Don’t Burn Food for Fuel – As Seen on National Geographic

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | September 26, 2014 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[NYer]

At the risk of inviting all the usual charges of being politically incorrect, I once again put before you the strange practice of burning food for fuel. The video at the bottom of the post details some of the human costs associated with the increasing use of corn, grains, and other crops for fuel.

There is a tendency for environmentalists of our time to think very narrowly about their issues. It is a praiseworthy thing to seek to reduce pollutants and other things that have negative environmental impacts. The Catechism summons us to good stewardship of the earth, the environment, and our natural resources.

However, the human cost of significant changes (to include higher taxes, the elimination of certain technologies altogether, and other things) should be part of the equation. This is especially true in terms of how it affects the developing world. Yet in my experience, the human cost is almost never presented honestly.

Whatever good intentions environmentalists have, the planet, the climate, and the environment seem to be the overwhelming focus of their concern, at least for the most radical of them. And if human beings are considered at all, we are collectively just a big problem: there are too many of us, we do lots of bad stuff, and it seems that the earth would be better off without us.

So here’s an edgy video, from the National Geographic video site, no less! For the record, let me say again that it is a bad idea to burn food for fuel. And if the video below is correct, it’s going to get worse unless we have an honest conversation and come to some consensus that burning food for fuel IS bad.

Stay tuned; this issue is bound to heat up. I pray that common sense will prevail over what is most certainly a bad idea, one which will harm the poor disproportionally.

I know that I normally use my Friday blog for more light-hearted fare, but this video is what popped up in my video queue today. I’m glad to see the concerns are spreading.

---

The Hidden Costs of Turning Food Into Fuel

[suijuris]

The economics of land use are not debatable

Actually they are. The US only uses a little over 400 million acres, or 20% of its total arable land for crops. This is less than it was in the 1960s. Regarding corn, the yield per acre is around 160 bushels per acre. This is 6X what it was in 1950. The yield continues to improve at 1.9% per year. Some crop specialist believe this yield will double by 2030.

The improvements in yield are not just in corn either. Because of continuously improving yields on most crops, the US uses less arable land area for all crops now than ever before.

Is corn based fuel ethanol the most efficient alternative fuel? I don't think so. Should the government be forcing ethanol as an alternative to so called fossil fuels? No. In fact, there is much evidence to indicate that oil reserves are actually constantly produced by the earth. Of course we could find ourselves using it faster than the earth can produce it, but oil does not come from dead dinosaurs and plants.

Bottom line is the Govt. support of fuel ethanol is to generate more income for farmers. Bankrupt farmers can't grow the other crops that we need for food. What is debatable is whether or not the Govt. should be invovled in the name of food security. Regardless, we are certainly not starving ourselves by using corn to produce ethanol.

Fuel ethanol may not be the most economic solution as an alternative fuel, but we are not using up more arable land and no one is going to starve because of fuel ethanol. In fact, if we were not growing corn to produce fuel ethanol the US would be using less total acres for crops than it does now.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Very good points, all of them. The ethanol subsidies are scandalous and highly destructive of real economic efficiency.