Once again, a prediction is panning out(PDF):
The world is consistently failing to produce as much grain as it uses.
Every six years, we're adding to the world the equivalent of a North American population. We're trying to feed those extra people, feed a growing livestock herd, and now, feed our cars, all from a static farmland base. No one should be surprised that food production can't keep up.
The USDA projects global grain supplies will drop to their lowest levels on record. Further, it is likely that, outside of wartime, global grain supplies have not been this low in a century, perhaps longer ...
(Another hat tip to KO.)
On the other hand, if the damn treehuggers would just stop their whining and let the venture capitalists plow under the remaining rainforest carbon sinks in South East Asia, South America, and Africa, we could plant an awful lot of sugarcane and soybeans.
The commonly held but erroneous idea that crop-based agrofuels are a harmless transition to better agrofuels needs to stop being parroted by well-meaning environmentalists. There is this small problem called leakage. Not to mention, it is far cheaper to plow under the Cerrado and to drain and burn peat bogs than it is to build futuristic and economically nonviable cellulose ethanol plants. Cellulosic cannot come close to competing with sugarcane and nothing comes close to palm oil. Graphics from Mongabay:
EPA punts on raising ethanol “blend wall”
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 4:19 am
31 May 2007
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 1:33 pm
31 May 2007
How long will it be before it's not just the oceans that are in collapse?
In addition to falling grain supplies, global fisheries are faltering. Reports in respected journals
Science and Nature state that 1/3 of ocean fisheries are in collapse, 2/3 will be in collapse by
2025, and our ocean fisheries may be virtually gone by 2048. "Aquatic food systems are
collapsing, and terrestrial food systems are under tremendous stress," said Qualman.
Incidently, Jon, Lester Brown has called for a moratorium on new ethanol plants, and Monbiot has called for a 5 year moratorium on biofuels. (But you probably already knew that.)
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 11:56 pm
31 May 2007
Justin Rohrlich at Minyanville reports that Mexican farmers are burning their agave fields and planting corn in its place, as U.S. ethanol demand drives up prices.
They say "the switch to corn will contribute to an expected scarcity of agave in coming years, with officials predicting that farmers will plant between 25% and 35% less agave this year to turn the land over to corn."
Ismael Vicente Ramirez, head of agriculture at Mexico's Tequila Regulatory Council, said, "Growers are going after what pays best now."
Despite rapid growth in tequila drinking, over-supply has driven agave prices to rock-bottom levels.
All for a government-subsidized alternative fuel that many think isn't a viable alternative.
Energy expert Ryan Krueger told Rohrlich:
"There would be no debate without the government subsidy artificially creating one. The more intriguing area to me is the unintended consequences of ethanol-- like rioting in the streets around the world when people run out of water and can't afford food."
But, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee seems to think ethanol is the solution. On May 2, they approved a bill that requires 36 billion gallons of "renewable fuel" use by 2022.
Krueger disagrees.
"The true solution--because I don't want to ignore the problem--is pain. The US isn't running out of oil, it ran out of cheap oil. When I was a kid, having a plane ticket was a really big deal--flying was expensive and trips were planned long in advance. Now, no one thinks twice about flying cross-country, only to be picked up in an SUV on the other side. Oil will have to cost a lot more for people to change their habits. Additionally, whatever the US "saves" on energy, it's going to pay for in grocery bills--and at that point, people will no longer talk about taxing big oil for windfall profits made in free markets. Until then, no one will be wondering why their tax dollars are being used for subsidies, which cheat the free markets. Dinner table conversation will change, and the price of dinner will be the force that leads it.
As for those subsidies, William Anderson of the Ludwig von Mises Institute says,
"When clean air laws demanded major changes in gasoline reformulation in the spring of 2000, there was chaos in many cities, as disruption in the distribution of gasoline caused prices to spike above $2 a gallon. While consumers and politicians (naturally) blamed oil companies, the real story was much more insidious. Taxpayers (and consumers) paid taxes (and higher prices) to subsidize the corn which, in turn, was made into ethanol (also subsidized). The process of adding tax-funded ethanol in huge quantities disrupted the smooth flow of fuel, which meant price spikes--and most likely did not clear the air one whit. In other words, Congress forced American taxpayers and consumers to pay large sums of money for a product that in a free market they would not purchase."
This is not new news. Ten years ago, Stephen Moore, director of fiscal policies at the Cato Institute pointed out that "ethanol's survival has nothing to do with economics or the environment and everything to do with political muscle. Almost 70% of ethanol is produced by America's premier agri-giant, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). ADM, the self-proclaimed `supermarket to the world' has spent a small fortune on farming Capitol Hill over the past 20 years. Through programs like ethanol and sugar price supports, it has reaped a profitable harvest from taxpayers. In fact, an estimated 40% of ADM's profits come from government-subsidized products."
The Rohrlich report can be read in its' entirety here:
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/Ethanol-Tequila-ADM-M ...
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 12:29 am
01 Jun 2007
Here's a portion ~
Some analysts see corn-based ethanol as just a transition to "cellulosic" ethanol, but many of the same problems exist here. Most fundamentally, the flow of energy through plant systems is simply not large enough to replace fossil fuels. Additionally, any increased reliance on biofuels means that we divert precious farmland away from food production for the human population that continues to grow at a rate of nearly 80 million people a year. And whether it be for fuel or food, human use of more of the globe landscape for domesticated plants means we will see accelerating threats to other plant and animal species. Energy for food or fuels consumed by humans is not available for our nonhuman companions on this planet.
Why does government policy encourage such a flawed approach to energy policy with direct subsidies and massive spending on research and development programs? Why did we not learn from the failed synthetic fuels programs of the 1970s? There are three reasons, two of which come from what economists call "rent seeking behavior." Rent seeking is when individuals and firms use the public-policy process to generate direct benefits, such as large direct subsidies. First, the most obvious beneficiaries of the ethanol craze are corn farmers and large agribusiness firms that buy and sell corn and other agricultural products. The subsidies have worked and there is an explosion of new ethanol factories in the Midwest. Whether or not this is good energy policy, it certainly has been good for corn farmers, giving new meaning to the phrase "corn-fed pork."
Second, Midwestern universities and other research institutes have also prospered in this biofuels frenzy as the federal government pours millions of dollars into research and development programs. Careers are made, campuses grow, whether or not energy policy improves -- more rent seeking behaviors.
Third, you and I are equally to blame. Americans want to believe that our energy challenges can be solved without any change in our habits or lifestyles. As long as the government tells us that there is a "renewable energy" source, we believe can continue to consume energy with abandon. We can drive ever bigger vehicles, ever more miles. We can heat and cool larger houses and live wherever we choose. This is the false hope of a free lunch from biofuels.
No matter how technologically capable we are, we cannot overcome the laws of nature. Biofuels are not a renewable energy source that will replace our dependence on fossil fuels. Believing so only continues to distract us from the real work at hand. If we were to put just a fraction of attention, creativity and funding into energy conservation that is going into biofuels, we would move much more quickly to address the energy problems at hand.
Complete article:
http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?article ...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:51 am
01 Jun 2007
Enter global warming in central Canada.
A vast plain of fertile glacier enriched farmland is about to blossom, enabling the future growth of the human population.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink