These days you hear a lot about the world financial crisis. But there's another world crisis under way - and it's hurting a lot more people.
I'm talking about the food crisis. Over the past few years the prices of wheat, corn, rice and other basic foodstuffs have doubled or tripled, with much of the increase taking place just in the last few months. High food prices dismay even relatively well-off Americans - but they're truly devastating in poor countries, where food often accounts for more than half a family's spending.
There have already been food riots around the world. Food-supplying countries, from Ukraine to Argentina, have been limiting exports in an attempt to protect domestic consumers, leading to angry protests from farmers - and making things even worse in countries that need to import food.
How did this happen? The answer is a combination of long-term trends, bad luck - and bad policy.
Let's start with the things that aren't anyone's fault.
First, there's the march of the meat-eating Chinese - that is, the growing number of people in emerging economies who are, for the first time, rich enough to start eating like Westerners. Since it takes about 700 calories' worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef, this change in diet increases the overall demand for grains.
Second, there's the price of oil. Modern farming is highly energy-intensive: a lot of B.T.U.'s go into producing fertilizer, running tractors and, not least, transporting farm products to consumers. With oil persistently above $100 per barrel, energy costs have become a major factor driving up agricultural costs.
High oil prices, by the way, also have a lot to do with the growth of China and other emerging economies. Directly and indirectly, these rising economic powers are competing with the rest of us for scarce resources, including oil and farmland, driving up prices for raw materials of all sorts.
Third, there has been a run of bad weather in key growing areas. In particular, Australia, normally the world's second-largest wheat exporter, has been suffering from an epic drought.
O.K., I said that these factors behind the food crisis aren't anyone's fault, but that's not quite true. The rise of China and other emerging economies is the main force driving oil prices, but the invasion of Iraq - which proponents promised would lead to cheap oil - has also reduced oil supplies below what they would have been otherwise.
And bad weather, especially the Australian drought, is probably related to climate change. So politicians and governments that have stood in the way of action on greenhouse gases bear some responsibility for food shortages.
Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels.
The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a "scam."
This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly "good" biofuel policies, like Brazil's use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.
And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.
Oh, and in case you're wondering: all the remaining presidential contenders are terrible on this issue.
One more thing: one reason the food crisis has gotten so severe, so fast, is that major players in the grain market grew complacent.
Governments and private grain dealers used to hold large inventories in normal times, just in case a bad harvest created a sudden shortage. Over the years, however, these precautionary inventories were allowed to shrink, mainly because everyone came to believe that countries suffering crop failures could always import the food they needed.
This left the world food balance highly vulnerable to a crisis affecting many countries at once - in much the same way that the marketing of complex financial securities, which was supposed to diversify away risk, left world financial markets highly vulnerable to a systemwide shock.
What should be done? The most immediate need is more aid to people in distress: the U.N.'s World Food Program put out a desperate appeal for more funds.
We also need a pushback against biofuels, which turn out to have been a terrible mistake.
But it's not clear how much can be done. Cheap food, like cheap oil, may be a thing of the past.
Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Conscience of a Liberal.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
59 Comments so far
Show AllAndy - You didn't site anything on alien abductions? How disappointing...
The world was flat until someone produced a peer reviewed study to show it was round, however, spot the peer reviewed paper:
1) Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions (bleeding stomachs) and seven out of the forty died within two weeks.
Pusztai, A. et al. (2003) Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. In: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D'Mello) pp. 347-372. CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, UK
2) A UK government-funded study demonstrated that rats fed a GM potato developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth (1), damaged immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver, and inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles(2) .
(1) Ewen, SWB & Pusztai, A. (1999) Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354, 1727-1728. (2) Jeffrey Smith's personal communication with Dr Arpad Pusztai
3) Rats fed GM maize had problems with blood cell, kidney and liver formation.
French experts very disturbed by health effects of Monsanto GM corn (24/4/2004), www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3308, Translation of Le Monde article "L'expertise confidentielle sur un inquiétant maïs transgénique," Confidential report on a worrying GM corn by Herve Kempf, 22.04.04, www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-362061,0.html. Also see Spilling the Beans, June 2005, www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExpos...
4) Mice fed GM soya had problems with liver cell formation.
Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, et al "Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean". Cell Structure and Function Vol. 27 (2002), No. 4, pp. 173-18. www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3622
5) Mice fed GM soya had problems with pancreatic function.
Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy, Volume 201 Issue 5 p. 409, November 2002
6) The livers of rats fed GM canola were heavier. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Advice on a notification for marketing of herbicide tolerant GM oilseed rape, www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice36.pdf
7) Pigs fed GM maize on several American Midwest farms developed false pregnancies or sterility. www.savejerryscorn.org/
8) Cows fed GM maize in Germany died mysteriously. And twice the number of chickens died when fed GM maize compared to those fed natural maize.
Report for the Chardon LL Hearing, Non-Suitability of Genetically Engineered Feed for Animals, Dr. Eva Novotny, Scientists for Global Responsibility, May 2002, www.sgr.org.uk/GenEng/animalfeel_all.pdf
9) Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK , soya allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent.
Mark Townsend, "Why soya is a hidden destroyer," Daily Express, March 12, 1999
10) A gene from a Brazil nut inserted into soyabeans made the soya allergenic to those who normally react to Brazil nuts (this was never commercialised).
J Ordlee, et al, "Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans," The New Englandd Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996
11) The most common allergen in soya is called trypsin inhibitor. GM soya contains significantly more trypsin inhibitor compared with natural soya. Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (Data was taken from the journal archives, as they had been omitted from the published study. It was reported by Barbara Keeler and Marc Lappé, "Some Food for FDA Regulation," Los Angeles Times, January 7, 2001)
From: Protect Yourself from Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey M Smith author of Seeds of Deception http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/32.doc
I suggest that the readers check out peer-reviewed scientific papers and decide for themselves rather than taking the word of "anti-whatever" organizations.
Mr Obvious
CAUGHT IN THE ACT AGAIN !!!
You appear to be addicted to repeating biotech industry spin?
