The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Biofuel starvation > Comments

Biofuel starvation : Comments

By Geoff Ward, published 14/3/2008

Will the developed world continue to grind grain for ethanol in the face of mass starvation?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Perhaps the forthcoming world grain shortage will bring home to all governments, the futility of the mad desire to increase population. Once famine on a world wide scale starts to bite, who knows what the possibilities will be, perhaps even a reduction in world population with a consequent reduction in anthropogenic global warming. We can only hope.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 14 March 2008 10:43:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article it seems to me makes the mistake of thinking production is about social ends. Not so that is for Church and the public platform.
If fuel price becomes such that biofuels are profitable, profitable that is to business and the share holders who provide capital then biofuels we will have.
Those who cannot afford well maybe governments will on being given evidence of destitution provide some relief but the number must not impinge on industries need for government hand outs.
Obviously we need more people as workers for industry and tax base for the support of the deserving older generations. Population if it is limited must be so by competition for presumably if a child cannot be supported it will die. Granted mothers will continue to try to produce a viable child and in the name of goodness organisations given to helping the poor may receive some government money if only perhaps to prevent social unrest even terrorism, though it is really only those others who engage in this despicable crime never us, we only complain.
The production of biofuels can produce some char the Carbon can be sequestered in the soil improving plant growth and reducing greenhouse, probably saleable also offsetting the cost of making fuel.
Posted by untutored mind, Friday, 14 March 2008 1:11:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A new American study from three agricultural economists at Iowa State University with insider information on the latest biofuel technology says ethanol made from cellulose will likely NEVER be affordable In the USA, the Federal tax credits for ethanol made from cellulose would have to be raised from the current $.51 US to $1.55 US per gallon, which will be unacceptable to our Congress and the American public. Switchgrass, crop waste, and wood chip biofuel schemes are too expensive to ever work!

The newspaper article can be found here - http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746
The full study can be found here - pdf 180kb at: http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp460.pdf

Coming soon after the Princeton study published in SCIENCE showing that all biofuels are far worse for the environment and global warming than gasoline leaves the biofuel zealots little cover to hide behind. SEE - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861

Please visit my page on biofuels, "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html This has a warehouse of information and links.

I also have a short essay comparing the Bush biofuel plant to Mao's failed "Great Leap Forward" 5 year plan which led to the starvation of millions of Chinese at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bush-mao.html

You can find the latest biofuel disaster news at - http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html
Posted by Christopher Calder, Friday, 14 March 2008 1:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The present wheat price spike has many causes. One of them is that
the price of wheat a couple of years ago and before, was so low that
it was hardly worth growing.

Farmers cannot be expected to produce at a loss, to subsidise hungry
mouths. Govts are free to subsidise those hungry mouths, if they
so wish.

What stage 2 biofuels like Switchgrass etc will do, we don't know
yet for sure. Clearly some really smart people with big dollars are
throwing money at the problem, which is great news.

At the end of the day however, at some point, as oil starts to
run out and rise in price, there will clearly be competition for
land to produce energy, be that for human energy or to power
vehicles.

If the author is really keen on helping the third world from hunger,
he should not expect farmers to subsidise them, but encourage that
women in the third world get real about family planning, with
our help.

The West can keep sending boatloads of free or near free food, but
if the result is ever more babies and even more mouths to feed,
the problem will only get even worse.

Fact is that the global population has gone from 1.5 billion to
6.5 billion in about a hundred years, on the back of very cheap
and abundant oil. That cheap and abudant oil is nearly gone,
so whichever way we look at it, the ever rising population is
creating every rising problems.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 14 March 2008 1:45:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only positive on the biofuels front is the investment going into Third gen biofuels such as specicfic algae grown in ponds that have the potential for 10,000 liters/acre vs 600 l/acre for palmoils. We can not ignore the issue of peak oil and the driver this will be for alternative liquid fuels for transport. Western cities would not function if liquid fuels are not available. The market will ensure a fuel source is provided-the scenario of world food shortages due to use of grains for ethanol prdt is very likely. Combined with drought and global warming scenarios grain prdt is likely to be precarious. The reality of 6.8 billion people on this planet and the potential sociopolitical disaster caused by food & fuel shortages is real and there are no easy answers. The most likely outcome would be fortress developed countries and mass starvation and refugees hammering at the gates.
Posted by pdev, Friday, 14 March 2008 1:45:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to a recent radio report, the amount of grain used to make one tank of ethanol would feed someone one in the third world for nearly a year. So by running my car on ethanol I could starve 50 people a year. Great.

I agree that population is one of the great un-addressed issues, but although it is often raised here in OLO and crops up reasonably frequently in the letters pages in the papers, there is never a response. No-one seems to have any sensible arguments against population control (or none that they put forward) yet no-one wants to discuss it. I have commented elsewhere that Australia is well placed to try developing a sustainable no-growth economy as our population is naturally declining, so we could easily keep it steady by controlling immigration. So many of our current woes can be partly attributed to recent high levels of immigration - the housing shortage, housing prices, water shortages in Sydney & Melbourne for example.

