digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at guardian.co.uk

Leaked Report: Biofuels Are the Cause of Global Food Crisis

guardian.co.uk — Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% — far more than previously estimated — according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian. The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • danno1982, on 07/03/2008, -2/+29Supply and demand works again.
    • 0xbaadf00d, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6It's pretty ***** up. There was no demand for ethanol, so they artificially ***** with the supply by mandating that part of the corn crop must go to ethanol. Now the markets where there actually WAS a demand for corn have LESS supply!
      • Jacare, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7don't forget that corn has a terrible yield in terms of ethanol production compared to sugarcane, so they need a whole lot more corn
      • Hangly, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7If by "terrible yield" you mean "negative yield."

        The only way ethanol is remotely economical is through government corn subsidies.
  • cshaaban, on 07/03/2008, -1/+59Who didn't see this coming?
    • prisoner24601, on 07/04/2008, -0/+12The problem is actually really simple. The first presidential primary is in Iowa. The ethanol lobby forces candidates to commit to ethanol or they have no chance of getting any traction. As strange as this seems, the stupid primary system giving Iowa this "blessing" every cycle has made BURNING FOOD a major energy strategy for the US regardless of how stupid it is.

      Rolling Stone did a great article on this:
      http://digg.com/environment/The_Ethanol_Scam_and_T ...
    • brad3378, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Washington D.C.

      ............but can we blame them?
      Politicians are Lawyers not Engineers, Accountants, Scientists, or Economists.
      Therefore they shouldn't be expected to understand what's going on.
      Their job is to create conflicts and bad laws so their lawyer friends have job security.
    • ajb2015, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1well two weeks ago there was a report that it was only responsible for 3% of the increase or something.
    • jamamiss, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0Even my 77 year-old mother knew that was the cause of the higher food prices.
    • NuttySquirrel, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Half the people on here who thought there's no way using food for fuel would cost us anything.
    • SpinningHead, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1It's not biofuel thats the problem. Its making biofuel from food stock rather than from agricultural waste products. Rising fuel prices also drive up the price of food thats delivered to market. Nearly half of Americans also eat fast food daily. Thats generally meat raised on land in 3rd world countries. Beef is a hugely inefficient food stock that consumes huge amounts of edible grains.
      • brad3378, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2I have a "beef" with your beef argument.
        Not all beef is grown with harvested grains.
        Many farmers let their cattle eat wild grass because it is free.
      • SpinningHead, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1You're correct, Brad. I try to buy that kind of beef when Im at the store. I'm referring to large feed lots and the sources used for most fast food chains.
    • Bodhinature, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Yes, yet another leaked document confirming what everyone with a brain already knew.
  • deadfrank, on 07/03/2008, -8/+4so no more corn?
    • TheInformer, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Corn has one of the lowest amounts of sugar in it for ethanol production of any plant. Why do you think Brasil is using sugar cane? Better question: why can't we learn from other's mistakes and research and do it better?
  • csteele, on 07/03/2008, -1/+16yeah, I gotta say, this isn't shocking to me... especially not since I heard a report on NPR that food in America typically travels in excess of 6k miles before it hits your table -- with $4/gal gas, 6,000 miles makes even an apple expensive beyond reason. Locavores unite! (I'm not a locavore, I'm a cheapavore)
    • Jacare, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0thats because america likes to import produce from south american countries that have little to no minimum wage and poor human rights records...the american people demand stuff as cheap as they can get it and dont want to pay the extra couple bucks to support local farmers and your elected officials wouldn't dare tax those imports so the farmers could compete with them
      • Tex2002ans, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Someone has to read up a little more on Free Trade and see why it is good for everyone.
    • iwantamonkey, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1"I'm not a locavore, I'm a cheapavore"

      that's hella quotable!
  • kfreund76, on 07/03/2008, -3/+48Stop with the corn. It almost takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than the fuel itself produces. Time to look into algae or jatropha grown on fallow lands. I just hope the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater in this whole debacle.
    • BikerDude69, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Hemp and kudzu! 'nuff said...
    • chillypacman, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4I think the reason biofuels are so popular is because it's next most popular.

