From "The Daily Telegraph":
tinyurl.com/6k7jqk
referring to a report by the World Bank. "The report says: "Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate."
The price increase isn't so apparent here (except in the price of actual vegetable oil, for instance, which has risen in price by around 550% in the last few years), but somewhere in the world...
|
"The price increase isn't so apparent here"
That's 'cos you're wealthy enough not to notice a big hike in the cost of things like bread and rice.
For those earning next to nothing making jeans for Asda, food is far and away their biggest cost.
I did hear that a big part of the boifuel issue is that the USA has devoted 1/3 of its grain production to biofuel - and the USA is far and away the biggest source of grain.
Demand goes up -( population growth + things like the Chinese can now afford beef from grain fed cattle) - supply goes down (biofuel) - price goes up - starvation possible for the poorest.
There's no way we can use biofuels to replace more than a fraction of current oil consumption - not without millions starving anyway.
|
Can be done painlessly by removing tariffs and other barriers on those who have vast tracts of land that can produce this stuff. Most notably the tariffs between Brazil and US.
But then you have to get past the US farm lobby and its an election year...
|
Can be done painlessly by removing tariffs and other barriers on those who have vast tracts of land that can produce this stuff. Most notably the tariffs between Brazil and US.
I wouldn't have thought that razing the current climax vegetation of Brazil to make way for biofuel production, either from cane, soya beans, maize, or whatnot, could possibly be seen as a good thing. The production of fuel from maize in the USA is very heavily subsidised.
|
Brazil has vast tracts of undeveloped land.
The Cerrado region alone is three time the size of Texas and almost totally undeveloped.
American conglomerates are starting to buy up vacant land there in anticipation of the US lifting trade barriers as biofuel becomes a nation security issue rather than an agricultural one.
|
Brazil has vast tracts of undeveloped land. The Cerrado region alone is three time the size of Texas and almost totally undeveloped.
It's currently in the process of destruction. It's not just grassland, and it's not quite as important as the Amazon, but it is still very important. Search for science+express+carbon+debt, and consider the implications of that - this quite apart from any other implications. Development of these areas is, to say the least, not sensible.
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't have thought that razing the current climax vegetation of Brazil to make way for biofuel production either from cane soya beans maize or whatnot could possibly be seen as a good thing. The production of fuel from maize in the USA is very heavily subsidised.
The only sensible method of producing biodiesel is algae farming. Much higher yield than vegetable-based production, and you can grow the stuff in the desert or on waste water.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
|
|
Anything we do can only be tinkering round the edges. Consider this: in all of mankind's history up until 1950 his numbers increased to around 2.5 billions. In less than 60 years since then it has mushroomed to over 6 billion. This is the underlying reason for our ills and it's insoluble. May as well give up now.
|
Consider this: in all of mankind's history up until 1950 his numbers increased to around 2.5 billions. In less than 60 years since then it has mushroomed to over 6 billion. This is the underlying reason for our ills and it's insoluble.
It might be insoluble in the short term to us mere humans but, long term, nature has ways of solving problems like this.
|
>> It might be insoluble in the short term to us mere humans but long term nature has ways of solving problems like this.
>>
Perhaps. Drought, famine and disease. What a way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
