[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3750194.ece

One of the main factors behind the surge in prices is the increased use of crops for biofuels as an alternative energy source in developed countries, although Asia’s economic boom and drought in some leading food-producing nations have added to the shortages.

Almost all of the rise in global corn production from 2004 to 2007 went to biofuels in the United States. As of today, all petrol and diesel sold in Britain will have to contain at least 2.5 per cent biofuel from crops.

The article goes on to say...

It is in the Third World that the effect of record prices of wheat, corn, rice and other crops is being felt. In recent weeks food-related riots have broken out in a growing list of countries, including Egypt and Pakistan. The Prime Minister of Haiti, the poorest country in the Americas, was fired at the weekend, accused of failing to rein in soaring costs and boost domestic food production.

Bio-fuel is a contentious subject. The amount of land needed is staggering. I seem to recall reading that an area the size of Yorkshire would supply enough bio-fuel for UK motorists for just 1 year. And, of course, that would be land that is currently used for crop production.

We will end up in the same situation as the 3rd World with cash crops - food production halted to make way for coffee etc that can be sold abroad and thus increase income. Although this leads to some people becoming wealthier, that is offset by the rise in local food costs, and food shortages, which affects the entire population.

So, should the west press on with the use of bio-fuel regardless of the fact that it is causing extreme hardship in 3rd World countries?

[JimBob]

NO - Biofules are not even economically feasible - electric cars are much more efficient and less polluting. Solar panels that can use UV radiation as well as visible light that is present even with a heavy cloud cover are quite sensible. So are electrical wave-generation farms. Geothermal energy from ALL parts of the earth is already developed. WHY CAN'T PEOPLE READ THE DATA?

The burning of ANYTHING creates green-house gases - elemental hydrogen engines produce water vapor that cause heat retention in the earth's atmosphere.

[that mad man]

I don't like the idea of growing crops for use as bio-fuels, I think growing crops to feed people should be the priority.

I'm not sure about any accurate data though that shows bio-fuel growing has caused extreme hardship in 3rd World countries and wonder if a lot of it is just anecdotal media hype. There are shortages of food for some and people are suffering and yet there is plenty of food available to feed all, it just needs to be shared right. The global rise in food prices is mainly down to the fact they are commodities and traded for profit.  Its not so much that there is a shortage now just that prices go up so people cant then afford the food, that seems to me where the crisis lies.

I wonder how much land is now used in growing crops for us to use a vegetable oil in cooking? Corn oil has become very popular over the past few decades, most big fast food chains use it and so do many others so a lot of land has already been used to produce oil. Its the words bio-fuel I think that causes the problem.

Sorry but I'm now being cynical, will we now see a big campaign from the GM producers I wonder. []

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

The global rise in food prices is mainly down to the fact they are commodities and traded for profit.  Its not so much that there is a shortage now just that prices go up so people cant then afford the food, that seems to me where the crisis lies.

Commodity trading is also certainly an issue. But, it must be noted, that prices will only rise significantly in futures trading if a shortage is expected.

Note what was said in the article I quoted from...

Almost all of the rise in global corn production from 2004 to 2007 went to biofuels in the United States.

How better to guarantee a shortage!

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

NO - Biofules are not even economically feasible - electric cars are much more efficient and less polluting.

Electric cars are fine for shopping, or popping round to see Great Aunt Mary on Sunday afternoons; but for long journeys they are totally impractical. There needs to be a quantum leap in technology to make them a truly viable proposition.

Incidentally, on a test run from London to Vienna, the Toyota Prius - flagship of the Green Holier-than-thou Brigade - used more fuel than a 520d BMW.

[another_someone]

Incidentally, on a test run from London to Vienna, the Toyota Prius - flagship of the Green Holier-than-thou Brigade - used more fuel than a 520d BMW.

There have been many such examples where the Prius has performed badly on long distance runs.  The Prius excels in an urban environment, where a lot of time is spend standing at traffic lights, or slowing down for traffic; but at constant it will always be at a disadvantage.

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

Incidentally, on a test run from London to Vienna, the Toyota Prius - flagship of the Green Holier-than-thou Brigade - used more fuel than a 520d BMW.

There have been many such examples where the Prius has performed badly on long distance runs.  The Prius excels in an urban environment, where a lot of time is spend standing at traffic lights, or slowing down for traffic; but at constant it will always be at a disadvantage.

And they're ugly.

[another_someone]

And they're ugly.

Ugly is at least interesting, and often has its own charm - the trouble with most modern cars is not that they are ugly (just think of the 2CV6 for ugly), but that they are boring.

[sooyeah]

Interesting I heard today that actually the reason why food Price's have increased so much, is actually because the west is consuming more, that makes sense to me; the reality is we make enough food, but the west is eating it all and pushing up the price.

I was listening to an environmentalist yesterday, who said that he would rather people used petrol, than bio-fuels, because he thought that bio-fuels caused more pollution. When asked why, he said ´because land that was used for farming food, was now being used for bio-fuels and some people(apparently) had to clear more rain forest to make up the land used for bio-fuels´.

I disagree, the rain forest clearing was happening anyway, long before bio-fuels came along, according to a lady I also listened to yesterday, involved in sugar cain they use the same crop to make sugar and the fuel, I think because it's different parts of the plant used for each, someone will have to clarify that though.

But anyway the reporter then said to this environmentalist "So what do you think we should do? Because you don't want us to use bio-fuels or petrol, so what's you're answer?" and you know what the environmentalist said?

He said "we need to reduce demand!"

Right, his answer is:- ´don´t drive anymore´. That's his answer- we all need to stop driving.