You say "We cannot even give away GM corn (that we have been eating for over a decade) to starving African's because their governments are afraid someone will plant it and jeapordize future export to the EU."
BULL !!!
America has weak and corrupt scientific food regulatory processes. Happy to debate that any time you want to.
European consumers are not easily fooled after a government official went on record claiming there was no scietific proof MAD COW DISEASE came from eating beef.
That is why Europeans, Africans, Asians, Japanese and Indians and others reject your GM corn.
Check it out, food borne diseases doubled in the US between 1994 and 2002, roughly the time when GM crops were introduced.
Typical biotech industry spin blames this on organic agriculture.
I suggest intelligent readers check out "The Organic Attack" on the GM Watch web site.
Mr Obvious
STUPID OR LYING - POLITICIANS AND SCIENTISTS?
There you go, regugitating biotech industry propaganda again, "where politicians ban GM crops after they are approved by the scientific regulatory authorities. Its all a big game and the poor go hungry."
Firstly, geneticist Professor David Suzuki says any politician or scientist who tells you GM foods are safe is either very stupid or lying.
Secondly, there is ample evidence of scientific regulatory authories being pressurised by politicians to approve GM foods. Take a look in the mirror in your own country.
Thirdly, Christian Aid and other organisations predicted 10 years ago that GM crops would increase hunger not solve it. NOW THE CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST.
Fourthly, farmers across the Third World are protesting against the introduction of GM crops. 5000 farmers in India protested only a few days ago.
Search "The Biotech Brigade" on th eGM Watch web site to see who is spinning GM food down our throats.
There was an article on Common Dreams regarding food riots in Haiti, but now I cannot find it. The UN sent 9000 armed troops to control the rioters.
The article mentioned severe food shortages in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Egypt and several other courntries. According to information on the internet, it seems that Cote D'Ivoire, Cameroon, Mozambique, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Indonesia have also had food riots. Mexico and Central America are having problems.
It is not clear to me from what I have read how much of the problem is decline in quantity of available food and how much is price increases. The two are often related. Are ethanol production or poppy growing diverting land from food production, thus increasing the price?
Surplus grains are needed for food. As good2go repeatedly points out having a surplus does not necessarily mean the food gets to those who need it. That requires a political will. But if you cut down the supply and raise the price it makes it even more difficult to craft any approach.
Where is the UN? They are providing troops, presumably to protect the Haitian elite. I saw a picture of Ban Ki Moon sitting next to Condaleeza Rice. Is that the only rice the UN is offering?
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=51929
Mr. Obvious--Again, I agree. Any suggestion of the benefits of a controlled birthrate and suddenly you're being compared to Hitler. I bring up the subject because it is taboo. I think talking about it can force people to think about it a little more deeply. I am not referring to mandatory control imposed on a country, I am talking about the possibility of tying foreign aid to voluntary population control measures. Otherwise, we are just making the problem worse. Everyone reveres you if you are feeding the hungry, even if you are making the problem worse. Feed the hungry, but feed the hungry responsibly.
Some people I know attended a missionary trip to Guatemala recently that was organized by the Catholic Church. The organizers strongly prohibited anyone from talking to the people about birth control, even though everywhere you look, you see young teenagers (13 or 14 years old) having babies they can't take care of.
shakker hints at a crucial point regarding the China/US business relationship, US leadership, and social/environmental health. If the US wishes to lead in this world it has to alter its business relationship with China and demand socially/environmentally positive production. So far, the US has failed miserably. And it's very miserable because the US "laissez-faire" attitude affect the Chinese production that supplies not only 300 million Americans, but over the next decade will supply 1.4 billion Chinese.
"We have to increase the number of people with a microwave oven from 200 million to 1.2 billion," says Ms. Chen, a gleam in her eye as she measures the prospect. "That's where our future lies." -csmonitor.com
jstevens - We agree that population control is essential to improving the human condition. I just wanted to point out the reality of implimentation. Think about the outcry when China implimented their own one-child rule. Imagine if we tried to impose this from outside! We cannot even give away GM corn (that we have been eating for over a decade) to starving African's because their governments are afraid someone will plant it and jeapordize future export to the EU. If we mandated population control that was equivalent to our voluntary birth rates in the US in exchange for grain, we would be seen as demons.
Mr. Obvious, I agree that there are great obstacles to applying any logic to the problem of starving people. However, I think it is important to throw the idea out there that the Earth has a limit, a boundary. That a sphere is not of infinite dimensions-- every-time someone writes "Impoverished mother has no way of feeding her 10 starving children because of ethanol, only ethanol."
jstevens - Your an ogre. How can you possibly want to impose some type of responsible conduct on those that you are giving food? Can you imagine the outcry -"Imperilist pigs want to limit family sizes in exchange for food". Never happen...
oisin: Imagine a scenario in which the US increases production of food to the absolute maximum, and sends all of the surplus to the Third World. We ask them what amount they need to eliminate hunger, and that is the amount we send. What do you think they would ask for the next year, and the next? Remember that we were at maximum production to start with.
Say you want to feed the hungry and you're golden. You're Bono. Everyone loves you, no one argues with you. But what are you really doing to the world?
Population control must be coupled with aid, or else you are creating more miserable people.
Oisin would rather be insulting than do any work. There isn't a lick of food that has been threatened by corn production in this country. Read my previous posts. Yes, food prices are up but that is due mainly to OIL PRICES. Or didn't you notice?
Read the book, man. Save your infantile drivel for freerepublic.com You wouldn't know a serious discussion if it bit you in the rear
jclientelle, the corn growers assn likes the book because it explains ethanol to you and me. The book was not funded by big agribusiness. The incentive, as you note, is to find a solution to our energy problems, and it is elegantly outlined in this book. David Blume has worked in ethanol since the 1970s. He knows the oil company lies, he knows the myths, there are no corn growers paying his way. I agree with the last two statements you made. And your first paragraph as well. So does David.
But again, the focus is on getting all of us to start energy coops, similar to CSA's. Is this bad? Given what is happening to food, it could be huge. And in the Third World too. Google Malawi, as I said. Tropical countries can benefit big time from making their own fuel and reducing imports. And providing a lot more food for their people.
