digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Biofuels cause 75% increase in global food prices

telegraph.co.uk — Environmental campaigners have called for a change in policy on biofuels after a report that they have caused a 75 per cent increase in food prices.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2That and since ADM has their fingers in a lot of the corn market they're making a fortune off of ethanol so why would we stop producing it?
    • bjzq8, on 07/07/2008, -6/+4For the nth time...52% of the corn in this country goes to feed animals. If we produce ethanol with that FIRST, we can still feed the leftover distiller's grain to livestock with very little loss. Biofuels, done PROPERLY, are the answer. What is oil but a long-term biofuel anyway?
      • 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 :(
      • marx2k, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2doctechnical: corn used as a feed actually creates beef that is quite bad for you (Watch King Corn) and bad for the corn. Perhaps if corn prices rise enough, feeding grass to the poor cows will become more feasible. Better for you and better for the cows.
      • earlycj5, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Huh? Didn't plant for animal food? See above, distillers mash is animal food.

        Seems like if done right as suggested it's a better system. You get fuel and food both.
      • marx2k, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1"corn used as a feed actually creates beef that is quite bad for you (Watch King Corn) and bad for the corn. "

        Sorry, I meant bad for the cow
      • SirBruce, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Actually, it's not all that great if you're the corn, either.
    • prisoner24601, on 07/07/2008, -6/+2America's idiotic ethanol policies (which are causing incredible worldwide suffering) are caused by our idiotic primary system. We've given Iowa corn farmers and mega-agri-businesses the privilege of killing the presidential candidacy of anyone running if they don't obediently mouth "burning food is a great energy strategy for the environment and national security."

      We simply HAVE TO end Iowa's privilege of having the first primary. For our own good, and the rest of the world's too.

      Rolling Stone has an excellent article on this:
      http://digg.com/environment/The_Ethanol_Scam_and_T ...
      • jsully, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Biofuel is hardly the only factor contributing to rising food prices. Also, linking to a digg article you submit? Bad form, Jack.
    • moo083, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6The 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.
    • mem2, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7solution ?, 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.
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • thcobbs, on 07/07/2008, -1/+17"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.
      • 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...
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -2/+3"Who cares where a bushel of corn comes from frankly, so long as the cost is affordable."

      You do. You just don't understand why ... yet.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/07/2008, -19/+12Your best "green" move is to consume less fuel. Get rid of your car.
    • MikeSetera, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7BUY A HORSE!
      • alexkball, on 07/07/2008, -4/+2BUY A PAIR OF LEGS!
      • doctechnical, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6Yes, a horse is not only transportation, but in a pinch it's food as well.
    • JointVenture, on 07/07/2008, -4/+2NO, I like my cars. I often drive them just for the fun of it.

      *****.
    • 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"?
  • Babblin5, 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.
    • Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Yeah. Ethanol from corn is a transitory measure (although the agricultural lobby wants to keep it permanent.)

      But ethanol, from corn or otherwise, is not the main culprit here.

      http://digg.com/world_news/Is_Ethanol_getting_a_Bu ...
    • gn0stik, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4I agree, and besides it's a simple solution, use Hemp. 10 times the ethanol per acre.
      • cheesenuggets1, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2No, use algae, 100 times more ethanol per acre.
    • 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.
    • chakl, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3oil isnt expensive, the dollar is just cheap.
  • larryiam, on 07/07/2008, -10/+18buried for speculation that is not proven with any facts
    • bdbr, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Well there could be facts, but this article doesn't share any. Its a bold claim that biofuels account for over half of the increase in the price of food, and there should be some explanation of how they came to that conclusion.
      • floorman56, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Yes and i guess the fact that is cost $1500 to fill a combine once with fuel doesn't add to the cost of corn at all

        350 Gal * $4.50 a gal

        Oh and the "millage" is about 1 gal per acre
  • 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.
    • marx2k, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2You probably would not want to eat the corn being turned into ethanol anyway.
  • BrokenBrick, on 07/07/2008, -12/+5No ***** sherlock. Use all the arable land to grow biofuels and have less arable land to grow food to feed 9 billion people with. Say it with me now, sooooollllaaar. Was that so hard
  • Badandy127, on 07/07/2008, -11/+15And Obama loves corn ethanol...


