Has the U.S. push for biofuels contributed to rising global food prices? Well, yes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday: "There has been apparently some effect, unintended consequence from the alternative fuels effort." But, she hastened to add, "biofuels continue to be an extremely important piece of the alternative energy picture" and "we think that it is not a large part of the problem." Unconvinced, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has suggested that 50 percent of the federal renewable-fuels mandate be waived for a year to take some pressure off of food prices and the Texas economy. But his critics argue that oil prices are more to blame, and thus eliminating all or part of the renewable-fuels standard would hike gasoline prices higher while having only a minimal impact on food prices. All that to say: If you need us, we'll be scrounging for pennies on the sidewalk.
source: Agence France-Presse, Houston Chronicle, Austin American-Statesman
see also, in Grist:A special series on biofuels
Comments
View as Threaded
greenfire8 Posted 1:08 pm
28 Apr 2008
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=48000
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:29 am
29 Apr 2008
People who don't want to give up their environmentally and ecologically destructive lifestyles refuse to believe that they are those lifestyles are the causes of the problems. Instead, they fantasize about magical technological solutions that will allow them to continue business and play as usual. In this universe, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, and all actions have equal and opposite reactions. This means that unless people stop, or at least greatly reduce, their travel at unnatural speeds in private motor vehicles, the problems caused by that travel will never be solved. And for those concerned about global warming, biofuels do absolutely nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Permalink
roncastle Posted 4:51 am
29 Apr 2008
Making fuel from food won't work. If you converted all of the corn grown in the USA to ethanol it won't offset 25% of our imported oil consumption.
And if you do, what do the cows, chickens, hogs eat? Not to mention the several billion folks around the world who rely on grains as their primary source of nutrition.
Governor Perry has the right idea, even if it is for the wrong reasons.
Regarding the words of wisdom from the Secretary of State, Rice is a grain not a brain.
Permalink
Kristin17 Posted 5:14 am
29 Apr 2008
Considering this, even a small shift toward a plant-based diet in developed countries would free up enough land, water, and fuel to stave off world hunger.
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 5:31 am
29 Apr 2008
Admittedly, corn ethanol is not it. I think most everyone knows that by now. Imho there isnt one. As for the cows and hogs, we could do w/ a hell of a lot less of those methane factories anyway. The percent of the American diet they comprise is wholly unsustainable in many ways, be it caloric efficiency, acres required, GHG's. Its an issue of carrying capacity vs. cultural carrying capacity as I'm sure you're well aware...
Through their geospatial analysis, the USGS says the dead zone in the Gulf is mostly attributed to corn and soybean farming. How much of this is for ethanol and how much of it is to keep our dominion on the world in effect. We export the majority of the world's corn to all the developing world's displaced farmers, who now cant even afford it, only because of the billions in subsidies that have been in place for a number of years.
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 5:35 am
29 Apr 2008
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 5:38 am
29 Apr 2008
Permalink
masbury Posted 3:53 am
06 May 2008
We grow little food in the American midwest. For cuts in corn-based ethanol to impact food prices, US farmers would have to profit from growing crops for human consumption again.
Permalink