Today in Biofuels Opinion: “no factor gets more consistent credit for food price turmoil than the international biofuels stampede”, says Financial Post; “We are still believers”, says an Oregonian op-ed

Laverne Chadderdon writes in Highlands Today that “retail bakers of America complain that ethanol makers burn up our food supply and jack up the price of bread….a scientific research report by the OECD reported on the difference in greenhouse gas emission reductions from cars burning gasoline and various forms of ethanol. Results: Corn ethanol 0-3 percent reduction in emissions, sugar cane ethanol 50-70 percent reduction, cellulose ethanol 90-plus percent reduction in emissions…..which form of ethanol production is the U.S. government and its taxpayers subsidizing? Corn, of course. On which form of ethanol production does the United States levy a 53 cents a gallon import? Sugar cane, naturally.”

The Financial Post reports that “prices of staples have jumped 80% since 2005…..Factors behind the surge in prices are varied, including bad weather in some regions, soaring demand from growing populations, and US$100-a-barrel oil…..But no factor gets more consistent credit for food price turmoil than the international biofuels stampede. Spurred on by what can only be described as massive subsidies and supporting regulations, farmers all over the planet are giving up on food production and shifting to fuel production….Warnings that ethanol programs, brought on by absurd national energy policies and myths about reducing the risk of climate change, could severely disturb food production and prices, have been issued for years. Now that the consequences have materialized, a new policy stampede is in the making.”

Opednews.com ran a post suggesting “The problem with programs like carbon sequestering and bio-fuel production is that they are treatments for symptoms, not treatments for the disease that caused the symptoms. When we go looking for alternative energy sources, and cleaner energy, without understanding why we need them, we will someday find out that even with clean, alternative energy we still have the problem. Cleaner and more renewable forms of energy are a good thing, as far as they go, but the question must be asked, - why do we need so much energy to start with?.”

Canadafreepress.com writes from the anti-climate change consensus point of view, “There is absolutely no need for biofuels and especially ethanol to stop global warming or climate change. Environmentalism exploited for political purposes is the short answer. Sadly, biofuels are just the beginning. Other madness includes the carbon credit shell game that does nothing to reduce CO2; the myth that fossil fuel resources are running out; the myth of the viability of other alternative energies; the myth that pollution problems are getting worse in most of the world; the erroneous belief that CO2 is a pollutant; the failure to build adequate traditional power sources and the significant lead time to build these once the power shortages hit home, are just some of the existing problems of the exploitation.”

The Times of India interviewed the chief of the UN Energy and UN Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), Kandeh K Yumkella, who said “There is a close link between energy poverty and income poverty. Modern bio-energy could make energy more widely and cheaply available in remote areas, supporting productivity growth in agriculture and other sectors with positive implications for food availability and access.
It may put to productive use degraded lands, suitable for instance for the jatropha plant in India, or may create incomes out of by-products such as ethanol produced from the cashew apple. More research and analysis is needed to understand the long-term impact of expanding bio-energy production and use on food security. The ultimate answer, of course, lies in enhancing overall agricultural productivity and output in a sustainable manner.”

In the Oregonian, a team from Cascadia Capital writes “Alternative fuels can deliver robust returns if investors focus on the right capital and technology efficiencies, and second, we must find a way to unlock alternative fuels’ potential given soaring oil prices and an uncertain economy…. We can’t live off the land. The latest econometric models for alternative fuels show us their negative environmental impact, particularly with feedstocks that destroy palm farms or the rainforest. There is also a negative economic impact in the form of rising food prices…..Waste or waste byproducts are the most sensible alternative fuel inputs. There’s far less pricing pressure associated with sludge or algae versus corn as long as proven technologies are harnessed….Despite several misguided stumbles, we are still believers and look forward to the revenue and profits that Biofuel 2.0 is certainly capable of generating.”