      Truth is there are a lot of good alternatives, just not as profitable as biofuels.
    • Jacare, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1or maybe we could learn from brazil and use sugercane? seems to be working great for them
  • alapoet, on 07/03/2008, -4/+43If they'd use hemp instead of corn for the biofuel source, this wouldn't be a problem.
    • Sornos, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9Or you know, like switch grass.
    • Godlike, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7We had to go to war to stop the evil bastards in the textile industry last time. (slavery)

      Rot in hell Anslinger.
    • 0xbaadf00d, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1But then weed prices would go up. And really, which is more important?
      • marx2k, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0hemp != weed
      • greenm1981, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Actually, weed prices wouldn't change if hemp used to grow biofuels. The only way weed prices would change is if it was legal to grow and sell marijuana. In that case, prices would drop due to the high levels of competition that would ensue. The economics of weed production is a fascinating topic when you are high.
  • earthandeconomy, on 07/03/2008, -10/+5Biofuels are merely a stop-gap for a better emergent, clean and renewable energy source(s). History should teach us that our insatiable, frenzied fuel appetities can not be contained by provisioning land that should be used to fill mouths to fill tanks instead. Let us coin this "convenient economics": not sharing the truth is convenient (sound familiar?); not removing our oil dependency is convenient; not finding a better renewable alternative to soil depleting plant-derived fuels is convenient—for some. To quote the article "Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises." Now isn't that convenient...economics...ya think?
    • Encablossa, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Stop breathing. I heard that saves the environment.
    • Bodhinature, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2It is a stop-gap that is actually worse than the current system. A true stop-gap would be solar or wind tech recharging electric cars. What's the point in developing technology we plan to abandon, actually exacerbates the current crisis and creates new ones, and overlooks effective existing technologies that can be developed even further?
  • MorganMghee, on 07/04/2008, -2/+49Not 'biofuels', Corn Ethenol.
    • jecruzs, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8ethanol
    • Ulisses, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Corn Ethanol, thank you Iowa Caucuses.
    • Pulledteeth, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1THANK YOU.
    • LordRedSnake, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Yes, corn ethanol... which is a biofuel.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0It's A bio-fuel, it's not ALL bio-fuel. When America just reads headlines and calls it good, little things make all the difference in the world. Bio-fuels are a HUGE benefit when done correctly, corn ethanol was not.
  • allaboutdatiki, on 07/04/2008, -5/+26GREED is the cause of the Global Food Crisis. And lets not forget about all the corn that goes into crap like high fructose corn syrup ... not to mention the huge amount of corn fed to chickens, pigs, and cows.

    If we took half our backyards, tilled them up and planted fruits and vegetables instead of growing grass, we'd have it beat. All of it.
    • Godlike, on 07/04/2008, -1/+18HFCS is the stupidest thing ever.

      It makes soda taste like *****.
      It makes you feel like *****.
      It is of questionable safety.
      It is costlier to use than sugar by loads, so the government pays subsidies to Coke and Pepsi and gives them tax breaks in order to use it. (That's right, the Gov't is making the problem 10x worse in several arenas, wonder why they won't back down...)

      It just plain isn't necessary. It is a total waste and I have no idea why the gov't gives them tax cuts to use corn.
      • SpinningHead, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Lobbyists....just like everything else.
      • greenm1981, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Yeah, the Big Agri-lobby is one of the most powerful forces on earth. It has the power to affect global food prices. I'm not being sarcastic. Think about it.....the largest corn producers in the US just also happen to be in early primary states and are heavy hitters in any politicians' constituency. Imagine some pol running for office and telling the people of Iowa that they are not going to vote for agriculture subsidies in the form of Farm Bill's and such. It is politically impossible.
    • sockpuppets, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3My neighbor's house is my back yard.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 07/04/2008, -4/+1Corn syrup IS gross.... but the amount of corn that goes to syrup, or to chickens, has remained relatively stable for quite some time. It's hard to blame them for food prices when they've already been around so long. The blame for the last couple years rests solely on the knee-jerk environmentalists who just swing around political arguments because they sound good without thinking about the long-term effects (this does not include the good environmentalitsts who actually think about what they support, although they are quickly becoming the minority now...).
      • Godlike, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1No! We have to be willing to adapt to change! We can't just keep the same old policies and laws until the end of time, we have to change as our needs change!
    • dkeck14, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Modern societies require a distribution of labor. I don't want computer scientists wasting their time dicking around in a garden. They should be thinking of ways to make their software better. Maybe they'll make a something that can help the professional farmer more effectively distribute their good, allowing the farmer to make their food cheaper. The cheaper food is, the more we can send to needy areas.

