In message , Don Klipstein
writes
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.

Only if you don't slash and burn pristine rain forest to grow your new
fuel and food which is what is happening in many places at present. You
lose on both sides of the equation, burning the forest and no longer
having it there to do photosynthesis. By comparison the crops don't fix
as much CO2 and the poor soil quickly degrades without the forest
canopy.

The economics of biofuel are questionable at best - some schemes
actually use more energy from fossil fuel to cultivate and process the
crop it than is yielded by the final product. You might as well not
bother.

When we can turn straw and wood waste into alcohol for fuel then we will
have something useful, but turning grain into fuel is certifiable.

Regards.
--
Martin Brown

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com