I am convinced that we have the ability to work out a better way to do things that the current capitalist model, which no longer serves us well.
Posted by Candide, Friday, 14 March 2008 1:48:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide, No one wants to talk about population control because its too difficult. Most developed Western countries have naturally declining populations that are only propped up by active immigration. Net immigration is coming from developing countries with high population growth levels. In our politically correct environment you can not say control population growth in developing countries-this is seen as post colonialist. The elephant in the room is that if we don't seriously control population growth NOW along with getting low carbon solutions happening NOW the future is one of utter despair. Think Mad Max with a few fortress colonies with what is left of humanity hammering on the door. How long will Indonesia sit with its millions starving while big inviting empty food producing Australia is just a days sailing away??
Posted by pdev, Friday, 14 March 2008 2:32:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*No one wants to talk about population control because its too difficult.*

Well, lets say its too politically difficult. The Vatican is still
out there promoting larger families, no condoms, no pill and no
abortions. Perhaps they should feed the starving masses with their
wealth.

Now lets say that the Australian Govt started encouraging more
third world countries to give their women the right to choose, when
it comes to family planning and provided aid. Frankly I would be
very suprised if Archbishop Pell were not on the doorstep of any
Catholic politicians immediately!

The Vatican is amazingly good at lobbying and more little Catholics
is what they want, if they are to outbreed the Muslims.

While we have basically told them to get lost in the first world,
when it comes to our own family planning, in the third world they
still have a large influence.

The point is, difficult or not, unless we finally address this
problem and give all the world's women a choice in these matters,
we are basically peeing in the breeze, when it comes to food
production, C02, the environment or anything else.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 14 March 2008 10:33:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author & most of the posters above take the Neo-Malthusian stance. Which has proven to be categorically wrong – in fact the opposite has been the reality - ever since Malthus mentioned it over 100 years ago.

According to demographic forecasters, the world’s population will rise to a around 10bn & therefafter remain static. This is not the concerning part. After all we went from 1bn to 6bn in 100 years & food has never been more abundant & cheap. What is concerning is that the forthcoming rise in population is expected to come mainly from Africa.

I believe the world can handle a whole lot more people than it has, per se. Starvation is totally unnecessary & is not a production problem at all but a market & distribution problem, caused primarily by the policies of 3rd world leaders (although western protectionism certainly isn’t helping). Food is getting cheaper & cheaper in real terms. Ironically that’s been cited as a factor inhibiting 3rd world development, not helping it – as their terms of trade falls. And if food prices rise, the developing world will benefit as they are producing & selling higher-value added products.

I don’t see the doomsday scenario that most others here see. If there is a doomsday, then the fault will most likely lie fairly & squarely at the feet of African leaders concerned & their policies, as has been so often the case in the past.

Geoff Ward:

“Governments of the developed world, that’s you and me, are fully liable for this immoral situation we find ourselves confronting.”

No we aren’t. But if you want to take responsibility (for something that hasn’t happened), be my guest.
Posted by KGB, Saturday, 15 March 2008 6:41:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KGB. You are right in the sense that the apportionment of the world's available food is a distribution and marketing problem. Until now, distribution has become easier, but as the worlds liquid fuel supplies dwindles, the distribution problem will become more difficult.

I wouldn't write Thomas Malthus off either. I wonder who is the guru who thinks that the world population is going to stabilise at 10 Bn. Does he think that the Vatican is going to have a change of heart? Are the Muslims going to eschew word domination? Is the ever increasing discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere going to cause mankind to become impotent? I suspect that the main driver of population limitation will be starvation and Malthus will be proved right after all, but it won't be at 10 Bn, more like something considerably higher.

"Eat, drink, and be merry"

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 15 March 2008 10:57:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KGB, I’m not aware that Malthus put a date on things, but I’ve never followed
his writings. IIRC is was Darwin who pointed out that far more potential beings
of any species will be born then can ever survive, resources being the limiting factor.
Eventually the crunch comes and usually with a quick thud.

Yup, population has grown 6 fold and food is cheaper then ever, all based on 100
years of cheap and plentiful oil. It was only in 1999 that oil was still around 10$ a
barrel, now its 110$. Its not just oil that is coming under pressure to keep up with
demand, but a number of commodities. Not just from more people, but more people
wanting a higher standard of living.

You believe that the world can handle a whole lot more people, but the question is,
can it do so sustainably? Given that 6.5 billion are not living sustainably, I doubt
it. At the end of the day, if its not sustainable, then the wheels will fall off the
proverbial cart eventually.

Another 4 billion makes sustainability even less likely.

