Hey Popz---it is really refreshing and fun when you change your theater costume. I get it---you have decided to not cast you pearls. Probably the wiser course. I have not stated my understanding well enough. Food hand-outs are just that--not really an issue except as to distract us. With huge exception to the old and long dispelled Malthusian theory, the planet can produce enough to feed us and then some and can be done with sustainability. Except in rare instances, we have not been doing that. It is not ignorance in the third world. It is the underpricing of the raw product that keeps those countries in abject poverty---always maintained by either a represive regime or one proped up mosty by us. Pakistan is a prime example. We shove our overproduction of wheat down their throats, displace the local producers, that in turn subverts primary income and the necessay trade turn of local earned money while it create a dependency on someone else---I would suggest that real food security obtained by self-sufficiency is a cornerstone to freedom. I doubt that we will ever use ethanol at such a level that food becomes an issue. But we do use dependency on our "surplus" and a vastly underpriced surplus as a weapon against third world nations. For any one who has intellectual curiousity, read a book from 1923? by Frederic Soddy---the most difficult read I have ever undertaken--but huge enlightenment. Please don't weaken---comic relief in this insane environment is necessary.
OMG... you said "monitary"... Are you trying to bring down Monty and the Gospel according to gold on us??
;-)
I was glibly misconstruing your point and being facetious. Sorry. I understand what you meant.
I am familiar with the arguments pinning starvation and famine on the very efforts intented to alleviate them. There is some truth to some of it, but mostly, it has nothing to do with whether or not biofuels from food-crops are, or are not, exaserbating the whole thing. You're talking about whether or not aid operations really help, or make it worse. I'm talking about whether or not using food-crops for biofuels make it worse.
At least you're now looking at the global picture. But the problem here is how you frame it.
You frame the global food supply thing with respect to hand-outs and aid. It's tangential, and I will not deny that there's some game theory there getting over-looked, but to advance as much to counter the reality that availability of food, the amount of food that can be readily accessed, can and does ellicit an inflection point, a threshold at which mass death occurs as result of starvation, does not refute that reality.
Sorry Popz, I have not been clear enough. This is not about the quality of food. It is an economic issue. If you check, you will find that where poverty(usually hungry people are here) where food is the cheapest, their is more hunger. Those who produce the food are paid so litte that the economy is in a peramanent low income situation. The problem with the left for decades as well as the do gooders, mostly the churchs is that they think that giving them food will help---no evidence exists that it does. Surely for humanitarian purposes, they need food and need it now. However, that is a temporary band-aid that can not work---it does not address the cause. The old Chinese Proverb is applicable---teach a boy to fish, etc. It is the political/economic systems that are not working---usually you will find an system of elites owning and controlling the country, usually aided by the Church. We seem to be so confused by all of this. An example is giving away turkeys for the Holidays. Makes us feel better, provides food for those who are hungry. Next year there are more needing food and we have ignored them since we gave away the last turkeys. In the final anyalsis, it is our monetary system that is the problem. Not an issue that lends itself to political discourse. In the USA, we have chosen(not voted on) to replace an earned income economy with a debt based economy. Bretton-Woods agreement. Our public and private debt has increased since than. Savings have declined, inflation has consumed a huge amount of value, and we are now facing the consequences. The Wall St. boys who are still in charge are not patriots---they are simply self-centered hogs at the trough and we are all paying the price. Whatever Obama's intentions are, none of the policies he has chosen will work--they are just not subject to working. Of all the politicians out there, Ron Paul has been the closest to grasping the problem and he is far short and has no political clout. It is the debt that topples nations, not the left or right debate.
Big Jake wrote: "I was in a statement made to Congress in 1948?" Usually I am able to figure out what someone means but you got me stumped on this one Big Jake. Apparently the cheap food route is the chosen way for the government today resulting in the government's ability to control what is grown and how much. It would be interesting to see what would be grown if all subsidies were dropped.
Here is something to ponder. I was in a statement made to Congress in 1948? It was regarding the debate over farm policy and how to make the agribusiness boys rich, give the appearance of cheap food for the consumer, and hand out a welfare check to the farmers. The policy in place at that time had to be dumped as it worked better than anyone imagined and at no cost to the taxpayers. It was both prophetic and one of substance. "Cheap food means hungry people." It has always been true and remains so today. Popz, there exists a whole other realm outside of conventional thinking. If we don't seek answers to today's problems, then history will indeed repeat itself. If higher cost food is bad, then cheap food is better, therefore free must be best.
