But Mr. Schafer said that rising energy prices, drought in key producing regions, and rising demand from developing countries such as China and India have played a far more significant role than ethanol, adding that those strains on the world’s food networks can’t be solved overnight.
Those are reasonable observations.
I despire ethanol subsidies as a policy, and it was definitely sold as a way to increase the price for farmers. So it IS a factor.
But I’m also very suspicious of this sudden “world food crisis” which wasn’t a topic even last year. We’re seeing another media craze, simplified reporting that tries to make the United States look bad.
Pomerdorgrad - 11:05am on 05/11/2008
Media craze or not, I think the concern being generated is warranted. Trying to fuel our energy needs with our food crops is lunacy, and defending such policies is a mistake.
Rob - 01:05pm on 05/11/2008
the fact remains that fuel crops are taking up more land that could have been used to expand production to meet supply shortages.
For faithful supports of ethanol to deny this is for them to deny reality itself.
So says the guy who is denying the reality that Ed is saying it doesn’t. But Rob understands that he has the right to his opinion, but makes the mistake of confusing it with the idea that he has the right to his own facts....and that nobody else’s facts, matter.
Hannitized - 01:05pm on 05/11/2008
I’ll bet I can sell Ed one of my perpetual motion machines, since he seems to love a good scam.
Kevin - 04:05pm on 05/11/2008
Pom, I did a story on this on how much the corn diverted to ethanol affected world wide grain stocks.
It appears that the total amount of corn diverted to ethanol production in the US is about 60% of the drop in the stockpiles.
Now it seems that the growth of ethanol would be more to blame than the outright number. After all if an ethanol plant has been producing for 20 years, that amount of corn has been grown for it year after year. It wouldn’t explain the new shortage.
Still ethanol has increased a lot in the last couple years. Couple that with the fact that the Europeans are doing the same thing.
I think it’s fair to say that ethanol is a major factor in the runup in price along with the reasons that Schafer.
The other thing is that ethanol is THE only factor that is controllable by the American people.
So highlighting ethanol in the world food situation is appropriate I believe.
And like Rob I have enormous respect for Ed Schafer. I think he’s wrong here.
The Whistler - 04:05pm on 05/11/2008
My wifes family farms a significant amount. It has absolutely driven up the cost of corn. Why would he say this?
I have moderate confidence in Ed. I’ve seen him be brilliant, I’ve seen him stuff his head up his ass.
This appears to be the latter.
brad - 06:05pm on 05/11/2008
Rob, If you want to go through their analysis and point out problems with it, that’s one thing. Otherwise you are just denying the conclusion in the absence of a quantitative counter argument.
However, nobody here, myself included, is arguing that we should do otherwise than reassess our current alternative energy policies. That includes corn subsidies that drive up corn prices, and ethanol subsidies to counter balance the increase corn prices associated with corn subsidies, import tariffs on Brazilian biofuel and so forth.
Whistler can you link where you get the 60% number from? That sounds way too high, if you consider total corn stocks, rather than just feed corn. I think the real number is closer to 10% (once you factor in that roughly 1/2 of the biomass used in ethanol conversion gets turned into a food source for cattle).
Finally, ultimately if you are to argue that corn for ethanol has supplanted other crops, you need to show in figures that they have materially affected our production of those crops (as opposed to e.g., cold weather or drought). US wheat production actually increased last summer in spite of the use of some farm land for corn for ethanol, and would have been even higher had it not been for drought.. Clearly that undermines any such argument.
Part of how that happened is the reduction by about 20% in the number of acres in the US conservation program (an area as I’ve pointed out currently the size of the state of New York). And part is rising demand for food have made more total acreage profitable to grow crops on.
Carrick - 07:05pm on 05/11/2008
If ethanol is a legitimate energy source, it should be viable in a free market, sans subsidies.
