Remember a few weeks ago, when The Guardian leaked word of a "secret" World Bank report that essentially blames U.S. and (to a lesser extent) E.U. biofuel policies for causing the global food crisis?
You know, the food crisis that continues to generate excoriating hunger in the global south?
Well, the World Bank quietly released a modified version of the report this week. Actually, The Guardian posted the original bootleg version, dated April 8, a week after its scoop; I missed it at the time.
Well, now I've read both versions, which are substantially the same (the new version has a brief additional section discussing other researchers' takes on biofuel and food prices). My judgment: This is a bombshell, and a stark embarrassment to the Bush administration and biofuel-loving Democrats in Congress.
First, let's do some house-keeping about the controversy surrounding the report, which was written by World Bank senior economist Donald Mitchell. Both the bootleg and official versions contain variations on this line:
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
The new version adds: "An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished." That's interesting, given that the original report is dated April 8 and the official didn't come out until nearly four months later, on July 28.
That delay raises the issue of whether the World Bank sat on the report to avoid embarrassing the Bush administration, as The Guardian charged. The bank later denied repressing the report; rather, it said it was merely under "peer review," bank officials told The Wall Street Journal. The Guardian later stuck by its story, citing unnamed sources.
Whom to believe? Impossible to say. Undeniably, the report stands as a blistering rebuke to the Bush's administration's unchecked biofuel boosterism. Interesting, because World Bank President Robert Zoelick owes his job to Bush and is a longtime Bush-family lieutenant, as I've written before.
Okay, back to Mitchell's paper itself. Essentially, he looks at the the giant jump in food-commodity prices over the past several years and tries to tease out the the various factors that caused the rise.
"The IMF's index of internationally traded food commodities prices increased 130 percent from January 2002 to June 2008 and 56 percent from January 2007 to June 2008," Mitchell writes. He reckons that U.S. and E.U. biofuel policy generated between 70 and 75 percent of that rise. (Brazil's sugarcane ethanol program, he concludes, has affected food prices little. More on that in a later post.)
In other words, without the massive, rich-government effort to create a market for biofuels, food commodity prices would only have risen at most 39 percent over the 2002-2008 period, and at most 16 percent between January 2007 to June 2008. Those would have been large rises -- due mainly to high energy prices and a weak dollar -- but not nearly as painful for low-income people as the much larger jumps that actually happened.
Now, Mitchell's estimates directly contradict those of the U.S. government. In a joint statement [PDF] dated June 11, 2008, USDA Secretary Edward T. Schafer and DOE chief Samuel Bodman delivered a much different assessment:
From April 2007 to April 2008, in the absence of any growth in biofuel production in the United States, we estimate that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) global food commodity price index would have risen by 40.6 to 42 percent as opposed to 45 percent.
Of course, Mitchell is looking at U.S. and European biofuel production, while USDA/DOE statement is limited to just U.S. production. But Schafer and Bodman (without any real analysis) generally dismiss the impact of biofuels on food prices:
Commodities prices, both agricultural and nonagricultural, have risen sharply in recent years for a number of reasons unrelated to biofuels development. For agricultural commodities, higher incomes, population growth, and depreciation of the dollar are increasing the demand for food; drought and dry weather have lowered production and reduced stocks; and some countries have imposed export restrictions. All these factors contribute to higher commodity prices. In addition, record prices for gasoline and diesel fuel are increasing the costs of producing, transporting, and processing food products.
By my reading, Mitchell's paper utterly demolishes that reasoning.
He looks at the globe's four major staple crops (corn, soy, wheat and rice) and shows how the recent explosion in biofuel production has sent the commodities' prices soaring -- even in the cases of wheat and rice, which aren't used as biofuel feedstocks.
What I'll do here is briefly summarize Mitchell's reasoning for each crop, teasing out what I think is most interesting in each.
Corn
For corn, ethanol enthusiasts like to blame much of the recent price hike on increased demand for meat in India and China, since industrial meat production relies heavily on corn for feed. Mitchell debunks that reasoning.
Mitchell shows that the amount of corn worldwide consumed as animal feed grew only 1.5 percent per year between 2004 and 2007. By contrast, corn devoted to ethanol use jumped by 36 percent per year. Ouch.
Meanwhile, as farmers scrambled to plant more corn in response to higher prices, the percentage of corn used as feed worldwide actually declined between 2004 and 2007:
The share of global feed use of total use declined in response to maize price rises from 69 to 64 percent from 2004 to 2007, and from 70 to 67 percent when the feed by-products from biofuel production are included in feed use.
Thus it was largely ethanol-sucking U.S. cars, not meat-eating Indians, that drove up the corn price.
Soy
As for soy, biofuel production pushed up the price in two ways: 1) increased European (and to a lesser extent, U.S.) biodiesel production; and 2) much less land devoted to soybeans in 2007, as U.S. farmers scrambled to plant corn.
The U.S. expanded maize area 23 percent in 2007 in response to high maize prices and rapid demand growth for maize for ethanol production. This expansion resulted in a 16 percent decline in soybean area which reduced soybean production and contributed to a 75 percent rise in soybean prices between April 2007 and April 2008.
Where the analysis really diverges from other assessments is its discussion of wheat and rice. These commodities have seen their prices rise dramatically, even though they aren't used to make biofuels.
Wheat
Mitchell writes that while U.S. farmers were cutting back on soy plantings in favor of corn, European farmers were cutting back on wheat to plant rapeseed and other oilseed crops for biodiesel.
