SP4: Growing food for fuelApr 14th, 2008 - 14:14:26

...great idea, huh?

Report this comment

Local politics also to blame hereApr 14th, 2008 - 17:21:32

The vote in the U.S. of the corn-producing states is critical, so growers were told that ethanol production would rise, and that they'd be assured of good prices for their crops. That's redirected production towards utilization as energy instead of food.

There are alternative crops that can be used for biofuels, but there's no political lobby benefiting from increased switchgrass production.

Here's an article from 2005, predating the current crisis, on how Brazil does it:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8262015/

As international oil prices soar, that bet has put Brazil at the forefront of a 'biofuels' movement in which many countries view sugar cane, corn, soybeans, beets, cornstalks and native grasses as cleaner, money-saving substitutes for oil produced in politically unstable countries. Ethanol is higher in power-producing octane than most gasoline and can reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide and harmful particulates.

The trend in Brazil has far-reaching implications for environmental policy, trade and economic development in poor countries that may have a bright future producing crops that can be easily turned into fuels. Biofuels also could be alternatives for U.S. farmers facing cuts in large federal farm subsidies on traditional crops, according to some agricultural economists.

(The growth in demand for some of these crops to satisfy exports has changed the picture, but the article does point out that crops other than foodstuffs can be utilized, and that it could become a source of revenue for poor countries that don't lack adequate water, but have arable land)

Report this comment

SP4: The downsideApr 14th, 2008 - 20:16:56

..they do little to offset oil use. The cost of recovering the energy by these crops could be done by simply drilling in ANWR and the greenhouse gases and land utilization vs. amounts recovered would be far better.

Ethanol production and use actually increases greenhouse gases, so that argument is dead.

This source of energy is subsidized by government, so you are actually PAYING folks to increase your grocery bills.

Report this comment

lanceApr 14th, 2008 - 21:26:16

A typical supply side problem.

The supply of people is high which increases demand for food.

Naturally, the solution is a no-brainer. Decrease the supply. Lets move onto the next earth shaking problem because this one is a self-inflicted injury.

Report this comment