‘And in an increasingly hungry world, converting grain into fuel for cars is not the way to go. It is time to remove subsidies for converting grain and other crops into automotive fuel.’

For me this is issue we must address urgently as I cannot accept wealthy countries subsidising the conversion of grain to ethanol, using subsidies and mandates to outbid the poor for food. I cannot understand why the comments chose to ignore it.
I would like to emphasise the subsidisation as it is this that distinguishes the conversion of grain to fuel from other discretionary uses of grain.
Peter Hartcher in the SMH this week suggests that “ Some 40 per cent of the US corn crop, enough to feed 350 million people, goes to make fuel for cars.” To this we can add the grain biofuels produced by other countries and arrive at a round figure of say 500 million poor people. This should give some perspective to Lester Brown’s comment above and my concerns that people choose to ignore it.

I would like to put some figures on our own Australian grain ethanol. The Federal Government subsidises grain ethanol at the rate of $140 per tonne of grain processed, grain that is usually worth about $200 per tonne. The NSW Government mandates its use. There is no real benefit to offset the $150 million subsidy that finds its way into the grain ethanol producer pockets.

I really would like to know why the learned posters have not commented on the above issue, the subsidisation of food to fuel. Wealthy countries can afford to take even greater quantities of grain for fuel. When does it become Government sponsored genocide

Population management.

That phrase explains both the problem and the solution.

In the wealthy world we are dying rapidly... an "aging population' is a population that is failing to have enough children to replace the old people.

But across the poor world and Muslim Worlds they are producing vast numbers of children.. yet even Allah isn't able to give3 them more farmland or rain to feed these growing masses.

Countries like Iran and Thailand can provide free long-lasting contraception with education and advertising, they have reduced population gorwth to zero... creating a future of wealth for their sustainable populations.

But in the rest of the poor World, increasing populationa nd increasing hardship for the poor humans and the suffering environment.

Meanwhile in the wealthy world (inc. Japan and Singapore), where children are expensive and feminism is powerful, we are dying rapidly, with only one child for every two adults. An unprecedented genocide.

Tax incentives to recognise that children cost money would help... so professional parents can afford the children they want.

The other problem is that professional men don't want to become fathers anymore... they see that marriage is long years of long hours followed by seeing their kids fed to the divorce lawyers. So, sadly, professional women can't get husbands. And neither will have children.

We need to fixing divorce and gender bias (against men) so that men stop the 'marriage strike' that causes the 'man drought'. Men aren't 'commitment phobic', they are simply rational

michael_in_adelaide and others - no, Foyle was not being attacked so much as being reproved for attacking others. Nor was there any response, and still has not been, to the substance of my post. These scare stories have been ciculating since at least the 1930s (over population was a serious concern back then), and conditions of late have been improving. The reason for the rising food prices is because ther are far fewer people in poverty. Even various UN organisations have had trouble making things seem worse.

So let me repeat. Why should we pay attention to this scare story as opposed to all the other scare stories that have come to nothing?

Curmudgeon,

Take a look at this policy research working paper from that scaremongering organisation the World Bank

http://econ.tu.ac.th/class/archan/RANGSUN/EC%20460/EC%20460%20Readings/Global%20Issues/Food%20Crisis/Food%20Price/A%20Note%20on%20Rising%20Food%20Price.pdf

Obviously, human population growth and grain being fed to animals in Asia, as well as bad weather, are factors in the very high food prices, but Donald Mitchell, the author concludes that about 25-30% of the price increases are due to higher energy prices, which feed through to increases in fertiliser and transport costs, i.e. peak oil. Most of the rest is due to biofuels, especially maize converted to ethanol in the US (about 25% of US maize production) and oil crops around the world for biodiesel. This includes land diverted from other crops to grow biofuel crops. Other important factors are low grain stocks, speculation, and export bans. Of course the move to biofuels is also largely provoked by peak oil.

Geoff,

We haven't talked about the subsidies because everyone who looks at it agrees that it is stupid to use grain to make ethanol. The energy returned over energy invested is terrible. Blame the farm lobby in the US. Cellulosic ethanol (if it can be perfected) and ethanol from sugar cane would be more efficient, but the problem of land diverted from food production would remain. It is inherent in the free market that a German or American who wants to keep his car on the road, or a Chinese family that wants to eat more pork, can outbid a Yemeni slum dweller who can't afford enough bread.

Thank you Divergence.I am glad you all know it is stupid to use grain for biofuels. My question is now are you all trying to stop the Governments subsidising it with our money.
The pig in China was not fed subsidised grain, the grain for the car was. there is a big difference.
If grain biofuels had to compete in a free market as the Chinese pig does the industry would not exist.
You can make your vote count, don't buy the E10

geoff .. funny, that's the way I feel about taxes for CO2 .. My question is now are you all trying to stop the Governments subsidizing it with our money?

We need biofuels for those who can afford it, because the eco activists insist on taxing and stopping anyone using fossil fuels, and also not using nuclear, while rambling about new technologies which are all pie in the sky .. so the ones with money and sense, who are not distracted by the socialist attitudes of folks like yourself .. will develop fuels for those prepared to pay

I'm prepared to pay and I can afford it .. so, bring on biofuels, and I'll be reducing my carbon footprint .. a win win .. oh except for the doom saying about people who might (or might not) starve

you can't always have everything your own way .. take away my high octane lead based fuel, and if someone comes up with a substitute which works, hooray!