      The farm subsidies program we have is incredibly corrupt, and has thoroughly distorted the corn market. Politicians will look for any reason to push through subsidies for farmers, and biofuels was a very convenient excuse.
    • JewelD, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0Look allabout,

      FYI the POINT of the article has to do with an algorithm that (hello) already took into account the elaticity (yup, that's the degree of EFFECT) that other uses have on food prices and scarcity. So, duh, HFCS et al had far LESS of an effect than biofuels' pressure on food prices - get it? BIOFUELS accounted for 75% of the pressure on food prices, NOT HFCS - as much as I despise the stuff myself.

      Sure wish people gave a sh*t about their intro statistics classes.

      Want to do something really important to help the food crisis? CARPOOL - even if you're driving any sort of veggie/electro/hybrid vehicle. It ALL comes from somewhere, and it's about time people took responsibility for their solo driving - period.

      Yours truly,
      Former economist, Solar Energy Research Institute
  • jrm71588, on 07/04/2008, -2/+9duuuuuuuuuh?
  • TheRealToma, on 07/04/2008, -1/+15If they figured out a way to run cars drained directly from peoples fat asses then there wouldnt be a problem.
    • sockpuppets, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Soylent Prius. The solution to every single problem facing the world today.™
      • ebcreasoner, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3You are a god now. I shall build an alter and let loose the dogs of war. Round balls of paper filled with magic will burst forth and the sky will feast on it's sky candy. And I shall call it 4th of July.
      • VinceNoir, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3@ebcreasoner

        Smithers: "Umm... sir. That's Independence Day".
        ebcreasoner: "Oh damn".
      • ebcreasoner, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1My head hangeth in shame.
    • rakous, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2I am skinny...
    • potatomasher, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4I believe its called "walking". You should go for a test drive...
      • VinceNoir, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1He didn't say he has a fat ass. He said Americans do. Which is correct. Time impoverishment due to long hours at work (to be good little slaves to the system you have to work over 40 hours a week), which leads to less time to prepare good food at home, which leads to a dependence on fast food and big box restaurants (as well as ignorance about what good food really is), which leads to overconsumption of excessive amounts of fats and simple carbs, not to mention the protein excess in our standard diets, and of course the sedentary lifestyle that has become the norm. All of that is what leads to being obese in modern day America. Don't believe me folks? Check out Ray Kurzweil's 1993 book: "The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life: How to Reduce Fat in Your Diet and Eliminate Virtually All Risk of Heart Disease and Cancer". It's all outlined in there. Obesity, heart trouble, cancer and many other "normal diseases of aging" should NOT be a problem in this country. If only we ate properly.
      • TheRealToma, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1VinceNoir.... actually I said people. Tho it is easy to take a stab at fat Americans (since they cant run after you), a lot of countries are full of greedy fat jerks that drive V8 cars.
  • truck87bp, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Whats to stop farmers from growing Hemp instead of Corn...damed if you do or don't. Not a good situation.
    • Ricky81682, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0The federal government, and those lost subsidies.
  • Mosz, on 07/04/2008, -6/+5leaked? lmao i remember talking about this 2 years ago and how latino american countries specifically mexico have problems with corn product prices because of biofuels and massive corn farms in us..old news.
  • m0neybags, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4This has been theorized about for at least the past year. People were talking about too much corn being made last year after there was the hops shortage.
  • u8eR, on 07/04/2008, -4/+9Lets not pretend like there's not enough food in the world to feed to every person. There's no food shortage, only a surplus of greed and corruption. As far as the report goes, it's hard to see how increasing energy and transportation costs, burgeoning populations in Asia, and climatic calamities can only account for 25% of the food price increase that has been witnessed.
    • JewelD, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0u8er,

      It's not the total supply of food per se, it's the local price vs. the local standard of living.

      If you're making $1 a day, you have a family of 4+ to feed, and the price of rice doubled to 25 cents a pound, you have a huge problem. You have more than food to pay for (cooking fuel, housing, transportation, water, etc.) Have you heard any of the local interviews on NPR? The women are saying there's no food shortage - it's just so expensive vis a' vis their budgets, they can't afford to buy it - any of it.

      This actually partly reflects the problem of low wages, as well as the price competition for food/fuel inputs, like sugar cane and grains.

