The United States and the European Union have taken a “criminal path” by contributing to an explosive rise in global food prices through using food crops to produce biofuels, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food said today.
At a press conference in Geneva, Jean Ziegler of Switzerland said that fuel policies pursued by the U.S. and the EU were one of the main causes of the current worldwide food crisis.
Ziegler was speaking before a meeting in Bern, Switzerland between UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the heads of key United Nations agencies.
Ziegler said that last year the United States used a third of its corn crop to create biofuels, while the European Union is planning to have 10 percent of its petrol supplied by biofuels.
The Special Rapporteur has called for a five-year moratorium on the production of biofuels.
Read more here: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-28-03.asp
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
What Ziegler omits is that is is Government which has……………..
Economic uncertainties have always, without exception, been produced by government.
And the solution? Less government.
The application? Because we capitalits are moral, we cannot support revolution but reasoned opposition.
If we fail, c’est ca. History shows that we will arise again.
It would be easy to agree Mr Zeigler and say that biofuel production is criminal- a crimme against humanity etc. But his language is over the top. Criminality requires intent. The consequence of biofuel production exacerbating grain shortages caused by droughts was not, as far as I can tell, the intent of those promiting this transfer of food land to fuel land. Though if they continue, now that this consequence can be seen, then intent comes into the picture.
A moratorium against biofuel production is typical top-down central control. Let farmers grow whatever makes them the most profit. Just remove the subsidies and political mandates for biofuel production, and let it operate in a free market.
You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
It’s funny how the U.N. can spot criminals anywhere except within its own organization.
“Just remove the subsidies and political mandates for biofuel production, and let it operate in a free market.”
That would be the death knell for most biofuels then wouldn’t it!!! Good riddance!!! Now let’s put the politicians in jail that started the nonsense! If not for intent then for stupidity! Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics could have foreseen this problem! Never mind the associated environmental damage that is being caused by added land clearing, fertilizer runoff, etc. while not doing one whit to reduce CO2. The whole thing is a farce built on a farce!
While we’re at it let’s jail those that drove the DDT ban that created millions of malaria victims!
The food shortages now caused by bio-fuel production is nothing compared to what would hapen if we did nothing while waiting for the oil to run out.
Gee! I wonder who it was that pressured the US and Europe to implement this folly of burning food?
As I recall it was those global warming kooks and nutcases who said unless we drastically curb CO2 emissions, we’ll all burn up and die. “Use renewables!”, they all screeched. Think Al Gore and the IPCC.
Now CO2 emissions are going up even more due to the land use, it’s getting cooler, and people are starving. The AGW alarmists led by Al Gore and stupid political leaders are directly to blame for this food crisis. If Bush had stood his ground, and not caved in, this problem would not be so bad today.
The reason that grain stocks are being diverted into bio fuels is that the price of crude oil has risen so high. The reason for the rise of crude is that OPEC are curtailing production to push prices. However, no one wants to call OPEC’s actions criminal, only the western world’s.
Furthermore, upto a few years ago, the refrain from some parts of media and acedemia was that agricultural subsidies of the west lead to overproduction of food crops in the west leading to loss of farming livelihood in other countries. But now that the west has started using their food crops for fuel, suddenly the rest of the world find that they cannot do without the subsidized crops of the west.
It really is simple.
If there’s a food shortage, then you don’t burn what’s left.
Given that grain based ethanol even provides a net energy gain is questionable, the price of oil isn’t even a factor. It’s the bloody government subsidies put in place to placate the ecofreaks that are driving this problem. Hope they sleep well at night knowing they are responsible for taking the food out of the mouths of starving children. Then again, they’ve already killed millions via the DDT ban so what’s a few bloated bellies to them!
Actually lets just put Mark in jail so we don’t have to listen to his whining. Given he would have been responsible for massive organochlorine insect resistance in the rest of agriculture – but strangely he is worried about land clearing and fertiliser runoff – why? – and wy bother killing the third world indirectly – just go to Iraq and do a million in “collateral” damage. How many trillion dollars on a war that could have been used to develop how much agriculture?
-yep just another one-sided hypocritical grizzling day in the brave new right wing uptopias. All angst and mock indignation but no real responsibility.
Mark – “That would be the death knell for most biofuels then wouldn’t it!!! Good riddance!!! Now let’s put the politicians in jail that started the nonsense!”
I agree. The sooner biofuels are put to rest the sooner the real alternatives can get the investment they need. Biofuels can only be a niche fuel where electric propulsion cannot be used.
“It’s funny how the U.N. can spot criminals anywhere except within its own organization.”
Woody, you are gentleman and a scholar.
