In ,
James Arthur wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:10 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,

James Arthur wrote:

on food price inflation


You can thank the biofuel craze for that. Planting for burning drives
up food from supply *and* demand sides, plus all the downstream
products--and in other countries--too.

Unintended consequences:

1. Al Gore sounds alarm
2. biofuel craze
3. farmers grow feedstock for cars instead of people

Results:
4. Human misery increased
a. inflation, locally
b. food becomes unaffordable in Mexico and Haiti
c. people starve

5. Environment not improved
a. replacement food grown, appallingly inefficiently
b. net CO2 emissions increase

I don't see 5b being true. The food plants is are replaced from carbon
already in the environment. If this achieves any reduction in consumption
in fossil fuels, then it achieves a decrease in transfer of carbon from
the lithosphere to the atmosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.

- Don Klipstein )

There was a paper out recently on that.

The problem not previously considered is that any food not grown here
has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown somewhere else,
generally under more primitive conditions (e.g. slash & burn (shudder)
or just otherwise less efficiently).

Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it consumes in
tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss in efficiency
results in net increased emissions. So say the paper's authors,
anyhow.

The way I hear it, a Cornell study made calculations assuming all
ethanol comes from corn grown on fields requiring irrigation, which is
only 15% of all American corn.

It appears to me that the valid points against biofuels are mainly on
bidding food prices higher.

- Don Klipstein )