Secret Report: Biofuel Caused Food Crisis
Internal World Bank Study Delivers Blow to Plant Energy Drive
LONDON - Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.
The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.
The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.
Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.
"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.
The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.
It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in pushing up food prices to record levels. Although it was expected last week, the report has still not been released.
"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."
Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation".
President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."
Even successive droughts in Australia, calculates the report, have had a marginal impact. Instead, it argues that the EU and US drive for biofuels has had by far the biggest impact on food supply and prices.
Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher.
"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," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.
It argues that production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel. Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher.
Other reviews of the food crisis looked at it over a much longer period, or have not linked these three factors, and so arrived at smaller estimates of the impact from biofuels. But the report author, Don Mitchell, is a senior economist at the Bank and has done a detailed, month-by-month analysis of the surge in food prices, which allows much closer examination of the link between biofuels and food supply.
The report points out biofuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such a dramatic impact.
Supporters of biofuels argue that they are a greener alternative to relying on oil and other fossil fuels, but even that claim has been disputed by some experts, who argue that it does not apply to US production of ethanol from plants.
"It is clear that some biofuels have huge impacts on food prices," said Dr David King, the government's former chief scientific adviser, last night. "All we are doing by supporting these is subsidising higher food prices, while doing nothing to tackle climate change."
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
37 Comments so far
Show AllConservation. Re-cycling. Smaller cars and homes. Building green. Public transportation. Wind, solar, hydro. Vegetarianism.
These are clean strategies with few negative side effects.
dcbeltway, why do you say it's worse to use corn for biofuels? I am familiar with Pollan's book. I am totally in favor of localism. Here in Eugene, we have a local company that produces biofuels :-). By the way, biodiesel is not ethanol. Both are "biofuels", but biodiesel is made from waste oils and doesn't impact food supply.
LOL I was in a viet restaurant today, and my family started talking about food prices and biofuel, so when I saw this article I thought, "Hey, that's- !!".
M'dad says that because of biofuel, there's a lot of waste from MAKING it, and it's raising food prices. If America wasn't addicted to gas, we wouldn't be quibbling over the sources.
Cattle should be grassfed. Its healthier for the animal as well as the consumer. Clark Kent you really should read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilema" if you want to know why corn is not a good food substance. Using it for biofuels is even worse. We all need to go back to eating local.
Thanks Kelmer. Just for the record, Andrew T., I do not work for any company with a stake in biofuels, seeds or related businesses. I'm a newspaper reporter. I don't think you read my posting in which I say that it is possible to use corn for both biofuels and cattle feed-- cattle actually digest "distiller's grains" better than raw corn. If you have any arguments that are relevant to the idea of such dual use of corn, please tell us what you know.
Its also possible that these secret reports are put forth by the livestock industry because they are also hurtin from the food prices.
Morally speaking, biofuels does have a stronger case than the livestock industry.
The fuel people say we should do this to save the earth from oil and gas pollution. The livestock people say: mat: cavemen ate it.
Not much of an equivalence there.
But I am glad the livestock industry is getting squeezed. Couldnt have happened to a more deserving group of polluters.
Andrew Taynton
do you work for the livestock slavery industries? Because your points seem to be similar to what some industry hacks have been saying--that the problem isnt livestock, its biofuels.
Livestock food wasting has been an issue since the late 60s.
Not that biofuels are good--they arent, but ignoring the bigger cause of plant wasting(plant and water I should add) as well as the destruction to habitat( to grow soya for cattle) and wildlife(wolves, cougars etc ) to support the stupid man's diet, is not rational or just,
The food crisis existed long before Biofuels came on the scene, and will never be solved until poor countries go against the disastrous policies of the world bank and the other neoliberal globalists and grow their own food, instead of depending on the rest of the world for it.
but the globalization elites don't want that, because it would rob them of a major market to sell substandard food to.
Grow what we eat, rather than agribusiness attempting to make what they grow edible. Corn and soybeans grown on the bulk of mid-west farm land is not a human food source until massive processing turns it into oil, sugar, or is feed through animals. Imagine the price of food, if for every hundred acres of corn, a farmer had to plant, care for, harvest and market an acre of vegetables, (edible beans, tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, whatever). These crops are labor intensive, directly usable by humans, and would transform our nations local food supply.
applesauce suggeted we read: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/04/15/the-pleasures-of-the-flesh/
The Pleasures of the Flesh
Posted April 15, 2008
Here's a quote from that article: The World Bank points out that "the grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol … could feed one person for a year."
WOW! The ensuing food riots will surely topple the evil empire, won't they? Is there no way to fix this without the starvation and bloodshed?
Interesting article in the New Yorker this week about a Swiss Federal Institute of Technology project, the 2,000-Watt Society, which they see as a sustainable for all the earth's people. Fellow North Americans, guess how far we are from our 2,000 watt share right now? Hint: We're in the five figures.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_kolbert?currentPage=all
Some good points, like turning off the TV. Also, learning to garden, which I would change by saying learn to permaculture.
