Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Biofuels have had a big effect on food prices :World Bank

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
blade



Joined: 30 Jun 2007

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:57 pm    Post subject: Biofuels have had a big effect on food prices :World Bank Reply with quote

Biofuels may have pushed up food prices by 75% - report

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 per cent - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report published in a British newspaper today.
The assessment is based on a detailed analysis by Don Mitchell, an internationally respected economist at the Washington-based global financial body, the Guardian said.
The figure contradicts US government estimates that plant-derived fuels have contributed less than 3 per cent to food-price increases, the newspaper said.
It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and Europe, which have turned to biofuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.
Leaders of the G8 leading industrial countries meet next week in Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.
Rising food prices have pushed 100 million people worldwide below the poverty line, according to the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt.
US President George Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the World Bank study said: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."
Meanwhile the European Union may get barely one-third of its target for biofuels in transport fuels from home-produced sources by 2020, requiring massive imports to meet the goal, a draft European Environment Agency report said.
The EU plans to source 10 per cent of transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020, with the bulk of that seen coming from biofuels.
Critics say the target will contribute to deforestation in developing nations and soaring food prices.
The report, sent to the bloc's 27-member states for comments and seen by Reuters, shows the most cost-effective and sustainable scenario for biofuels would deliver just 3.4 percent of the EU's transport fuels from domestic production in 2020.
An EEA spokeswoman said the report was at an early stage and was not scheduled for publication until September.
She declined to discuss details but said the final figure may be higher as the model does not factor in the effect of soaring oil prices, international trade or the fact that biomass may be diverted from power or heat generation to boost its use in transport fuels.
An EU source said the 3.4 per cent figure could equally be reduced by ever tighter EU social and environmental standards.
"The rest of the 10 percent would either have to be imported or would not be acheived at all," added the source.

� 2008 ireland.com

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0704/breaking71.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mindmetoo



Joined: 02 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right. You don't make fuel from food. You make it from waste products. Pretty sure that's what the Brazilians did.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blade



Joined: 30 Jun 2007

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mindmetoo wrote:
Right. You don't make fuel from food. You make it from waste products. Pretty sure that's what the Brazilians did.

Aren't they using a lot of sugar cane for theirs? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701440.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mindmetoo



Joined: 02 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My understanding is whatever they're using is waste, be it a byproduct or simply an over surplus of sugar. Not all sugar grown is fit for human consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Electricity_from_Sugarcane_Bagasse
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blade



Joined: 30 Jun 2007

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mindmetoo wrote:
My understanding is whatever they're using is waste, be it a byproduct or simply an over surplus of sugar. Not all sugar grown is fit for human consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Electricity_from_Sugarcane_Bagasse

Maybe your right but the thing is that land that would otherwise be ear marked for food production or maybe would have been rain forest, which in itself is a bad thing for the environment, is now being used to grow sugar cane.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zenas



Joined: 17 May 2008

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Biofuels may have pushed up food prices by 75% - report


This is pure steaming male cow dung put out to cover the real culprits - the World Bank's buddies at the Federal Reserve who are having the US Treasury print the dollar 24/7 to flood the world with in payment of the US debt which would be able to be repaid other wise.

Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply not because biofuels are being produced.

The other cause of the rise in both oil and commodity prices - including those of food commodities - is the speculation in these futures markets by the other bunch of buddies of the World Bank, the speculators on Wall Street, specifically those at the New York Mercantile Exchange or NYMEX.
___________________________
______________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mindmetoo



Joined: 02 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zenas wrote:
Quote:
Biofuels may have pushed up food prices by 75% - report


This is pure steaming male cow dung put out to cover the real culprits - the World Bank's buddies at the Federal Reserve who are having the US Treasury print the dollar 24/7 to flood the world with in payment of the US debt which would be able to be repaid other wise.

Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply not because biofuels are being produced.

The other cause of the rise in both oil and commodity prices - including those of food commodities - is the speculation in these futures markets by the other bunch of buddies of the World Bank, the speculators on Wall Street, specifically those at the New York Mercantile Exchange or NYMEX.
___________________________
______________________________________


Ah, whew, a banking conspiracy. Explains it all. Thanks for the informative links backing up your claims.

Geez. What don't you pull out of your 50 year old ass? You're a failed businessman. Why should we trust your judgment on money matters?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peppermint



Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mindmetoo wrote:
Right. You don't make fuel from food. You make it from waste products. Pretty sure that's what the Brazilians did.


Ideally yeah, that's how it works, but I guess if a farmer in some poor country can get higher prices for biofuel crops than food crops, the decision is made for him
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mindmetoo



Joined: 02 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

peppermint wrote:
mindmetoo wrote:
Right. You don't make fuel from food. You make it from waste products. Pretty sure that's what the Brazilians did.


Ideally yeah, that's how it works, but I guess if a farmer in some poor country can get higher prices for biofuel crops than food crops, the decision is made for him


Then it's good for the farmer. We should not begrudge a farmer a profit. You make that seem like a bad thing. If you sell your condo for a profit, is that ever a bad thing? Does that represent a lack of choice?