The eight largest wheat exporting countries expanded area in rapeseed and sunflower by 36 percent between 2001 and 2007, while total wheat area fell by 1.0 percent.
Thus in 2006 and 2007, when a drought reduced the Australian wheat crop, land that might have been planted in wheat in response was already in oilseeds -- mainly because of demand for biodiesel.
Rice
Mitchell's most fascinating analysis centers on rice, whose price nearly tripled between January and April 2008. Mitchell claims that extraordinary jump occurred despite little change in rice production or consumption. What happened?
According to Mitchell, rice-exporting giant India got spooked by the surge in the wheat prices in October 2007 and sharply reduced its rice exports to protect its own food security. Shortly after, the price of rice began to surge. Writes Mitchell:
According to the USDA (USDA 2007) and the International Grains Council (2007), there were no other important market developments at that time that could account for the subsequent rice price increases.
So, according to this analysis, the huge recent jumps in wheat and rice price are really knock-on effects from jumps in corn and oilseed prices -- themselves directly related to biofuels.
Mitchell is even more convincing when he focuses on the macro level. Excluding biofuels, growth in global demand for staple crops has actually slowed since the 1990s.
Global consumption of wheat and rice grew by only 0.8 and 1.0 percent per annum, respectively, from 2000 to 2007 while maize consumption grew by 2.1 percent (excluding the demand for biofuels in the U.S.) ... This was slower than demand growth during 1995-2000 when wheat, rice and maize consumption increased by 1.4, 1.4 and 2.6 percent per annum, respectively.
So why the sudden rise in crop prices? Biofuels. (The paper contains a convincing analysis of why the rise in fuel prices since 2000 has had much less of an effect on food prices than biofuel.)
To me, Mitchell's analysis has one major blindspot: He never discusses the lack of grain reserves worldwide that could have helped buffer people from the effects of the sudden surge in grain and oilseed demand from biofuels. Over the past 20 years, the U.S. has completely sold off its grain reserves, on the theory that storing grain interferes with "market forces." And through the IMF and other "Washington Consensus" institutions, it has leaned on developing nations to do the same.
Add a suddenly ravenous biofuel market to low global grain reserves, and you get a massive price increase -- one that falls most heavily on the world's huge low-income population.
For most folks in the United States, higher food prices have mostly been an inconvenience -- though they have surely meant real hardship for the 35.5 million U.S. citizens (including 12.6 million children ) who face "food insecurity.")
The impact has been much harsher in the global south. Here in the U.S., we spend on average a little more than 11 percent of our disposable income on food. But "the poor in developing countries ... spend roughly half of their household incomes on food," Mitchell writes.
What's more, low-income folks in the developing world are much more exposed to spikes in commodity prices. In Mexico, for example, 100 percent corn tortillas are a dietary staple. When the price of corn jumps, tortilla prices jump: hence last year's tortilla riots. A similar situation holds true in Haiti, where rice is a staple of the poor. When people can no longer afford rice, they starve.
Last year, U.N. official Jean Ziegler declared that diverting crops into fuel is a "crime against humanity." His remark was enormously controversial; it caused the U.N. to backtrack and apologize. Yet it rings true.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Comments
View as Flat
bigTom Posted 9:39 am
31 Jul 2008
I had been fairly convinced, that the increasing world middle class, bad weather, and high fuel and fertilizer prices were each more important factors than biofuels. But I presume the bank has done their numbers correctly. Do you have a rough breakdown of how much food each factor has taken off the market?
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:18 pm
31 Jul 2008
Permalink
tdmeeh Posted 3:39 pm
31 Jul 2008
There are many different proposals floating around for how other types of biofuels (cellulosic ethanol; algal diesel; biological, catalytic, and pyrolytic conversion of waste stream carbohydrates to liquid fuels) could be part of the future energy mix. It might be time to shift our analytical energy away from first generation biofuels and onto these other propositions, so that they are properly evaluated before they are scaled up. Continuing a polarizing debate on "biofuels" based on the pros and cons of corn ethanol and soy diesel seems to me like beating a dead horse.
Permalink
timbuktu Posted 8:03 pm
31 Jul 2008
And this report doesn't even address fully the ecological repercussions of biofuel development. Producing biofuels often leads to practices the cause deforestation, poor labor conditions, topsoil depletion, and pollution from the aggressive use of agricultural chemicals (The Great Biofuel Hoax of 2008). Maybe if we get this report really does cause a stir we might see a shift in the right direction.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 9:31 pm
31 Jul 2008
Second, I also don't like a-scientific assessments of this question. I prefer to stick to science.
And what do the scientists say? They say that biofuels have had a "marginal" effect.
See the (only, so far), scientifically sound analysis of the impact of biofuels on world food prices, produced by one of the few institutions with the capacity to analyse this (the Wageningen University, the world's leading agronomic and agricultural economics research centre).
June 17, 2008 - Wageningen UR: biofuels not to blame for high food prices; decline in world food prices to continue.
It's interesting to see that Grist has said not a word about this report - the only one with a scientific basis.
Then there is the interesting ongoing debate, now live over at The Economist, exploring the question as to "Why higher food prices are good for the poor and the planet".
No mention of this debate either at Grist.
Clearly, Grist takes the side of reactionary right wing forces who want to keep the developing world's poor (i.e. farmers) out of markets and negate their right to better lives. A bit like the World Bank.
Hundreds of millions of the world's poor have and are benefiting from the higher food prices. We can only hope that these food prices never again drop to their catastrophic low levels - because that situation has kept them in poverty for the past three decennia.