Also, we should switch to sugar based ethanol, which would use the bumper crop beets we Americans make, and it's a better ethanol. If we start demanding locally produced natural foods, we can revitalize local economies, improve our nutritional intake and our health, and lower the demand for fuels by large corporate farms that damage the earth by chemical farming.
As for the World Bank report, I don't trust it. It's too coincidental with the push for continued use of oil for our economies, when we should get off of oil. After all, if for once Bush was correct when he stated we are addicted to oil, then is the solution to addiction more of the drug? For him, probably so. For the rest of the world, let's move toward renewable earth friendly energy forms like solar, wind, tide/wave, and geothermal forms.
We'll always have the mentally challenged ideologues who believe the world is flat. The rest of us can change the world and they'll just have to live with it. Those folk are the same simpletons who complain about taxes while using the tax provided water, sewer, and roadway systems. On this planet, they are a minority. Some day they'll wake up.
Clark Kent
Do you work for a seed company that promotes biofuels?
Because your argument is about as sound as industry spin combined with conspiracy theory.
Converting food to fuel of course causes food shortages, there are studies other than secret World Bank studies that have come to that conclusion.
I have an idea. Why don't we offer farmers a tax incentive to switch from growing tobacco, the only legal product that kills half of those who use it as intended, and grow food crops instead? We could earn badly needed export income, feed the hungry, support the farmers and improve public health at once. It makes a lot more sense than anything I've yet heard from Obama and McCain, the two contestants in the Olympic flip-flopping event.
The price of rice is affected by the price of fuel and fertilizer. No doubt there is manipulation in all the markets of today. The best way to get prices lower is to quit using them as much as possible. Also get used to the higher fuel prices. MOst want to continue the bad habits of the past, but our elected leaders should have recognized the impending shortages to sufficient extent to start moving us to a national rail passenger and freight system long ago and we wouldn't be so impacted as today. It will sure get a lot worse before it gets better.
i hardly see the world bank being worried about being in a political hot spot with our white house, lol
money runs our political system much more effectively than do our politicians - with a much more evil plan in store, too, but more effectively, so i don't see the white house being a threat to anything like the world bank
if i were to trust one of the two factions slightly more than the other, the politicians would win out a little ahead. money people see the populace and governments as chess pieces on a board, and are as likely to feed "misinformation" as anyone else in power, more than likely, in this comparison. i trust very little to be accurately informative in this article, with all due respect to its author.
OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS
that brown stuff you are seeing is SHIT, because on a global scale the shit has really hit the fan.
we're talking a few years here 'till N America's joyride is over ,not decades.
Localize
get to know your nieghbors
TURN OFF THE TV
buy from local farmers (most will sell at the farm gate if asked.)
quit buying/eating that processed crap they call food in the grocery stores
I see by the comments from some, that there are those who still believe the world is flat.
Lyllyth - No matter what 'alternatives' people come up with, they simply will not be able to meet even one tenth of the present demand for fuel and power.
So, what should we do?
Get used to a smaller, less technologically involved world, which will be much smaller and close to the ground. Learn how to garden, and get used to no fresh veggies in the winter. ESPECIALLY fruits and veggies from Chile or Indonesia.
If them hogs in China and India stop using our food and oil we Americans could get a a reasonable sized suv with a fuel injected v 12 to haul us down to the all you can eat buffet and the plus sized clothiers.
Congratulations to the UN. They took something which is a non event, global warming, and created a real food crisis. I can only ask again, how long are they going to continue with this global warming hoax, until cooling becomes a real problem and then we really do have a crisis?
In case you missed it:
http://rattube.com/blog1/2008/06/30/35-inconvenient-truths/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
What food problem? Just use the corn ethanol to go the the drive thru.
A 75% increase to fuel SUVs and war machines?
I only used my car to go to the grocery store
but now both fuel and food are out of reach.
Heckovajob! WWII killed about 60 million but how many millions will Bush/Cheney kill by starvation? More?
Bush won't believe the reports. kman you're right. We went to "whole paycheck foods" for the first time. $1.99 for a danish. Passed on that.
Self-deleted duplicate entry
Hungry people WILL revolt.
Look at the food riots in Africa.
kman I guess you think that food production for Things Other Than Corn must not use fuel or fertilizer for the growing, shipping, or manufacturer phases, right?
Now when humanity must replace fossil oil with plant oil, we're gonna realize maybe we should have stuck to plant oils to begin with...we would never have become so unsustainable it oil production hits us in the belly.
Better yet, how about we take all those petroleum subsidies and subsidize wind, water, geothermal, and SOLAR Research and development. Remember when we built all those freeways and their associated infrastructure? And how many JOBS that created?
WHY DON'T WE DO THE SAME WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY I'VE BEEN ASKING THIS SINCE I WAS 14 IN 1992.
GET WITH IT, GOVERNMENT OF THE U.S.A.
Hungry people
I really am in a yell-y mood today. egad. sorry, folks.
ummm....SWITCHGRASS, ANYONE?
