Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Drive 1,000 Miles or Feed a Person for a Year? The Biofuels Dilemma

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted May 9, 2008.


Can the pumping of ethanol into American fuel tanks really make it harder for parents to feed their families?
Advertisement

With hungry, angry people taking to the streets in countries on every continent -- from Morocco to Mexico and Pakistan to the Philippines, and at least 20 other nations -- the biofuel debate is clearly moving into new territory.

Arguments for and against using crops to make fuel are no longer focusing on energy ratios or "independence from foreign oil" or feel-good environmentalism. The headlines today are about people needing food to eat -- and right now.

Politicians who once supported biofuel expansion are now backpedaling fast in the face of irate grocery shoppers in this country and an increase in hunger across the planet. Representative James McGovern, D-Mass., was one of the first national lawmakers to raise alarms about the impact of grain-based biofuels on food prices, telling the New York Times last month, "If there was a secret vote [in Congress], there is a pretty large number of people who would like to reassess what we are doing." Now 24 Republican members of Congress, citing high food prices, have come out into the open to urge a retreat from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which mandates rapid increases in biofuel production.

State officials across the country are also looking to bail out of the biofuel rush. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has formally requested that the federal government relax biofuel requirements imposed on his state. Also responding to runaway food costs, the Missouri legislature is considering a rollback of its own recently passed law requiring that gasoline must be mixed with a minimum percentage of ethanol.

Filling gas tanks or plates?

The agriculture lobby has legendary clout in Washington, so current biofuel targets, along with heavy subsidies that keep the industry alive, will stay in place for now. The 2008 farm bill, which has entered the homestretch in Congress, cuts the corn-ethanol subsidy by only 6 cents, to 45 cents per gallon, while the subsidy for the "next generation" of ethanol (to be made from grass, straw, and other cellulosic materials) will rise to more than a dollar a gallon. To soften the rapid food-price inflation that's expected to result, the new law will increase food aid to lower-income Americans.

Perhaps the starkest measure of the car culture's energy appetite is the fact that the state of Iowa, the nation's leading corn producer, will soon be importing corn. If a meteorite were to land randomly in Iowa, there's a 35 percent chance it would land in a cornfield; Iowa's corn harvest last year contained more calories than the state's human population would consume in 85 years of eating; yet Iowa will be hauling corn in from other states. The grain will be fed to a multitude of new fuel-ethanol factories, along with the state's existing corn syrup and livestock industries.

The world is learning fast that when fuel demand competes with food needs for the sun's energy, it's not a fair fight. The energy contained in the gasoline that fills a typical SUV's tank contains approximately the same number of calories as are required in the annual diet of one adult. Or, rather than picking on SUVs, consider the energy burned by a Prius hybrid on a trip from San Francisco to San Diego and back. That would also feed a person for a year.

Measured in energy units like kilocalories, world demand for liquid fuels (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel and now biofuels) is currently more than six times the global demand for food. In energy terms, fuel demand will shoot up three times as fast as food demand between now and 2030.

But such comparisons don't prove cause-and-effect. Can the pumping of ethanol into American fuel tanks really make it harder for parents in Yemen or Indonesia to feed their families?

An ethanol industry-funded group called the New Fuels Alliance doesn't think so. In its briefing paper entitled "Fuel vs. Food: No Conflict" (pdf), the group insists (reviving the old Cold War term for less powerful nations) that "Third world food shortages are largely due to political and social issues such as poverty, government corruption, and inefficient distribution ... Corn prices have little impact on food availability in the Third World ... Food availability per capita is at an historic high."

That last claim is simply wrong. A close look shows that it was based on data from the late 1980s and early 1990s. The amount of food available per person has been falling steadily since that time; agriculture is not keeping up with humanity's nutritional needs and is now being asked to fill the tanks of vehicles as well.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: corn, ethanol, biofuel, hunger

Stan Cox is the author of the recently published Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
The Internal Combustion Engine will be saved at any cost ...
Posted by: mmckinl on May 9, 2008 1:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The jobs and taxes the internal combustion engine creates would have to be replaced with higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. As long as they keep this mode of trasportation going it will be a buffer for their money machine.

