Biofuel Report Discovered . . . Whoops!
 

75% Worldwide Increase in Food Prices Due to Biofuels

The report contradicts US policy statements that the increase due to biofuel cultivation was 3% and that increased demand from China and India was the real culprit.

he report argues that production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways:

* It has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel.

* Farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production.

* It has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher.

Using food to make fuel is an idea so dumb that only congrass could think of it.


When this happens its like no duh!:rolleyes:

If I understand correctly, we don't eat algae.

Just another reason to support algae for biofuels.:cool:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=223072

We may have to learn to like algae if thats all we can afford!

Spirulina - algae that you can eat (not that it tastes like much).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirulina_(dietary_supplement)

What about Soylent Green?

Control the population by making people into fuel ... interesting.:D

.

I drink spirulina and blue green algae.

Pretty good mixed with wheat grass and some fruits n veggies.

Think I will go have some now.

Good Stuff.

Dam good for ya to.

--

Thinking about growing algae for fuel.
Then me and my car will share two foods.
Veggies and algae. :D


:jester:
RichC

.

Bulls**t.

Explain to me why rock phosphate is going up in price so rapidly

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/i-wfp021908.php

Sure. From your link:

Reasons include new demands for food crops, especially corn (or maize), for ethanol and other biofuels, increased energy and freight prices, higher demand for grain-fed meat in the emerging economies of China, India, and Brazil, and increased use of natural gas as liquefied natural gas (LNG)


Farmers in industrialized countries are applying high levels of fertilizers to maximize harvests of grain at the highest prices ever

Prices of phosphate fertilizers rose more steeply than the price of nitrogen-based urea because production sources are more limited,” Bumb says. Most of the world’s phosphate fertilizers are produced in the United States, Morocco, and along the Baltic Sea. Canada produces 70% of the world’s muriate of potash. But plants to manufacture urea, for which natural gas is the main raw material resource, are dispersed worldwide.



What I'd like to understand is this:

In the United States, 70% of corn production has traditionally been used as animal feed, Humphres says. But 18% to 20% of the 2007 U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol, driving corn prices up by 70%.

U.S. corn production in 2007 was 13.1 billion bushels (333 million tons) according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—24% more than in 2006 and the largest U.S. corn harvest since 1933.




If production increased 24%, and 18-20% of it was used for ethanol, resulting in a net gain over 06 of 4% more corn to eat, why should corn go up 70% solely on ethanol use?

Just about everything is going up in price, not just food. Things like iron, copper and other metals, not to mention oil. 1st generation biofuels certainly play some role in the food price increase, but I think the main reason is the economic boom in China and India and the rising obesity there, though they still have a long way to go to reach our obesity level. Fat people are just bad for the environment, period.

It's fuzzy maff.

Well, then you should favor the increased use of corn-fed Tahoes. I'll get my jollies driving around in my SUV, and as people slowly starve and thin out, you'll get yours.

I love the symmetry.

What do you base your conclusion, which is at odds with the conclusion of the economic study, on?