do when they don't have any people left to oppress? Of course not something we should let happen.
Eric Wilson - 3amfriday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, there isn't enough food to go around. That sure is news. All the more reason to support GM crops so we can have a higher yield at the cost of less resources. As we stand now there is not enough land on Earth to feed the billions of hungry people. Will people pay more attention if another two billion die?
- CKrause, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Unfortunately, price is the problem.
Yes, increased demand leads to increased price leads to increased production.
Unfortunately there is a lag in the system, which means that you will see a food price spike, followed by a slow drop.
What is the poor guy making 20 cents/hour making Nikes in some Singapore sweatshop who can't afford to buy food during the spike supposed to do, starve?
As for Africa, I'm not sure I follow your argument. Are you saying that "Biofuel cash crops" are supposed to be an incentive to improve their agriculture? You don't think starvation and malnutrition were incentive enough? Given the famines that parts of Africa suffer, I think that if improving their agricultural practices was that simple, they'd have done it. - RunAmokISay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i have a number of serious problems with this article.
first, I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, or maybe all I'm doing is stating the problem in a different way, but there seems to be a flaw in the (alleged) reasoning that (allegedly) sparked this article in the first place. the USDA figures mentioned in the article say that demand will grow from where it is now by 20 million tons. though this is a large increase, the article goes on to treat this figure as if it represented the total grain production of the world, after saying it really is just the GROWTH in demand. after talking about the 14 million tons needed for biofuel, it states, "That leaves just six million tons to satisfy the food needs of many countries that import U.S. grain." it should read, "That leaves six million EXTRA tons needed to satisfy..." additionally, we have no reason to believe that these countries need any more than six million extra tons. it is not as if they originally needed 10 million extra tons, and then biofuel came in and ate up the extra demand. no, the countries' food demand is entirely independent of the biofuel demand and would have happened anyway, so it's strange that the six million figure was qualified with "just".
second, why is Lester Brown given so much space and so many quotes in this article to say things like our governments will collapse and civil unrest will occur, while the opposing viewpoint is represented by one guy saying a few things way back in the last three paragraphs? every journalist knows that the vast majority of readers don't read that far into an article.
third, where did the "two billion" figure come from? it is not sourced, nor is it even explained. we are just supposed to take for granted that the food of two billion people may be more profitable if used for fuel. if biofuel is so profitable, then wouldn't everyone's food be at risk, instead of just these two billion people? if there is some reason why only these two billion people would have to worry, what is that reason? why is their food so expensive already?
fourth, the page is explicitly presented by GE, with a large banner ad right up top. i don't want them sponsoring my news.
I'm burying this article. - jared3602, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0we pay our farmers a lot of money to not grow anything in this country. We have more use able land in this country then some countries have land. And there is plant that grows in all 50 states, produces 4x as much use able product per acre of land then trees. What is this plant? it is called HEMP. A weed that grows over 12 feet in height, has roots that grow over 6 feet down into the earth, needs little if any pesticides and herbicides, and has a short growing cycle (which makes it a great rotational crop). This is the plant the built this country in the first place (yet is not in any history book). It has been used for 1,000's of years, mainly because it is the longest fibered plant in the world and because the seed contains the most important proteins (in the best ratio) for humans.
Hemp has over 10,000 uses from paper, to high grade oil, to clothes and plastics.
a good starting point to research this is Jack Herer's book the Emperor wears no clothes which he provides for free on his website - bexmex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This article is totally wrong.
The most useful biofuels come from things like palm oil, flax oil, and coconut oil. Corn and soybean are WAY down the list when it comes to profitability per acre.
Besides, the latest technology is focusing on making oil from algae and farm waste.
Cars and people will NOT be competing for oil any time soon. Don't believe me? Check out the WHO. They say in the next 10 years OBESITY will kill more people in the developing world than starvation. - CKrause, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah.
It's almost as if no matter HOW the First World consumes that much energy there's going to be side effects.
Oh wait.... - graystar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Another nagging environmentalist. Never satisfied. Always wanting more goverment laws and taxes.
"What’s needed, he said, is an international body to oversee the biofuel/food problem. Right now, he noted, "in effect no one is in charge."
It's called price. This will just encourage people to grow more - look at africa, could be their cash crop to get them out of poverty. Im sure they could grow loads more with efficent farming techniques. It would reduce poverty and starvation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2 I can image that with all this biofuel going around sudden people will be going to pump to fill themselves up on this cheap sugar water. Suddenly the Pepsi and Coca Cola companies are out of business and the diabetes rate sky rockets by four hundred percent.
- WiredLain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Another point is that biofuel can be made out of weeds. Thats right let the land go back to nature, wait for the weeds to grow and then harvest them. No need for fertilizer, irrigation, or pesticides.
- Computer_Kid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Bio Fuels can be made out of scraps of food, this could not cause 2 billion to go hungry.
- dwnwrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Here's an idea... how about if countries that can't grow enough food to feed their people stop making more people?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2totally inaccurate.
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Who claims that? Oh, and Bush helped free 60 million people from oppression, and you done what exactly for the world? Spew your garbage elsewhere.
Eric Wilson - canyadiggit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Let's just get Bush to multiply some loaves and fishes. He was appointed by God, right?
- minotaur, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12 Billion People May Go Hungry if the World Switches to Bio-fuels.
Well Duh! no digg
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is