The answer of course are plug in battery vehicles that would have a range of 60 to 300 miles depending on price. By upgrading the electric grid, which needs to be done anyway, renewable energy could be plugged right in.

The problem is the battery electric car is cheaper to buy (-50%), cheaper to maintain (-90%) and cheaper to fuel (-60%). And there is the problem, fewer parts and less asssembly means lots fewer workers and companies to tax, far less profit from parts suppliers and carmakers to tax. Then there are the gas taxes and registration fees , Federal , State and local that would evaporate. And of course cheaper cars would mean smaller loans for banks to charge interest on.

Where do you go to raise the tax money to suport the War Machine, the Homeland Security Honeypot and the Healthcare Hegemoney? The American people are not Einsteins but talk of screwing Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid will get just about anyone thrown out of office.

Who does that leave to tax? Them that has the Money!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hemp, Hemp, Hemp...Hemp..! Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
Animal feed
Posted by: mutualaid on May 9, 2008 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe using land to feed cows for meat wastes land that would much more effectively be used for human food by planting vegetables etc. and is also a major contributor to climate change b/c of deforestation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Animal feed Posted by: jmndodge
» John, Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Changing the methods Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Changing the methods Posted by: john mont
» RE: Changing the methods Posted by: john mont
» RE: Changing the methods Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Animal feed Posted by: PaulK
» Then again... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Animal feed Posted by: observing
» RE: Animal feed Posted by: john mont
» human feed Posted by: AdamG
Converting Food To Fuel is a Crime Against Humanity But The Real Issue is Unprotected Sex
Posted by: opmoc on May 9, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Overpopulation is the issue that no one will discuss, but that is the root cause of all environmental problems.

Overpopulation can be solved gracefully as it already has in Western Developed nations who's birth rate is significantly below replacement levels - or it can be solved by Mass Genocide.

Converting corn into ethanol is a ridiculous thing to do because the ENTIRE process uses more petroleum energy than the end product ethanol contains.

Its a ridiculous thing to do, except that it significantly reduces World Food supplies - resulting in Mass Genocide of Millions - and ultimately Billions of people.

This must be a World Government plan - because its not just the US that is adopting this crazy policy - but it is also endemic in the EU and much of the World.

So there you have it - just another tool in the battle against overpopulation.

Its probably slightly less gory watching Millions starve to death on TV - rather than dropping bombs on them - but the kill ratio is far more effective.

Religious and cultural leaders like the Pope, meanwhile continue to feed the fire with petroleum by still promoting their insanity against Birth Control.

I think the Pope and other religious and cultural leaders are as guilty as hell - and the political elite with their genocidal policies are simply trying to cope with the mess that "Fcuking For God" has caused.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I can't have kids! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» the cost of geriatrics Posted by: e rice
Something doesn't make sense here!
Posted by: prieten on May 9, 2008 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I'm dense, but the vast majority of America's corn crop goes to feed cows in the meat industry. Corn syrup and people food production accounts for a small percentage of the American corn crop. Ethanol hasn't really gotten off the ground yet.

I believe the article's point that America's farmland can be degraded by too much agricultural use, but there must be some level of ethanol production that is sustainable.

Plug-in electric cars are the answer, but they do need some liquid fuel when their initial short electric range is exceeded. They are NOT cheaper than combustion engine cars as the first commentator maintained. The batteries are expensive and need replacement. I guess the rich will be the only ones who can afford them, but that's the definition of being rich, isn't it? The rest of us will have to use public transpo and bicycles.