I am a ´community of solutions´ person, I really think there is a place for bio-fuels, fuel-cells, electric-taxis, better buses, trains and trams, so to me it's the best answer in best area.

I will add that I really don't think bio-fuel in anyway have helped push up food prices, and producers don't have to sell at market rates, they can sell at what ever price they want to(especially the subsidised farmers, they get paid regardless) others must break even that´s your minimum price-the breakeven point, adding on a little for transport can hardly account for the whole increase.

So I blame:- Greed and(as that guy said today on the radio) over consumption by the west.

[that mad man]

A small quote from today's news on the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7351766.stm

"Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has rejected allegations that biofuels are responsible for the recent rise in global food prices.

President Lula said "allegations that global food prices were rising because of biofuels were baseless." "Food prices were going up," he said, "because people in developing countries like China, India and Brazil itself were simply eating more as their economic conditions improved."

I think that sums it up well, "bio-fuel" seems to be the current buzzword for people to moan about.

The Prius was not designed for long distance use. The suspension is hard and over long distances it soon becomes uncomfortable, no luggage space either!

[another_someone]

So where do you place China and India - are they now in the West?  It has now been suggested that sometime around 2006 China overtook the USA as the primary producer of CO₂, and by inference, probably the primary energy consumer.

Transport (in total, not just cars, but trains, lorries, planes, etc.) in total consume no more energy that that which you use to heat your home and office.

Big countries (such as China, the USA, and Russia) ofcourse have a greater dependence on long distance transportation (in that respect, ever greater political and economic integration within Europe will also place greater demands on the transportation system).

[another_someone]

"Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has rejected allegations that biofuels are responsible for the recent rise in global food prices.

President Lula said "allegations that global food prices were rising because of biofuels were baseless."

Well, he would do, wouldn't he - Brazil was one of the pioneers in bio-fuel usage.

[that mad man]

Yes, I can see that he would advocate its use as its increasing his countries wealth.

Trouble is, we have no actual data on the bio-fuel effect, as I have said most of it is just anecdotal and not based on any factual scientific evidence.

In one respect we should be happy about the rice shortage as rice growing is one of the biggest producers of methane gas in the atmosphere. Forget the farting cows!

[sooyeah]

In one respect we should be happy about the rice shortage as rice growing is one of the biggest producers of methane gas in the atmosphere. Forget the farting cows!

Sorry that doesnt make sense, we haven´t grown less rice this year, there has not been a reduction in rice production, the gas level are the same. What are you talking about? Oh and also rice feeds far more people, than cows do, plus you have a massive amount of land useage to produce the food, to feed the cows.
On no level, does what you have said there, make sense.

[that mad man]

In Asia over the past 2 decades rice production has stagnated and we now have the lowest stocks of rice for over 30 years. Production was cut back with lots of "paddy fields" being kept dormant, supply and demand dictated that they were not profitable to farm. Because of rising prices it has now become profitable to farm again and its estimated that it will take around 4 years for that production to recover and stocks to be normal again.

We may not have grown less rice this year but over the past few decades it has declined by arond1/3 and that accounts for a lot of the problems. It is also well know that growing rice also creates plenty of methane. At between 50 and 100 million tonnes of methane a year, rice agriculture is a big source of atmospheric methane, possibly the biggest of the man-made methane sources. The production of rice this year is set to rise because of the crisis, the first time it has risen substantially in ages so the levels of methane produced will rise accordingly.

I know rice feeds more people than cows and also that over 90% of the grain produced goes on feeding animals for meat. That however is a different matter.

[another_someone]

Trouble is, we have no actual data on the bio-fuel effect, as I have said most of it is just anecdotal and not based on any factual scientific evidence.

Unfortunately, these things are difficult to prove, even in hindsight, let alone at the time it is happening.  There is no agreement about what caused the 1929/1930 slump, or what caused the famine in Ireland, so why should we be able to agree about this.

The trouble is that there are always lots of cross-related influences, and you can never prove that one factor above all else was solely responsible.

In one respect we should be happy about the rice shortage as rice growing is one of the biggest producers of methane gas in the atmosphere. Forget the farting cows!

Insofar as rice is grown in wetlands, it is an argument for reducing wetlands in general, but increasingly wetlands are becoming protected areas, and politicians and environmentalists are even talking about reinstating historic wetlands (e.g. in Norfolk).

[sooyeah]

I know rice feeds more people than cows and also that over 90% of the grain produced goes on feeding animals for meat. That however is a different matter.

Maybe, maybe not, ratio of people feed to methan produced, will certainly be higher with cows, my point.

[lyner]

just think of the 2CV6 for ugly)

How dare you sir - it'll be pistols at dawn if you continue in that vein!
The only thing wrong with my old 2CV W was the missing hole in the floor for passengers to help it up hills by running.
The greenest car in the world is the one you already have which doesn't involve building another one.

[sooyeah]

How about this?

The food security, subsidies problem.

What if Europe keeps it subsidies, but we ban the export of all subsidised produce from the E.U.
If you did that, then food prices in Europe would become cheaper, we would resolve the food security issue, but even better poor countries wouldn't have European farmers dumping cheap food on them and destroying there markets.
European farmers also wouldn't have to worry about foreign farmer invading there markets as no one would be able to supply as cheaply as they could, any European surplus can be given to the UN, for food relief in times of disaster etc.

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

When I lived in Uganda I could have made 3 times as much by changing from growing matoke (cooking bananas - a staple foodstuff) to coffee. I could have paid my workers more too. However, all the coffee would have been exported and there would have been over 1000 acres less food production for local consumption (not just by my workers). Considering I was getting approximately 35,000-40,000lbs of bananas per acre, that's a lot of food to lose. Get a few dozen producers doing that and suddenly you have a problem.