The population problem, not unlike the food cost problem due to OIL, is separate. The problem of corporate agriculture is separate. It's time to go organic, for certain. See
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=56434
It's time to use permaculture methods. It's time for a revolution. Sorry Oisin just wants to sit on his sorry butt and make insults. I want to make fuel and food.
It is hard for the average person to sort out what is real information and what is sponsored or promoted by interests such as oil or corn growers. That is partly because scientific inquiry has been taken over by corporations, either directly or through grants to universities. These grants have a not so subtle subtext that you better control your information or you won't continue to get this money.
Therefore, you do not often see an impartial investigation or plan of how best to solve energy problems. The website that good2go recommends carries an endorsement by the Corn Growers Association. That does not necessarily mean it is has false information. But it is obviously limited information. Why would it compare biofuels to wind and solar power? Why would it list the costs and limitations as well as the benefits of biofuels? It does neither. There is no incentive to do so.
If a plan costs up front money and requires a waiting period for a return, then who would invest in it these days? Quick easy profits and to hell with those who are not in on it and to hell with the future generations. That is the corporate mission statement of today.
good2go thinks that because he and his enlightened pals working on their pet projects in their woodsheds do not advocate deforestation, Krugman is uninformed. All we have to do is change completely the entire world's energy policies and spend many years forging the new buffalo gourd energy economy and you'll see, biofuels will rule!
Wow, it' hard to know where to begin responding to this infantile drivel.
good2go, I hope you and your cattail, mesquite, and manure concoction win the Bumfuck County Science Fair this summer, I really do. I'm sure Krugman would wish you well, too. But he and many other adults are concerned about a LOT of people who are going to be dying RIGHT NOW in the REAL world. He is worried about what policies need to be changed to alleviate the suffering. As things stand right now, "biofuels" means large-scale replacement of food crops by fuel crops. This is indeed having all the terrible consequences Krugman discusses. If you can't wrap your mind around this, go back to your hobbyshop and leave the serious discussions to the adults.
You can see the marketing genius of the oil companies in almost every biofuels article these days. One obscure and inaccurate study stating that ethanol production uses more energy than it offers is quoted ad nauseam even though it has long since been discounted.
The world's food problems are very obviously created not by ethanol, but by overpopulation. Almost everyone agrees that corn is not the most efficient crop for ethanol, however, it certainly beats oil in terms of carbon output.
Here in America we:
Throw enormous quantities of food away.
Waste resources through leisure activities such as boating and vacationing.
Eat meat, a very inefficient food source.
Feed our domestic pets instead of feeding the poor. etc. etc.
None of these activities get any attention, but try to replace oil with biofuel and suddenly we are causing the whole world to starve. This slant is brought to you compliments of Exxon Mobile.
When food and oil are cheap, we waste it. I don't think low commodities prices are such a laudable goal. The only way to help the starving is to control the population, not send corn.
Again, we do not export corn to poor countries. We export it to rich countries. If we wanted to give food to poor countries, it would be no problem. USING PROPER METHODS, we can grow plenty of food. Farmland is not so finite because the US only uses about 18 percent of prime cropland for corn. And it takes up about 8% of total agricultural land. Remember, this is prime cropland and there is also a billion acres of "farmland" which is not as level or soil as deep as cropland. Marginal land can produce huge amounts of fuel without plowing up the soil, using perennials that are much more productive than corn. What about seedpods from mesquite?
To make the marketplace more hospitable to the poor, GIVE THEM THE POWER TO GROW THEIR OWN FOOD. Google Malawi.
Again, I suggest everyone read the book (see first entry). It proves sensible agricultural production and biofuel production can be the most environmentally friendly solution.
Please folks, don't cherrypick my comments without reading the whole. It's why I don't blog much. I know, you want to believe what you want to believe but read the book. It has changed many people's minds.
I have to disagree with the proponents of bio-fuels. It is simple logic that with finite farmland and a growing population, it is better to use land to grow food instead of powering SUV's. I drive an electric car that I recharge from my small wind turbine in my yard. Cost of fuel = zero! Damage to the environment = zero! I even use a savonius wind turbine to prevent damage to birds and to eliminate an eyesore on the landscape.
Once hydrogen fuel cells become inexpensive, I will use the same wind turbine to create hydrogen (from water) and thereby even get greater mileage from my fuel cell car as well as heat and cool my home, cook my meals and power my appliances. Meanwhile my farmland can be used for food production.
The danger of promoting bio-fuels is that it shifts the focus from more realistic and environmentally friendlier alternatives such as solar, wind and ultimately a push towards a hydrogen-based economy. Meanwhile the biggest thing people can do to immediately reduce our oil dependency is to drive more efficient vehicles. There is simply no need (except for vanity) to drive a gas-guzzler and therefore the rich should be taxed heavily for that privilege.
In the long-term, American society in particular needs to move away from the automobile culture all together by rapidly developing comfortable and efficient public transport, discouraging recreational driving, building a super bicycle highway system, promoting energy and utility grid independence, increasing regulation and law enforcement of utility companies and finally replacing the public's consumer driven ideology with a progressive 'less is best' approach.
I saw this on another thread regarding what they call the "Biofuel Scam".
http://www.biofuelsong.com/music/
Good2go says: "The world makes PLENTY of food, it is simply a question of people not having the money to pay for it and starvation is a reflection of a warped system that is interested in money, not humanity."
There is historical truth there. But the situation with grains has new features that make the marketplace even less hospitable to the poor. Reducing the amount of corn on the food market is one, also selling non-reproductive seeds, crop failures from climate change - these are immediately raising prices and making food even more unaffordable.
I do not think it is histrionic to point out the immediacy of hunger or things like the mass suicides of farmers in India as evidence that food policy is not abstract and has dramatic impacts on those affected.
What about the promise of wind and solar and other forms of energy?
Jclientelle
I meant to say "ethanol processed from corn" I wrote quickly. Distillers grains contain no starch, cows cannot digest starch, distillers grains and grass (note grass fed beef) are much more nutritious for the animals. Which we could eat less of, no question. Also, if corn prices do keep going up, animals might have to be fed more hay. Good, right?
