5 Responses

1. A major criticism often levelled against biomass, particularly against large-scale fuel production, is that it could divert agricultural production away from food crops, especially in developing countries.
   The basic argument is that energy-crop programmes compete with food crops in a number of ways (agricultural, rural investment, infrastructure, water, fertilizers, skilled labour etc.) and thus cause food shortages and price increases.

   However, this so-called ‘food versus fuel’ controversy appears to have been exaggerated in many cases. The subject is far more complex than has generally been presented since agricultural and export policy and the politics of food availability are factors of far greater importance. :)

2. The green issue is not one of how o limit carbon footprints or live harmoniously with nature. It is one of crushing humanity. Nuclear power provided energy and an incredible safety record unmatched by any other fuel. It was shut down in the US, allegedly over safety concerns, but actually over the fact that if it grew, it would provide unlimited safe, clean power, and those who wish to keep us enslaved need to keep us down.

   Similarly, with biofuel, it was only suggested because it appeared to be so unworkable. But engineers made it work, and it provided a lot of fuel. Of course, that was not the desired outcome, so they had to come up with a complaint. “food vs fuel” was the complaint. It is, they claimed, more important to eat than to drive. Of course, if you work for a living, you realize that not driving means getting a far worse job or no job at all, so driving is how you buy food, but that wasn’t what the anti-happiness patrol wanted to talk about. Of course, if the market value of a crop increases, then production increases, and the US saw millions of fallow acres go back into corn production last year to satisfy the maket demand, but that wasn’t what the whiners wanted to talk about. They pretended that the issue was hunger was caused by ethanol production from feed corn. They intentionally confused feed corn, eaten by animals, very hard and starchy, with the corn that people eat. They pretended there was less corn to eat because of the making of ethanol. But the actual numbers showed otherwise, that the ethanol programs had such a positive impact on conr production that there was more feed corn that there had been in the past, and the animals ate more. But no self respecting green would let real numbers get in the way. They rammed legislation through the EU, largely blocking their previous green initiatives which were aimed at reducing the carbon footprint, in order to ensure that this source of energy did not become available to more people. Similar things were tried in the US, with much less success.
   So, now, schoolteachers, the final bastion of every pointless and stupid idea, and the very embodiment of the desire to crush the happiness and will to live of other people, are teaching that men are evil, because they make fuel out of corn. Students are required to study this made up issue, and required to agree with the premise, which is false.

3. First, several of the crops used to produce bio fuel, such as corn, and soybeans, are also potential food sources. Converting these stores of food into fuel when there are starving people that could consume these is difficult to justify.

   Second, converting huge amounts of land into corn, soybean etc. fields uses up land that can be used for other food crops.

   Finally, a part of the debate – while not exactly being a food issue is this: In converting huge parcels of land into crops such as corn or soybeans we often create serious environmental problems. Corn is very heavily sprayed with insecticides much of which ends up in rivers, and ultimately the oceans. Planting soybeans in tropical zones such as Brazil is a major factor in the destruction of the rain forest.

   BTW – A good alternative bio fuel source is Panic Grass. It’s a native grass in the U.S. , doesn’t require spraying, and is wildlife friendly. Of course – again – it does gobble up land that could be used for food.

4. Simple. Every acre of corn or sugar cane made into ethanol and burned in engines is a large amount of food that could have been used to feed hungry people if it hadn’t been burned in an engine instead.

5. What hasn’t been mentioned by the other answers is that crop prices makes up 3 to 5 percent of the final price that we see in the market in all processed foods. Farmers get a few dollars a bushel, Retailers get a dollar per every 10 to 20 ounces.