High food prices are a blessing for the poor.
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:43 pm
31 Jul 2008
It is also safe to say that rapidly rising costs of production have not worked their way into market prices yet. The drastic price rises in fertilizer costs for example are not being reflected in commodity prices. Current high prices of corn and beans are largely buffering these higher costs in the US. But they are impacting the abilities of poorer nations to increase their own food production.
US growers compete in a world market for fertilizers. Corn production is a heavy user of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Increasing corn production for the growing ethanol market had to have had a major impact on world wide fertilizer demand. Fertilizer is now viewed as a strategic commodity.
All of this should be a huge flashing red light, not just on making fuel from food, but on the industrialized model of food production itself. Were we eating more whole foods, eating less meat, pasturing more livestock, not making ethanol from corn, etc., we could probably eliminate one half of US corn and soybean production or at least that portion consumed via the industrial chain in the US. We were driving our bodies on this crap before we were driving our cars on this crap. It is insanely self perpetuating, but highly unsustainable.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:58 pm
31 Jul 2008
Nobody dreams corn ethanol is sustainable. Eating a lot of meat is also not sustainable if you have a high population density. The leaked report of World bank is not arguing about sustainability issues.
The point in question, is how much does the corn-ethanol program have to do with food price inflation.
Oil prices have a direct relation with food prices : (a) transport (b) fertilizers are linked to oil prices. Like access to food, access to energy is highly unequal and distorted in our world. Places which have the least access suffer the sharpest pinch of oil prices.
You have mentioned that there are two parties in this debate : those who share the economic gain and those who sense any responsibility for the pain
Nopes. There is another important party here which are the oil companies. They stand to lose out on their profits if people use ethanol (or any kind of alternative fuels for transport). The PR machine and media exposure of those who sense any responsibility for the pain is miniscule as compared to the lobbying power of big-oil. This is what the ethanol lobby is set against.
Permalink
justlou Posted 11:22 pm
31 Jul 2008
Major food processors have announced large increases in future food prices. Similarly, higher feed costs, directly affected by higher commodity prices, have not worked their way into the supply or prices of meat ... yet.
You employ a common tactic of attempting to lower the heat on corn ethanol by making big oil the common enemy. Get real. Corn ethanol will never have enough impact on demand to impact oil prices. Big oil has been nothing but a red herring in this debate.
The connection with oil is that ethanol merely perpetuates our dependence on the stuff by maintaining our dependence on machines that use it. And without those oil carriers, how would the ethanol industry market their product? Oil is ethanol's best friend.
Permalink
bigTom Posted 12:03 am
01 Aug 2008
No, I don't take the earlier industry influenced reports as more influential. My judgments are influenced by thinking about the problem, and guesstimating the size of the different impacts. Usually that sort of crude analysis can sort out the propaganda from the truth. In this case it looks like the real issue was a bit more complex.
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:25 am
01 Aug 2008
I take it you agree that we should drop the subsidies and tax credits for the first generation biofuels that are being produced in dizzying (and increasing) quantities and then we'll be glad to turn our attention to analyzing the supposedly-just-around-the-corner "next" generation biofuels.
Because, otherwise, you sound just like the Big Ag folks who want to keep waving shiny, shiny cellulosic in our faces while they help themselves to all the cash in the Treasury for corn ethanol and soy and palm biodiesel.
The 5% Project
Permalink
justlou Posted 12:59 am
01 Aug 2008
And there really won't be enough corn ethanol to ever supply many of the E-85 pumps that we are subsidizing. And it won't take much time to make that switch either if 2nd generation fuels ever get off the ground. The biggest impediment to ever get a much bigger supply of E-85 into the market would be the availability of flex fuel vehicles. The cost per vehicle is not that great so I see no big deal about attempting to get this initiated now especially in newer high mileage automobiles and those designed to burn ethanol much more efficiently than current flex fuel vehicles.
So, corn ethanol as an essential transition fuel is just bull shit. So, can we stop checking that box among the rest of the myths?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:30 am
01 Aug 2008
Creative defense: biofuels don't cause high food prices -- and high food prices are good for the poor anyway. But if you want to be taken seriously, then please point out flaws in Mitchell's logic and tease out why the report you cite makes more sense. One represents "science" and the other doesn't? That tells me nothing.
And Tdmeeh said this:
Other studies have shown that corn ethanol and soy diesel production have marginal net energy ratios and unfavorable carbon balance characteristics if they lead to further land conversion. So the days are numbered for these technologies, and most folks accept this.
Are you aware of the Renewable Fuel Standard? See: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/standard/
Under the RFA, conventional corn and soy-based biofuel are mandated to rise from 9 billion gallons this year to 15 billion gallons in 2015, and then hold steady at 15 billion gallons until 2022. All at $0.51 per gallon from the public purse. We're supposed to shut up about this, given the vast social and ecological damage being done?
Meanwhile, I'd be happy to look into "Second-generation" technologies. But last I heard, they were 5-10 years away.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:39 am
01 Aug 2008
Continued support of today's crop based liquid biofuels exacerbates carbon sink destruction and hunger. People who continue to support today's fuels fall into three categories.
Ignorant of the realities
Not thinking clearly
Heavily invested financially and/or politically (eyes shut, hands clamped firmly over ears).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:03 am
01 Aug 2008
Worshiping Wageningen as the fount, and the only fount, of wisdom in this area is as inappropriate as painting anybody associated with the World Bank as evil.