Watch food prices rise as energy prices rise, the two are closely linked. Without
cheap oil, we face a changing world.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 16 March 2008 9:29:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From some of the comments I can almost believe that the mandating of food to fuel is in fact policy across Governments to bring on the misery and starvation needed to limit world population.
A short sharp hit for perhaps 10 years until second generation biofuels can seriously provide an alternative to liquid fossil fuels may just do the trick.
Perhaps we can drop a billion or so.

However the advantage is illusory. This billion uses but fraction of the world’s resources and contributes stuff all CO2 compared to us in the developed world.

I think the advocates of population control should consider the standard of living in our developed world as your greatest culprit. For example, grain fed beef is a colossal waste of grain, energy and source of greenhouse gases. ‘Kill a billion or eat grass fed beef’ could be the topic for another article.

My article was fairly specific. My suggestion was that converting food to fuel; first generation biofuel holds little benefit other than for investors and rural landlords while having the potential to cause misery and starvation to many.

I do not agree with ‘untutored mind’ that profitable business has no responsibilities other than to shareholders. I am saying that it is up to Governments to help them live up to these responsibilities and ‘KGB’ it is up to us to help Governments help businesses to be socially responsible.
Yabby, the world does not need to starve its poor. With new energy sources our resoures are plentiful. Have faith in our bright young scientists. What we really need is some bright young enlightened politicians and this is where we come in as these politician are extensions of us
Posted by Goeff, Sunday, 16 March 2008 9:45:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Harry Shutt in both The Decline of Capitalism and The Trouble with Capitalism Zed Books 2005 and 1998 respectively, argues that contrary to the paradigms Keynes and that currently used in which lack of demand and government interference were targeted as causal for failure, the cause is really the accumulated capital having no place to invest which will produce a return of 10% or more Thus increased expectation of Government bail outs, as is currently happening in America, and less money for infra structure which underpins the economy. Thus electricity, water, education, prisons, pornography, military support even mercenary soldiers and more have been seen as places in which invested capital can make a return. Always demanded is participation by the citizens purchase or government aid. Doubt this then look at the figures for the Government expenditure on such items.
Biofuels are one such perceived possibility. People may starve but as long as they can be kept from disrupting the economy they are no worry but there is a need for increased populatioin both for labour and to purchase the goods produced.
We need another paradigm but overthrowing the existing elite having interest in and profit from the current paradigm this will be hard.
Human affairs only seem to change when conditions become bad enough to affect even the elite. Thus I hold little hope of Biofuels becoming unattractive, despite their possible role in producing char ( C ) which sequestered could help balance our CO2 production.
Continued
Posted by untutored mind, Sunday, 16 March 2008 9:57:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are alternatives to liquid fuels. Cleaner and quieter electric vehicles, for example. Perhaps instead of setting greenhouse gas emission targets, the powers that be should be thinking a level up and setting technology targets.

Would we be as fearful of a developing world using electric transport powered by low carbon energy?
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 16 March 2008 10:03:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Involved would be not only tasking account of environmental audits in the economic process as suggested by Daly and Cobb 1998 For the Common Good, energy efficiency as suggested by Lovins from 1973 on but reduced population with a life purpose other than accumulation of material items.
As I said not much chance until we have a catastrophe!
Posted by untutored mind, Sunday, 16 March 2008 10:04:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goeff, I once followed an internet discussion between Ethiopians and Eritreans
and it was rather interesting. They are not silly and are fully aware that the West
is full of suckers wearing their hearts on their sleeves. They know that they
only need to dangle a few starving babies in front of Western TV cameras and
hey presto, over the horizon arrive boatloads of free food!

Whilst you keep shipping them, they will keep on screwing you and a lot of people
in Africa make a lot of money out of all of that free food.

Nobody is advocating population control, its about giving third world women their
rights to make choices. In Africa it is men, politicians and ministers of religion who
decide about family planning, abortion etc. Why should third world women not have
the choices that Western women have?

I watched a documentary on CNN the other night, about Nigerian women.
The reporter was rather shocked, as on her first day there, four women approached her,
offering to give her their babies for free, as they clearly could not cope with all
the kids that they have. Yet as we can see, when given a choice, women will opt
for smaller families, for good reasons.

The answer to third world hunger is to grow more food in the third world. They have
land, they have rainfall, they have people. Sadly it has been Western Govts such
as the EU and US, who subsidised food production to such an extent, that it drove
many third world farmers out of business. So now Afghan farmers grow poppies
instead of wheat, Mexican farmers gave up growing corn, due to dumped US corn.

The present biofuel story in the West, is only page 1 of what is to come. Already
I have friends who power all their farm vehicles with canola oil, which they have
grown. If the Straits of Hormuz close tomorrow, it won’t bother them, unlike
the rest of you, who will be walking. So energy security is a huge issue here.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 16 March 2008 1:50:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Essay:

In the main I agree with Geoff Ward for highlighting the plight Australia positioning itself regarding Biofuel technology, research, climatic change, emissions etc. We need more social scientists, ethicists, and moralist to shake up the ' shell-be-right " sports-zombies.