HEMP, PERHAPS?
Animal feedlots are also responsible for a huge amount of greenhouse gases - in the form of methane. But I'm having a hard time imagining any politician (at least any mainstream politician) in the US advocating reduction of animal protein in the diet to reduce both grain prices and greenhouse gases...
Corn based ethanol is a mistake, but it is now firmly entrenched in our economy. I believe Obama is a corn based ethanol supporter. If so, that is a political, not a scientific or practical decision.
We need to end the subsidies and fuel use mandates. We are using taxes to manufacture a fuel that contains less fuel value than the fuels used to make it. It wouldn't need subsidies if it could compete on its own. We are forcing (believe it or not) Big Oil to use this stuff no matter how much it costs.
Ending corn bsed ethanol would reduce oil consumption overall, reduce corn prices relative to, and even out production of various grains, and would reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution of the Mississipi and Gulf. I'm sure there is also a major impact on world-wide grain prices as the US is the leading exporter of low priced grain.
Why is that extreme claims like this (75% rise in food prices) come from "secret" reports that reasonable critics and unbiased researchers can't look at. This is called left wing media manipulation. A lie said enough times becomes believed. The leftwing media is just as bad as Bush's media.
How is the rise in rice price explained by this report? Rice is affected 0% by biofuel The land for rice is the not land used for biofuel, but rice has skyrocketed nonetheless. Ya think prices
are demand related???...nahhhhhhhh.....that'd make too much sense.
Oh that's right, the answer is ultra expensive/fuel intensive/ultra labor intensive organic food bought at Whole Paycheck Foods (a for-profit, capitalist company traded on the stock exchange).
I'll bet Obama has flip flopped in here somewhere too!!!! I'm sure I'll be enlighted by a leftie to show that Obama has flip flopped on biofuel Or has he been in the pocket of evil Monsanto/Cargill all along??(that's not a flip flop by the way) hahahahahaha.
Activists may focus on localism and land/water/food rights for all the people, and proper protections for undeveloped lands and resources. This will help block the capitalists from creating disruptions through racketeering in food, fuels, water, minerals, materials, etc.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/04/15/the-pleasures-of-the-flesh/
The Pleasures of the Flesh
Posted April 15, 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/multinationals-make-billions-in-profit-out-of-gr...
Multinationals make billions in profit out of growing global food crisis
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 4 May 2008
i think this article is a little mis informed.
prices aren't going up because a separate sector is growing more food. food prices are going up because agro businesses are putting a higher price tag and creating a scarcity of food based on the high prices and 'threatening' bio fuel sector. nobody ever mentions the larger amount of grain being produced for animals to eat. the energy conversion is sick.
with more food being grown prices should decrease, not increase. instead they are increasing, creating fear and killing off the poor population. not to mention experimentation with GMO crops. the likes of monsanto, adm and cargil are drone ants for the world bank. it's just punishment pure and simple.
and besides, the food these people AREN'T getting because prices are too high are mostly imports and famine foods. maybe we shouldn't be paying attention to the bad food we are forcing these people to eat(OR NOT EAT) and instead focus a campaign to get at least organic foods into other countries, not to mention more nutritious foods. break those rules up that force these countries to grow GM crops to receive aid.
The prevailing logic in this society is an economic benefit tied to political influence--and this in turn tied to self interest.
How is this theory of doing our economic/political business working out for us?
In my sixties. Seen a lot. Have a back yard (city) garden. Staying 99.8% vegan. Drive very little. Keep low on the consumerism addiction scale. Not watching the TV brainwasher. At least paying attention ...
The oil companies would just love it if we blame the food shortages on biofuels, but the facts are that we use most of our corn for feeding cattle– twice as much as is used for biofuels. Furthermore, corn could be better used for BOTH cattle feed and biofuels to save massive amounts of corn for directly feeding people. "Distiller's Grains" — the byproduct of biofuel production– can be fed to cattle and is healthier for them than unprocessed corn (which they have trouble digesting).
But, even better, we should stop using most of our corn (in the U.S.) to produce unhealthy food for ourselves– too much red meat that's been fattened up in the feedlots with corn is linked to heart disease. High fructose corn syrup is linked to obesity.
We shouldn't just blame biofuels because they're the most recent use of corn, even if that would be the most convenient talking point for the oil industry. We should look at all the current uses of corn and reduce or eliminate the wasteful, disease-producing, (ab-)uses of corn in our current system.
Hamburgers and Cokes/Pepsis aren't just killing Americans– the waste of corn to produce fatter burgers and sugar water is also killing people in developing countries indirectly.
Please read: http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_marcus_b_080506_is_feeding_the_hungr.htm
Didnt Bush and his Dick blame China and India and their newly rising middle-classes for the current world food shortage ? Clearly he was aware of this World Bank report (which was suppressed initially so as to not embarass their masters - U.S.), but still chose to play the blame-game because its convenient to blame the developing world for all the problems.