      So yeah, even though biofuels may only account for a relatively small price increase (to you or me) - that little surcharge pretty much breaks the backs of the world's poorest people, who are coincidentally the least educated, hence the lowest-skilled, cheapest labor.

      If you want to cite greed and corruption, don't forget to highlight the societies who deny free public education to 100% of its children - including girls. Ironic how "educating women" in a society has the most influence on lifting it from poverty (UN study.)
  • Urzeitlich, on 07/04/2008, -4/+8But I NEED my Hummer to get my kid to soccer practice! You can't fit all of her equipment into some tin-can hybrid!
    • rakous, on 07/04/2008, -4/+3Oh come on people who dugg Urz down, that is obvious sarcasm.
      • marx2k, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Either that or they see the stupidity within themselves
      • VinceNoir, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1To you perhaps. But to people who drive Hummers it may as well be the defacing of a penis.
  • metapop, on 07/04/2008, -3/+8corn ethanol for fuel = one of the dumbest ideas ever. electric cars are our future... i just hope this doesn't become a VHS/BETA scenario where the weaker technology wins.
    • CodeCobalt, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2I don't see electric being the future, especially with the harm that battery production does to our planet. Biofuels, using the correct plants are. For some reason the US thinks corn is the way to go, even though its a very inefficient fuel, a staple part of our diet and ingredients, not to mention the growing of it is very costly on land and therefore farmers. It requires greater crop-rotating than other plants.

      Sugar would be a great biofuel (see brazil.) It produces more energy per acre, and is easier to grow.

      However as previously stated. Hemp would be the way to go. Marijuana is literally a weed, meaning it'll grow on its own, with little maintenance (granted not the best quality.) It would be amazing on so many levels. The hemp could be used for fuel, paper, clothing, so many things. While the actual pot could be taxed and sold. None of the product going to waste, enough tax revenue to give us national health-care and lower income taxes, secure social security, create jobs, and have little impact on the food market.
    • VinceNoir, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2It always does. Give people an option between doing something harder in the short term in order to change habits, or something easier for the long haul even if it's not very helpful and they will always choose the easier, less beneficial route. Some examples:

      1. The metric system was adopted in the U.S. in the 1970s. But, the public balked. It was going to be "too hard" to get used to such a system because the old system was everywhere. I remember hearing adults talking about, "metric junk", "useless crap", etc... in reference to the metric system. Had they been more enlightened and gone through five to ten years of adjustment, we could have been using the metric system for the past 20+ years just like most of the rest of the world. And things would have been easier after that since the metric system is logical and very easy to use. (The same argument works for Linux (metric) vs. Windows (imperial)
      2. The western diet is overloaded with protein amounts that are more than twice what they should be, fat content that is ten to twenty times what it should be, and simple carbohydrate content that is even higher in ubiquity than fats. Study after study indicate that to avoid cancer and heart trouble, we should only be getting 10% of our total caloric intake from fat. For a 2000 calorie a day intake, that's 22 grams of fat for a whole day. However, doctors don't even attempt to try and get people to that level. Many Americans get 40-60% of their calories from fat. So doctors, hoping to make some dent and potentially improve some lives only suggest 30% for people without heart trouble and 20% for people with. Just like telling a smoker, "Cut down to one pack a day instead of four and you should be OK", which we know they won't. Why do doctors do this? They feel that trying to get people down to that level of fat intake will be too much work for people to even attempt (ie. "too hard") and they will give up an go straight to medication.
      3. Americans have been conditioned to want more material possessions than they can actually afford. They've been given the subtle message repeatedly that they are "losers" if they don't have the latest materialist fetishes. As a result many Americans spend their money on things they don't actually need when they really don't have the money to spend on it. They get loans, they max their credit cards, they play the stock market, all in an effort to keep up. Some alternatives to save money are: keep that old car, PC, or buy an old home instead of the latest McMansion, or buy a used car instead of a new one, or commute by bus or bicycle if your work commute can accomodate that (ie. is within 15-20 miles of your home and the bus or bike route is within 1 mile of your home), and far more than that. But Americans have been conditioned to find these things unpalatable. As a result the same argument appears from those who have accepted the conditioning: "It's 'too hard' to do any of those things" or "Well I would if I could, but I need the big SUV because I go hunting on the weekends and a small car just wouldn't work" or "An old home is not energy efficient like the new ones. It's more 'green' to buy a new home". All of these are pointless justifications of bad behavior.

