Perry and Thrust

U.S. should back off from biofuels to bring down food prices, says Texas guv

Posted at 4:56 PM on 28 Apr 2008

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.

sources: Agence France-Presse, Houston Chronicle, Austin American-Statesman
sources: A special series on biofuels

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (8 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

not suprised

I guess I should expect this from the state with its hand already the deepest in the cookie jar...err...pork barrel. Texas is the no.1 agricultural subsidy recipient in the country.....$16.2 billion from 1995-2006.....10% of their recipients received 77% of the payments.
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=48000

by greenfire8 at 8:08 PM on 28 Apr 2008

TX Governor Correct

Guess what? Even the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food is now asking that biofuel production be halted for at least five years, saying that using crops for biofuels instead of food "a major cause for the food crisis that has thrown millions into poverty."

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.

by Wolverine at 11:29 AM on 29 Apr 2008

Starving People to Feed Food Based Fuel to Cars

Lester Brown wrote a piece about this issue a couple of years ago, before Congress decided to hand out billion dollar subsidies to corn based ethanol producers.

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.

Cheers.

by roncastle at 11:51 AM on 29 Apr 2008

Plant-based diet could ease food prices

It's important to remember that meat production has also fueled the scourge of world hunger. On average, it takes more than seven pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, and four pounds of grain to yield one pound of pork. More than 80 percent of US agricultural land is cultivated for animal feed.

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.

by Kristin17 at 12:14 PM on 29 Apr 2008

the magic bullet

ron,

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.

by greenfire8 at 12:31 PM on 29 Apr 2008

who's holding the stick?

i should add...they are the same subsidies that displaced the farmers i mentioned in the first place....you know, the ones we now have to spend a few billion more on a border wall for, just because they followed the stick after the carrot was yanked out of their reach

by greenfire8 at 12:35 PM on 29 Apr 2008

public eyes

is that you ron?

by greenfire8 at 12:38 PM on 29 Apr 2008

ethanol

What's often missed in food-fuel discussions is that most midwestern corn is virtually inedible. Bred for big endosperm, small germ, it has very little protein, but makes cattle fat fast (50% of the corn crop goes to cattle) and cooks into lots of hi-fructose corn syrup or distills into ethanol.

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.

by masbury at 10:53 AM on 06 May 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?