The real issue here is peak oil. The oil is running out. World population growth, made possible by agricultural improvements largely driven by cheap oil, is continuing. The Earth can't support an anticipated 9 billion people without a cheap energy source (which is also the source of most of the fertilizer being used). There is going to be a die-off no matter what we do. It's sad to say this, but we can't go to the moon or to Mars, we are stuck with this Earth. The Earth was able to sustain about 1 billion people in 1860, and that's where its population is headed back to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» birth control Posted by: e rice
» RE: birth control Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: birth control Posted by: e rice
» It actually works. Posted by: Last Chance
» Now that is a good idea Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Bush Born Sceptic
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 9, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call me Jaded after 7 yrs of Bushian BS and innately suspecious having been born & raised in MIchigan. But my gut reaction is more Oil/Auto crap to 'stick it' to US for making them actually get off their asses after 35 yrs of Screaming at them to get of M.E. Oil.
Here In MI we have been economically held hostage by the Big 3 and their Political minions for basically a Century. Through the blood ,Sweat and tears of our ancestors those Co's hav ebecome MultiNational entities to be contended with by Humanity. Just as they kicked & scremed Not to install Selt belts (Nadars One real Claim to Fame) or Airbags- and the propaganda they pushed to aviod such safety measures and the Big 3's murder of the electric car since the'80's (or any other non Oil based innovation )
Add to that Fact tht Farmers have been Paid not to grow food products and history of plant porducts rotting in Silos to maintain 'higher prices'- while many nations were starving even then.And animals being feed manufactured pelleted feeds more often then the 'real thing' to 'enhance performanace' and 'nutritional needs' ..I Smell BS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is Corn even in the equation
Posted by: DeaconJ on May 9, 2008 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Turns out an acre of weeds grown in poor soil produces
more ethanol than corn. Here are some other examples:

Corn gets you about 200 gallons of ethanol per acre.
Here are some lovely examples of different feedstocks we can use:

Cattails - 2,500 gallons per acre (12.5 X more than corn)
Sorghum - 3,500 gallons per acre (17.5 X more than corn)
Fodder beats - 940 gallons per acre (4.7 X more than corn)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Source request Posted by: GriGri
» RE: Source request Posted by: truthaboutalcoholfuel
Anyone notice...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on May 9, 2008 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the ad for 'Clean Coal' next to the article?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Uranium is a limited resource, Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Some Rambling Thoughts
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on May 9, 2008 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the late 1990's I lived in California where there was a boom in the price of electricity that put quite a strain on poor families. At the time, the blame was place squarely on liberal environmentalists who had resisted the building of new power plants. However, there were also hushed whispers that the problem was really with the power companies who had failed to upgrade the power grid and were now shutting down power plants to manipulate prices. This later explanation turned out to be much closer to the truth.

Today the blame for the food shortages is placed on environmentalists who insisted on biofuels, though there are some whispers that hedge-fund manipulation of the food market may also play a role. Now I am no proponent of corn ethanol, and I do believe that this is a bone-headed use for corn but for now I will reserve judgment on whether it is the only cause of the price jump.

Another issue I recall reading about a year or two ago was that corn farmers had been driven out of business through NAFTA by the cheap corn that was flooding Mexico and other countries. With the now rising prices, what is happening to these farms? Are they back in business now? Can anyone comment on this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Environmentalists and biofuels Posted by: WhuThe?!?
solution available - Green Island
Posted by: siamdave on May 9, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- the fuel 'crisis' gets sorted by sorting capitalism. If we remove capitalism as the dominating religion of our times, then many things happen. Everyone works less, as half of what everyone produces is no longer stolen by capitalists. With much less work, and much less 'makework', the need for transportation drops greatly. With capitalists, and the arms industry, out of the game, wars stop, and the HUGE amount of energy and oil consumed in that nothing-but-waste game stops. With profit-demand no longer the main driving force of society, we invest in much more efficient public transportation. We still have private transportation when necessary, but it is used much less. Alternative forms of energy are readily available, when profit-demanding oil companies no longer control social and governmental priorities. Wind power, solar power, tidal power, and far more efficient internal combustion engines reduce the requirement for oil.
That's only a start - but it turns a crisis into a small manageable problem overnight. It's how we do it on Green Island - that and a lot of other things sane people do. Green Island

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The almighty dollar rules
Posted by: Last Chance on May 9, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All agribusiness corporations grow crops for profit, not food. If growing biofuels brings more profit then food is out, regardless of what the people need. Perhaps when enough people are starving they will at last decide to return America and the World to farming for family and community and to hell with agribusiness. Cultivating Survival

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Didn't you mean? Posted by: WhuThe?!?
We, meaning the American people, got us into this mess
Posted by: sausage on May 9, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, we Americans have become, and have induced the wider world to become, too dependent on two crops: Number 2 field corn and soy beans. Plainly more variety in our collective world-wide foodstocks are needed. Also alternatives to the alternative fuel crops are called for. But mono-crop agriculture is the price we Americans and the rest of the world--and the closer in proximity to us the greater the cost--pay for industrialzing farming.