      VHS won over Beta because it was cheaper. This means it was also financially easier for more people to adopt it. Windows is still the dominant OS because it's cheaper than MacOS and it's easier than most Linux distributions (Ubuntu is changing that a bit, but there are problems there too for the same reasons pointed out above). So in the case of MacOS, Windows is financially easier. In the case of Linux, Windows is conceptually perceived as being easier. In the case of metric vs. imperial, it was easier to stay with the known quantity even though the imperial system is illogical and not very easy to learn when compared to metric. Americans always fail in that way when it comes to progress.
  • TenMinuteParty, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Wrong picture, but the USB thumb drive looks like a battery and batteries fuel things...so...I guess that's close enough
  • shithitinthefan, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0This is act 1 of the Peak Oil aftermath, why doesn't the press report this.
  • digitallysick, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Because we keep using corn instead of other materials
  • Regbooker, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1Hmm, it'll be better if you post a source least biased than the Guardian.
  • sockpuppets, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7The joke's on you, I've started eating cars. Suckers!
  • CodeCobalt, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6the cause? Not quite. Part of the problem? Yes.

    Real culprit it useless speculation from people who talk out of their ass and the general public who buys into the gimmick, believing the speculation and further validating it.

    Its the same with our fuel prices. if all of this speculation ended prices would fall. Would they go back to normal, probably not. would they be cheaper, oh hell yea.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2So true.

      We have tankers full of oil waiting on a higher price. Speculators buy it up, and it comes in when the higher prices is are ready. And some of this speculation is from energy companies themselves, and of course, former ENRON execs.

      The US dollar's devaluation would take it from $20 to $60 alone. But then the rest is speculation. Demand is actually down 1% even though there is a lot of hype about growth in India and China. Without the war, jet fuel would probably be a lot cheaper.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3You don't understand what the hell you're talking about.
  • ahalbert, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1being held to not embarrass Bush.......I honestly don't think Bush can be anymore embarrased
    • apackofmonkeys, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0The ironic thing is that Bush only pushed these falsehoods about ethanol to please the liberals. My world is turning upside-down.....
  • Shootfast, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1I have those batteries :D
  • BenjaminsDiggs, on 07/04/2008, -3/+0It's great we found out about this now. Next idea please.
  • mmilton, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2025% of U.S corn production is for ethanol partly because congress recently passed a dumb law giving them incentives to do so. Congress should admit its mistake and rescind the law now.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2Let's hear it for the Democratic congress!
    • Ricky81682, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Congress admit a mistake? No, what they'll do is add a subsidy to consumers who purchase corn. Gotta spend, spend, spend to get those votes!
  • Khast, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Eat recycled food, it's good for the environment, and okay for you -Demolition Man
    • prisoner24601, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Demolition Man???

      Careful my friend or you may find yourself gazing into...
  • TwoKill, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3This isn't exactly a leaked report, I was learning about the connection like two quarters ago in economics.
  • Zlorp, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2at least american farmers are almost as rich as big oil now.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Not really. That would just be the big farms. And the midwest is flooded, so they don't get a big windfall.
    • Jacare, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0LOL you obviously dont know any farmers. the only farms making good of money are corporate owend farms everything else basically makes enough to live comfortably they are by no means wealthy
      • beabis, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0Modern farming is the biggest scam going. Farmers pay pennies on the dollar in property taxes. They have dozens of government welfare programs to make sure they can't possibly ever lose money. And they have the sleazy lobbyists of the Farm Bureau purchasing politicians left and right. In my state the Farm Bureau newsletter reads like The Onion with all of the demands for farmers to be exempt from the laws and taxes that the rest of us are forced to live under. The articles always state which politicians the lobbyists met with, but they never mention how much money and how many whores the politician received. The self reliant farmer is gone, now they are just a bunch whiny parasites. It's time for a windfall profits tax on farmers.
  • crcook, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2I'm all for American businesses and what not, but it sucks how subsidized industries in the U.S. like corn farmers, just screw up the entire world, i.e., Mexican corn farmers being undercut by U.S. corn being sold in Mexico, and having to become undocumented workers in the U.S. and just continuing the cycle.
    • Ricky81682, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Take economics and read how subsidies mess us the normal economics. We are overproducing corn, taking huge chunks out for useless ethanol, and then dumping the leftovers on the world market, while restricting imports. That gives us the combination of depressed worldwide prices and higher prices here, but at least Congresspeople have funneled some money to their constituents.
      • crcook, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0Man, yeah seems like the whole world is just going down the drain. I guess maybe that's a bit of an obvious statement, just wish I was more educated about this kind of stuff in general.
      • Ricky81682, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0@crcook, there's some great books about what's called "Regulatory capture." Basically, after a while, the regulated take over and use the regulators as a way to keep out competition. For example, automobile/airline/food regulations went from real safety concerns to simply regulations on sizes and other nonsense so that the American companies would have an advantage over the foreigners.
  • Bjover, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3 There is a "Global Food Crisis"... There is a "Oil Crisis"... There is a "African Killer Bee Scare"... The "Bees are gone!"...

