What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
129 Comments
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -6/+34Dugg, but I suggest that you research the issue instead of buying into what we're being told. Corn has risen 21% in price since 2004, according to a recent Merrill Lynch report, which adds a cost of $15 per year to a family's cost in food. The report additionally states that without ethanol to supplement gas, oil would be $21 a barrel higher than it is today, which, in fuel costs alone, would be an additional $500+ per family on average. The real culprit is inflated oil prices, and rampant speculation in food commodities. Check the top favorite in my profile.
- zippe, on 07/07/2008, -8/+29i'm not sure biofuel is such a great idea after all. i heard that if we manufacture biofuel, it's ultimately worse for the environment than regular petroleum gasoline (because of having to grow and process the corn and everything). and now there's this...i say we should keep looking for a better "green" fuel.
- geekchic, on 07/07/2008, -2/+21Bio fuels can be better for the environment - but the US subsidies for ethanol are a disaster in the making as it makes imports from Brazil of their much cheaper and eco-friendly bio fuels too expensive.
As usual, politics, not farming is the reason for the bio fuels and food price crisis. - thcobbs, on 07/07/2008, -1/+16"Who cares where a bushel of corn comes from frankly, so long as the cost is affordable"
This is the same thinking that has gotten us into all the trouble in the middle east with oil. - kults, on 07/07/2008, -4/+18Bull
- ToxNub, on 07/07/2008, -1/+14I hate how they use "biofuels" as a blanket statement.
Rumour: "Biofuels are no better for the environment than gasoline."
Response: This statement is misleading. Producing biofuels in the stupidest way possible isn't representative of biofuels themselves.
Rumour: "Biofuels are driving up the cost of food"
Response: This statement is also misleading. Many forms of biofuel (ie, cellulosic ethanol made from inedible corn stalks etc) are so incredibly energy efficient compared to other biofuel production methods, and have little impact on food prices.
Don't blame biofuels for human stupidity.
And I'm also going to call ***** on the 75% figure. - smashingmonkey, on 07/07/2008, -3/+16Sorry, but this is definitely a stretch. If anything, food costs are on the rise because the typical food we eat in the USA travels over 1,000 miles and fuel prices are high overall. I live in one of the most fuel-progressive towns in the USA and the percentage of people using biofuels is pretty tiny. It's not biofuel alone - the problem is fuel costs in general and this model of buying Australian apples in Colorado, for example.
- DaDiggydiggyDOC, on 07/07/2008, -6/+19That's why I like the idea of algae based bio-fuel!! We don't eat that stuff...or at least I don't. Food is for eating not driving IMO.
- centran, on 07/07/2008, -1/+12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass
survives drought. excellent biomass per acre. do not need pesticides or fertilizers since it is so durable.
It is perfect for the lazy farmer! If you need something that yields more then that per acre then you can go with algae... but that requires actual work :( - stonewall123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+10Corn based ethanol won't last. Its a transitional crop that will be replaced with switchgrass ( or other more useful plant material). It makes no sense to grow corn which is energy intensive, fertilizer hungry and water needy. Here is a nice article that explains it better than I can. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-be ... .
- VladII, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9fta:But the World Bank report, drawn up by an internationally-respected economist,
Nameless experts are not to be trusted.
fta: "The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period."
My math says food prices would still be up 65% without biofuels. Who does the telegraph hold responsible for that? The rampant use of Bush's name in a Brit paper suggests a bit of sensationalism.
Not buried or dugg, just seems the economics are oversimplified to make headlines. - scottperezfox, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9This is bollocks. Most experts agree that biofuels have only contributed to about 2% of the food price rise. Rice, eaten all over the world especially in China/India, has virtually no biofuels programme but has risen in price. The opposite is true for sugar cane.
The reason food costs more is complex, but it doesn't help that we've had back-to-back years of exceptionally poor harvests in Australia and the US, main producers of wheat and corn. - larryiam, on 07/07/2008, -9/+18buried for speculation that is not proven with any facts
- doctechnical, on 07/07/2008, -0/+8And the recent unpleasantness with wheat gluten imported from China for use in pet food that wound up killing pets. Not to mention the occasional date-rape drugs in kid's toys and whatnot...
- geekchic, on 07/07/2008, -5/+13The best way to reduce food costs is to abolish the political barriers imposed on food imports from countries where it is cheap to produce (most of the 3rd world) to the developed nations where it is expensive to produce it.
Who cares where a bushel of corn comes from frankly, so long as the cost is affordable. If as a pleasant side effect, we can help the economies of the developing nations by buying their food as well - then all the better.
Time to scrap food subsidies - and time to scrap food import bans. - yayster, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7Its all about security. If there is no infrastructure to grow food in America because we buy all our food from someplace else, then we put our selves in a very bad position --- think worse case scenario where food imports are prevented.
- MikeSetera, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7BUY A HORSE!