Industrialized farming, nitrogen and the so-called green revolution has also had the unintended effect of promoting urban sprawl in the Midwestern states. Now with GM crops and anhydrous ammoina more corn and soy beans per acre can be grown on more marginally fertile soil. No need to grow our cities "up," as envisioned by ninteenth century and early twentieth century futurists and science ficion writers. Thanks to Norman Borglund we Americans can spread across once productive farmland like a cancer!

But thirdly, we Americans turned out backs on the one president who perhaps had the vision to stave off the impending crisis in both energy and food: Jimmy Carter. No, he wasn't a "great" president nor do I believe did his term even measure up to his own standards. But he envisioned that by the year 2000 20% of the United States' electricty would be wind generated. Currently renewable energy production, including hydorelectric, accounts for only 10 to 12 percent of total US output.

Carter said America deserves government as good as its people. So in 1980 we the people voted for Ronald Reagan. Followed by George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and the current disaster.

If you want to see the real culprits of this looming disaster look no further than the mirror, across the breakfast table, at parents, your neighbors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yep Posted by: WhuThe?!?
from a farmer in Nebraska
Posted by: zooeyhall on May 9, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a farmer in Nebraska, where I farm 160 acres that my Dad moved on in 1940. A farm of my size is not a large one by any standards. I have an off-farm job to supplement my income. I am dissappointed at the narrow and "politically correct" party line being espoused by Progressive sites like Alternet about the evils of bio-fuels. All I want to say is that I am so thankful for the recent increase in the price my crops bring. For years I and my fellow farmers have been struggling to make ends meet. Please, all you urbanites and armchair enviromentalists out there--give guys like me a break. I am getting $5/bushel for corn today. Three years ago it was $1.80. And that was the same price it was back in 1980. How many of you could pay today's bills on the income you received 25 years ago? Both my neighbors and myself are working middle class people just like you. We have families and home mortgages to pay and kids to send to college.

Now, reading articles like this one, you are asking me for the sake of some larger, nebulous "good" that only you can perceive--to feel guilt and shame for this breeze of hope with commodity prices that has finally come through. You go ahead and tell my little boy "well Billy, we can't let those poor peasants suffer so you are going to have to do without that video game for Christmas this year". Or to tell my other son "John, we have to do with cheap grain prices to protect those poor people in Mexico, so you'll have to put off college for the time being".

And spare me the patent environmentalist party-line I so often hear when you condescend to give farmers like me any advice. I am referring to the organic drumbeat and the windmills for electricity, etc. Yes, they have some value but their ability is limited and over-rated and of little use to guys like me trying to make a living NOW and to convince the banker to borrow me money for one more season. Spare me your pipe dreams!

