The hood of a car running with Bio-Ethanol is seen in March 2007. The boom in ethanol fuels in the United States and elsewhere could have devastating effects on food prices and worsen world hunger, a new study argues.(AFP/File/Fabrice Coffrini)
Posted on 04/03/2007 10:14:36 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The boom in ethanol fuels in the United States and elsewhere could have devastating effects on food prices and worsen world hunger, a new study argues.
The study by C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer of the University of Minnesota said the rush into ethanol threatens to divert massive amounts of corn and other food crops into biofuels.
The researcher write in the May/June edition of Foreign Affairs that governments should stop incentives for ethanol until biofuels can be economically produced from sources other than corn and soybeans.
"Resorting to biofuels is likely to exacerbate world hunger," they said. "Several studies by economists at the World Bank and elsewhere suggest that caloric consumption among the world's poor declines by about half of one percent whenever the average prices of all major food staples increase by one percent."
The researchers said the surge in energy prices along with subsidies and incentives given by governments has pushed farmers into diverting massive amounts of corn, oilseeds and other crops into ethanol.
In the US, this affects corn, but in Brazil it involves sugar cane and in Africa cassava.
"If, all other things being equal, the prices of staple foods increased because of demand for biofuels, the number of food-insecure people in the world would rise by over 16 million for every percentage increase in the real prices of staple foods," they wrote.
"That means that 1.2 billion people could be chronically hungry by 2025 -- 600 million more than previously predicted."
They said the biofuel craze could push up corn prices 20 percent by 2010 and 41 percent by 2020. This could affect other crops such as rice or wheat, since farmers are converting their fields to corn or other plants more profitable because of their potential for ethanol.
"In the United States, the growth of the biofuel industry has triggered increases not only in the prices of corn, oilseeds, and other grains but also in the prices of seemingly unrelated crops and products," they said.
"The use of land to grow corn to feed the ethanol maw is reducing the acreage devoted to other crops. Food processors who use crops such as peas and sweet corn have been forced to pay higher prices to keep their supplies secure, costs that will eventually be passed on to consumers."
The authors said the ethanol market is further distorted by subsidies that make diversion of crops even more profitable.
"Rather than promoting more mandates, tax breaks, and subsidies for biofuels, the US government should make a major commitment to substantially increasing energy efficiency in vehicles, homes, and factories; promoting alternative sources of energy, such as solar and wind power; and investing in research to improve agricultural productivity and raise the efficiency of fuels derived from cellulose," the authors said.
The hood of a car running with Bio-Ethanol is seen in March 2007. The boom in ethanol fuels in the United States and elsewhere could have devastating effects on food prices and worsen world hunger, a new study argues.(AFP/File/Fabrice Coffrini)
or is it a stealth move to control population growth thru whatever means deemed necessary by those with an agenda to eventually depopulate the earth while claiming they only seek to protect and preserve it *-?
Hungry are hardest hit.
The article said — “WASHINGTON (AFP) - The boom in ethanol fuels in the United States and elsewhere could have devastating effects on food prices and worsen world hunger, a new study argues.”
I wondered and speculated on the same thing in another posting about this aspect of ethanol. But, someone from a farming family or background said that the farmers had a right to get more money for their product and prices were already too depressed as it was.
Thereofore, it sounded as if this situation (of creating “devastating effects on food prices and worsen world hunger) didn’t really matter, as long as the farmers got more money (as that seemed to be the primary consideration).
Regards,
Star Traveler
One more thing...
To me, at least, it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to convert massive amounts of food products to fuel products — with the growing population we have in the world.
I would say that the smarter thing would be to deal with “fuel as fuel” and “food as food” — and work within each of those categories on their own and not rob one to feed the other.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Nah. They’ll be too drunk to notice.
Farmers finally find a profitable market for their corn and suddenly the world is starving. What changed?
Farmers are making money on a crop they were literally giving away.
Africa and other nations have been getting subsidized grain (if not free) for decades. For all the food we have thrown at them they are still starving. So that 10% blend of ethanol in my gas tank is having no effect on the starving people because they were for some reason starving beforehand.
But the high price of oil has nothing to do with people getting hungry?
This is more class warfare dribble. We could give away literally everything we grow to starving people and they would still find something to complain about.