Alarmist Creep – “just go to Iraq and do a million in “collateral” damage. How many trillion dollars on a war that could have been used to develop how much agriculture?”
Biofuels are an attempt to preserve the same corrupt infrastructure that feels the need to invade countries for our oil that they have inconventiently in their lands. They also appeal to people who want handouts in the form of farm subsidies.
Ender, the sooner subsidised and politically mandated biofuels are put to rest, the sooner rising oil prices will make alternative power sources economic to develop – without (taxpayer funded) subsidies or politically mandated quotas.
Trying to jump the gun is triggering huge misallocatons of limited resources (eg foodland) with horrific consequences for the world’s poor.
FOOLS! This is about OIL! The biofuel industry would still exist if there wasn’t subsidies. When you have cheap food and expensive oil, you have incentive to access any energy ‘feedstock’, whatever form it has. It is written nowhere that a farmer is destined to produce food. The reality is he is a producer of an energy commodity in grains. Energy to power humans, animals and industry.
Demonise the biofuel industry all you like, the problem started here when you all assumed oil would never become scarce and expensive. The chickens are coming home to roost … a great time to be a farmer. You can always make a career change.
I agree that we should think about removing subsidies for biofuels (should def do it with corn-based biofuel).
But I think you are dreaming if you think this will be the death knell for biofuels. A report by ABARE into Australia’s 350million litre biofuel target about 6 years ago suggested that biofuels were not economic, and would not be economic until the price of oil was higher than $40 a barrel.
That was six years ago, and the price is now 3x that level.
Good point about farming being energy production Aaron. But we are not all posting here are against biofuels as such. And yes, it is a promising time to be a farmer.
Its not so much that a limited amount of biofuels can work it is the idea that they are the silver bullet for dwindling oil reserves.
To me biofuels in their present form are just a green washing exercise. The hope for people that do not understand the issues is that when petrol runs out/becomes too expensive we can just grow all the biofuel we need and this is the green option. ie:we do not have to change anything, neither the cars we drive, the distance we drive them or the user experience of running a ‘normal’ IC car.
Along with the horrendously polluting tar sands, biofuels are the last attempt for the status quo to preserve itself in the face of the reality of Peak Oil. Ultimately it may be the greatest mistake we make however as long as some people get filthy rich along the way is looks all steam ahead for biofuels.
Time Magazine recently dumped big time on biofuels, full article here…
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html “The Clean Energy Scam”
As for all greenies loving biofuels – many have been protesting for some time.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm
Greenpeace and “deforestation diesel”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtPvHu9un7Y
http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2006/09/22/deforestation-diesel/
So much for greenies loving biofuels !
But Aaron makes a good point – it ain’t that simple. In a world that’s competitive for or short on oil – it will be part of the mix. And would not the free market, so loved here, allow farmers to grow what they like?
And if the result if policy is to clear the Amazon to do it or starve the third world to death; well that’s clearly immoral, self defeating on carbon emissions and poor policy.
But as usual we feel compelled to polarise the debate. Does it have to be either or? What about a mix?
In the long term – are Australians glad we have some capacity in energy substitution in terms of sugar cane ethanol in our inventory of liquid fuels – or not? Long run – we’re going to need it.
http://www.finance.gov.au/fleetmonitoringbody/e10_policy.html
It’s the greenie fools who are supposed to be the irrational ones, not you guys. Do you even understand the basics of current food markets? Biofuels add pennies to the cost of food. High fuel and fertiliser costs add dollars.
The only hope for reducing fuel and fertiliser costs (and thus food costs) is to increase the pool of available fuels.
Biofuels are only marginally about food. The big thrust in biofuels is using non-edible feedsocks like cellulosic biowaste and algal oils instead of food.
Luke – “But Aaron makes a good point – it ain’t that simple. In a world that’s competitive for or short on oil – it will be part of the mix.”
It will be part of the mix for sure. For a lot of applications it will not be economical to give an electric car the required range. A chemical battery is far and away the highest energy density possible so biofuels can power the small minority of vehicle applications where range greater than say 500km is absolutely required and is not negotiable. For these applications a plug in hybrid is the most efficient as the biofuel motor can be very small and run at peak effiency charging the batteries. In this way only a small part of our agriculture would need to be devoted to biofuels and if farmed in a sustainable way then this would be sustainable in the long run. Additionally the IC motor could easily run on natural gas as well further reducing the
For the rest of us that only travel on average less than 20km a trip, a battery electric car is completely adequate as practical BEVs with ranges of 100km or more are available right now. If we could restrict ourselves to a sensible mix of BEVs and PHEVs then we could eliminate foreign oil entirely.
