Food prices hitting you hard in the pocketbook? Agriculture giant Archer Daniels Midland feels for you, it really does -- but gee, its profits jumped 42 percent this quarter, so it can't really empathize. ADM's grain-processing division is doing lively business keeping up with the bumper corn crop. And, they'll have you know, high food prices are due to high oil prices, not to the ethanol push. Backing away from biofuels would be "foolish," "dangerous," and an "empty gesture," says ADM CEO Patricia Woertz, adding, "It won't fill anyone's stomach. It won't fill anyone's gas tank." It won't fill ADM's jones for profits, people. You wouldn't want that, would you?
source: The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Reuters
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
Jonas Posted 4:04 am
30 Apr 2008
Objectively speaking, this is entirely correct. The UN says biofuels play a marginal role in the high costs of food (around 10%). High oil prices are by far the biggest factor. Then you have the other important drivers: increased demand from Asia, the weak dollar and speculation.
Backing away from biofuels would be "foolish," "dangerous," and an "empty gesture," .
According to the IEA - not your corporate greenwasher but the most rational energy think tank on the planet - says the same thing:
IEA warns against retreat on biofuels
By Carola Hoyos and Javier Blas in London
Published: April 25 2008 22:30 | Last updated: April 25 2008 22:30
Biofuel production is critical to meeting current and future fuel demand in spite of its possible role in driving up food prices, the west's energy watchdog has warned.
Biofuels have a deflationary effect on all other prices. They are critical to meet our energy needs. Without biofuels, there can only be worse times ahead (it's all pretty logical, but good of the IEA to come out.)
I appreciate Gristmill's attempts to poke fun at issues. But when people are right - even if they're big multinationals - it would be fair to say so.
Permalink
Matt Posted 5:01 am
30 Apr 2008
However, with increased ag production currently meaning an increase in diesel powered ag machines, I have a hard time swallowing the double talk that "biofuels aren't inflating prices... oil is." Isn't agriculture the number one user of fuel in the U.S.?
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 6:45 am
30 Apr 2008
Interesting that Exxon posted record profits of any corporation in US history the last two years in a row. Did anyone catch the Press Conference after the Valdez spill case finally made it to the Supreme Court, 19 years after the spill? One-fifth of the plaintiffs have already died!
As I've commercial fished in Prince William Sound and motored a 150 footer around Bligh Reef a number of times, I have an extra personal interest in seeing these guys get what's coming to them! Quite a shame though that the 5 billion in damages they've been appealing, once a year's profit for this Texas giant, is now only 3 weeks worth. It's not even 5 bil anymore...was cut to 2.5 by their appeal.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:51 am
01 May 2008
But there's another, more important reason to stop biofuel production. Tropical rainforests in Brazil, Indonesia, and Malaysia are being cut down to grow crops for biofuels. These ecosystems took over 200 million years to evolve and cannot be replaced in any way. Saving tropical rainforests is far more important than all of the supposed benefits of biofuels put together, though many of those benefits are complete fabrications.
Permalink
ccdangelo Posted 1:29 pm
01 May 2008
Permalink
roncastle Posted 2:34 am
02 May 2008
They have been doing this in Lynchburg for over 100 years now without receiving a $10 billion plus taxpayer subsidy.
Read http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update69.htm
Permalink