How exactly is that diversion of 28% of feed corn into ethanol creating the weather-related crop losses in rice and wheat in Australia, Argentina, Canada, China, the United States and other nations?

What is this penchant for humans to try and get a “one size fits all” explanation to a problem that is in this case multifaceted, especially when this explanation seems to explain very little?

How exactly is that diversion of 28% of feed corn into ethanol creating the weather-related crop losses in rice and wheat in Australia, Argentina, Canada, China, the United States and other nations?

It’s not, and Steyn is making no such claim, as you well should know.  The crop failures would always be a problem, but the diversion of not only the food itself, but the land and capital resources into this boondoggle called “alternative fuel” is obviously exacerbating the problem.  How would you fare if someone took away 28% of your income?  Would that make a difference to you?
Not an exact analogy, but taking away 28% of anything isn’t exactly an improvement, is it?

Food is a global market, Carrick, and diverting 28% of a staple crop from the food market to fuel production is going to have a global impact on all crops.

The problem is multifaceted, though why you refuse to recognize this one significant facet is beyond me.

Furthermore, Steyn is exactly right, in that this “food crisis” won’t affect the wealthy nations anywhere near as much as the poor nations.  A lot of those people were on the edge of starvation before this ethanol boondoggle took hold.

So if he’s not trying to make the claim that the food shortages are caused by diversion of feed corn to ethanol, why does he have this in his commentary:

Unlike “global warming,” food rioting is a planetwide phenomenon, from Indonesia to Pakistan to Ivory Coast to the tortilla rampages in Mexico and even pasta protests in Italy.

So what happened?

Well, Western governments listened to the ecowarriors and introduced some of the “wartime measures” they’ve been urging. The EU decreed that 5.75 percent of petrol and diesel must come from “biofuels” by 2010, rising to 10 percent by 2020. The United States added to its 51 cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy by mandating a fivefold increase in “biofuels” production by 2022.

”So what happened”?  Clearly he’s suggesting that biofuel production is the culprit here.  So, know I don’t “know that he’s making no such claim”.  Quite obviously he is.

Clearly there is an effect on the market from using corn for ethanol (increased cost of corn and grain-fed beef are two examples).  And if we went to 100% of our fuel from corn kernels, it would have terrible effects on food and environment.

But IMHO it just hasn’t had that broader impact on the market or the environment as of yet.  As to land usage, we have excess capacity that is being utilized now to grow more crops for food (to match increased world demand) as well as for biofuels.  Some 8% of our arable lands are currently fallow under the conservation program (an area the size of New York state).  And there is a similar glut in capital equipment, in part due to federal subsidization of loans to farmers for just that.

While I would agree with you that diverting feed corn into fuel isn’t an economically viable option—the ancillary increase in corn prices illustrates that fully—I just find it curious how people choose the “boogie man flavor of the week” to attribute all of our problems too.

It is really no different to trying and ascribe biofuels as the cause of the food shortage any more than it is to ascribe anthropogenic CO2 as the source of global climate change.  Both are by and large natural phenomena, but we as humans like (I guess) to think we can keep what we see as undesirable events from happening if we just changed X, Y, or Z.

It makes sense to explore the logical consequences of bad governmental policy.  However trying to conflate this bad policy with every naturally occurring environmental crisis that comes down the pike just borders on the ridiculous to me.

Rob:

Food is a global market, Carrick, and diverting 28% of a staple crop from the food market to fuel production is going to have a global impact on all crops.

The problem is multifaceted, though why you refuse to recognize this one significant facet is beyond me.

US wheat production increased last summer in spite of major droughts in the US.  All most all of the increases in food prices have to do with crop failures in other countries which have not adopted the flawed US policy on biofuels, and moreover are entirely traceable to a) major crop failures that I have previously documented and b) subsequent interference with the market by various international governmental agencies.  This over-reaction in turn can be traced at least in part to fear mongering by the world press about food shortages, a fear mongering that you at least in part are buying into.

The biofuel facet is a bit player here at best, yet that’s all anybody hears about.

Robert108:

Furthermore, Steyn is exactly right, in that this “food crisis” won’t affect the wealthy nations anywhere near as much as the poor nations.  A lot of those people were on the edge of starvation before this ethanol boondoggle took hold.

I agree partly with this, but I notice after you denied that Steyn was making “any such claim”, you now affirm that he was.  You can’t have it both ways of course.

How many countries can you list that were on the “edge of starvation” by the way “before this ethanol boondoggle took hold”?

The biofuel facet is a bit player here at best, yet that’s all anybody hears about.

Maybe because that’s one of the few aspects we can actually manipulate with policy.

This over-reaction in turn can be traced at least in part to fear mongering by the world press about food shortages, a fear mongering that you at least in part are buying into.

Hey, I’m just pointing out that the situation probably wouldn’t be quite as bad if we weren’t engaged in the ludicrous practice of subsidizing the hell out of fuel made from food crops and then mandating its use at the pumps.

And in that I’m exactly right.

Plus, there’s this from today’s IBD:

The International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that biofuel production accounts for between one-quarter and one-third of the recent spike in global commodity prices.

For the first time in 30 years, food riots are breaking out in many parts of the globe, including major countries such as Mexico, Pakistan and Indonesia.

The fact that America’s energy policies are creating global instability should concern the leaders of both political parties.

Restraining the dangerous effects of artificially inflated demand for ethanol should be an issue that unites both conservatives and progressives.

As a recent Time cover story pointed out, biofuel mandates increase greenhouse gasses and create incentives for global deforestation.

In the Amazon basin, huge swaths of forest are being cleared to meet the growing hunger for biofuels.

1/4 - 1/3 of the food problem.

That’s a significant facet that you seem willing to ignore, Carrick.

Let’s be honest here. It is the radical ecology weenies that have a strangle hold on the world right now. We are foolishly spinning ourselves into a global crisis to appease their nonsense. We spend $12 billion dollars a month on the war in Iraq. We could build three 1100 Mw nuclear power plants for that much money. If our government set aside $200 Billion dollars to build nuclear power plants we could be energy independent in a decade.
We could switch over to electric vehicles, allowing us to focus oil production into diesel for the trucking industry and other heavy machinery. Plus we would no longer need to waste food on ethanol production. On top of that we would make a significant decrease in the carbon footprint that the warming nutters prattle on about.

It’s a win – win situation. When you start paying $5 for a gallon of gas go thank a radical eco pin head.