Most of corn ethanol is made by farm cooperatives. ADM makes about 27-30 percent of the ethanol, the rest are made by cooperatives. Corn ethanol is promoted because corn is what farmers are paid to grow. It's not smart but if farmers figure out other crops make more ethanol, and that planting polyculturally is smarter.... we can dream, right?
I do not need your histrionics about starving sickly crying children. The world makes PLENTY of food, it is simply a question of people not having the money to pay for it and starvation is a reflection of a warped system that is interested in money, not humanity. No, hungry people can't wait for the oligarchy to be replaced so take charge of your energy and food and lead the way. That is what the alcoholcanbeagas movement is about. There is no room for industrialized anything in a properly run, sustainable energy system in this country. Read the book. No one is saying keep consuming energy mindlessly, we are saying make your own energy and take responsibility. There are sources for ethanol across the country. It will require labor, but with the lack of work for so many people, and the return of the back to the land movement, I think people will want to work hard for better care of the land and better nutrition. call me weird and idealist.
Cattails are not "cut down", they can be grown in many places. Ethanol is about ADDING crops and diversity and food, if done correctly using permacultural methods of farming. Please read the material on the website, there are many chapter portions available.
Please do research on the net on carbon-negative energy production through biofuels. biopact.com is not running articles any more but their archives are a good place to start. many of your other energy options are fine. If done at reduced scale. Decentralized energy is the best way to go for all of us.
Someone else who blogged has not done their research- most ethanol plants are powered by natural gas. There are many schemes on a smaller level to reduce energy input, save water and so on in making ethanol. But they require thinking outside the box and if you've ever seen Wall Street financiers talk about this sort of thing, they are as obtuse as can be.
"Ethanol is a joke on us. Small stills will require so much energy and materials input that they won't work."
Read the book, man, then tell me what you think.
http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com?bid=2&aid=CD8&opt=
Good2go says: "But most of it goes to feed livestock and the corn processed from ethanol can be made in distillers grains, a more nutritious food when mixed with grass/hay which is what cows are supposed to eat". What does this whole sentence mean and what is "corn processed from ethanol"?
Corn based ethanol is being promoted chiefly because it promises quick profits for big corn producers. This is not Farmer Gray, but huge corporations. It may also be seen as an opportunity for some start-ups, which may explain the spate of anti-Krugman commentary here. There are several problems with corn based ethanol in my view:
1. It diverts land and food. Immediately it hurts Mexicans.
2. It consumes lots of energy to produce, with very small net energy gain.
3. It distracts from developing other clean energy sources.
4. This enthusiasm and rush to ethanol sidesteps need for conservation
In short: it diverts, consumes, distracts and sidesteps solutions to the energy crisis. If nothing else, hungry people here, in Mexico and in other places cannot wait until the whole oligarchy is replaced. Hunger is a daily, nightly thing, with your sickly crying child to remind you every minute. Corn is still needed as food for people and it is needed now.
If ethanol can be efficiently produced from waste, that would be a good possibility. I am not so sure weeds and cattails should be cut down en masse, as they are part of our biosphere, which is delicate and valuable.
Otherwise what about the acres and acres of open sunny windy land in the west for solar and wind energy? Some of this heretofore unproductive land is owned by Native Americans, who could use the energy as a healthier source of wealth and social power than casinos. How much is this being done? Is somebody suppressing such initiatives?
What about more research into thermal and tidal energy and other forms I don't even imagine? What about more public transportation? Why are our railroads so scanty and expensive? (hint: they don't use much oil product) What about more efficient cars? Building green?
The big corn lobby is not quite the player as the oil lobby, but it can be pernicious too, both in terms of the energy crisis and the food shortages. It works hand in hand with industrialized beef, pork and poultry production. What about supporting smaller truck farms and small humanly run dairy farms so people can use fresh vegetables, milk, cheese and free roaming poultry and eat less mass produced, hormone injected, anti-biotic laden, maltreated corn consuming beef?
I believe Rudolph Diesel actually designed his engine to run on hemp oil which was (and is) available in Europe.
They didn't (and don't) grow many peanuts in Germany.
Prediction: The next step will be to obfuscate the machinations of the oligarchy by making China the evil one. Watch the news. See what's important to a sane person and what they cover.
In about two years, war with Iran, which will drag Russia, China, India and oil Islam in AGAINST us.
We can't nuke them without nuking ourselves.
Europe will turn against us. We'll crash economically, to a big cheer from the tired world. Welcome to Germany, post-WWI. So smells defeat.
You can't buy a smart car because it's unsafe, and yet boomers are buying Harley's so fast that Harley has a bigger market capitalization than General Motors.
But Harley's are less safe than Smart Cars. VW already makes a four door 100 mpg car, the Lupo TDI diesel.
Ethanol is a joke on us. Small stills will require so much energy and materials input that they won't work.
Nanomaterial Ultracapacitor Scooters, sheet film solar electric, solar hot water, home gardens, and shotguns will be the theme.
THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF CONSUMERISM WILL GO DOWN. Sorry about yelling. As Dennis Kucinich wisely observed, "Status must be measured by service, not by wealth." So we banished him.
The comments on overpopulation and women's freedom are the keys to the discussion.
Capitalism, unregulated, will destroy us. We are fighting the Golems -- corporations.
Good luck, O blind ones.
i don't see what the big deal is. as long as we can eat at mcdonald's and still have enough money to do a load of laundry afterwards!!!
we live in America for pete's sake!!!! we have taco bell!!
The $600 Republican bribe to vote Republican in November will soon be in the mail (or in your account via EFT). Smart merchants will raise their prices in anticipation of a windfall. But that windfall ain't gonna happen because people will use most of it to catch up on bills. Me? I'm going totally UNPATRIOTIC! I'm going to SAVE mine. I know, what a novel idea.
Paul Krugman neglects the impact that inflation has on commodities. Over the last 6 years, the Fed has more than doubled the money supply. printing dollars at warp-speed. Not to mention the billions of fresh new dollars for the Wall Street bailouts.
