HOW BIOFUELS COULD STARVE THE POOR.

Reporting on the food crisis in Haiti last week, The Washington Times introduced its readership to the term "Clorox hunger," described as "a hunger so painful it feels like your stomach is being eaten by bleach or battery acid." It's horrifying stuff. But that's what the global food crisis -- which many economists now believe will push 100 million people into "absolute poverty," and which will do far worse to those already below the absolute poverty line -- looks like. Higher food prices mean less food. In America, that's an annoyance. In other countries, that's a death sentence. And it's in no small part our fault.

Somewhere between a quarter and a third of the run-up in prices is the product of increased US demand for biofuels. When you demand a lot more corn for energy, there's less of it for food. And as Tom Philpott notes, "When farmers scramble to plant corn to cash in on the ethanol boom, they plant less of other stuff like soy and even wheat, putting upward pressure on their prices."

So what's with the demand for corn? An article in this month's Foreign Affairs, entitled "How Boifuels Could Starve the Poor," lays it out, and shows how the situation could become much worse:

In the United States and other large economies, the ethanol industry is artificially buoyed by government subsidies, minimum production levels, and tax credits. High oil prices over the past few years have made ethanol naturally competitive, but the U.S. government continues to heavily subsidize corn farmers and ethanol producers. Direct corn subsidies equaled $8.9 billion in 2005. Although these payments will fall in 2006 and 2007 because of high corn prices, they may soon be dwarfed by the panoply of tax credits, grants, and government loans included in energy legislation passed in 2005 and in a pending farm bill designed to support ethanol producers. The federal government already grants ethanol blenders a tax allowance of 51 cents per gallon of ethanol they make, and many states pay out additional subsidies.

Consumption of ethanol in the United States was expected to reach over 6 billion gallons in 2006. (Consumption of biodiesel was expected to be about 250 million gallons.) In 2005, the U.S. government mandated the use of 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2012; in early 2007, 37 governors proposed raising that figure to 12 billion gallons by 2010; and last January, President Bush raised it further, to 35 billion gallons by 2017. Six billion gallons of ethanol are needed every year to replace the fuel additive known as MTBE, which is being phased out due to its polluting effects on ground water.

That's just a ton of corn, which means it's a ton of arable land being used for the corn, and it's a ton resources that could be used for food instead going towards biofuels. Of course, corn isn't the only biofuel around. it's not even a very good one. Sugar cane, which Brazil uses, is far superior, but we've slapped a massive tariff on the stuff in order to support our farmers. As the article notes, wood chips and switchgrass are also hopeful substitutes, but lobbying from the corn industry has effectively crushed research into such alternatives.

For awhile, this just seemed a case of inefficient subsidies. A waste of money, to be sure, but little more. Now, however, it's part of Clorox hunger, a contributor to global starvation, suffering, and even death. Now, in other words, it's a human rights issue. If we insist on inefficiently subsidizing massive quantities of corn-based ethanol, hundreds of millions of people will go hungry. As populations grow pained and restless, productivity will suffer, development will slow, stability will erode, governments will be overthrown (there are already food riots wordlwide), and we can expect an increase in civil wars and regional conflicts, which will kill millions more. All because Congress doesn't want to piss off corn farmers.

And you can take your constant harping about "ethanol subsidies" and stick it in your ear. I could care less whether ethanol is subsidized or not. The existence or lack of same of subsidies is simply irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that crop price rises are not the biggest factor in food price rises.

If you're a real conservative you would care about Ethanol subsidies, because that's the only thing that's propping up the ethanol industry...The American Tax payer.... and the only people defending these subsidies are commies like Jake Caldwell over at Center for American Progress. if you're really a PhD chemist, you'd actually have some real numbers to show me.

“...if you’re really a PhD chemist, you’d actually have some real numbers to show me.”

Try these:

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/2007/FoodCornPrices.pdf

Note particularly the information on page 9.

You’re right, of course, and time will bear that out.

Meanwhile, you’re arguing in an enviroment similar to arguing the truth about ‘Global Warming’ in the MSM.

Those who disagree with you are simply running around, covering their ears, and shouting LA LA LA.

If a corn lobby study is all you have, that's pretty sad. The corn guys must pay you pretty well to believe the nonsense of Ethanol mandates. The National Tax Payers Union among others I've listed tabulate how much the mandates cost the tax payer

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=855&org_name=NTU

"If a corn lobby study is all you have, that's pretty sad. The corn guys must pay you pretty well to believe the nonsense of Ethanol mandates."

Let me get this straight. You're saying that statistical data, NOT DERIVED by the lobbying organization, are false JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE QUOTED in an article by the lobbying organizaion??? If you are, then you are displaying an absolutely breathtaking degree of intellectual dishonesty.

The "corn lobby" pays me nothing. I'm not associated with farming of any sort (other than as a consumer of food).

Your "statistical data" doesn't mention how much money is taken from the taxpayers. Moreover, the nonsense idea that high fuel prices and speculation are causing high ethanol prices is complete bunk, b/c if you bothered reading the NTU report, you'd see Ethanol was still overpriced from raping the taxpayer in the mid 80's when oil crashed. I'm not the one being intellectually dishonest here, it's you who continue to fail mention the impact ethanol has had on the taxpayer in the past 30 years.

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=855&org_name=NTU [SNIP]

It has not mattered when each time ethanol had a rationale, that rationale either became invalid or the product could not do what proponents claimed; it still surmounted every obstacle due to gigantic political clout. When oil prices crashed in a glut of oil in the mid-1980s, the tax subsidy kept ethanol in use for lead replacement. Ethanol was there when the feds claimed that oxygenation should be required for RFG [reformulated gasoline]. When its too-high RVP [Reid vapor pressure] hurt air quality goals, it was given a waiver. Now, after nearly three decades, the feds say we do not need oxygenation of RFG, but ethanol has won mandated sales increases that go on infinitum.[sic][35]

"I'm not the one being intellectually dishonest here, it's you who continue to fail mention the impact ethanol has had on the taxpayer in the past 30 years."

Sorry, old boy, but you keep trying to change the subject. The subject is "does the use of corn to produce ethanol account for the recent rise in food prices". You've been everywhere but there. Try actually talking about the topic under discussion.

You've got one more shot to address the issue, and then you're going in my personal twit bin.

I've already addressed issue "does the use of corn to produce ethanol account for the recent rise in food prices"

And you're already in my Squish bin anyway, so why don't you go find a taxpayer who actually cares about what you have to say.

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.