    #1 Wake up and smell the damn Dark Blend Coffee. Inflation is going out of control from a broken trading market. One Commodity surges from a demand the domino effect causes other commodities to do the same. Corn I still believe by the numbers and statistics is not the problem and one hefty fact one or more persons should note. One of the worlds largest corn producers is the United States. Why would a leading EU "world" bank be having the right to say the U.S. estimate is wrong? If they don't believe us look at the information supporting the trade numbers. It should be clear as crystal. It takes OIL to ship food. The largest cost behind food is the price to produce and the price to ship. This is COMMON LOGIC. So "statistically" OIL IS FOURTEEN TIMES WHAT IT WAS, CORN DOUBLES. Excuse me, I know math, I am no calculus not but 14 is bigger then 2. Something with that equation doesn't make the "world bank" look to credible.
  • HappyScrappy, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1What global food crisis?

    Yes, people are starving this year. This is true every year. And most of the people starving are starving because their government is using (lack of) food as a weapon against them to either buy their allegiance or flat out kill them.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6Utter *****.
    First, it is Monsanto and Bush and big Farming that pushed ethanol. But beyond that, it doesn't use wheat that has been taken out by drought and rust and the rice that was destroyed at Myanmar. We actually had a slight surplus of corn last year. Oh, and you notice that the Mississippi is flooding?

    Yes, SOME use of corn for ethanol (stop calling this biofuel -- it is food until they start using the husks), has made is scarce. That doesn't have a damn thing to do with environmentalism, the REAL alternative energy movement -- or anything else the ***** war profiteering bastards want to blame it on. It is the same groups that have been ripping us off all along, just finding the Sierra club a good target instead of Muslims. Same old crap, new venue.

    So why the is there a shortage? The lack of value in the US dollar means that the world still needs to eat -- besides weapons, that's the USA's last good export. So the speculators have been dumping money into oil and commodities and THAT has driven up the price. Meanwhile, a lot of extra natural disasters have created a perfect storm. And so a lot of countries are clamping down on exports and hoarding more food than they otherwise would.

    If some of these companies don't stop this speculation and ramping up the price -- we need to nationalize a few "important" resources.
    • hendrixiloveyou, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2thank you!
      i recall something like this article appearing on digg a few weeks ago , the pessimist in me believes its nothing but propaganda against alternative fuels.
    • vulcanhammer, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but Environmentalist groups have been pushing bio-fuels for DECADES. They should own up to it. Now that it has developed into a world wide hunger crises, they have all been very silent.
  • drgkstep, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Just remember electric cars are not green per se. Both manufacturing the vehicles and producing the energy to charge them must be green processes or else you aren't eliminating pollution, just moving the source. I'm in favor of a switch from combustion based energy but it would be a damn shame to go off half cocked and blow it.
    • macattacks10, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Even without that it would help immensely because there is now no need to process the oil and transport it in as high of numbers. And that's where Nuclear now comes in to play to take care of emissions.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1If the pseudo-environmentalist category of the liberals wouldn't have automatically rejected clean nuclear energy without rational cause for many years, we'd be a lot further along toward energy independence than we are today. Luckily, it seems that the rational crowd among both liberals and conservatives is finally starting to turn towards the agreement that nuclear is a clean, readily-available option.
      • Ravatar, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Will you stop ***** calling nuclear "clear energy". Nothing that creates waste that KILLS YOU is "clean".
  • Travelsonic, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6Inaccurate title: The current crop for/method used to refine biofuels is inefficient. Look at Brazil/sugar cane ethanol.
  • numbnuts, on 07/04/2008, -3/+5Wrong! .... high oil prices are the cause .... we are using bio-fuels as a result

    Silly guardian ... always trying to shift the blame AWAY from the oil cartels & industry.


