dsc.discovery.com — The surging demand for corn, sugar cane and vegetable oils to make Earth-friendlier biofuels is pitting hungry cars against hungry people, and trouble’s brewing, says sustainable development pioneer Lester Brown.
Jul 15, 2006 View in Crawl 4
tkdwilsonJul 15, 2006
I 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
captharlockJul 15, 2006
"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!
wiredlainJul 15, 2006
Another 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.
runamokisayJul 15, 2006
i 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.
3amfridayJul 15, 2006
Wow, 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?
jared3602Jul 17, 2006
we 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
doty1tmJul 17, 2006
I 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.
bexmexJul 20, 2006
This 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.