I believe Fidel has voiced the same theory. therefore, it’s crap.
Is Fidel a Green?
The pity of propaganda like this “millions to starve as a result of ethanol” rubbish is that it is so easily proven to be rubbish:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Corn/gallery/gallery2004/cornutilization.gif
Matter of fact, I really suggest that people start educating themselves about this stuff in detail. The USDA keeps detailed records of uses for crops, and they have for about a century now. There’s tons of stats out there.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Corn/2004baseline.htm
Most of the corn grown in the US is not fed to humans. Most soybeans grown in the US are not fed to humans. They’re animal feed. There’s a huge amount of corn that is never even combined for the grain — it is chopped for silage for cattle feed - the corn, the cob, the stalk, the works.
http://www.secureourenergy.com/files/Undiscovered.pdf
Not to mention all the African countries that turned their noses up at the “genetically modified” “Frankenstein” grain we offered them.
What do you mean?
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the claim. The amount of land needed to grow the corn necessary will deplete the topsoil at a more rapid rate. Once it’s gone, you won’t have the ability to farm it.
Last year, 20 percent of the U.S. corn harvest went to make ethanol -- a figure that may rise to half within two years if all the new distilleries are built, says Iowa State's Wisner. The U.S. is the largest corn grower and exporter, accounting for almost 40 percent of the world supply.
Corn Inventories Fall
The Agriculture Department predicts that by Sept. 1 U.S. farmers will have less corn on hand than at any time since 1996, when inventories were their lowest in 50 years and prices rose above $5 a bushel. The department says global inventories this year will be their lowest since 1978. Corn futures for March delivery traded at $4.07 a bushel as of 12.51 p.m. New York time on the Chicago Board of Trade, compared with a 10-year average of $2.34.
Wisner says so many farmers now are planting corn that it's tightening supplies of other crops. Prices of soybeans, another component of animal feed, have jumped 41 percent since September. Soybeans are in more demand as a biofuel too. The Agriculture Department estimates that 13 percent of U.S. soybean oil in 2007 will be used for biodiesel, an alternative fuel derived from vegetable oils. Last year's crop was the third-largest in history, 78.3 million acres (31.7 million hectares). To keep corn stocks from shrinking to zero over the next two years, the U.S. must add 12 million more acres, Credit Suisse analyst David Nelson wrote in a Jan. 17 report. In addition, use of animal feed must drop 14 percent and U.S. corn exports must decline 35 percent.
The result, according to Nelson: A ``massive'' liquidation in U.S. meat production and a shift to lower-cost suppliers in Brazil. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIgirvhPi0T4
It is crap, and it is based on the notion that if farmers make more money for their crops, then the world will starve.
What will happen is, farmers will be more prosperous.
And the poorer peasant farmers, are those that desperately need to see a reversal in the fall in real grain prices over the past few decades.
We offered to GIVE tons of food aid to African countries. They refused it because it was “genetically modified”. The Euro Green weinies convinced them it was poison.
Why shouldn't a farmer think about getting more money? He or she is in business.
This article does not even allow for the notion that if a market opens up for biofuels, then the supply of crops for it will INCREASE, as a market develops. Therefore as supply increases, prices will stabalise or fall, but more people overall will be making profits.
You said — “This article does not even allow for the notion that if a market opens up for biofuels, then the supply of crops for it will INCREASE, as a market develops. Therefore as supply increases, prices will stabalise or fall, but more people overall will be making profits.”
I just read the article here (posted just up above) —
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIgirvhPi0T4
It doesn’t sound good to me. Just on my own, it never has made any sense to convert food products into fuel. I say drill for oil and don’t “burn corn”. Use the corn for the food chain. I can see from this article that all kinds of problems are going to happen “up and down the entire food chain”.
In fact, it looks like the beef industry in the U.S. is going to be given away to another country as a result of this, too. So, what benefit is it to decimate all other sections of the food chain, in order to produce fuel out of a basic food of this food chain? It doesn’t make any sense at all.
From the way I see it, it’s a totally stupid thing to do. It’s going to be big-time trouble for us, soon.
Drill the oil that we have and don’t burn our food.
Regards,
Star Traveler
If more people starve to death, then the world will need less energy. Problem solved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