I have read a number of analyses of the effects of biofuels on food prices (OECD-FAO, Wageningen, World Bank, USDA and USDOE, IFPRI), and you are being grossly unfair to the other analyses by labelling the Wageningen analysis as the only one based on science (by which I take to mean scientific reasoning). We have been over this before, on an earlier string, and I (and several other commentators) have outlined what several limitations with the Wageningen analysis.
I don't have time to repeat all the caveats, but, basically, people need to understand that these various analyses differ in terms of the point in the supply chain at which the changes in prices are compared (e.g., household expenditure vs. international food-commodity prices), the time period compared (e.g., January 2002 to June 2008, or April 2007 through April 2008), and the method of apportioning the causal factors.
Several of the analyses look not at the recent period but into the future, and ask what would happen to food prices if biofuels continue to be supported by government policies. These are usually model-based analyses, and assume that markets reach equilibrium.
Analyses that have looked at the recent price changes have struggled to base their analyses purely on models, because the models are not calibrated to deal with such sudden changes in demand. So the closest one can get to a "scientific" analysis is to start from first principles.
Personally, I find much to commend in Don Mitchell's analysis. He does not simply take all the factors and attribute to each some proportionate contribution from each. Rather, he looks first at how prices would likely have developed in the absence of the sudden, policy-driven shock of biofuels, and concludes that prices would have risen somewhat, but not by nearly as much as they actually did. That new factor he points out, was biofuels. They were, in short, the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Gustavion Posted 3:06 am
01 Aug 2008
Simplestop.net - Stop postal junk mail, Protect the environment, Protect your identity.
Permalink
justlou Posted 3:47 am
01 Aug 2008
Unfortunately their path was eased by the complicity of the majority of Congress, Republicans and Democrats included. Much of the current press on biofuels came right out of the heartland.
Permalink
tdmeeh Posted 4:21 am
01 Aug 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:48 am
01 Aug 2008
Generalizations by definition don't apply universally. By your logic, saying that the Nazi party or KKK is evil is "inappropriate" because it includes anybody associated with those organizations. Actually, in my two examples I cannot think of an exception, but of course one should judge individuals individually.
However, the World Bank is the most powerful institution on the planet run by the most powerful people -- bankers -- who are at least among, if not the, most evil. If you think otherwise, I strongly suggest reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. The World Bank operates mainly as a Mafia-like entity on behalf of U.S. bankers and secondarily on behalf of western European ones. And bankers have always been evil, just read Shakespeare.
Permalink
MattKirby Posted 5:13 am
01 Aug 2008
http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlegacy/blog/2008/08/conserv ...
Permalink
rbright Posted 6:16 am
01 Aug 2008
Good point tdmeeh. We need to shift away from this never-ended reiterative ill-diagnosing of 1st Generations -- which is done what seems to be on a daily basis on this site -- and start creating more intellectual discussions enveloping the [what seems to be] promising medium-term 2nd Gen. biofuel production technologies (lignocellulosic biochemical and thermochemical ethanols/renewable diesels, pyrolysis oil upgrading to renewable gasoline/diesels, butanols, hydrogenation, and potentially promising 1.5 Gens, i.e., hydrogenated jatropha oils). Let's face it: we NEED biofuels as part of that silver buckshot in transport ("we" meaning China, India primarily).
For a comprehensive review of the heavily researched 2nd Gen. Technologies and a research roadmap for making lignocellulosic biofuels a "practical reality", I highly recommend this report produced by UMASS-Amhurst, DOE, NSF, and George Huber and released in March. Let's start discussing these here. For example, should we devote significant R&D energy into trying to render existing hydrocarbon refineries compatible with bio-based feedstocks and vice versa, or should that money today be primarily directed towards electrification? How critical are liquid energy carriers in an post-peak oil America 20 years from now? I don't think we can abandon 1st gens. and 2nd gen. RDD&D flat out.
By far one of the most thorough and in-depth reviews of the indirect effects of biofuels (i.e., impact on food prices, land rights issues, land use change, land availability, other environmentally destructive "indirectly affected" impacts, etc.) that I have come across to date -- The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels (.pdf, July 11)-- finds that..
..based upon the balance of evidence, that if all subsidies and other support for biofuels were removed entirely, this would reduce the capacity of the industry to respond to the challenges of transforming its supply chain and investing in advanced [i.e., 2nd Gens] technologies.
Additionally, Tom P., JMG, justlou, biodiversivist
First commercial plants CURRENTLY being built. Success with these will likely lead to construction of further plants before 2020. Continued financial support LIKELY TO BE NEEDED as costs unlikely to fall enough to make the route cost competitive in this time period." [my emphasis]
Furthermore,
This review concludes that it SHOULD be possible to establish a genuinely sustainable biofuel industry provided that robust, comprehensive, and mandatory sustainability standards are developed and implemented. It further concludes that the risks of indirect effects can be significantly reduced by ensuring that the production of feedstock for
biofuels takes place on idle and marginal land and by encouraging technologies that utilise appropriate wastes and residues.
Robust EU-harmonized sustainability standards will come into effect within the next year. During the week of July 14, the European Parliament tabled a series of "Compromise Amendments" to the current European Commission's proposed biofuel directive that would: lower targets from 10% [energy] share by 2020 to 4% share (energy) by 2015, increase the minimum GHG reduction potential to 45% (previously 35%) -- 60% at 2015 (thereby eliminating most 1st Gens), include an "Indirect Land Use Change" sustainability criterion, include a criterion requiring documented analyses of cropland displacement (and thus indirect affects on food prices)...