In addition, currencies around the world continue increase. So as the world is flooded with paper money, assets that have real value such as grains, oil, and precious metals will invariably go up. This is the major reason why commodities have seen a recent surge in pricess between 15-30% in just the last few months. The other reasons Mr. Krugman sites for the rise in grains are simply contributing to the problem.
Let us focus on the true cause of the problem: worldwide stagnant wages and raging inflation created by our Federal Gov. and the world's oceans of worthless paper money.
Australia has always been "a land of drought and flooding rain", linked to the Southern Oscillation. Although, yes: the last one has been particularly bad and may very well be linked to climate change.
However, with the la Nina, the drought is definitely finished for large swathes of the country - we are getting the floods about now. This winter will be a wet one.
Ullern April 7th, 2008 3:12 pm "As long as the most influential moral leaders in the world, who regrettably are the Pope and the US President, do not actively support use of contraception and free abortion, our unsustainabilities will increase."
Two words: Gender Slavery. When women are freed from their chains and legally guaranteed biological and economic self-determination, the birthrate drops like a stone. Period.
The flip-side of that is the standard 3-word argument since the American Eugenics movement decided for a simple solution - Sterilize the Poor. We did.
Now, this IS a Hell World and given a choice between the two options cited above - egalitarian v. slavery, white men (and most males in general) would rather sterilize poor women, after they've fucked them, unless they hold them as personal property, then they "breed them". Teach'em it's their job. The flat-earth genocidal blood god from the deserts of the middle east DEMANDS THEIR TOTAL SUBMISSION. That is also our history. Don't tell me that their Book doesn't say that. THEY said it and they had the money and the guns - if you're a supporter of Popes, Prelates, or Presidents - they're yours, and they want you, male or female, in chains. Consider it an extension of the "Ownership Society".
I see no reason we will make different decisions in future. Besides, males have been quite happy in slave societies for 3000 years. Not satisfied with even marginal opportunities for the oppressed populations of this country, women and minorities, we are back to slave plantation like a shot.
Unfortunately, the planet has different plans.
Skill sets for the new age: Finding sip wells and tubers.
Peace.
Time to read "The Great Turning" by David Korten.
Why doesn't the US allow the SmartForTwo diesel to be imported? And why aren't we generally told that Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on peanut oil?
How about algae on all of our sewer ponds? Algae growing towers on sewer ponds?
How about hydrogen fuel for cars, no waste and manufactured as needed by the car itself - just plain old H2O.
Get small, get local, get smart.
Turn your lawn, apartment patio,or rooftops into a garden. Do it NOW! It may already be to late for some. But maybe not for you...
good2go,
If ethanol is as energy efficient as your link claims, the government wouldn't have to subsidize it, and people would not have to promote it.
Being a small scale process, many small firms producing ethanol would have already taken over the liquid fuels market. Funny how that has not happened.
I have a flyer sitting in front of me from the NCGA, and even they only claim an energy returned of 1.67:1, so I think your link's claims are suspect.
Ullern- The pope and Bush both oppossing contraception is more than madness in my opinion. I think it's evil. Bush has always seemed like an anti-Christ to me: takes from the poor and gives to the rich, a warmonger instead of peacemaker, liar...
Awesome - some highlights of the continuing world food shortage and not a single mention of the fact that Monsanto and friends are "dedicated" to "solving world hunger" via the use of their transgenic mutant organisms, er, genetically modified foods.
"We will have to use the scientific tools of molecular biology," said Director-General of the UN-backed Food and Agriculture Organization Dr Jacques Diouf.
"According to the FAO, biotechnology research is essentially driven by the world's top ten transnational corporations - such as Monsanto - which spend about $3 billion annually.
By comparison, the largest international public sector supplier of agricultural technologies for developing countries, the CGIAR system, has a total annual budget of less than US$300 million."
And we all know how often the words "transnational corporation" and "benevolence" are used in the same sentence...
I will say it again. PERMACULTURE!! Find if there is a course near you.. Take it and implement it in your own back yard! and town!
You have to really laugh at the 'problems' caused by the Chinese. If we would have required humane treatment of all workers on all goods sold in America and environmental control at least as good as our laws at all foreign factories the Chinese would have had to develop to serve their own market. The slash and burn production methods that pretend to externalize costs would have had to compete with sustainable practices.
What do Cat Tails planted along highways, Kelp farms in the oceans, and 70 million acres of Mesquite have in common?
All of them are viable alternatives to corn and can be turned into fuel. The next big market is small scale stills - moonshine is making a comeback! My Honda is a gasoline engine and it is running JUST FINE on a 50/50 gasoline / Alcohol fuel mix.
Henry Ford even said oil isn't a viable fuel source - and he made his first vehicles FLEX FUEL. Know your history - fight big oil and free yourselves.
Like the first comment posted, make sure you do your own research: http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/?bid=2&aid=CD1&opt=
The reason for the food prices is simply due to the insane scam of ethanol and food based biofuels.
Cheap food and cheap fuel can be a reality again but only if we shift from the oil based monopoly to one of hydrogen (a universal energy carrier). A switch to hydrogen (for ICE or electric) will make solar,wind, wave etc...more competitive and more widely produces that the oil fuel markets.
Fuel will become cheap and able to be produced by oneself if needed. Food will drop because its no longer dependent on the ethanol or biodeisel scam.
The drought in Australia, although quite real, was part of a long term weather pattern that has been known (and duly forgotten or ignored) for a long time (El Nino, La Nina -- I cannot remember which is which). It also affects Peru, but in a different way: as I recall the sea warms, and that in turn reduces fish stocks, etc.
Don't get me wrong -- I am not saying global warming is not true, but to simply blame the drought on that alone gives the sceptics ammunition.
Since the global human society as a whole is incapable of being smart and reducing its numbers, then it must become very stupid, and make itself unsupportable by actions which prematurely remove the livelihood from billions of people. Sure, more people could be supported on the planet by more effective use of the food chain. But that would lead to earlier crises in other areas, such as climate change, water resources, fossil fuel shortage. Every gain now in efficiency keeps Gaia on death row.
Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels.