I agree with Mike mostly with regards to engines and fuel ratios, seeing nothing more than reified blogosphere stuff, and if an auto manufacturing is making such sensitive and fragile engines, the value of their product should be called-out, not the quality of flex-fuels.
Like wise, I also agree with you and my liberal ilk that the supply and demand law is more myth than law when it is invoked, but I think you, like a lot of liberals, are confused about what aspects of it are myth and what are not.
The supply and demand as some sort of universal rule is a myth because people raise prices. People raise prices for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with supply/demand, hence it's a myth. Liberals balk at the supply and demand as *law/rule*, but people who know better do not balk at the fact that supply/demand is a reality.
To explain in other words... much of the time in which prices go up, it has nothing to do with supply/demand, and excusing it all as as much is myth. However, when there is a supply and demand issue, the people in control of prices do in fact raise prices. It's one excuse/reason amongst many, but that does not make it a myth.
You are engaged in a fallacy of composition/division. Mike is making a sweeping generalization. But even mike, later, sez it's effect on prices is "negligible", which is a back-peddling from non-existent.
Additionally, your refutation of the food price thing is national in scope. The food price argument is not national. The food price argument is with respect to the planet, and not just prices in the U.S.. The U.S. supplies food crops to much of the world, and a few percentage point differences in pricing does have a profound impact on those who are most strapped.
This is a legitimate realm of discussion which should not be so glibly dismissed. The humanistic concerns are not without data and analysis.
Popz, you are a believer that supply and demand works and that is how prices are established. That is a giant myth. It just is not so--not in executive compensation, food prices, commodity prices, or for the most part except in very short term anamolies, nothing. Maximum efficiency rarely results in lower prices either. Perception or spin often results in for example food price increases but not raw material shortages. Prices at the farm gate also have been disconnected from supermarket prices for a long time. The consumer pays for food twice--once at the retail counter and once when they pay taxes to fund subsidy that has resulted in fewer and fewer farms and small towns and the emergence of giant corporations--the real beneficiary of farm programs. There are far more reasons to continue to explore alternative fuels than reasons not to.
"But for those who are not like that, which must be the majority, the fact is that every study that tried to pin food price increases on biofuels has failed miserably."
It should be self-evident logic that if you use food to make fuel, there's less food available to eat, and the prices go up.
But, since you're all about reading studies and apparently able to identify their short-comings....
Very good points Mike Green. Brazil is pretty significant proof that ethanol works. Brazil had no choice---a captive of oil producers. As to the inefficiency of making ethanol, that was true a decade ago--not any more and advances are still being made to extract more ethanol from a bushel of corn. No it does not take more energy to produce a bushel than is returned in ethanol. As to competition with food and raising foods prices--just not so. A negative on ethanol is that it has increased corn production---both in planted acres and bushels per acre. That is not a sustainable model. A significant mining of the soil has been and will be more so in the future. That benefits Monsanto, et.al. but not an absolutely essential resource---our top soil. If we converted to E85, that would consume approx. 120 billion gallons of ethanol--about 10 times what we now produce. It is simply not possible to even come close to that level of production. Do not forget that ethanol competes with the livestock industry. That industry is so consolidated that the handful of companies that control it will never allow any of this to happen. Those forces are just too powerful. The oil boys will let the grain/meatpackers do the heavy lifting politically. If you think the "greenies" have any chance in that environment you are dreaming. As to the applicability to use ethanol, Green has it right and just talk or spin won't change that. As to the subsidy, within reason, that is an appropriate government policy put in place to address the ever increasing dependence on the Arabs. My problem with that has been that the government has been way to late coming to the dance. Those who oppose ethanol are a confusing bunch---they have almost no facts to support their position and I just can't figure out just what they want. Perhaps more foreign oil.
There are many studies that show it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol then it provides. I used to burn the 10% blend until I realized the mpg/loss. I have tried it on several vehicles and I lose an average of 20% of mileage that would be achieved on straight gasoline. I can not afford to burn ethanol by paying more at the pump because I would need more fuel for the same miles driven. I think that supporting them with billions of dollars in our tax money should be enough. I was told that if not for the government support of ethanol a producing plant could not even come close to breaking even. Have you checked your mileage lately?