Point is, biofuels ARE necessary, and European governments ARE currently being proactive as far as doing everything they can to ensure that biofuels will be done in the most sustainable way over the medium-term horizon.
Again, let's move away from corn/soy here at Grist and heat up the discussion on the 2G's, which ARE happening...
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:28 am
01 Aug 2008
Don Mitchell works for the Research Division. Those people are not the same people who go out and negotiate deals with countries. They do not set the Bank's policy.
I have met Don Mitchell. (You might notice that I figure among the people he acknowledged for comments.) You could not hope to meet a nicer, more gentle person.
On his behalf, I resent your insinuations.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:40 am
01 Aug 2008
You just HAD to quote the part of the Gallagher Review that makes little sense:
..based upon the balance of evidence, that if all subsidies and other support for biofuels were removed entirely, this would reduce the capacity of the industry to respond to the challenges of transforming its supply chain and investing in advanced [i.e., 2nd Gens] technologies.
It makes no sense. First, the subsidies (which in Europe are more than 90% provided in the form of reductions or exemptions from fuel taxes) are not contingent on the recipients devoting any money to R&D. Second, there is virtually NO connection between first-generation biodiesel (the predominant form of biofuel used in Europe), which is produced through the simple transesterfication process, and second-generation biodiesel, which in most of Europe would be produced through some form of Fiischer-Trophsch (F-T) process. Third, the rates of subsidization, because they are tied to fuel-tax exemptions, differ considerably from one European country to another. So what the Gallagher Review is saying, in effect, is that they have no view as to what would be the optimum subsidy. They just want to defend the status quo.
No wonder that the Review, and particularly this sentence, has been criticized heavily by many environmental groups.
And, no, I don't think that the debate over first-generation biofuels has been "won" ... not even among environmentalist. Many still support the argument (as above), that 1st-generation biofuels provide a needed "bridge" to 2nd-generation biofuels.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
JMG Posted 8:13 am
01 Aug 2008
Moreover, while Big Green groups are becoming circumspect about their role in helping unleash the biofuels disaster (American Solar Energy Society runs a cover story this month about "Resolving the Biofuel Dilemma," as if using common sense creates a dilemma), not a single one has been willing to stand up and say "You know what, we were wrong to support biofuels. We need to end these mandates, production subsidies and blenders credits so that the industry can sort itself out and we can figure out which, if any, of these are worth pursuing."
Even the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that I had been a member of for nigh on 20 years, refuses to follow the science where it leads and starts hand waving about what this and that breakthrough "could" result in, etc. (That's why I didn't renew my gift to them.)
The 5% Project
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:14 am
01 Aug 2008
Of course people who act like Nazis resent being compared to them, so what? I really couldn't care less whether you or other banker pigs are offended by the truth that I speak or write. You never respond to my points, but instead resort to name calling, and objecting to my analogies without even making a logical argument about why they're bad. Screw Godwin and his baloney, it's nothing more than a way to avoid confronting the issues.
And BTW, with the exception of genetic engineering where it directly applies, the reason I use Nazis is that they're the best example of immoral and offensive behavior.
Permalink
rbright Posted 10:04 am
01 Aug 2008
And could you kindly direct me to the environmental groups/publications that have criticized the report, and particularly "that sentence"? Thanks.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:43 am
01 Aug 2008
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:12 pm
01 Aug 2008
Here is one from Biofuelwatch:
Gallagher's Support of Second Generation Biofuels will Still Compete with Food and will Destroy the World's Forests
...
"If the Gallagher review triggers a re-examination of EU and British policy, that's good, but anything less than a complete halt to agrofuel production and government targets, incentives and subsidies which support it, will still have devastating effects on the food crisis, biodiversity and climate change", stated Almuth Ernsting from the UK's Biofuelwatch. ...
Friends of the Earth Europe has also called for "A moratorium on European financial subsidies and targets that encourage the development and production of large-scale agrofuels."
Otherwise, my main evidence is the conversations I've had with environmentally minded people working for NGOs and academia. They are glad that the Gallagher Review was blunt in its criticisms of diverting food crops to biofuels, but were surprised (only slightly, actually) that, despite all the problems that the Review identified, it still advocated increasing the use of biofuels, and maintaining the subsidies.
Obviously I disagree that the Gallagher Review's sentence on subsidies "is just stating the obvious -- that a reduced financial incentive to biofuel producers (regardless of 1st/2nd gen techs) would act as a signal to potential investors in general that government is withdrawing support -- a signal that creates biofuel investment skepticism which acts as a sort of market entry barrier to would-be 2nd gen. investors so to speak."
You are glossing over important differences among support mechanisms, for one. If they had said that support for R&D was still needed, I would have agreed. But their justification defends current subsidies as necessary to enable the industry "to respond to the challenges of transforming its supply chain and investing in advanced technologies".
Neither they nor you have shown how continuing fuel-tax exemptions for 1st-generation biofuels does that, except in a very untargeted way. To get companies to invest in advanced technologies governments normally provide incentives for investment, not incentives for production from current technologies. In the 1960s we had an adage for that kind of logic: "Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity." Subsidizing unsustainable activities to encourage something more sustainable makes about as much sense.
Governments could decide to stop supporting 1st-generation biofuels while still sending signals that they will look upon 2nd-generation biofuels more favorably. I do not see how backing away from the former would put an investment chill on the latter.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:23 pm
01 Aug 2008
He combs his hair with spit, on camera, and lets his assistant add spit to the do, as if it's a common practice.