Kevin - 09:05pm on 05/11/2008
Why do we have our shorts in a twist over ethanol subsidies? Aren’t Gov. subsidies designed to just get a product or an idea off the ground? like the CRP?
oh, wait....
at least with ethanol subsidies we get something on the other end.
we are providing subsidies for wind, coal, oil...you name it there is a program for it. I think there might have even been something in the pot for starting a fish farm....
brad - 05:05am on 05/12/2008
Carrick here’s the post where I covered that. It was from the Economist. Right now the link isn’t working.
I believe I got the link from Jerry Pournelle’s blog.
Is it a major cause? That’s the term he used. The other more important factors:
Those are reasonable observations.
I despire ethanol subsidies as a policy, and it was definitely sold as a way to increase the price for farmers. So it IS a factor.
But I’m also very suspicious of this sudden “world food crisis” which wasn’t a topic even last year. We’re seeing another media craze, simplified reporting that tries to make the United States look bad.
Media craze or not, I think the concern being generated is warranted. Trying to fuel our energy needs with our food crops is lunacy, and defending such policies is a mistake.
So says the guy who is denying the reality that Ed is saying it doesn’t. But Rob understands that he has the right to his opinion, but makes the mistake of confusing it with the idea that he has the right to his own facts....and that nobody else’s facts, matter.
I’ll bet I can sell Ed one of my perpetual motion machines, since he seems to love a good scam.
Pom, I did a story on this on how much the corn diverted to ethanol affected world wide grain stocks.
It appears that the total amount of corn diverted to ethanol production in the US is about 60% of the drop in the stockpiles.
Now it seems that the growth of ethanol would be more to blame than the outright number. After all if an ethanol plant has been producing for 20 years, that amount of corn has been grown for it year after year. It wouldn’t explain the new shortage.
Still ethanol has increased a lot in the last couple years. Couple that with the fact that the Europeans are doing the same thing.
I think it’s fair to say that ethanol is a major factor in the runup in price along with the reasons that Schafer.
The other thing is that ethanol is THE only factor that is controllable by the American people.
So highlighting ethanol in the world food situation is appropriate I believe.
And like Rob I have enormous respect for Ed Schafer. I think he’s wrong here.
My wifes family farms a significant amount. It has absolutely driven up the cost of corn. Why would he say this?
I have moderate confidence in Ed. I’ve seen him be brilliant, I’ve seen him stuff his head up his ass.
This appears to be the latter.
Rob, If you want to go through their analysis and point out problems with it, that’s one thing. Otherwise you are just denying the conclusion in the absence of a quantitative counter argument.
However, nobody here, myself included, is arguing that we should do otherwise than reassess our current alternative energy policies. That includes corn subsidies that drive up corn prices, and ethanol subsidies to counter balance the increase corn prices associated with corn subsidies, import tariffs on Brazilian biofuel and so forth.
Whistler can you link where you get the 60% number from? That sounds way too high, if you consider total corn stocks, rather than just feed corn. I think the real number is closer to 10% (once you factor in that roughly 1/2 of the biomass used in ethanol conversion gets turned into a food source for cattle).
Finally, ultimately if you are to argue that corn for ethanol has supplanted other crops, you need to show in figures that they have materially affected our production of those crops (as opposed to e.g., cold weather or drought). US wheat production actually increased last summer in spite of the use of some farm land for corn for ethanol, and would have been even higher had it not been for drought.. Clearly that undermines any such argument.
Part of how that happened is the reduction by about 20% in the number of acres in the US conservation program (an area as I’ve pointed out currently the size of the state of New York). And part is rising demand for food have made more total acreage profitable to grow crops on.
If ethanol is a legitimate energy source, it should be viable in a free market, sans subsidies.
Why do we have our shorts in a twist over ethanol subsidies? Aren’t Gov. subsidies designed to just get a product or an idea off the ground? like the CRP?
oh, wait....
at least with ethanol subsidies we get something on the other end.
we are providing subsidies for wind, coal, oil...you name it there is a program for it. I think there might have even been something in the pot for starting a fish farm....
Carrick here’s the post where I covered that. It was from the Economist. Right now the link isn’t working.
I believe I got the link from Jerry Pournelle’s blog.