    =
    • jackieokennedy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1i just sent your comment to the economist in charge of the study, he is considering writing a new report thanks to your clever analysis.


      °_°
  • tehbored, on 07/04/2008, -1/+375%? I doubt it. High oil prices are driving up the cost of fuel and fertilizer. I have a feeling that's the primary cause. Of course high oil prices are also the reason we're using biofuels.
  • Danoz, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6This headline is sensationalist. PLANT based biofuels is what the headline should say. Algae based biofuels cannot contribute to a food crisis. And i'm not going to blindly believe this article as the only links the article contains are to other guardian articles. I see no evidence whatsoever to support this idea. If prices have risen then it is more likely to do with rising oil costs and transport.
    • JewelD, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0How much biofuel does algae account for right now?

      And aren't algae ... plants?

      I'm for any sort of clean fuel idea - but there's almost no algae-based biofuel right now, so your point is hardly relevant (besides the fact that algae are plants - which also shoots your "plant based biofuel" alt headline - just saying.)

      I'm willing to see what the real study says when it comes out July 9, before dismissing this leak out-of-hand.
  • UheardItHear, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3DUH! This is what happens when we listen to environmentalists... we all get screwed, but hey, at least the environmentalists can feel good about it. Ass holes.
  • Barackalypse, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5But but, the Digg green team said that Ethanol only accounts for 3% of the increased food prices.
    http://digg.com/environment/USDA_Ethanol_Accounts_ ...
    They also say that global warming exists. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice...
  • WraTH017, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3One would think it's THE PRICE OF OIL driving up the cost of food.

    When did the world start using biofuels on a large scale anyway? Because I seemed to have missed that.
    • breezytrees, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2I couldn't help but notice your American... sorry. I'm guilty too...

      Europe has been extensively using bio-fuel for decades. It started with mercedes diesels. America only recently caught on to the bio-fuel craze.
  • havocjaw, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0Okay Okay Okay... I get it. Will everyone just die already?

    But seriously... are we using fossil fuel to transport biofuel?
  • madetosink, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I took a speech class last semester, and for one of my classmates' arguementative speeches, he chose to do it on this topic. I somewhat blew it off at the time, considering it a hypothetical situation. Now I can see it a little more clearly...I think he got a C+ on his speech.
  • egpaterson, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Nuclear is the only solution for fueling our energy needs, however, we need a grid which is stable and robust, and we must store the waste at Yucca mountain. Agriculture is for growing food, not powering our homes, cars, and iLives.
    • comedianX, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1What about cotton -- you ever eat cotton? Agriculture is used for whatever we need.
    • yaosio, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1If only there were some way to use the power of the sun and wind to our advantage. We could call it solar power and wind power! Too bad egpaterson has noticed the hole in this idea, in that nobody would ever want to create solar power or wind power.
      • JewelD, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0Solar and wind just isn't subsidized in the US the way oil, gas, and nuclear are. So, their American price-per kilowatt seems higher.

        You have to wonder why Germany is the current world leader in solar energy, when their latitude is equal to Anchorage, Alaska. Answer: the German government's commitment to alternative energy. They have to - they import all their oil, and they pay the true world price for all of it.