    As entrenched with special interests as othe rpoliticians. Drinking the kool aid.
    • BadseedJR, on 07/07/2008, -4/+4Read this:

      http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/obama-v ...

      Then stop being a douche.
      • Badandy127, on 07/07/2008, -3/+3He has, for a long time, been a determined booster of the corn-ethanol lobby. Because he contributes a sound byte that says somethign to the effect of, "Oh, it's a little worrying" we all of a sudden discount the extreme lack of forsight and logic he's displayed for the last six years?

        Stop being a sheep.
    • froggie901, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Hey may have said that in May, but look back at Iowa. He was for it then, it all about who he was talking to at the time. Obama, in all his greatness, is just another politician, and they speak with forked tongues.
  • morgino, on 07/07/2008, -7/+2I remember when Bush is one of his state of the union speeches mentioned they were subsidizing ethanol and the senator in Iowa jumped up and had a heart attack he was so happy that there was something wrong with this. I was right
  • kults, on 07/07/2008, -4/+18Bull
    • PopASquatt, on 07/07/2008, -4/+2Agreed, the human species needs to learn how to swin, and eat rocks. Swin and eat rocks.

      Any other view on biofuels is just madness. Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!
  • 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.
    • 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?
      • earlycj5, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2And food is somehow cheaper to transport around the world?
    • lowtolerance, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1In the city I live in, gasoline has to ethanol mixed in. Ethanol=biofuel=not progressive
  • androothebear, on 07/07/2008, -3/+5biofuels are a waste. The government needs to stop using them as a way to put off the energy crisis. Politicians brag about an increase in biofuels as an advancement in the energy situation when in actuality all it does is put us in even more of a ***** hole.

    Hydrogen Fuel Cells maybe?
    • waterpolo324, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1hydrogen isn't much better.. it takes more energy to obtain the hydrogen than you ultimately get out of it, also it is very difficult to transfer.
    • secrity, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Hydrogen is not a fuel, it is an energy storage media
  • 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 :(
    • Orlong, on 07/07/2008, -4/+0Yeah and you have to waste good land that COULD be used to grow FOOD to grow that stupid switchgrass
      • popfrogs, 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.
      • centran, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Honestly... in the US we have too much corn. However, you start using corn as biofuel and you start to have a shortage. The corn that we should be exporting is being used a biofuel.
        Changing some of the corn fields into switchgrass fields would allow us to produce biofuel and still be able to produce a lot of corn.
      • 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
  • 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 ... .
  • 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 :(
  • dupswapdrop, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Hey you can't drink oil but we can turn corn into fuel!
  • 9bpm9, on 07/07/2008, -5/+12More sensationalist *****.
  • Borgcube636, on 07/07/2008, -6/+3We need zero-point / free energy. It's been developed (if you do the research), but those who have developed it "died from accidents" or "natural causes". Hmm....
  • NCSD, on 07/07/2008, -2/+3Nuclear power, plain and simple
    • AntiZionist, on 07/07/2008, -3/+3Nuclear power for your car! Brilliant!
  • 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.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I'll reserve my digg (up or down) if you can explain that in detail.
    • 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.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1I get it but you've overlooked something enormous.

        Politicians.

        The reason your argument is flawed is it is based upon a fantasy that the money we're spending would be diverted to better things. It won't, never has and history clearly shows that.

        Congress throws hundreds of billions away on things like aid to Africa. Have we solved anything? No. Lets stop then and turn that money on our own issues. Not going to happen is it?

        Obama wants to spend 845 billion of US Taxpayer money on eradicating poverty in other nations (Global Poverty Tax) but if we can't "afford" the war, how can we afford that?

        These guys aren't ever going to stop throwing money away unless we force them to. The reality is that we have to be more involved at the local and state level to make that happen.

