Topic: Global Warming
The Biofuel Boondoggle The increasing demand for biofuels has created severe negative, unintended consequences.
One of these is deforestation throughout the world, which releases an even greater amount of carbon into the atmosphere as well as a sharp rise in food costs.by jposty
(Libertarian)
Thursday, April 24, 2008
James W. Cannon II : As Published in the Spinnaker.
Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not is becoming increasingly immaterial in the modern political landscape.
Most rational discussions have ended and the masses have staked their ground and are ardently defending their platforms.
However, one of the few positive results from this discussion is the willingness to address the use of alternative energy sources.
Proponents for a responsible energy policy have been advocating alternative fuels for quite some time.
Some advocate a more traditional approach to the world's energy needs by relying on technological advances in harnessing wind, solar, geothermal and water sources to power the world, while others have jumped on the biofuel bandwagon.
One thing is certain though: America's energy policy will be drastically different in the coming decades.
Are we on the right track though?
The answer is a resounding no. Biofuels will do far greater harm to the economy and the ecosystem than America's ever-growing oil addiction could ever achieve.
The increasing demand for biofuels has created severe negative, unintended consequences.
One of these is deforestation throughout the world, which releases an even greater amount of carbon into the atmosphere as well as a sharp rise in food costs.
In the name of protecting the environment, Big-Farm has used its entrenched power in Washington to garner support for renewable bio-fuels.
This isn't just an American boondoggle though. "Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010," according to a recent Time Magazine article.
Indonesia, Brazil and Malaysia are all undergoing a massive state-sponsored deforestation program for the sole purpose of creating more farm land to grow bio-material to convert into fuel.
An estimated 20 percent of global carbon emissions come directly from deforestation programs such as this.
"People don't want to believe renewable fuels could be bad," Tim Searchinger, a Princeton scholar and former environmental defense attorney, said. "But when you realize we're tearing down rain forests that store loads of carbon to grow crops that store much less carbon, it becomes obvious."
The even more obvious problem biofuels create is the inevitable rise in food prices. It is simple supply and demand economics; if corn and sugarcane are demanded at a greater level, the price will adjust accordingly.
World Bank President Robert Zoellick recently called the demand for biofuels a "significant contributor" to soaring food prices around the world.
This problem is endemic to people living in third-world countries such as Egypt, Mexico, Pakistan and Haiti - all of which have seen food riots in the past several weeks.
The World Bank has predicted food costs will continue to soar due to what Zoellick said is clear that "programs in Europe and the United States that have increased biofuel production have contributed to the added demand for food."
Biofuel production accounts for one-fourth to one-third of the recent increase in global commodity prices, according to a recently concluded study by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C.
When coupled with the government-subsidized deforestation, the hope that biofuels will be humanity's saving grace is looking even more unrealistic.
Even with the mounting criticism, governments will likely continue down the path of biofuel boondoggle.
As Time Magazine succinctly put it, "If biofuels are the new dotcoms, Iowa is Silicon Valley, with 53,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in income dependent on the industry."
With entrenched agribusiness lobbyists working overtime in Washington, it is clear that both the legislative branch and the executive branch will continue to subsidize this knee-jerk reactionary policy of diversifying fuel sources with biofuels.
In 2007, America produced 7 billion gallons of biofuels at cost of $8 billion to the American tax-payer.
The environment aside for a moment, America will assuredly go bust if there isn't a tenable policy divergence in the near future.
Whatever the solution to global warming, or at least becoming energy-independent, it is clear biofuels are not the solution.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
2008 jposty, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, April 24, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, April 24, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of jposty only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. jposty is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I generally oppose using common food stocks like corn for fuel. I certainly oppose cutting down the rain-forest in Indonesia to grow palm oil for fuel.
I do like the idea of growing algae for fuel and food though.
Actually Bio-Diesel can have some benefits. There is a company in the northwest here that takes used cooking oil from Kettle Chips and turns it into Bio-Diesel. This kind of reuse is a great way to produce fuel.
The ocean also releases way more CO2 into the air than we ever could.