Just a morning rant from a guy who has to go out in a few minutes and start planting corn. I bet 95% of the people who write these bio-fuel hate articles, who respond to them, and who bitch about farmers haven't been within 50 miles of a corn stalk their entire lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 160 acres is just too small Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» Hobby-farmer, eh? Posted by: sausage
» RE: Hobby-farmer, eh? Posted by: fearn
» RE: Hobby-farmer, eh? Posted by: sausage
» RE: Hobby-farmer, eh? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Hobby-farmer, eh? Posted by: sausage
» RE: Hobby-farmer, eh? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: from a farmer in Nebraska Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: to the farmer in Nebraska: misdirected anger? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» For the Nebraska farmer - Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: from a farmer in Nebraska Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: from a farmer in Nebraska Posted by: Cybershaman
» Do it without taxpayer help. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: I agree 100%, No Taxpayer Subsidies Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Do it with much less taxpayer help. Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
Can skepticism about the media cause starvation?
Posted by: pandalix on May 9, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My skepticism about the media drives me to AlterNet but it doesn't dissipate when I arrive at the sight. This long, academic article is chock full of unattributed facts. My skepticism buzzer goes of. Then I want to eat or drive, consuming food or fuel laced with food, which contributes to world starvation.
The facts apparently come from the author’s research plus his opinions, but the site portrays him as a journalist from AlterNet. I had to dig aground to figure out the author's credibility: "Stan Cox is a senior scientist at The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas. He worked for the US Department of Agriculture from 1984 to 1996 and has a Ph.D. in plant genetics." To find out about Stan, you have to click on the name of the book, go to the publisher's site and read a while until you find out his credentials. I suggest that AlterNet provide more info about writers when term papers are printed like articles. How about throwing in a couple of footnotes, too. I know you know what I’m talking about: the headline in the AlterNet newsletter was masterful: "Can driving cause starvation?" Curious about the juxtaposition, I clicked on the article right away. That’s good journalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do pay for our Highways without SUV?
Posted by: peacekeepertwo on May 9, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many states have been Concerned about how they will pay to repair roads, when vehicles use less Fuel. In some states, such as Oregon they are thinking about Checking the miliage on your Car, and you would pay A tax based on those miles, you have traveled since the last time you licenced your car. The problem, is with people who fail to understand, this is not a perfect world, and nothing is Free. until we begin to address these Issues logically. we will never solve these problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Mongoose Trick
Posted by: Spock on May 9, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ironic, isn't it?! For years, the U.S. lived off the farmer - who was the only person in the economy forced to take what was offered for his product. Now he's found another market, and the result is proof of what I just said. Time for payback is never pleasant for the bully. Suck it up, folks - or do you intend to do another of those "democratic," "free market" things like nationalize the farms (again)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Agribusiness Owns 90% of American Farmland: Guess Who Benefits Most? It Ain't Joe Farmer!
Posted by: sofla100 on May 9, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it were just the small farmer benefiting from the doubling and tripling of corn prices, it wouldn't be so bad. But, 90% of farmland in America is not farmed by Joe and Mary Farmer and the family, but by Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill and the rest of them. Just who do you think has been lobbying and buying off Congress to get the legislation that mandates more ethanol in USA fuel? The big boys would like you to think its some poor farmer who was raked over the coals a few years ago. But, most of them are gone. Now the "big boys" have moved in for the kill. Sure, a few little schmuks making money with ethanol can be paraded on the TV. But, at the end of the day, it's billions and billions to the megacorps that control America's farms and the world's food and to an increasing extent, fuel supply.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hemp
Posted by: ClassAct on May 9, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US is not serious about achieving fuel self-sufficiency until it undertakes to reward all homeowners raising hemp instead of a lawn of grass. But a nation of hemp growing farmers will undermine the coalition on the political right that enforces its will on the world through a gasoline powered military machine upon which the civilian infrastructure has been compelled to ride piggy-back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hemp Posted by: Cam1
not corn
Posted by: liberalibrarian on May 9, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a lousy biofuel provider--and it's a food. One word: hemp.

Good old hemp. Multiple uses. Grows anywhere fast. Puts nutrients back into the soil. And makes much better biofuel.

Oh, and while you're at it...legalize cannabis so the DEA doesn't have to triple its "manpower" to Supervise the growing of hemp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I told you so. Do you believe me yet?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 9, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We would need 2 or 3 more earths to make it on biofuel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would someone please get a farmer to write about this
Posted by: Frank J. on May 9, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've commented on this before but it seems I'm a fart in a wind storm. The corn used to produce ethanol isn't food for people, it's feed for animals.
We could stop planting it and grow a lot more food, but none of you helped change the farm bill to allow that so for at least 5 years we're stuck in this production.
High oil prices have more to do with high food prices than commodity prices. This is because it takes more energy to package and ship food 1500 miles than it does to grow it.
High corn prices first hurt the consolidated livestock industry and make them less cost effective. These are the huge confinement facilities that destroy the environment.
With $5 corn we're finally being paid above the cost of production in the market place. Something I've been working many years to bring about.
Now having to defend that at every turn just chaps my behind.
I fill my car with a 30% blend of ethanol and I will continue to do it because it feeds my family and my children will not have to carry arms to protect this fuel source.

Frank James,
South Dakota Family Farmer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hi Frank, Posted by: fearn
If Americans cared, we could fix this.
Posted by: antiapathy on May 9, 2008 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think anyone is blaming family farmers for trying to make a living. If they are they should be ashamed of themselves. I had farmers in my family, so I know how hard they work.