Somehow biofuel evolved into this MONSTROUS EVIL DEMON that took POSESSION of our socially responsible god-fearing capitalists. Our capitalist saviors fell in the great battle against biofuels, by human weakness that must be forgiven. Paul Krugman, never ever blame the capitalist. Just so you know not to cross that line. You'll be OUT OF A JOB if you do.
What should be done? The most immediate need is more aid to people in distress: the U.N.'s World Food Program put out a desperate appeal for more funds. We also need a pushback against biofuels, which turn out to have been a terrible mistake.
Of course to keep his job, Krugman has to send the reader off on a wild goose chase, through the World Food Program, to feed the people instead of teaching them to feed themselves. That serves the capitalists very well, doesn't it? There's no doubt that the capitalist's embrace of biofuels as their latest commodity of wicked plunder was a terrible mistake if your goal is maximizing the well-being of people/planet. But biofuels are not the demon. Biofuels are part of the solution, by providing local communities economic independence in the responsible production of fuel for internal combustion engines, that are beneficial in a limited capacity.
Krugman also ignores the capitalist's role in fueling worldwide gluttony for meat especially, and private transport, by manipulating the public through propaganda spewed by government officials, influential individuals, and news/entertainment media.
One main factor of the food crisis Krugman omits is the annual population increase of 80-100 million people. This "population explosion" which since 1966 has doubled global population to currently 6.75 billion, is the main drive behind the food crises. But it's also the main drive behind global economic growth and profits for us richest. More poor people means more eager labor force and more cheap produce.
As long as the most influential moral leaders in the world, who regrettably are the Pope and the US President, do not actively support use of contraception and free abortion, our unsustainabilities will increase. That's why it's madness – simply short-sighted greedy madness – for the Pope and G W. Bush to oppose education on contraception-use and free abortion.
Although a stop in population increase will reveal the gross unfairnesses and wild inequalities in our global human society as the picture of our human world stops moving, even we in the global elites will be better off with reduced rulership and privileges as a trade-off for a more stable and more content human world.
A «World Peace of Mind» is achievable and desirable. Even for those who lose some privileges of material wealth and power.
An open global recommandation of one child per family – which at least will make people think on the issue – is becoming a necessity.
Only reducing human growth to sustainable target of 1.33 % (the annual growth of a human being over a lifetime) will solve the growing food-crisis and the many other looming crises.
Growing at 1.33 % means innovation keeping up with decay but not expanding materially, as people die naturally and our human constructions slowly bio-degrade. Growth in efficiency and spiritual values can still be unlimited.
To paraphrase Pogo's famous "We've met the enemy and he is US.", it's now true to say "We've met our limits and they are us."
Our leaders need to get used to our new limits, and our political systems need to be adjusted to a democratic flexibility that circulates signals from the ruled to the rulers a lot more efficiently. That's urgent.
Who is this guy? He ignores (obfuscates?) entirely the fact that since the subprime crisis there has been a huge surge of speculation in food stocks. Capitalist money can't sit idle and must produce not only a profit via investment, but an increasing rate of profit. Fleeing mortgage-backed stocks, the money had to go somewhere and went in this case to bidding on and enormously inflating the price of food. Biofuel production and droughts and what-have-you, are all secondary causes of the explosion.
Simple Sauce - You are correct about the energy inputs to raise the grain. I just wanted to point out that there are at least two sides to the ethanol equation. You point out some other aspects. One also needs to incorporate energy for transportation and processing. I actually think that ethanol from corn is silly as an energy solution. However it is a clever way to "legally" subsidize agriculture and offset the "legal" agricultural subsidies in other countries like the EU, where politicians ban GM crops after they are approved by the scientific regulatory authorities. Its all a big game and the poor go hungry.
I've met and talked with David Bloom on several occasions. He sees ethanol in the localized format as Jan mentioned. The rising price of carn HAS affected the US food economy as its forced the closure of many hog and poultry growers on the east coast. The CEO of Pilgrims Pride fired a broadside at congress and BushCo by saying matterafactly that his operations' closurers and the workers now unemployed are the direct result of ethanol subsides. The EROI for corn-based ethanol is consistently shown to be less than 2. At theoildrum.com we've had many articles and discussions over the past two years regarding the viability of ethanol specifically and biofuels in general. (See http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/ethanol for a list of all.) Today at that blog, ethanol promoters are treated the same as climate change deniers--no credibility. The fundamental point is that usage of ALL transport fuels must be reduced by over 50% ASAP to deal with Peak Oil and Climate Change.
Every day, I'm treated to a parade of articles from all over the planet detailing the severity of the food and energy crises. The links here are a very, very small sample, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3809#comment-327262
As one commentator on Krugman's column stated, Krugman is understating the overall severity of the crises confronting us.
Some interesting comments here. Good points about the root causes needing to be addressed, and some of the same old same old from the "ethanol can save us!!" crowd. Glad to see more discussion of this in the corporate press anyhow.
A couple of quick comments: Jan I'm happy to see you digging at the root of the motivations here, and I'm with you all the way on relocalization being part of the solution. Perhaps more importantly than how we provide transport energy in the future is how much of it we have/want to provide. Relocalizing our lives and economies is a huge step in reducing that quantity, and I'm happy to see others bring up such things here.
As for the question of how we produce transport energy, ethanol is of course one option. We all seem to agree with Krugman that the current agribusiness paradigm is completely stupid, but from there it's a question of whether we dedicate crops (and therefore land, water, etc.), use agriculture "waste streams," or use post-processing "waste streams" like used fryer oil. My preference would be for the latter, especially since the agricultural "wastes" are actually things that are useful or vital to soil health and erosion prevention.
Mr. Obvious: Your statement about net carbon emissions being obviously zero neglects the fact that large amounts of CO2 are emitted in the industrial-scale production of these very crops, and that the rest of the plant is not "sequestered" in any meaningful way.
Argue all you like. Master has to starve everyone in order to subjugate them. If ethanol and Nafta isn't a good way to make them hungry, impoverished, and illiterate (say in the US), Master will find another way.