In my home town everyone used to plant cukes. Now they plant soy and rape seed (use for canola). Higher prices and demand for those two products increased supply.

It's silly to think high prices in some commodity won't result, down the road, in higher supply. That is if higher demand is driving the price. However if basic costs like fuel are the real reason for higher prices then that probably won't lead to an increase in supply.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bigfeet



Joined: 29 May 2008
Location: Grrrrr.....

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Best idea I've heard is to use switchgrass grown on land that no one wants to farm. It can be cultivated up to 3 times per year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mindmetoo



Joined: 02 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfeet wrote:
Best idea I've heard is to use switchgrass grown on land that no one wants to farm. It can be cultivated up to 3 times per year.


Yeah. There's a lot of organic waste that can be turned into energy. South Korea is trying to collect food waste so they can generate methane gas from it. The only reason the USA uses corn is the government gives huge wads of cash to corn farmers. This makes corn cheap. Hence the reason about 70% of our processed food products use corn, be corn syrup or as a filler.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blade wrote:
mindmetoo wrote:
My understanding is whatever they're using is waste, be it a byproduct or simply an over surplus of sugar. Not all sugar grown is fit for human consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Electricity_from_Sugarcane_Bagasse

Maybe your right but the thing is that land that would otherwise be ear marked for food production or maybe would have been rain forest, which in itself is a bad thing for the environment, is now being used to grow sugar cane.


In Brazil, sugar cane is grown far from any rain forest. Therefore, the expansion of the sugar cane industry does not directly threaten the rain forest. It is debatable that it indirectly affects the rain forest (as in sugar cane replaces another agricultural product, which is then grown in a newly deforested area).

Quote:
ome greens say that the spread of sugar is deforesting the Amazon. That is not true. The vast majority of the sugar crop is grown thousands of miles away from the forest, in S�o Paulo state or the north-east. Some 65% of new planting of sugar cane has been on land that was previously pasture; the rest was previously used for other crops, according to Conab, a government agency.


Economist article
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blade



Joined: 30 Jun 2007

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfeet wrote:
Best idea I've heard is to use switchgrass grown on land that no one wants to farm. It can be cultivated up to 3 times per year.

I have heard that the problem with switch grass is that may grow out of control in areas where it is planted and crowd out other important flora in an environment and perhaps even wreck havoc with crops such as wheat or maze if allowed to go unchecked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zenas



Joined: 17 May 2008

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dual Mandate for the Federal Reserve, The Pursuit of Price Stability and Full Employment

"The Federal Reserve currently has two legislated goals--price stability and full employment "

http://ideas.repec.org/p/lev/levppb/60.html

If the central bank has two goals one of which is price stability - i.e no inflation or deflation, then the Fed must able to control prices.

They do - by raising and lowering interest rates - making fiat currency easier to more difficult to acquire.

Since the Fed made easy money their policy for the last several years, creating the housing bubble, they've also devalued the value of the dollar by printing too many dollars. Any one with common sense should be able to see this. Water is cheap because there is so much of it. Gold is expensive because relatively speaking, there is so little of it.

That, - the increase in the money supply - is what is causing the inflation we are seeing in food, oil and other commodity prices. [the speculators are also buying future contracts expecting the price to go up, causing the price to stay high, because they can see that the Fed can't stop printing money because the debt needs repaying with dollars].

When investors realize that monetary inflation is out of control, they will rush to hard assets, such as gold and silver, which have been historically, a reliable store of value.

A $1 one ounce of silver coin in 1968 bought 4 gallons of gas. One ounce of silver today - $17.50 an ounce - still buys four gallons of gas. When you pay with dollars, you pay $17.50 for four gallons of gas.

That's price inflation - the value of the dollar has gone down. It now takes $17 + dollars to buy today what $ 1 would buy in 1968.
______________________________________
_______________________________

A fiat currency guarantees inflation - it's built into the system. We've been on a fiat currency since 1913 went off the gold standard in 1933 and could no longer redeem the silver certificate 'dollar' in silver after 1964.

Inflation is the result.

________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OneWayTraffic



Joined: 14 Mar 2005

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfeet wrote:
Best idea I've heard is to use switchgrass grown on land that no one wants to farm. It can be cultivated up to 3 times per year.


Algae is better than any terrestial crop. Problem with switchgrass is that procesing is still energy intensive. Algae needs little/no land and can have 50% oil content. Production could be such that New Mexico alone could grow enough for thr world, if one invests into the infrastructure for it.

Switchgrass 15 tons per acre max. 1000gallons per acre (roughly 10,000 litres a hectare.)

Algae 5000-20000 gallons per acre of biodiesel (higher energy than ethanol). Yield varies on strain, open pond vs bioreactor and so on. More rsearch required so it's not ready for primetime.

Algae could be the answer. Google a company named vertigro for videos- though many bigger companies are in on it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International