Toolbox
- size +

Biofuels backlash in US as food costs hit home

A mechanic Mike Ackerman prepares to install a veggetable oil filter at Lovecraft Biofuels conversion workshop in Los Angeles
A mechanic Mike Ackerman prepares to install a veggetable oil filter at Lovecraft Biofuels conversion workshop in Los Angeles

A biofuels backlash has erupted in major ethanol producer the United States, as lawmakers and experts debate the merits of converting food to fuel to support America's age-old love affair with the automobile.
With gasoline at record prices at US pumps, and soaring corn, rice and wheat costs sparking a global food crisis this year with deadly riots in several nations, some have questioned the wisdom of President George W. Bush's call for higher US biofuel mandates that divert US crops, like corn, to fuel production.

"Why are we putting food in our gas tanks instead of our stomachs?" Richard Reinwald, owner of Reinwald's Bakery in Huntington, New York, asked members of Congress at a hearing last week on skyrocketing food costs.

Biofuels are derived from foodstuffs such as corn, soybeans and sugarcane, and plants like switch grass and their cellulosic waste.

Touted just months ago as an answer to spiking gas prices, biofuels are enduring closer scrutiny by US lawmakers alarmed by the high cost of food staples and how they are sapping millions of American households.

Members of Bush's own Republican party are turning on him, including Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who called on Congress to undo "America's ethanol mistake."

"In recent weeks, the correlation between government biofuel mandates and rapidly rising food prices has become undeniable," Hutchison said in a statement on her website.

"At a time when the US economy is facing recession, Congress needs to reform its food-to-fuel policies and look at alternatives to strengthen energy security."

Hutchison is due to introduce legislation to Congress that would freeze biofuel mandates at current levels.

Biofuels are refined to produce fuel similar to those made from petroleum, but their growing use has been cited along with poor harvests due to drought, surging demand in Asia as living standards have risen, higher transport costs and trade restrictions for the rapid rise in food prices.

Joachim von Braun, head of the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute, said a moratorium on biofuels from food grains in 2008 would lower corn prices by 20 percent and wheat prices by 10 percent in 2009 and 2010.

Renowned US economist Jeffrey Sachs has also leveled heavy biofuels criticism.

"What should be abandoned is the use of our current food supplies to turn them into ethanol, especially in the United States," Sachs told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, calling the food-to-fuel program "a lousy bargain." In December Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which calls for a six-fold increase in the use of ethanol, to 36 billion gallons (136 billion liters) per year by 2022.

The United States is the world's top producer of corn-based ethanol, and the Bush administration sees it as a key way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and curb fossil fuel emissions, the main source of man-made global warming.

Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute (EPI) said "the evidence irrefutably demonstrates that this policy is not delivering on either goal."

"In fact, it is causing environmental harm and contributing to a growing global food crisis," Brown wrote in a scathing editorial in the Washington Post.

EPI says the United States burned 25 percent of its corn supply as fuel last year, leading to just a one percent reduction in the country's oil consumption.

Some scientists warn that biofuels actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, as farmers convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace or add to grain diverted to biofuels.

"Corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years, and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years," Timothy Searchinger and other experts wrote in a study published in the journal Science.

Yet scores of American farmers eyeing swelling corn prices have abandoned wheat to grow corn, leading to the lowest US wheat ending stocks in 60 years, according to the US Department of Agriculture, and causing a ripple effect of rising commodity prices.

Reinwald the baker said that in 2006 he paid 17 dollars for a 100-pound (45-kg) bag of bread flour; today it costs 52 dollars -- more than three times as much.

© 2008 AFP
» Next Article in Technology - Energy: Sugarcane biofuel becomes Brazil's second energy source

would you recommend this story?

 

User Rating

4.6 out of 5 after 23 total votes
  • not at all
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • highly

Leave a Comment or

Rank filter

Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.
Posted by DGBEACH 05/09/08 08:47
Rank: 2.25/5 after 8 votes
Yet another example of Bush's incompetence. The Americans should be ashamed of themselves for letting his family back into the Whitehouse!
Posted by nilbud 05/09/08 09:50
Rank: 1.5/5 after 6 votes
The yanks need to eat less corn, all that fructose is no good. They need a bit of Socialism.
Posted by thinking 05/09/08 10:59
Rank: 2.25/5 after 8 votes
What happens when you listen to leftist socialist environmental nuts like the UN, Al Gore et al?? Starvation, energy crisis, and hate and death.

Environmental leftist nuts call those who don't buy into global warming deniers, are against nuclear, coal, wind, oil power. Against GM foods.