I always find it interesting how people state things that have no concrete backing as if they were confirmed facts. Hard to imagine why people would do that, unless they post because their minds are made up and they're backing a specific position, for specific reasons (paid to do it?), regardless of the facts. But for those who are not like that, which must be the majority, the fact is that every study that tried to pin food price increases on biofuels has failed miserably. I would read these studies before writing that you're against ethanol because it raises food prices - there are lots of them out there, from private organizations, governments, etc, all of them saying the same thing: the effects are negligible. Insisting that this is so only pleases people with a very major agenda, who love the fact you bought into their story - although it cannot be supported by facts. The article that got this started is itself an example of ostrich-like behavior. This sillyness about cars not being able to function with more than 10% ethanol was over before it started, and yet we still yammer about it. We need to open up a lot wider - just because it's not happening here in the ol' USA doesn't mean it ain't so! Brazil has been adding 25% ethanol to all of its gasoline, by law, since the mid-seventies. No complaints from automakers there, nor boaters, owners of lawnmowers or trimmers, and it's not just because they've made all the adjustments (which are no big deal - certainly not worth all the whining we see in America). There are no complaints because implying that ethanol will ruin your car is one major hoax. Every major automaker that sells cars in Brazil knows their cars will run on 25% ethanol. They are the same automakers Americans know and buy from, and their gasoline vehicles sold in Brazil are often the same ones Americans drive. Why can they run on 25% ethanol in Brazil, but not in America? Automakers should explain that, not amateurs with opinions. Pick your favorite automaker and ask them why they can do it in Brazil but not in America... We're not talking half a dozen vehicles: we're talking Brazil, the 8th largest automaker in the world. Brazil is also where flex-fuel cars are a booming success - companies like GM make only flex-fuel cars in Brazil. Once again: GM, which ranks #2 in Brazil, where it has always been profitable, makes no straight gasoline cars, only flex... why can't they and others do that in America? Good question - let them and the other automakers answer, not the folks who have a lot to say but nothing concrete to back it... greenies or otherwise! Enough misinfornation floating around people... let's write about what we know for sure (unless, of course, you're on a mission!).
The letter writer acts as though he's not going to have any choice at the pump.... which simply isn't so.
This greenie, like most greenies, does not like ethanol because it's driving up food costs world wide, and there's really no net saving of fossil fuels.
But it's a big industry, and a lot of people, farmers in particular, stand to profit, so it's a political sacred cow.
When and if they can get the cellulose thing going on... that would be nice
Some real confusion is contained in the letter. I agree with the criticism of Goerhring---he is just cheerleading for those who control him. Ethanol with the new production technology should be used. At the 10% level, we are a long way from being able to produce enough to fill that order let alone 15%. It is unquestionably a positive for the environment but it is not now nor do I foresee any future time when it needs to be or should be used in small engines or any marine application. As to E85, the hit to fuel economy is significant. But that is not the problem. It is a mathematical impossibility to produce even a fraction of ethanol to make E85. Therefore, it is just political speak intended to produce a variety of effects---more investor capital, agribusiness support so as to produce more corn, many farm groups who have mistakenly believed that ethanol was the salvation of production agriculture. Still part of the bigger truck theory. Ethanol is based upon cheap corn. When speculaton(not supply and demand) drove up the price of corn, ethanol just could not be competitive even with the federal subsidies. So much for helping to create prosperity down on the farm. We need cheap oil along with cheap food---or so it seems. As corn prices have moved much lower, ethanol will again be competitive. The failure of several ethanol plants is a process that we have seen before. Once the initial debt is wiped out via bankruptcy, the next owners will make money or perhaps it will require one more "rinse" cycle. The farmer's folly is in believing that their profit should come via ethanol rather than being adequately paid for their corn.
"The Greenies also want the ethanol, because they aren't inclined to let facts and reason interfere with their faith..."
-- Wrong again, insane right wing. I am a "greenie", but I have never been sold on ethanol. I want to see much better mileage from the American gas pigs and plug-in hybrids and electric cars and solar panels on everyone's houses to power those plug-ins. But of course the insane right wing will always fight that because what I mentioned would mean less money in the pockets of their beloved oil barons.
E85 is actually worse than gasoline in many ways. We've all noticed the huge mpg hit when running the ethanol.
Of course, the fact that ethanol production consumes more energy and has a net carbon footprint LARGER than that of gasoline is irrelevant. The point is to hand out tax subsidies to the major corps like Con Agra and ADM that have a lot of skin in the game.