THERE WILL BE NO SOLUTIONS TO ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT THREATEN OUR SURVIVAL AS A SPECIES UNTIL WE ELIMINATE THE SINGLE GREATEST CAUSE OF HUNGER, PESTILENCE, AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD:
THE OLIGARCHY.
Oligarchy can ONLY exist in a Plantation Slave Society. That is their model. That is what their entire economic system both domestic and global is intended to bring about. All of it. One trick pony: Transfer wealth from the many to the few through conquest and by owning human labor.
That's it. Kill them or die at their hands.
You can be merciful and terminate them as a class with an FDR legacy of taxation, support for unions, corporate regulation, and a full social safety net. That will produce as it did before the greatest distribution of wealth ever seen in the history of our species. Regrettably, that will bring us back to the same choice that was flatly refused by America in the late 60's: The requirement that we make a place for everyone at the table and reject war and conquest as a way of life.
Your second option is to wait until you and your children are starving to death, and then in rage and fear and madness, you will cut off their heads, possibly your children's to spare them a fate worse than death, more likely in a mob after you get drunk (there will always somehow be liquor). But then like the French, you get Robespierre and the TERROR (real one this time), and of course, Bonaparte.
This is not of course the 18th century, nor is this continental Europe. Most likely the starving time will follow the Great Shattering, a global economic pandemic triggered by the fall of the House of Wall Street, about 18 to 24 months out. Grover got his wish. A government you can drown in a bathtub. But like my first marriage, that isn't going to work out quite the way he hoped. Practice saying, "The former United States of America". I did call it the Great Shattering. "Well Fred, here in Rupert's Kingdom, I can tell you from talking to all the staff, Nobody Saw this Coming. We just didn't. Who would have thought? Well, stunned and surprised is one thing, but we're pros and we're here for our audience. We have NEW SCAPEGOATS TODAY. Are you ready for the top 10 of the DAY?"
Go ahead, tell me I'm lying to you. Cherish the thought. May it warm you in the days ahead.
May you find The Sanctuary.
Peace.
Hi, Jan,
You seem very sensible but you didn't go to my link.
You can also read Albert Bates' write up of David Blume's book in Permaculture Activist, as you yourself have been in the pub.
I don't think Krugman is smart or knowledgeable enough about what small scale ethanol can do. Most people I'm afraid are not. That's why I sent people to the weblink.
The problem again is most people say ethanol is a scam and don't even know about the potential you and I know. It isn't just fast food grease either, as I mention.
Also, the price of corn tortillas in Mexico was upped due to international trade deals. Let's look at root causes here. Mexico's response was to get their farmers to plant more corn,rather than buy the GM stuff we send down. Good thing, right? The price of corn has barely affected anything in the US food economy, there are plenty of USDA stories supporting this. Recent study too
http://www.nptelegraph.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19456082&BRD=377&PAG=461...
Most studies show that today's manufacturing of ethanol does NOT consume more energy that it produces. See blume website on biofuel myths section. Most of the corn we sent abroad is sent to rich countries. See link I provided earlier
It's impossible not to be defensive. Demon biofuel is more to blame in our international press for the evils of humankind than even Big Oil which gets a pass from most major media who sell advertising to them. It is only here we can address these inequities, without illusions about corporate ag and a corrupt system. But no one will ever learn they can take back the power to control their energy future if they keep reading ethanol is the worst thing since nuclear power.
That's why I'm defensive. Now check out the book and get back to me. Thanks very much.
Might want to factor in next years carbon capture by the crop when calculating the net production of C02 emissions. You might end up with zero. Come on, this is not that hard.
good2go, I would like to discuss your enthusiasm for ethanol. I suggest what you are actually enthusiastic about is re-localization, about individuals and small groups getting together, producing energy, without undue influence from trans-national corporations, governments -- or journalists.
That's just great. I'm with you 150%. I currently collect waste oil from four restaurants and make 120 litres of biodiesel a week, and distribute it to the local community for voluntary contributions. Most people give me $1/litre and round up to the nearest $5 or $10. I'm happy, they're happy. That's functional anarchy.
Paul Krugman is absolutely right: biofuels, as currently practised, is evil. He is correct that, as currently practised, it consumes more energy than it produces. How can one possibly argue that corn ethanol is not driving up the price of tortillas?
So let's all go out in back of the barn and fire up our own still or biodiesel processor -- yes! But try not to be so defensive about it. Krugman was not attacking you or me, he was attacking a system that is buying farm-state votes by exchanging Shell/Mobile/Exxon for ADM/Monsanto/Cargill.
I can stand beside Krugman and attack industrial-scale biofuel without getting all defensive about my own enthusiasm for sustainably-produced, small-scale biofuel. Can you?
We need to make small steps the world over. A few of these steps would include better targeting of conservation reserve land. No more whole field enrollments unless absolutely necessary. For instance, reserve the sloping edge of the field or the strip near the river's edge, etc. Re-double efforts to contain urban sprawl. Have 0, 1, or 2 children only. Make the effort to use less energy.
And furthermore, re food versus fuel,
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-2931390,flstry-1.cm...
"…demon ethanol and other biofuels…"!!??!
Sorry, Krugman is usually right on, but this time he's blown it. He's been sucked into the anti-alternative-fuels propaganda of Big Oil — which, like Big Energy's promotion of nuclear energy, is self-serving, at best. The problem with ethanol (and biodiesel) is not with the product, but with the raw ingredients used to produce it.
While it is true that using corn and other foods to make fuel drives up the price of eating, it is the unequal distribution of wealth — not the cost of food — that is the culprit in that scenario. People with annual incomes in the millions or billions have no trouble buying as many tortillas — or Latin American countries — as they want.
What is needed is to go toward cellulosic ethanol, which can employ wood-waste, straw, weeds and other non-food sources to make a gasoline substitute — ethanol — that burns cleaner and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. That technology is being heavily researched, with advances in it reported almost daily.
In the meantime, can you think of a better use for genetically modified, chemical-saturated corn and soybeans than using them for fuel?
Let's get out of this losing either/or fight over ethanol (and biodiesel) and recognize that three things need to happen together to kick the petroleum addiction: developing alternative biofuels, making good food available to everyone on Earth and ensuring that everybody has the wherewithal to obtain it.
