54% Say Push for Alternative Energy Sources Driving Up Food Prices (Only 23% disagree)

Rasmussen ^ | May 04, 2008 | Rasmussen

[Red Steel]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of American adults believe that the push for alternative energy sources is driving up food prices. The survey found that only 23% disagree while the rest are not sure. These views are generally shared across partisan and demographic lines.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that roughly 30% of corn grown in this nation is being diverted from food consumption to ethanol production. Government subsidies have encouraged this diversion of the food supply and it is having a lifestyle impact on many Americans—particularly lower-income Americans.

Thirty-five percent (35%) of Americans say that rising food prices have had a big impact on their lifestyle. That figure includes 63% of those who earn less than $20,000 annually.

Fifty percent (50%) have had to cut back on other spending to buy groceries. That figure includes 82% of those earning less than $20,000 a year and 63% of those earning $20,000 to $40,000 a year.

Seventy-six percent (76%) expect food prices to increase further in the coming months. Fifty-five percent (55%) say they are following news coverage of the topic Very Closely while another 31% are following it Somewhat Closely.

Rising gas prices have also had an impact on lower-income workers over the past several months. That’s one of the reasons that the Rasmussen Consumer Index shows consumer confidence tumbling to record lows. Sixty percent (60%) of Americans favor a suspension of the federal gasoline tax. Support for gas tax relief is strongest among low-income Americans.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

[ChiMark]

This is a good indication that the public is not
being duped by the MSM/ green brigade.

There is hope.

[RetiredArmy]

I know our weekly grocery bill continues to climb and most items we buy have jumped 15-30 cents per item in the last few weeks.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

It’s not ethanol alone; the rising price of fuel makes food more expensive. Ethanol production is simply adding to the misery, particularly since it takes fossil fuel to produce ethanol.

[garandgal]

This is a good indication that the public is not being duped by the MSM/ green brigade.

What are you talking about? The MSM has been on the forefront of blaming biofuels for increased food costs.

About a month ago, there was an article nearly every day that perpetuated this flat-out lie.

[preacher]

http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/

[garandgal]

Yet another lie...from Slate.com, no less.

[Steve Van Doorn]

what is the actual figure then?

[Mr Ramsbotham]

That's a very illustrative cartoon!

I can't help but wonder if the 1.29 gallons figure reflects only the amount of fossil fuel needed to actually distill the ethanol, or whether it includes the cost of growing, harvesting and transporting it?

This whole scam reminds me of the person who thought we could get all the energy we needed by water electrolysis. When quizzed as to where the electricity would come from he replied, "why, it comes out of the wall, of course!"

[garandgal]

Generally, it is a net energy gain of around 60%. The figures that are bandied about by these nitwits are twenty years old. As far as the net energy gain, a long time critic of ethanol (who was responsible for some of this tripe) said this just a few weeks ago:

http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2008/03/pimentel-pumps-up-ethanol.html

As far as food costs are concerned, take it up with Texas A&M. They really should have given their alumnus, Governor Perry, a heads up before he made a fool out of himself several days after they released this study:

http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/515/RR-08-01.pdf

Food costs are largely being driven by the price of oil; the devaluation of the dollar; increased demand; and crop failures.

[garandgal]

See post 10; one of the heroes of the "Church of the Perpetual Energy Losing Ethanol Myth" has apparently committed the heresy of admitting the facts.

Whatever will you do?

Incidentally, they not only include the cost to grow and transport the crop in their studies...some of the true wackos actually include the energy of the sun.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Thank you.

It doesn't help anyone when we get bad information.

[preacher]

The 1.29 figure is suppossed to be all inclusive as to costs. The web site I put with the cartoon explains it in detail.

It looks like the folly of ethanol produced by corn is being universily recognized.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

I thought the energy came from the corn.

[RU88]

I'm sure everyone would admit that we have to break our addiction to foreign oil. The question that remains is if what we are doing right now with corn based ethanol is improving the situation, or making things worse overall for consumers. Other than a suspension or an elimination of tax on oil and gas, I do not see any short term relief to the consumer. In terms of long term relief there are several things that need to be initiated now: 1) Greatly increase domestic drilling for oil and natural gas while at the same time ensuring that whatever uses these oil based products work more efficiently. 2) If we are going to use ethanol as an additive in gasoline we need to find a more efficient way to produce, or obtain it. The game has been rigged by Washington with farm based subsidies for the production of domestic corn based ethanol while tariffs restrict sugar cane based ethanol which can be produced at a greatly reduced price. 3) Both of my first two points have to be seen as a means to transitioning to a point where another form of energy, i.e. hydrogen, natural gas etc., makes up a greater and greater percentage of cars and trucks produced for use in the United States.

[rsobin]

The price of raw material in a box of cornflakes has increased from 6 to 9 cents in the past 18 months.

[freerepublic_or_die]

Quick glance Alternative Energy Guide so that everybody is on the same page and no one can skew any arguments about the options, pros and cons, and everybody is on the same page.

[ByteMercenary]

I’m with you regarding being a bit suspicious of the ‘success’ in ethanol production. Rarely do the supporters address the side effects of redirecting the output of a significant crop. Nor does one hear about the lower energy potential of the ethanol itself.

In light of these ommissions, it looks like the question should not be ‘Can we produce ethanol’ but ‘Should we produce ethanol’.

[Sacajaweau]

We’ve been saying drill in ANWAR and off the coasts, clean coal, windmills for years. WE are paying the price! Congress simply doesn’t listen.

[mylife]

Tying our agricultural markets and our energy markets together is just plain goofy

[reaganator]

“23% of people polled disagree that grass is green and the sky is blue, 54% know this to be true and the rest are not sure.”

[Jim Noble]

Polls like this should always add, “0.05% of respondents actually have a clue as to what they are talking about”.

[tobyhill]

Laws of supply and demand dictate the cost. If they take 25% of our food supply off the market there will be an increase in price. The American people are less interested in this “Goin Green” crapola than getting out there and fixing the problem. The only problem is we won't get our own oil.