The Greenies also want the ethanol, because they aren't inclined to let facts and reason interfere with their faith...
OMG... you said "monitary"... Are you trying to bring down Monty and the Gospel according to gold on us??
;-)
I was glibly misconstruing your point and being facetious. Sorry. I understand what you meant.
I am familiar with the arguments pinning starvation and famine on the very efforts intented to alleviate them. There is some truth to some of it, but mostly, it has nothing to do with whether or not biofuels from food-crops are, or are not, exaserbating the whole thing. You're talking about whether or not aid operations really help, or make it worse. I'm talking about whether or not using food-crops for biofuels make it worse.
At least you're now looking at the global picture. But the problem here is how you frame it.
You frame the global food supply thing with respect to hand-outs and aid. It's tangential, and I will not deny that there's some game theory there getting over-looked, but to advance as much to counter the reality that availability of food, the amount of food that can be readily accessed, can and does ellicit an inflection point, a threshold at which mass death occurs as result of starvation, does not refute that reality.
Price does not affect the quality of food. Quite the opposite.
Usually I am able to figure out what someone means but you got me stumped on this one Big Jake. Apparently the cheap food route is the chosen way for the government today resulting in the government's ability to control what is grown and how much. It would be interesting to see what would be grown if all subsidies were dropped.
I agree with Mike mostly with regards to engines and fuel ratios, seeing nothing more than reified blogosphere stuff, and if an auto manufacturing is making such sensitive and fragile engines, the value of their product should be called-out, not the quality of flex-fuels.
Like wise, I also agree with you and my liberal ilk that the supply and demand law is more myth than law when it is invoked, but I think you, like a lot of liberals, are confused about what aspects of it are myth and what are not.
The supply and demand as some sort of universal rule is a myth because people raise prices. People raise prices for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with supply/demand, hence it's a myth. Liberals balk at the supply and demand as *law/rule*, but people who know better do not balk at the fact that supply/demand is a reality.
To explain in other words... much of the time in which prices go up, it has nothing to do with supply/demand, and excusing it all as as much is myth. However, when there is a supply and demand issue, the people in control of prices do in fact raise prices. It's one excuse/reason amongst many, but that does not make it a myth.
You are engaged in a fallacy of composition/division. Mike is making a sweeping generalization. But even mike, later, sez it's effect on prices is "negligible", which is a back-peddling from non-existent.
Additionally, your refutation of the food price thing is national in scope. The food price argument is not national. The food price argument is with respect to the planet, and not just prices in the U.S.. The U.S. supplies food crops to much of the world, and a few percentage point differences in pricing does have a profound impact on those who are most strapped.
This is a legitimate realm of discussion which should not be so glibly dismissed. The humanistic concerns are not without data and analysis.
Speaking of having your mind made up....
"But for those who are not like that, which must be the majority, the fact is that every study that tried to pin food price increases on biofuels has failed miserably."
It should be self-evident logic that if you use food to make fuel, there's less food available to eat, and the prices go up.
But, since you're all about reading studies and apparently able to identify their short-comings....
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1233058#
http://www.valleybakers.com/website/EPI-FoodPrices.pdf
http://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genres/12812.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n7533126g6363512/
http://www.doge.us/govecon/EthanolDemandThreatensFoodPrices.pdf
Here's a pro-ethanol one that tries to go conservative with the estimates, and assuage the ethical concerns about food prices...
http://www.doge.us/govecon/EthanolDemandThreatensFoodPrices.pdf
This greenie, like most greenies, does not like ethanol because it's driving up food costs world wide, and there's really no net saving of fossil fuels.
But it's a big industry, and a lot of people, farmers in particular, stand to profit, so it's a political sacred cow.
When and if they can get the cellulose thing going on... that would be nice
-- Wrong again, insane right wing. I am a "greenie", but I have never been sold on ethanol. I want to see much better mileage from the American gas pigs and plug-in hybrids and electric cars and solar panels on everyone's houses to power those plug-ins. But of course the insane right wing will always fight that because what I mentioned would mean less money in the pockets of their beloved oil barons.
Of course, the fact that ethanol production consumes more energy and has a net carbon footprint LARGER than that of gasoline is irrelevant. The point is to hand out tax subsidies to the major corps like Con Agra and ADM that have a lot of skin in the game.
The Greenies also want the ethanol, because they aren't inclined to let facts and reason interfere with their faith...