The World Bank? They hired Wolfowitz (to run it?!?). I'm just saying. The good folks at the World Bank, maybe they are really very bright.
But, they hired... never mind. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:16 pm
01 Aug 2008
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:07 pm
01 Aug 2008
But, looking at the current dire economics of 1st gen corn ethanol would only give investors of 2nd gen fuels some 2nd thoughts. But some more of that good old fashioned corporate welfare should help alleviate any 2nd guessing about putting the world on the ethanol cure for oil pain.
Let's face it, technocratic socialism is here to stay. The machine built on fossil fuel is driving the big show. Keeping the wheels on the past is our future.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:13 am
02 Aug 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:39 am
02 Aug 2008
The staff do not elect the President of the World Bank. That person is formally elected by its Board of Governors. But, because the WB's head is almost always (maybe always, I haven't checked) American, effectively he (never yet she) is nominated by the U.S. President.
The WB's current president is named Robert Zoelick, by the way, not Paul Wolfowitz. (Somebody once joked that the WB is working its way through the alphabet: ... Wolfensohn, Wolfowitz, Zoelick ... )
And, for the record, I do not work for the World Bank or any other bank. But I do know a number of people in the Bank's Research Division, and they are good people, who are dedicated to improving the lot of people in developing countries.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:55 am
02 Aug 2008
It would be interesting to know what the people you know at the bank thought of the Wolfowitz appointment (election by the board of governors?) and tenure.
Of course if it really is an election, not an appointment, the Board of Governors would have some explaining to do, given the Wolfowitz hiring? Would they not?
The problem with large institutions is that a certain culture at the top tends to remove people counter to that culture and install people who agree with them.
Have you observed this from your contact?
I know it seems petty, but personal grooming is probably the first criterion examined on any hiring decision, next would be competence and honesty. It just seems so crazy. Is there any explanation for Wolfowitz, other than pressure from the president?
I take your point that he is no longer at the world Bank. But did they replace the board that "elected" him? And if they pretend elect their leaders, and it really is an appointment, how could the board ever be trusted? That in itself seems like fundamental corruption.
In other words, why shouldn't the entire board be scappred, along with the top management that it "elected"? It runs on tax dollars does it not?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:30 am
02 Aug 2008
I am not an expert on the World Bank. I know nothing about the lending side of the World Bank, and all the criticisms levied at those activities may well be justified, for all I know.
But the research people work in a different world. They are, essentially, academics -- albeit ones who get a bit more exposure to developing countries than most. They are professionals, and generally concerned about what happens to the world's poor.
Many of the people in the Research Department have been working there for years. World Bank presidents, meanwhile come and go. The WB has more than 10,000 employees. That suggests that their direct influence on the staff selection process is going to be rather limited.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:53 am
02 Aug 2008
Not to get off-topic again, but the relative lack of success of electric motors in cars is probably of the "dog that didn't bark" level of explanation, nobody sees a way out, and the cars must run.
Amazin', about the World Bank -- Robert McNamara took his devastating failures from Vietnam, and toddled over to become the head of the World Bank. There are plenty of heart-rending stories about World Bank projects that have devastated developing countries, both communities and ecosystems. However, as far as I can tell, the researchers there can be top-notch -- for instance, Herman Daly spent most of his career there, I believe. So I would agree with Ron that you have to differentiate between what the World Bank does (and I wouldn't be surprised if they've done good projects, but they certainly have done plenty of bad ones), and what researchers there are researching.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:08 am
02 Aug 2008
The World Bank, acting on behalf of rich countries, commits plenty of evils. From an environmental standpoint, the problem is that it lends money for highly ecologically and environmentally destructive projects, like big dam(n)s and rainforest logging. As the Eichmann judges ruled, saying that one is just a researcher for the World Bank does not excuse for participating the massive evils perpetrated by this institution. And environmental crimes are only one of the list of evils. The World Bank is also part of the U.S.'s global economic empire, which was formed by first bribes and then, if those were not successful, threats, and if those were not successful, violence. Again, read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, which was written by someone who participated in this process at a very high level, for details.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:18 am
02 Aug 2008
It's sooooo easy to insult people from behind a pseudonym. I bet you enjoy it, too.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:35 am
02 Aug 2008
grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:37 am
02 Aug 2008
I also don't agree with your assertion that biofuels are necessary. They comprise 2% of supply today. A Prius reduces use 50%. 2% verses 50%. Efficiency is the game. Increasing supply of liquid fuel is a dead end strategy.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
justlou Posted 6:05 am
02 Aug 2008
And this picture becomes more complete with about 75% fewer cars on the road or 75% fewer road trips due to expanded mass transit and more walkable and bike friendly cities. If you consider all the wealth that we have pissed away on auto "ownership" and oil and all the infrastructure needed to facilitate this cluster*($% then you can imagine a brighter future for alternative uses of that wealth.
We should stop calling corn ethanol "generation one". How about "generation minus one" or "generation zero"?.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:52 am
02 Aug 2008
Neoconservative, corporate feudalism, corporatism, corporate libertatinism, or the divine right of capital are all better terms for this plague covering mother earth at the moment.
We need your point of view here. Don't give up the good fight.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:58 am
02 Aug 2008
A similar situation exists with our government, just because duuhbya and cheney are running the things, we can't diss the many outstanding people who try to do their best despite the pressure from the top.