- 9bpm9, on 07/07/2008, -5/+12More sensationalist *****.
- PopcornDave, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7As long as it meets our health and safety standards, yes. But if the current problem with the tomatoes and salmonella (or whatever it turns out to eventually be) is an indication of what we might expect, then that could be a huge problem.
- marx2k, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6Of course, the cost of getting that food here is becoming prohibitive enough to where it may just be cheaper to produce it here. Personally, I find that local seasonal foods are cheap as hell around here while food imported from * are not.
- alexkball, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7I'm not sure if this will get dugg up or buried, but really the easiest way to lower the cost of food and the cost of fuel is to stop fighting the war in Iraq.
- doctechnical, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7And corn is a fungible commodity, meaning every acre you plant for biofuel is an acre you DIDN'T plant for cheap animal feed.
And animals are food, too.
One thing oil is that ethanol ain't is a feedstock for a pantload of other chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, both of which are key in the production of cheap food. So the increase in oil prices in and of itself raises the cost of food (and damned near everything else).
The real tragedy here is that beer prices are going up :( - joeanon, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7This is A TOTAL LIE.
The increases in food costs have been pinned down to ENERGY PRICES and you shouldn't need a scientific study or degree to realize that.
Food scales with energy, it's as simple as that.
If the author or any of the ***** digging this were paying attention to congressional committee reports or knew their ass from an ethanol distiller, they'd know 75% is a simple outrageous estimate.
Energy skyrockets and people blame biofuel.
Think about it people.
Biofuels amount to something like 3% of the cost increases. Name a food that doesn't require oil to transport and grow ?
Then explain how biofuel is a more pressing cost issue in food prices, which included cultivation, refrigerated trucking, worldwide ship transport and local delivery and refrigeration, then oil and electricity doubling every couple years.
Soy and Corn biofuels are a waste of time, but they are not the reason for rising food prices when weather and energy costs are clearly the cause.
It's not as if there is a FOOD industry... wheat comes from certain geographies and fruit from others. The one factor that ties them all is energy prices. The price of bread for instance is effected more by last years major wheat loses.
NASA has warned of potential long term drought conditions as a result of the climate trend.
Do you think the media is smarter than NASA. Do you think heat causes drought ? Maybeeee... or is it all a hoax of the liberal media still ?
CO2 help trap heat... heat make crops die... dead crops no feed people... people pay more for food. It doesn't matter how you look at it, the world goes through periods of warming and the addition of high CO2 level from burning fossil fuels simply and undoubtedly does not make it better.
Is that more in line with the brain power most of you are showing ?
I personally don't think it's too much to suggest a 2nd great depression could be forming.
The question is, will we prepare for a second dust bowl under the pressure of a bulging population and coupled with an energy crisis.
Or will we live in denial and wait for it all to turn to ***** in our hands ?
I would bet money... it will be the later.
That's just the sad fate of the masses, to be misinformed and left to suffer the most as the wealthy ride it out.
This is why, as a liberal, I still support full gun rights for Americans. Our founding fathers would not put fear of crime above fear of CONSOLIDATION OF POWER.
Whether this power comes from the church, the government or the wealthy does not matter. It should all be feared. - doctechnical, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6Yes, a horse is not only transportation, but in a pinch it's food as well.
- LastAXEL, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5While Biofuels are partly to blame, they are not the only reason for high food prices. The cost of gasoline contributes because it takes gas powered machines to harvest crops and transport food.
It isn't only biofuels but they don't help. - AntiZionist, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6Says who, The World Bank? Ah yes...we must stick to fossil fuels like the oil we're paying 2-3 times what we were a couple years ago. Uh HUH...
- moo083, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5The only reason that biofuel might suck is if you make it from corn. Corn yields such a low amount of ethanol, it really is a stupid idea. I don't know who that that mass production of corn ethanol would be smart idea, but they suck big time. Because of that idea, biofuels are getting a lot of negative publicity. The real answer is to generate ethanol from algae. There are a number of companies that are doing this, and the basic idea is a ton of clear tubes that grow algae and turn throughout the day to provide the sunlight required to generate a large amount of algae. With the algae you can create WAY WAY more ethanol with the same amount of land. And seeing as you aren't growing anything, its likely that the best place to grow this is in the desert or other places that are sparsely inhabited. In what way would that affect global food prices? It wouldn't. The problem isn't biofuels. Its Corn biofuel thats the problem, and most people who know anything about ethanol would agree.
- delmar14, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5The price has increased much more than that in other countries that pay high import tariffs on U.S. grown corn. Also, our corn subsidy program literally burns millions of bushels of corn each year. We need to seriously rethink our policy of meddling with the economy to play favorites with the farmers lobby. I think enough of my tax dollars have been stolen by the corporate farmers by this point.
- jugglingjon, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6What a load of crap. This claims that prices have risen 140% since 2002? Just what food did they include in their test purchases, food made of animals that went extinct that year? My food prices certainly haven't risen 75%, let alone 140%. Yeah pricier corn will have some effect on the cost of food, but fuel prices impact it so much more.
Think about all the processes that go into food, and how many times that increased gas price affects each step. If you buy cereal, you're paying the extra gas cost of: the farmer growing the corn, the transport of the raw corn for processing, the transport of any other materials to be processed with the corn, the utilities used in the processing, the transportation of the boxed product to warehouses, and the transportation of the boxed product to stores. The increase in fuel cost has a 10-20 fold effect on the final price of food, blaming so much of it on biofuels is BS. - Puppetfunk, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5You seem to have picked up an extra China along the way. Earth currently only needs to feed 6 billion.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6solution ?, dont use ***** corn !
You Americans are such corporate whores, Corn is no where near the most efficient biofuel - its simply used in America because of the Corn Growers Lobbys (or whatever the ***** u call it) massive influence. No sane plan would suggest using corn (unless its funded by the Corn Growers Lobby and then well, sanity takes a backseat to getting rich. - jeffwrule, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4No you don't need to displace food crops. Did you read the article? This stuff grows on marginal lands that are not suitable for growing crops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass#Biofuel - marx2k, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Does anyone have a price chart for average price of HFCS in the past year or two? I want to see if it matches the rise in corn price, but I can't find the data anywhere :(
- lowtolerance, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4That'd be great, if it weren't for 30 mile bike trek i'd have to make to work, then the extra 25 mile bike trek i'd have to make to school, which would inevitably make me late for class.
how about instead of making stupid blanket statements, you rephrase that to say "your best 'green' move is to use fuel more efficiently"? - cheezintern, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Most of the middle east countries have to import their food, so I say good, let them pay more. Does suck for the poor countries caught in the crossfire however.
- marx2k, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4The free market doesn't work when there are governmental barriers to entry.
- MikeFallopian, on 07/07/2008, -2/+61) start exploiting our massive oil-shale and tar sands deposits (short term)
2) start building dozens of ultra-efficient nuclear breeder plants (medium term)
3) keep working hard on "pure" renewables such as solar and wind - improve efficiency, allocate land and ocean, build long-distance power transmission infrastructure, gradually keep integrating green power into the grid (long term)
New battery technology such as the silicon nanowire design published by Stanford last year hold great promise, for vehicles as well as other uses. I have very little doubt that the future will be powered almost entirely by grid electricity - H fuel cells and biofuels may have limited applications, but are ultimately a dead end. - nonymous666, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4The article is on GLOBAL food prices, not U.S. prices.
There are some countries where there's a shortage of food, and it costs a fortune.
Who cares what it costs to buy a green pepper in some Walmart in BFE, U.S.A? - gn0stik, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4I agree, and besides it's a simple solution, use Hemp. 10 times the ethanol per acre.
- UTKEngineer, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Bullcrap!
Fuel costs nearly tripling only caused a minuscule increase in food prices, but a few American farmers go from growing nothing in subsidized fields to growing corn for ethanol and it GREATLY affects food prices. Right. - Badandy127, on 07/07/2008, -11/+14And Obama loves corn ethanol...
As entrenched with special interests as othe rpoliticians. Drinking the kool aid. - inactive, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4This is what we usually call
A LIE !!!!
otherwise Brazil would not be able to afford their foods. If anything, the cheap independence from oil has lessoned the added value of transportation to their food. Making it cost LESS! - inactive, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3But I thought we invaded Iraq to take their oil?
- SirBruce, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3It's called electricity, moron.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -3/+6Wait a second, wasn't the ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGNERS who started us down the road to bio fuels? (Gore for one)
The environmentalist have overplayed their hand. The thing is if you bash them people say you hate the environment, but that's not true at all. I just don't support the SOCIALIST/Marxist who use the environmental platform for their political objectives. - alexkball, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Okay I could be wrong but I'll take a stab at it. Mine is a pretty simple "what could we have used the money for" argument.
Current estimates put the total cost of the Iraq war somewhere in the $3 Trillion neighborhood. If we had, instead, put that money towards developing alternative fuels and alternative ways of producing our own food, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that we would be a lot better off in both respects.
Just my thoughts. - chakl, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3oil isnt expensive, the dollar is just cheap.
- marx2k, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Look into how much oil we use daily for military purposes
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2How about we grow it on our lawns instead and the garbageman hands us a check when we mow?
*edit: ***** I had no idea it was 8 feet tall. Nevermind. - alexkball, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2While of course it doesn't equal what we use in America everyday, I think you might be surprised, waterpolo324. 'Military-related gas usage' can mean many different things. Everything from flying recruits to basic training, flying them overseas, driving soldiers around, flying missions, etc. etc. etc. The point is the military has used a hell of a lot more oil than it has taken from the Iraqis. Nevermind all the oil fields that were set on fire upon our arrival, which is another waste of gas directly related to our occupying their country.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is