    • JointVenture, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3But I thought we invaded Iraq to take their oil?
      • marx2k, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Look into how much oil we use daily for military purposes
      • waterpolo324, on 07/07/2008, -1/+0hm i dont think it would compare in size to the amount that millions and millions of americans use every day.
      • 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.
      • marx2k, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1"According to Fuel Line, the official newsletter of the Pentagon’s fuel-buying component, the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), from October 1, 2001, to August 9, 2004, the DESC supplied 1,897,272,714 gallons of jet fuel, alone, for military operations in Afghanistan. Similarly, in less than a year and a half, from March 19, 2003, to August 9, 2004, the DESC provided U.S. forces with 1,109,795,046 gallons of jet fuel for operations in Iraq. In 2005, Lana Hampton of the DoD’s Defense Logistics Agency revealed that the military’s aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles were guzzling 10 to 11 million barrels of fuel each month in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Yet, while the Pentagon reportedly burns through an astounding 365,000 barrels of oil every day (the equivalent of the entire nation of Sweden’s daily consumption), Sohbet Karbuz, an expert on global oil markets, estimates that the number is really closer to 500,000 barrels. "

        http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5097/
        The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.
  • 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...
  • 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.
    • AGsilver, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1You are doing the math wrong.

      Food Prices increased by 140%
      Of the 140% increase, higher energy and fertilizer prices accounted for 15%. While biofuels account for 75%.

      140(.75)=105
      140-105=35%

      So food prices would still be up 35% without biofuels, according to your information.
  • 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.
    • ToxNub, on 07/07/2008, -1/+0National Geographic's october (i think) issue has a fantastic analysis of biofuels, if you care to read.
  • cambob76, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2We should all just mod our vehicles to be Flinstone cars.
  • maldovix, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2food prices go up a bad thing? developing economies--the starving ones--rely heavily on low-technology primary sectors like agriculture for growth. this is a windfall for them if anything
    • mrb4b00, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0not true, if they sell their crops for biofuel, who would sell the actual food to the citizens?
      • maldovix, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1the problem is that the people living below the poverty line can't afford to buy food anyways. a bolstered economy should lead to the trickle-down effect and create jobs in the secondary and tertiary auxiliary sectors that develop to support the major production effort
    • Treoinmypocket, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Well if its a windfall then we better tax them.
  • ckbox, on 07/07/2008, -3/+1hemp would fix this
    • JointVenture, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1If HEMP could fix this someone would be doing it. The FREE MARKET is the greatest innovator.

      If you work out all the angles HEMP wont do jack *****.

      Consider, land needed, water, cost (energy to grow, refine, bring to market.

      You just dont throw out a bunch of seeds and pull up and fill your car with biofuel.
      • marx2k, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4The free market doesn't work when there are governmental barriers to entry.
  • 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.
  • Zlorp, on 07/07/2008, -3/+1but at least our farmers get rich while our government pretends like biofuels arent even worse for our environment than oil
    • earlycj5, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1They are?

      How so?

      You know rich farmers? I know my family isn't. Sure they make more from milk or crops but the price of inputs, fuel and CORN are up as well. In the end they're not better or worse off unless there's a bad year. Then there's a lot more at stake than just a few years ago.
    • marx2k, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Corporate farms get rich! WOOHOO!

      Please tell me how biofuels are even worse for our environment than oil
  • JointVenture, 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.
    • tufftugg, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1 No, the politicians started you down the road to bio fuels as the answer, and poured your tax dollars into it.
  • 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.
  • MrCobaltBlue, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I know a place where you can get a lot more ethanol than Corn.

    Unfortunately its illegal, go figure :(
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • BelatedHero, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2I agree with everything you said.
  • solboldi, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2Obama has supported and continues to support Ethanol.
  • ToxNub, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Maybe nobody read my first comment, but I suggest you do. Quit blaming environmentalists, Obama, Ethanol, or whatever for horrendous management. Biofuels are VERY VIABLE.
  • Heel04, on 07/07/2008, -4/+0Now we are starting to see the latest effect of the global warming scare -- the fallout is causing the same problems that the advocates of "going green" to fight man made global warming were trying to prevent. Now that is irony. Thanks Al Gore.
  • 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 assholes 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.
    • tufftugg, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1 Wow, bet you support the war, always good to be on the Neocon fear train. What you have to realize is that the ''wealthy ride'' on ignorance, and the only ignorance was that bio fuels would solve the problem. But, it got those farmer votes, and made the people feel good.
  • shadowspawn, on 07/07/2008, -4/+1I know this seems a bit crass, but I have to say after having an inkling of an education and a family background who understood the relationship as farmers between the sun, water, and the earth...

    "No *****, Sherlock."

    Seriously.

    You'd have seen before now farmers running their equipment off of biofuels, *****. Damn people are sure gullible. Must be the hippie pussy.
  • 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.
    • rheaume, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1Oil-shale is trapped in many beautiful mountains so if you want to literally destroy them so soccer mommy can drive her 1/2 kid to the store to pick up some donuts, that's *****. If I had to pick in between saving the mountain or dragging that chick to the store by the hair, you know which one I would pick.
  • Heel04, on 07/07/2008, -6/+1So our "pumping" CO2 into Earth's atmosphere is making Jupiter and Mars' climates hotter too? Guys, its the Sun. It always has been. Heating of the oceans causes a release of CO2 that makes our output look silly.
    • waterpolo324, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0heating of the oceans releases CO2? where is the carbon coming from?
  • papastout, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Corn is going to eventually seen as a stepping stone to a better biofuel... so what about biofuels that do not create an incursion onto the food markets?

    Hemp! It's the #1 resource for biofuel production - it has the lowest amount of entropy in that it yields high with no supplemental growth factors (it just needs water and sun)
  • rheaume, on 07/07/2008, -3/+3Someone dick-punch all the diggers that claimed this was the solution to our problems a few years ago and now are claiming they 'knew it all along'

    Shut up, you created this.
  • 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.
  • tufftugg, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2 This is the epic knee jerk, make the populace feel good idea from the start. There was no thought to what the consequences would be, or what it would effect. It was the purest form, of what the Western World suffers from, and that is the politics of get votes. People got concerned about the environment, so all the politicians became environmentalist. This involves the lowest form of intellectualism and wisdom. Always good to bandage a problem.
  • teamparadox, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4I read a study that said it takes 1.5 gallons of diesel or gasoline to make 1 gallon of ethanol. So I ask...wtf is the point then?
  • mikemil828, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Relax, once the fuel speculation goes down, prices on food will go down.

    //Hemp! It's the #1 resource for biofuel production - it has the lowest amount of entropy in that it yields high with no supplemental growth factors (it just needs water and sun)//

    Actually using hemp does create an incursion on the food markets. Hemp seeds can be used for a lot of different food items, it's just that it's not as popular as corn is. The only fuels that won't cause problems in the food market is fuel made by organisms such as algae. Everything other than that is simply a short term way to get the planet out of the grip of OPEC.
  • ASeventhSign, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2What did you hippies expect? If you use your food to run your car you will have less food. If you use any part of your food for anything other than food, you will have less food. Opponents to this whole bio-fuel movement have said this from the very beginning. And it was said very clearly. There is nothing, not now, or in any reasonable amount of time, that can take the place of oil. Clear thinking Americans allowed these loony uber-green hippies to hijack policy with junk science. And by the way, your good intentions don't count for squat on this one... you were warned. Cut off that pony-tail, stop smoking weed, and start using your brain.
    • jeffwrule, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0I am not a big fan of corn for bio-fuel production. I believe this is just a transitional period. But this is just not true about having to give up food to fuel our cars if we want to make bio-fuels. 90% of the corn is already fed to animals. Process that 90% and turn it into ethanol and you still have distillers grains left over. Recent studies have shown that cows actually do better (gain more weight) when fed what was left over then if you fed them the original amount of corn. So removing the sugars first and then feeding it to them actually is better then not doing it.

      http://www.distillersgrains.org/files/feedsource/b ...

  • Br3ach, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2Ah, Department of Made Up Statistics, where would be be without you

    Though, I do agree that burning our food for fuel is about the un-Greenest thing I've ever come across.
  • jabberwolf, 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!
  • dragonopolis, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1Easy folks, just Big Business do its thing.

    Food Industry was caught off guard just like everybody else but you think they own up to it!

    Of course not

    Why? Because we would see through the lie that is the food price hike.

    Just like the oil industry is using a crisis to falsely inflate the cost of gas thus raising profits, the Food Industry is doing the same.

    Problem is, the Food Industry isn't as good at playing the game as the Oil Industry.

    So, Plan B: when in trouble point the finger at somebody else that affects their industry's profits more than it affects world food shortages or the fact that fuel prices
    have gone up.

    Fact is folks: Technology is already at the point where we can get our Biofuels from non-food crops. Most of these crops can grow in areas that are not used by crop growers anyways. There is even technology now that allows making biofuels from any carbon base material (so basically human trash).

    Don't fall the the Corporate Scare tactic.

    Bio-fuels should be part of an on going effort for clean-renewable energy.

    However, there is a phrase we all should learn from using oil.

    Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.