Sorry if my remarks were hurtfull to the people who try to help those in need all over the world at the World Bank.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:37 am
02 Aug 2008
Rules are rules, I guess, and DR certainly has the right to enforce the code of etiquette that he has the job of administering. Nevertheless, many of us are surely well acquainted with Wolverine by now, and we know where he is coming from, and we know his take-no-prisoners style, and (switching metaphors yet again) we know his preference for painting wit a broad brush. So there is nothing especially new or shocking, that in one of his piques he started throwing around accusations that a large class of people are "Nazis," etc. It comes across, to many of us Wolverine-fans at least, as rather more humorous than offensive. Does he really deserve to be bounced?
On the other hand, Ron is indeed a gentleman, and most of us no doubt appreciate his always useful comments. It would be very nice of Wolverine, were he now to say something nuanced and apologetic.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:51 am
02 Aug 2008
I think this election cycle has everyone on edge. A repeat of 88 and 04 is a really terrifying prospect, as opposed to the fake terror spread by the mcbushies.
And the indignation at the complete escape from justice of the war criminals of the duuhbyaist regime is enormous. It's a worldwide wave of anger. Best not to give in to it, rather stay light and nimble. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. A zen boxer said that. Aum.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 2:53 pm
02 Aug 2008
Maybe the long-established and well-respected system of capitalism we have known in the past is developing signs of old age, dementia, and other symptoms of illogical brain-rot.
We are growing more corn, and this forces the price to rise. On the other hand, we are growing fewer soybeans, but this also forces the price to rise. So the basic premise on which capitalism was justified is turned on its head. Under this new rubric, we damned if we do, but damned if we don't.
I wonder then who actually wins?
Des Emery
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:28 pm
02 Aug 2008
Starvation and war part of the capitalist cycle?
Anyway, it is great to see that the World Bank researchers came through with the food impact of biofuel. The initial suppression was what was disturbing.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
justlou Posted 9:45 pm
02 Aug 2008
Well, not exactly. The rapidly rising price was related more to farmers finding that golden nugget to increase demand for their surplus production -- corn ethanol. As demand for ethanol increased, rising corn prices signaled -- plant more corn.
But you got half of it right: more corn acres, fewer soybean acres, lower soybean production, higher soybean prices.
If you want to read a very interesting article about how rising oil prices are influencing global capitalism, point your mouse toward:
'Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization'
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/business/worldbusiness/ ...
An excerpt:
Cheap oil, the lubricant of quick, inexpensive transportation links across the world, may not return anytime soon, upsetting the logic of diffuse global supply chains that treat geography as a footnote in the pursuit of lower wages. Rising concern about global warming, the reaction against lost jobs in rich countries, worries about food safety and security, and the collapse of world trade talks in Geneva last week also signal that political and environmental concerns may make the calculus of globalization far more complex.
"If we think about the Wal-Mart model, it is incredibly fuel-intensive at every stage, and at every one of those stages we are now seeing an inflation of the costs for boats, trucks, cars," said Naomi Klein, the author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism."
"That is necessarily leading to a rethinking of this emissions-intensive model, whether the increased interest in growing foods locally, producing locally or shopping locally, and I think that's great."
Permalink
rbright Posted 10:20 pm
02 Aug 2008
I am much in favor of hybrid and PHEVs and electrified transport. I am simply saying that each will have a place and a role in the oil-constrained future given the time frame in which we will continue to be "locked in" to infrastructure entirely dependent on the use liquid fossils. Because we are "technologically locked in" to this infrastructure over the same time frame, we thus are also "carbon locked in," and sustainably produced biofuels are absolutely essential and necessary for mitigating against the latter.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 7:52 am
03 Aug 2008
And feeding them in ways that does not exhaust soils, remove forests, over-fish the oceans, decimate rare species, and pollute the waters.
But what do I know? Let's continue to argue the merits of Car A over Car B, and Fuel A over Fuel B, and Fertilizer A over Fertilizer B, and hope the elephant in the room that we are all trying to ignore just goes away. Or at least quits growing at its current unsustainable, exponential rate.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:02 am
03 Aug 2008
well I'm crazy for tryin'
and crazy for cryin'
and crazy for lo-ovin' you."
You make an excellent observation, GonzoDon. But for one reason or another, your elephant is not only radioactive, she is hooked up to the Third Rail.
Which is why I am doubtful about the environmentalist talk of conservative Christian folks, such as Pope Benedict XVI, and Richard Cizik. I have no doubt at all about the good intentions of those two gentlemen, and I am glad that they have said what they said -- for what it is worth.
Nevertheless, certainly the conservative Catholics, such as the Pope, are not going to want to include artificial birth control in their new-founded environmentalist gospel: yet another reason why "pro-life" as a battle-slogan, and as a name for a supposedly sophisticated ethics, is hideously hypocritical.
I do not know enough about Cizik, and the evangelicals of his stripe, to say if they too are religiously committed to an opposition to artificial birth control.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 12:03 pm
03 Aug 2008
But biofuels will not prove to be the savior of old-style capitalism by diverting production of foodstuffs to combustible alcohol to stretch the available supply of gasoline.
The times, they are a-changing, and the world will no longer beat a path to your doorway in order to obtain a better mousetrap. Especially if the choice to purchase is between a better mousetrap and a crust of bread. The old mousetrap will have to make do.
Using food to produce fuel is a no-win situation for too many people for it to be a successful answer to our problems.