Yeah, i personally don't believe we have much to do with warming, if it is in fact warming. I tried to write this as unoffensive as possible to the global warming enthusiasts, as to possibly dissuade them from doing something that would be far worse to the planet. Pretty left leaning campus this was published at... the feedback from the students should be interesting to say the least.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-04-25 04:13:52
One of the most frustrating things about the recent large increases in food prices is that people are attributing those rises to everything but what's really driving them (as well as rising real estate prices, rising oil prices, etc., etc.)
I saw one commentator on morning network television yesterday say that food prices have risen 83% over the past year in part because of increased demand from India and China. Did they suddenly get twice as hungry this past year in those countries?
You're claiming that biofuels are causing the price increase. Did the increase in biofuel usage all happen last year?
Some say it's because of crop failures. Did half the food crops fail this past year everywhere around the world?
What we're seeing with price increases of all kinds is the result of pressures that have been created over the past 10-20 years by central banks inflating their currencies, led by the U.S.'s Federal Reserve System. This is the primary cause of all price increases across the board, yet even some libertarians are apparently ignorant of it.
Commodity prices are highly responsive to changes in demand, so we can expect those price changes to happen within very short periods of time. Monetary inflation, on the other hand, can take years to show up as price increases, because the marketplace can't detect detrimental changes in the money supply until well after they happen (if the marketplace figures it out at all). Once these changes occur, players and observers in the marketplace usually try to rationalize them using familiar supply and demand factors, not realizing that their data has been skewed by the monetary inflation.
We've got a lot of educating to do about the Federal Reserve System and central banking as a whole around the world.
Biofuel is not the problem. It is using food crops as biofuel that doesn't make any sense, unless of course you are ADM or Cargill or some other large corporate lobbiest.
Algae producers are reporting getting crops that produce 50,000 gallons of oil per acre per year. With this type of production, and higher (up to 100,000 gallons per acre) with improved tecniques we can be growing all the oil we need on currently non-producing land in the southwest and Texas.
I thought this site had some leanings toward Reason and Information, but I've been wrong before.
Perhaps I'll post an article describing how easy it is to see through the Bovine Scatology this article and some of the commments demonstrate... I mean beyond the obvious pejorative buzzwords like "Big-Farm" and "central banking". We're just supposed to accept on faith that some vast agricultural conspiracy exists to rob us of our last scrap of woodlands and the gentle creatures there.
Yeah, right. At least you're not out setting SUV's on fire.
Here's another tip: It doesn't matter who holds the money, it only matters who moves the money. That's why Bankers always look so constipated. ;^)
The commenter was close with "Commodity prices are highly responsive to changes in demand". Take the next step! Keep following the money! It is not the demands of a traditional "free market" at work, but you're on the right track. When you see who really sets commodity prices now and in the future, you'll probably be as angry as I am.
Here's another Red Herring: "There is a company in the northwest here that takes used cooking oil from Kettle Chips and turns it into Bio-Diesel." Lovely. And as soon as the Federales stake out Kettle Chips and find them, they'll be 'ceasing and desisting' that blatant violation of the Tax Law. Is your "BS alarm" going off yet? No? Go ask the station owner what the "Offroad Use Only" sign means on that one lonely diesel pump in the back of the lot. And don't rat out your friends again!
Listen. I'm all for not defacating in the bathtub, ecologically speaking, and passionately dedicated to the automatic controls inherent in a Free Market; but -- just like in the "drug war", the lies one tells to get ones place on the soapbox will ultimately destroy the best intended tirade. And no, I don't mean "you" or "you", but "US". ALL of us!
Why is it so hard to stay focused on a useful message like "STOP PUTTING POISON IN THE WATER" or "STOP GOVERNMENT MEDDLING IN OUR AFFAIRS"? These ELF boondoggles and hysteria only weaken whatever consensus we may have once had to get something actually benefecial to humanity going.
Let's please not continue to let our position be eroded by agents provocateur! There is real work to be done cleaning up after our ancestors (parents, grandparents, all the way back) and these forays into frantic, fact-free fear-mongering do not enhance our position. The sheeple only bunch tighter in response. Hew to the Truth, and the Truth shall set us all free.
Meanwhile, I'll be converting the back 40 to low-grade unpalatable gasahol corn, the better to protect the children from yet another misguided subsidy.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 jposty, all rights reserved.