"...demon ethanol and other biofuels..."!!??!
Sorry, Krugman is usually right on, but this time he's blown it. He's been sucked into the anti-alternative-fuels propaganda of Big Oil -- which, like Big Energy's promotion of nuclear energy, is self-serving, at best. The problem with ethanol (and biodiesel) is not with the product, but with the raw ingredients used to produce it.
While it is true that using corn and other foods to make fuel drives up the price of eating, it is the unequal distribution of wealth -- not the cost of food -- that is the culprit in that scenario. People with annual incomes in the millions or billions have no trouble buying as many tortillas -- or Latin American countries -- as they want.
What is needed is to go toward cellulosic ethanol, which can employ wood-waste, straw, weeds and other non-food sources to make a gasoline substitute -- ethanol -- that burns cleaner and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. That technology is being heavily researched, with advances in it reported almost daily.
In the meantime, can you think of a better use for genetically modified, chemical-saturated corn and soybeans than using them for fuel?
Let's get out of this losing either/or fight over ethanol (and biodiesel) and recognize that three things need to happen together to kick the petroleum addiction: developing alternative biofuels, making good food available to everyone on Earth and ensuring that everybody has the wherewithal to obtain it.
Mr. Krugman,
Any culture that burns it's food and kills it's unborn as a government policy shall not last long. . . goodbye U.S.A., oh, some of you wish for that . . .
Paul Krugman writes; "Governments and private grain dealers used to hold large inventories in normal times, just in case a bad harvest created a sudden shortage. Over the years, however, these precautionary inventories were allowed to shrink, mainly because everyone came to believe that countries suffering crop failures could always import the food they needed."
These inventories weren't "allowed to shrink" in six of the last seven years world consumption of grain has exceeded production. Back in the 1970's when ethanol was first proposed as a bio-fuel on a large scale there was usually a year's supply of grain on hand, today the excess grain supply is at 52 days worth of consumption. When the ethanol distilleries that are now under construction go online there will be enough capacity to distill every bushel of corn we now export into ethanol. The United States accounts for over 70% of the world's corn exports. I am beginning to think the ethanol boom is really a neocon attempt to weaponize food.
Also with the dollar weak against other currencies the U.S. exports of grain are way up. With oil over $100.00 a barrel ethanol is profitable even if corn prices go to $7.00 a bushel. Giving ethanol producers a $.51 per gallon subsidy in the current market is obscene.
Meat eating chinese are definitely part of the problem.
When the middle class in China decides they want shark fins as decoration in soup
sharks die out.
Its a simple matter of numbers.
Anyone who dismisses sheer human numbers and a western lifestyle as a major problem in this is simply naive, or works for agribusiness.
700 million--1.3 billion humans added to the destructive western diet group unleashes Hell on earth.
Krugman neglects the domestic policy issue in many Third World: Sacrificing the policy of food self-sufficiency for reliance on export crops. Eliminating subsidies to small farmers and peasants for growing grain staples, as required of the Mexican government under NAFTA, led to the massive influx of impoverished, bankrupted Mexican rural workers to try their luck in the US and the concentration of land into the hands of speculators and multinationals. Conversion of rice land to golf-courses (as in the Philippines) or tobacco farms, the impoverishment of peasants, increasing concentration of productive lands into the hands of large land-owners and speculators and the elimination of land-reform as government policy...are major policy changes characterized the neo-liberal governments of the 1980's to the present.
There is a large body of economists and social scientists, as well as government technocrats and Wold Bankers who have decided that the 'peasantry'of the Third World is superfluous and anachronistic. Well, 30 nations are currently experiencing civil unrest over the scarcity of rice with no relief in sight. Many of these nations were once self-sufficient in grain production and with very productive peasants and farmers. The children and grand children of these rural producers now live in the urban slums - and the promises of land reform is a distant dream. Even socialist Cuba has to import over 70% of its staple food - much coming from the US and paying cash in advance.
It is disingenous to keep harping on the 'meat-eating Chinese' to explain worldwide shortages. Krugman should put his head around the systematic break-up of the Chinese rural cooperatives, including the most efficient and productive ones, the destruction of the irrigation and flood control systems, the subsidies to farmers and the state provision of educational, health and cultural services to the countryside to keep farmers on the farm. This led to the privatization of land, bankruptcy of farmers, the concentration land to the speculators - taking land out of production, and the freeing up of rural labor to become migrants to fill the factories of the coastal areas and major cities... Neo-liberal policies - all designed to divert massive state resources from the country-side to serve the interests of a growing class of oligarchs. Not 'meat-eating Chinese' although the image is seductive as a propagandistic ploy to divert responsibility for desastrous policies.
Mr Krugman.
It is important when you begin researching a topic such as biofuels that you not go to newspapers and such to find your answers. I know you have deadlines to meet but this is lazy man's work. Broad, sweeping over simplifications.
Biofuel feedstock in this country is corn. Not a very efficient choice. But most of it goes to feed livestock and the corn processed from ethanol can be made in distillers grains, a more nutritious food when mixed with grass/hay which is what cows are supposed to eat.
What is a terrible mistake, as you put it, is not biofuels, but the way we do business in this country. The way we support big ag and give out corporate welfare to oil companies. We need a revolution in agriculture, growing crops permaculturally, organically which leads to greater food output and leaves plenty of room for energy crops from such non-water dependent sources as mesquite, pimelon, buffalo gourd and such. Or from cattails filtering humanure. NO ONE in the non corporate world of ethanol is pushing wholescale destruction of forests and arable land (we don't see much food to Africa, Paul, look it up. Most of what we sell is corn to rich countries for feed. Oh, yeah and wheat. You don't use wheat to make ethanol!)
I do not have time to regale everyone with the true potential of ethanol so I will simply refer them to this book.
http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com?bid=2&aid=CD8&opt=
Please read it and get informed. There are too many myths that are being spread about ethanol. Not about our political or agricultural system. About the best fuel around, because it's something ANYONE can make. Unlike gasoline. That's what makes it truly dangerous.