The fact is, there is a global food crisis. It's not that "peasants" are "suffering". The problem is human beings are starving to death. Millions and millions of them. There are many reasons for this: overpopulation, commodity markets manipulation, "free" trade agreements that allow us to flood foreign markets with subsidized grains, the use of corn to feed our addiction to massive quantities of meat, and maybe even biofuels.

We need to adopt policies and lifestyle changes in all of those areas. We could do more to educate developing countries about birth control (other than the abstinence only crap imposed by the current president). We need to bring back market controls that were done away with under Reaganomics. Our trade agreements and structural adjustment policy requirements for foreign aid need to end, and that debt should be forgiven.

Our domestic agricultural subsidy priorities are way out of whack. We spend $16 BILLION a year on ag subsidies. And the vast majority of that goes to the big ag corporations. Our friend here in Nebraska probably only sees a few hundred dollars a year in subsidies. We need a subsidy policy that evens the playing field, rather than tilting it in favor of the big corporations that are putting family farms out of business.

Lastly are the lifestyle changes. Most of our corn is used to feed livestock. If we ate just a little less meat, there would be plenty of grain to feed the world. Assuming we don't put it all into our gas tanks. But if we all drove less, that problem might go away too. We need to move back to the cities and out of our sprawling, land-use separated suburbs. Our built environment needs to be more dense and provide a mix of land uses. We need to live closer to where we work, so we can walk, bike, or (dare I say) take the bus or subway.

I truly believe we can find a way to feed a stabilized world population while providing adequate income to our family farmers. But it will be an uphill fight against the corporations who have a vested interest in the status quo (and absolutely no morals or care for the underpriviledged of the world), like ADM, Cargill, BP, Shell, hedge fund managers, GM, Ford, and countless others. Now most people in this country don't give a shit, and will just go about their lives blissfully ignorant of how their government policies and their lifestyle are contributing to the deaths of millions of people. So we need to work extra hard to wake these apathetic consumer zombies from their slumber, and get them to start paying attention. Maybe write a letter to their congressman. Or give up the 45 minute commute in a Hummer for a 30 minute train ride.

We can fix it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amazed reader
Posted by: GANDALF84 on May 9, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one seems to have noticed that what we call corn is no longer edible due to the introduction of pesticides in the genes. The FDA hase been bought off. Pesticides cause cancer, but not for 20 years so who cares. No weed can grow where 90% of corn is grown except the "patented" Montesano seed. No farmer may save his own seed but must buy it from Montesano. the "Seed Police" are watching, not only corn but other foods,this is the real crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A national 55 mph speed limit would help save energy, but...
Posted by: HughScott on May 9, 2008 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
being short-sighted motorized lemmings, we would rather drive off the peak-oil cliff doing 80, rather than slow down for our own good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: not quite Scott Posted by: fearn
» The most economical speed is 45. Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Framing all biofuels are "bad". And this is the very frame trap the left falls into.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 9, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what better an example to point out than the current biofuel mess that's going on. Let's compare some biofuels. If you were to look at both the far left and the far right, you would realize that they detest biofuel and that is completely understandable and in fact reasonable but for only one MAJOR reason. The current crop of biofuels they are using actually require more petroleum than would yield. So here's what happens. You're going to assume that based on the mess of doing ethanol based on corn, sugar, and palm oil that all biofuels as bad bad bad. However, what if someone were to not only prove this wrong but in fact prove that not all biofuels are the same? Well, my friends, allow me to introduce you to a plant that no other has ever matched in all its years of mankind. Its 26000+ industrial uses and the fact that no petroleum is ever needed to put this plant to manufacturing and fuel production is what the vested interests of Big Oil, Coal, Cotton, Paper, Pharma, Insurance, Chemical, etc ... feared the most as this plant was about to be put to modern industrial use with no environmental issues whatsoever. In their fear, they installed puppets in Congress and finally FDR along with those puppets passed the most OBSCENELY high tax on this very plant and in the 1970s, Nixon set up the DEA mainly to keep this plant OUTLAWED. As recently as the turn of this century, the DEA bombed a few farms that grew this very same harmless plant, and yes, it's the same plant that could have helped America avoid 9/11 by avoiding its dependence on foreign oil. And if environmentalists are so desperately concerned, RELAX. It does not deplete, cause global warming, and can be grown in virtually every soil which may explain why the dictators of impoverished nations especially in Africa would be extremely hostile to this plant. Ladies and gentleman, the name is HEMP.