        We have so many more natural solar and wind resources here in the US, but our antiquated subsidy system skews the market away from them. So stupid.
    • JewelD, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0Nuclear is just plain stupid. It's so highly subsidized, that its price per kilowatt is totally fake. If they had to include the real cost of fuel supply, disposal, and nuclear havoc, there would be NO nuclear industry, period. Totally non-economic.
  • WarZpriTe, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Pure hogwash, Corn ethanol is made from feed corn, not people corn, and 33% of that is returned to the farmers as feed anyhow (the remaining proteins after the starch is removed in ethanol production.) This is simply more FUD brought to you by an oil industry sponsored "study"
    • countdownmsnbc, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Ughhh, if there is a shortage of feed corn, livestock have to be fed other foods. Thus food supply goes down, thus food prices rise.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2You idiot, the more feed corn that's grown, the less space there is for "people corn" to be grown. Go ahead and keep blaming the "oil industry" for your lack of common sense.
      • WarZpriTe, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Common sense? Try checking your FACTS "Idiot", every single year until this year, North America has had a surplus of people corn and has been selling and/or donating that surplus to third world countries. Several natural disasters this year have caused production to go down, and the price of corn has been affected from that. the amount of ethanol production has only risen by about 25% at best in the last year, but clearly this must be responsible for a 75% increase in all food costs right?
        Since you seem to have a light grasp on reality I will explain it more clearly, a 25% increase in ethanol production means that if ALL production was from corn (It isnt, switchgrass, sugar beets, and now wood waste), AND we are to believe that corn for human consumption is straight up replaced for feed corn for ethanol production(It isnt), it STILL only means a 25% increase in corn demand. While the Article tries to blame global (this means ALL) food prices going up by 75% on one crop who's use went up by 25% at absolute best?
        You make it patently obvious you have no clue what you are talking about.
    • comedianX, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2People Corn: they have ears.
    • gotamd, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3You must not buy your own food or you would have noticed that the price of food has gone up dramatically in the past year or so. How do you explain the price increase if it's not caused by diverting farmland use from food production or feed production to fuel production? Even if they're using it only for feeding animals, that makes it more expensive to raise and keep animals. That makes all animal products more expensive. That's happening as well, but the effect has spread throughout our entire food chain.
      • JewelD, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0The biggest problem is not how it affects us here, but what's happening overseas...

        Corn at the supermarket here has gone from 3 /$1, to: 2/$1... from 33 cents each, to 50 cents each.

        That's not much, if all you're doing is buying corn for a 4th of July barbeque in the US, but a 44% increase like that is huge if you have to buy tons of corn to feed the poor overseas, or - if you're one of the world's poor - to buy cornmeal at the local market and feed your family, when you only make $1 /day.
  • ph1sh55, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2can we stop using our corn for high fructose corn syrup as well?
  • CptCheerios, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I already have a new design for farming that could increase of the production of food by over 20 fold. It also has the possibilty of use in nasa and a large comercial market, but it needs robotics engineers and biologists help. There are problems though of extreme job loss by major farmers. In a large scale this could flood the markets with cheap quality food world wide. Drop transportation costs and there would be a minimal staff requirement.

    Ive thought this through enough so that it would be almost as simple as driving to a dock and robots/people load up trucks to transport food locally. I would tell everyone the plan, but until I get this rolling I don't want to tell everyone.

    Ive pitched this idea to a bunch of people, and their jaw drops. especially when they find out it was an hour long stoned rant.

    To give you a good idea. Its a vertical City farm (Sky Scraper) which contains Seeding, Growing, Picking, Sorting, Packaging, and shipping all inside one building. Im still designing it and have friends working on desiging the building and systems. I may never get it off the ground since I am a Game Designer, but someone is going to make it I can assure you of this. Its a pretty cool idea though, could pop these structures up anywhere there is a source of water.

    If this does take off, it should be able to drive food prices into the ground. I also have picked out what sort of crop to grow first for maximum profit to fund buildings producing quantity of cheaper food eg. Corn.
    • MorganMghee, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0Why don't you skip the robot part, and employ humans. Also, your garden building could be a simple water purification system. Enter organic grey water at the top, and by the time it makes it's way down the system it's pretty well filtered. Institute rainwater capture and a cistern system. Don't forget the composting, and look up terra preta before you finish. Nice Idea.
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Anyone watching Coskata? They'll make ethanol from anything combustable. Some people who don't know the whole story automatically lump this in with corn made ethanol. They say,"If you pay people to grow non food crops, you're going to raise the price of food." There is more to it than that though. Some farmers cannot make money selling food because they have such a small farm, and other people are not farmers because they know there isn't much money to be had. It is these people who would otherwise not farm that has to be considered as helping the economy. They'd bring farm biomass in, and get paid for it just like people get paid for scrap metals. The end result would be ethanol. And because we know that fuel is one reason behind why food is so expensive, if we lower fuel costs without impacting food costs much, it could be a win. It is definitely a possible route to wean off gasoline, but it is a long route as Coskata's prototype isn't even made yet.

    So truth be told, I think plugin hybrid cars(with Solar/Nuclear helping the impact to the grid) have a lot more potential than ethanol.
    • JewelD, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0As long as you're selling pie-in-the-sky, make mine rhubarb.

      Their farms are too small to make a living per acre on any foodstuff, but the price per acre for biomass is going to save the farm?

      Oh please, pull my other leg, so at least they'll match.
  • blacklilyninja, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1oil industry propoganda
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.