Des Emery
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 3:39 pm
03 Aug 2008
As far as the topic is concerned, I suppose we can all agree that the law of unintended consequences is something to be ignored. Only the goodness of intentions matter. Or the badness of intentions when directed at Pigs, Nazis, and Chimps. And that it is always good to de-humanize anyone you disagree with.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:23 pm
03 Aug 2008
Just ignore the Bush (simple chimpleton, chimp in chief, commander in chimp, shaved simian, duuuh...bya) administration's promise that the Iraq war would cost US taxpayer's 1.8 billion, and that it would stabilize oil prices, and US soldiers would be welcomed as liberators.
Wait, that was intentional. The consequences, obvious all along in hindsight.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:43 am
04 Aug 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:54 am
04 Aug 2008
Overpopulation is definitely THE issue.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:07 am
04 Aug 2008
'"In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues...The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." - USAID Director Andrew Natsios, [4/23/03]'
http://leftofcentrist.blogspot.com/2005/06/iraq-fact-chec ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:51 am
04 Aug 2008
For those I've upset by supposed name-calling, though I see it more as being legitimate descriptions and/or analogies, I'm sorry. I'll try to be more true to my spiritual, especially Buddhist, teachings and articulate exactly what my problem is with positions and actions of people and groups while controlling my revulsion and fury toward them.
But it is infuriating that on what should be an environmental blog, I have to contend with supporters of things like the World Bank, WTO, genetic engineering, and nuclear power, all of which are antithetical to environmentalism from my point of view. Suffice to say that if it ever came down to a war for the natural environment, these people and I would be on opposite sides.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:11 am
04 Aug 2008
As you watch this presidential campaign unfold, just realize what we're up against. Something close to half the US population apparently doesn't give a crap about what the vast majority of people who come to this site hold dear. I'm not saying Obama is great, but the level of discourse coming from the Republicans...
So, I think this site is a good one because it is very diverse (and I agree with caniscandida that it is good to hear yours as well), and we even get conservatives here (I've had some constructive long-running arguments with them here). And yes, it is annoying to get the pro-nukers, etc., but we should be able to handle all of that easily. So, I for one appreciate your comment.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:28 am
04 Aug 2008
Wolverine, what you seem to have a great deal of trouble coming to terms with is that your viewpoint is by far a minority one. Not only that, but it also seems you refuse to consider the possibility that maybe other viewpoints are just as legitimate as yours or more so.
Being a supporter of existing governmental and international institutions, however flawed they may be, does not make one an enemy of the environment. Believe it or not, there are political conservatives who want to protect the environment, they just don't take your self admittedly extreme viewpoint on the subject.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:54 pm
04 Aug 2008
If you are trying to make amends, I suggest you be less ambiguous:
For those I've upset by supposed name-calling, though I see it more as being legitimate descriptions and/or analogies, I'm sorry.
By that I read that you still consider that you were right to label some of us "pigs" and "Nazis". If so, why do you then say "I'm sorry"? That sorry does not seem genuine to me. You might as well have said, "Gee, I'm sorry I called you a pig, but that's only because you are one!"
Stop being presumptuous about from where you think people are coming. I am tempted to cite my own environmental bona fides, but will resist because I do not think it should be necessary. But as Mad Mac points out, people develop their world views like diners at a smorgasbord. Outside the United States you will find plenty of people who hold what in America would be considered inconsistent views: socially liberal, supportive of socialized medicine, for free (but well-regulated) trade among nations, and against corporate welfare. And deeply committed to protecting the natural environment.
Judging people by what you assume is their world view, having never met them in person, is the mark of somebody who is quick to stereotype. If there is one thing I appreciate about the diversity of views on Grist it is that the people here (normally) are resistant to stereotyping.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:19 pm
04 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:31 pm
04 Aug 2008
It's one thing if you still are taking exception with Wolverine's comments and apology, but don't cite MAD man as an ally in issues of taste or civility.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:40 pm
04 Aug 2008
That is what I am trying to support here: debating the points that people make, not their presumed world views.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:02 am
05 Aug 2008
Had you spent time living in the parts of the world I have, you would realize that some terms are used routinely and even in a positive context. I was a professional soldier for 23 years, and in that time lived in the US less that three of those years. Tends to change your outlook on certain things.
For example, in Somalia I am a Gaal - a term meant to be deeply derogatory. I never took offense though, cause I just didn't care.
Since I married a Thai, who also happens to be quite petite, it's improbable that I hold Southeast Asians in any sort of disdain.
Now Nigger, Kike, Slope, Spic......... those are real slurs. I don't use those terms.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:35 am
06 Aug 2008
Perhaps "friends" is not accurate, but if not, there is probably no word for it. What happened is that when I was reading in my chamber of excremeditation or am in the shower, a spider came out of hiding several days in a row and crawled around near me. After about a week, she crawled up my leg as I was drying off after a shower and sat in my hand that I extended to get her off my leg. (I have to admit that it was disconcerting at first to have a gnarly looking spider crawl up my leg, but after sitting in my hand for awhile I got used to it.) She has been coming out to see me almost every day since then. I have no idea whether spiders have ears or can otherwise hear, but I talk to her and she hangs out with me. So, Mac, it is what it is, use whatever terms you want for it.
And BTW, I realize that my viewpoint is a minority one, that's the problem. When people lived in nature, especially hunter-gatherers, they virtually all thought like this. Now that humans have removed themselves so far from the natural world, they no longer love or respect it to any significant extent. This is, of course, a generalization, but that means that it's generally true. There are some humans who think the way I do, but yes, we're a small minority, which is too bad for everything that's not human.
Permalink