By the people, if you want to cut down fossil fuel usage on electricity, I suggest you do a google search for "solar powered generator" or "wind powered generator". As a matter of fact, you'll find results on building your own for a few hundred dollars that could save you hundreds and even thousands a year in the long run.

I now return you to that "doom and gloom" story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Recycle organic waste into biofuel Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
This is stupid
Posted by: jstepp590 on May 9, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time I hear about us using corn to produce biofuels and how it doesn't work I just want to spit. There is a reason they use corn, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK!!! We are using the wrong plant. If we were there would be an effective alternative to oil.

There is a plant that produces over 4X more biofuels per acre, uses no pesticides or herbicides, is grown in every other first world country (Germany, France, England, etc.), grows on marginal land that is useless for anything else, has so many other uses for the parts not used to produce fuel that I can't even mention them all, can be grown in every state in the U.S, and actually improves the land it's grown on instead of depleting the soil.

That plant is industrial hemp. Many people believe this is the real reason why "marijuana" is illegal today, even though the alternative is starving people to death and crashing our economy and standard of living.

Thanks government, really looking out for us aren't you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One more thing. Do a google search for "stevia" and "high fructose corn syrup"
Posted by: maxpayne on May 9, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You'll find out soon enough that the corn lobbyists are just as strong as the gun lobbyists especially the NRA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr Cox is not going to the root of the problem
Posted by: truthaboutalcoholfuel on May 9, 2008 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By targeting biofuels, he is targeting the most successful known venture for reversing the greenhouse effect, through increased organic agricultural production of crops in all types of lands that allow us to sequester more CO2. There isn't any other source that can give us carbon negative energy production. We have to blame the root of our problem: corporate industrial agriculture which lays on the petroleum based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides etc and gives us GMO crops which don't even increase yield of food. Pointing the finger at a clean burning fuel which is being attacked with billion-dollar campaigns and increased investment in commodity futures by Big OIl is pointing at the wrong thing. Mr. Cox has consistently argued against ethanol without much intelligence or depth, pointing out surface facts that are debatable. It would be good if he went to the best book on alcohol fuel on the planet
http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com?bid=2&aid=CD8&opt=

There, he can reassure himself that ethanol is not to blame, that the fault does not lie in the stars, but in ourselves. We are too gullible and not interested in digging a little. (Although many bloggers here are on the right track!) Let's find solutions with the best alternative we have to oil company domination, tar sands, shale oil and other ecological nightmares. Electric cars rely on an unprepared grid and are powered by non renewable sources. Small, micro-sized alcohol fuel plants can run on alternative, renewable sources, if we are clever enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Further viewing...
Posted by: jlan on May 9, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've recently watched three documentaries that have really helped put things in perspective for me. Take the time to find and watch these:

King Corn: documentary that traces corn production from seed to body while at the same time showing how our farmers are losing their right to decide what they grow and, ultimately, their right to their own land!;

All in This Tea: I saw it on the Sundance channel, but I think it may also be available on dvd. Shows one man's efforts to expose how pesticides and seed companies are devastating Chinese farmers;

The World According to Monsanto: French documentary that is really difficult to find (was pulled from Google video and YouTube, but I think is back on YouTube in 10-minute clips). Exposes how Monsanto is legally strangling our farmers and farmlands across the world, while they continue to gain control of some ridiculously high percentage of the world's seed availability and distribution. Warning: will rise blood pressure.

I'm sure there are plenty other sources from which we can learn a great deal from, but I wanted to spread the word about these 3 films.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rn
Posted by: mnatra on May 9, 2008 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So now instead of starving children in China it
is starving children other places due to Americans using bio fuel here in the US. When are you going to learn that those kinds of guilt trips dont really change Americans behaviors.
Ask an elder what the 1970s were like and the use of gasohol and how that affected every body else. It was short lived and very stupid.What really made a difference, was the reduced speed limits on our freeways and the absence of those stupid SUVs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: rn Posted by: opmoc
I hear Exxon appluading
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 9, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but Stan Cox doesn't feel that that particular issue needs any mention.

Wonder why not?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]