Bush was incompetent when he listened to the leftest experts. What does this tell you.... don't listen to leftist environmentalist...
Posted by 1bigschwantz 05/09/08 12:38
Rank: 2.33/5 after 6 votes
Another example of listening to liberals, and guess what..another crisis...
Hell! we have too damn much socialism..why do you think things are going to hell?
Posted by DGBEACH 05/09/08 12:58
Rank: 2.6/5 after 5 votes
*thinking* The problem is that the right-wingers only preach status-quo, which any thinking person knows is unacceptable.
Global warming is a fact, visible to anyone with eyes in their head. Whether we are to blame for it I suppose could be debatable , but it will affect entire coastal populations within a relatively short period of time so appropriate measures must be taken.
But let's say we take GW out of the equation for a moment; a liter of gasoline still costs me $1.43, which makes driving a very expensive form of transportation. A quick kick-start to the American economy would occur if more Americans left their vehicles at home and took advantage of public transport. But instead, Bush passes a law which forces Americans to burn food instead of petroleum, and then tries to pass himself off as a responsible world citizen.
The average American needs to be educated about the true impacts that his/her lifestyle has upon the planet...as do the Chinese, and the Indians, and the Russians, etc.
The world-stage is shrinking daily, and we all need to wake up and notice that our neighbors are starving while we burn corn in our vehicles...as a human being I find there is something inherently wrong with this!
Posted by 1bigschwantz 05/09/08 14:16
Rank: 2.6/5 after 5 votes
So again,its Americas fault! Very revealing.
And if bush hadnt pushed this law..the very same people would be lisping and whining about that no good evil republican thats insensitive to the enviroment. The whole golbal warming thing has jumped the shark..i dont listine to enviros any more. if you dnt do what they want, they cry like school girls, if you DO what they want they cry like pre-school girls.
Posted by Glis 05/09/08 14:45
Rank: 3.33/5 after 6 votes
Ethanol was a bad idea from the start, and it's OUR fault it even started. The data has been out there for years, but we listen to whatever voice is loudest instead of actually checking some facts. Politicians simply do whatever takes the least effort and has the highest public opinion, and the people that can benefit know how to distort the facts to make it seem easy to them and good for us. Ethanol is a prime example of this. Selling us on feeding our cars corn and them on already having an inrastructure in place, when the truth is, you end up feeding your cars better than your kids and the infrastructure sucks and needs redone anyway.
Posted by pookawiz 05/09/08 17:15
Rank: 2.6/5 after 5 votes
Bio-fuels can be made from lots more than corn. Maybe someone should investigate why they chose corn. For that matter, what's wrong with methane? With all the Mexican immigrants we have now, we should have plenty of that.
Posted by SDMike 05/10/08 14:09
Rank: 2.33/5 after 3 votes
IDIOTS! The reason food prices have gone up is that the cost of shipping and distribution has gone up. And that is caused by the price of OIL going up!

Furthermore, if the price of OIL goes down the the price of biofuels will go down. Which will lower the price of corn.

Do you really believe that American corn prices cause rice shortages? Come ON!
Posted by nilbud 05/10/08 21:37
Rank: 3.5/5 after 4 votes
The organised system of kickbacks means the criminals in charge of the US (a gang called the politicians by the locals) will continue to use tax funds to tamper with the market and damage competing economies. The centralised and corrupt protectionist policies enforced by an intellectually bankrupt coterie of fascistlike crooks has lead to such an artificially warped marketplace that more and more madcap schemes are being propped up by government departments which then deny responsibility.
Jimmy Carter in '08
Posted by CWFlink 05/10/08 23:36
Rank: 4.5/5 after 4 votes
Ignorance!!! Ignorance leads to speculation that leads to high prices... it is the same with food, oil, INTERNET, housing, all all the other bubbles that have been popping around us. TV gives us just enough info to feed speculation and the INTERNET allows us to act on it! Thus popping bubbles and politicians who over react, leading to all types of unintended consequences. Foolishness!!!

There has NOT been any significant drain on food RESOURCES due to the Ethanol initiative, there HAS been a LOT of speculation... thus prices shooting up for food before any significant conversions of starch into ethanol.

Note: I said STARCH. Even corn based Ethanol is NOT produced from corn grown for human consumption. It is produced from corn grown to provide animal feeds... AND NOTE: only the starch is removed... 2/3 of the corn fed into the ethanol plant goes out the back side as ANIMAL FOOD.

Basic Science: Cattle digest cellulose by virtue of bacteria growing in their extra stomachs. They do NOT need STARCH in their diet. They need FIBER... e.g. they eat GRASS! Remember your 3rd grade science lessons? They produce sugars and starches from the cellulose in their stomachs via the action of the bacteria.

Here is another fact. Cattle in the Midwest are corn-fed because corn has been dirt cheap, or more correctly, cheaper than dirt! Cattle in the South and West graze on grasslands because land is cheaper than transporting corn from the Midwest. The higher price of corn due to the rampant speculation should improve the profitability of cattle operations OUTSIDE of the Midwest because their "feed" is grass!
Posted by SDMike 05/12/08 14:19
Not rated yet.
Read the article " The Oil Industry's Plan for Ethanol" at: http://psysciguy.blogspot.com/

The oil companies HATE biofuels and will until they control them. As soon as the oil companies own most of the ethanol manufacturing plants all this misinformation about ethanol will suddenly end. No lie is too big, too harmful, if it is told by the oil companies.