Finally if we do have a large fleet of BEVs and PHEVs that are eqipped with V2G then they can stabilise the grid by supplying the storage required for completely reliable renewable grid.
Luke: Given he would have been responsible for massive organochlorine insect resistance in the rest of agriculture – but strangely he is worried about land clearing and fertiliser runoff – why?
Never said I was for wholesale spraying of DDT. The problem was that the greenies took the intent of the original controls too far and effectively barred third world countries from using DDT for indoor pest control. Millions of unnecessary deaths from malaria and huge economic damage have occurred as a result. Now that DDT has now been reintroduced as a control agent in the last fwe years, significant gains have been witnessed in the fight against malaria.
– and wy bother killing the third world indirectly – just go to Iraq and do a million in “collateral” damage. How many trillion dollars on a war that could have been used to develop how much agriculture?
Luke; and wy bother killing the third world indirectly – just go to Iraq and do a million in “collateral” damage. How many trillion dollars on a war that could have been used to develop how much agriculture?
Never said I was for the Iraq war either. I agree the money spent there would be much better spent for other purposes. And as to the suffering, it is a case of damned if you do, damned if you do not.
And yes biofuels may have a role to play but subsidized ones should not. The only truly viable solutions will be ones that are economically justifiable on their own merit.
Al Fin – “Do you even understand the basics of current food markets? Biofuels add pennies to the cost of food. High fuel and fertiliser costs add dollars.”
Yes maybe for us however a lot of the surplus grain and corn that used to be sent to the third world as food aid is not not available or priced out of the reach of aid agencies. This means that the restriced supply with increased demand from the third world the price of food is skyrocketing. Couple this with energy costs also increasing you have the recipe for disaster.
If it is not criminal, it is definitely idiocy. But that is about what we can expect from our “representatives” in DC.
Perhaps they will fund my idea:
http://depriest-mpu.blogspot.com/2008/04/let-them-eat-coal.html
When you have mountains of surplus, expensive, subsidised food, the world curses you but accepts it for handouts.
When you can convert it to fuel and get CCs for it the handouts stop but the cursing doubles.
DIYD–DIYD!
Government policy on biofuels can be summed up in three words:
Ready, Fire, Aim!
Here in Canada, politicians don’t know what to do as they’re caught between their dogma and reality:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080430.wethanol30/BNStory/National/home
The only problem with biofuel production is mandated volumetric targets and subsidy (now that we do indeed have food shortages). If food is cheap enough on the free market to make fuel, then it is altogether too cheap.
Agriculture needed some impetous, low commodity prices until now have stifled production. The bio-fuel market has at least put some confidence, and money back into farming, something vital to the continued feeding of a growing world population. The biofuel industry has merely shown up how slim a margin we have in adequate food supplies. With only approx 2.5% of grain used for fuel, biofuels have not caused the crisis, only highlighted the complaceny on food stocks.
Rice to my knowledge hasn’t been touted as a biofuel supply, yet the precarious supply has sent prices up.
What’ll we do when we can’t use barley for beer?
Lets have us a lynchin’. We’ll sell tickets and hand out carbon offsets as party favors.
“The reason for the rise of crude is that OPEC are curtailing production to push prices. However, no one wants to call OPEC’s actions criminal, only the western world’s.”
Be careful of falling into the lazy ways of the Alarmists and simply making up “facts”.
Check out the following:
http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm
OPEC production has increased from 27.03 MB/D last March to 29.89 MB/D this March. The current price of oil has more to do with demand than supply – that and the uncertainty created by the doom and gloom spread by the Alarmists.
LOL. One year you are a hero for promoting sustainable energy, the next you are a villian for starving the poor. And of couse in the name of political correctness, they do not mention Brazil, where they run most of their cars on biofuel. Go nuclear!
Got this message from BirdLife International this morning :
” Paul Buckley, an Africa specialist with the RSPB, said: “Africa boasts spectacular and invaluable wildlife assets with unquantified benefits for her peoples. Biofuel developments have already caused the widespread destruction of many unique habitats without necessarily cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
“Loss of the Tana Delta for another unproven biofuel and to a scheme which could well fail, would be a disaster both to hopes of tackling climate change and for those so dependent on the area for their livelihoods.”
” Plans to grow biofuel crops on an idyllic river plain in Kenya underestimate the cost, overestimate the profit and could be illegal if implemented as currently proposed, consultants say in a new report.
The project, to turn 50,000 acres (80 square miles) of the mostly pristine Tana River Delta over to sugarcane, ignores fees for water use, compensation for lost livelihoods, chemical pollution and loss of tourism and wildlife.”
http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2008/05/tana_delta_report.html
Another great piece by Rex Murphy giving it to the alarmists and their so called solutions!
Forgot the link!