In Howard's day, the ethanol equation amounted to taxpayer's funds propping up the ailing National Party front in Queensland. The Sugar Industry beseiged with falling prices, raising costs and cheap Philippine imports lobbied Mark Vale for significant subsidies towards utilising cane in the then, novel Biofuel Industry. It was supposed to create jobs, enrich a few sugar Barons and curb CO2 emissions by quantum leaps. Like so many other fuel initiatives i.e ACCC's dob in a petrol-station cheat; CSIRO's BioLab; Costello's 48th petrol price inquiry etc all equivocally bit the proverbial dust. The Oil cartel wouldn't hear of it. Check..and..mate !

We have all been saddled with rising costs, mostly Global Economie's gone haywire. Battler's are finding it increasingly hard to maintain the status quo. St Vinnie's, Salvo's and Rosie's are inundated with cries for accommodation, food vouchers, and escalating school fee's despite wonder boy Rudd-07 blaming the Reserve Bank, Commercial Bank's, Woolworth's and the Oil cartel's for creating the unholy mess ? Denial ?

The implications GW alludes to : Balance of Trade disruptions. Food crisis, energy crisis, climate change, more insidious poverty. According to the World Bank report, 36 countries are in crisis mode. Poorer countries are worst affected. Orwellian nightmare predicted decades ago.

The World Bank, IMF, OECD, Oxford University Think Tank etc regularly assess and analysise Global Trends which point to the abysmal failure of G8 and rising Economies, to alleviate the growing pressures ( besides War ) which beset the Planet.

The call for mandating fuel subsidies falls on deaf ears. In the US, Europe and OZ, it's the size of Corporate donations; lobbyist;power broker's; and king-maker's who are the mover's / shaker's- be it Finance, Casino's or the M1 Super Highway. Bush legislated for subsidies not because he was an avid environmentalist, nor France's Charac because he feared competition ! It's naive and a
Posted by shellback, Sunday, 16 March 2008 4:26:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The competition between biofuels and food is not inevitable as many commentators appear to assume. Political and economic considerations are driving the corn ethanol industry in the USA, but this is merely externalizing the problems in the world trade regime.

This is driving up food prices around the world, such that the World Food Program cannot meet its commitments. This merely underlines what many people have known for a long time, that the needs of an SUV outweigh the needs of a malnourished child.

It is also leading to export bans and price controls being put in place by an increasing number of world governments. Ethanol derived from seaweed, kelp and algae offer an economically viable alternative to corn, especially when it is grown on nitrogen heavy river discharge.
Posted by Ian in Tokyo, Sunday, 16 March 2008 4:48:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
at worst presumptuous.

Crude Oil recently sold at $110 a barrel, and immediately OPEC put an embargo on production. Our Oil giant's who own Oz's seven Refineries can and do set prices on petrol/diesel/ kero/gas even though the ACCC profess otherwise. CEO Samuel apparantly assumes the hoi palloi are IT illiterate ? Another furphy, we buy Tapis Crude from Singapore and import MOPS95 petrol, which evidently is never mentioned in fuel circles. Singa's has the World's biggest Oil Refinery. When demand is up Caltex Inc create shortages and starve the Independents. Why does it take 8/10 days for Singapore prices to reach Oz bowsers ??

German Petrol Stations have been selling biodiesel for a decade with 60 % less CO2 emissions & 50 % less CO emissions. European Union produced 3.8 million tonnes of biodiesel 2005.

Crop yields - maize 145 kg/hectare or 172 lt/h compared to rice 696 kg/h and 828 lt/h. Cocoa, peanuts,jojoba have greater yields - 2250 kg/hectare.

More efficiencies:

Adoption of Algae or algaculture yields 40 kg/h or 47500 lbs/ltr ??
Wheat - poor yields in US,Europe and Aust this year. China buys more crops to feed burgeoning populace. Due to the weak US dollar and China's profusion of surplus US dollars ?

Wheat prices at record highs at 200 % rise from $18/bushel to $ 24/bushel in February.
Ukraine, Russia and Argentina in wheat moratorium. High energy hikes..fertilisers - 30 % of grain production. US supplies 40 % World's grain market. Downside, it takes several years to rebuild stocks to catch-up.

Bibliography: Wikipedia on Biofuels.
Posted by shellback, Sunday, 16 March 2008 4:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby
'Whilst you keep shipping them, they will keep on screwing you and a lot of people
in Africa make a lot of money out of all of that free food.'But....but...isn't 'the free food' GM produce that the US cannot get rid of in Europe?
Posted by eftfnc, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 1:23:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy