Spending More On Food?

R. Richard

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 24, 2003
Posts
10,382
The crackbrain idea of using corn to fuel motor vehicles is now coming home to roost. Food prices are going up and will continue to go up. Of course, the refusal to allow drilling for oil in the ANWR, off the coasts and the shale oil areas in the West is also not helping. The solution is obvious, but no one wants to take action. There is an enormous advantage to allowing only men in political posts [please pardon me ladies.] When reason doesn't work with a man, a good hard kick in the balls will get the message through. There is just something about a man clutching his damaged balls and rolling in his own vomit that gets reason through. Comment?

Biofuels behind food price hikes: leaked World Bank report

LONDON (AFP) - Biofuels have caused world food prices to increase by 75 percent, according to the findings of an unpublished World Bank report published in The Guardian newspaper on Friday.

The daily said the report was finished in April but was not published to avoid embarrassing the US government, which has claimed plant-derived fuels have pushed up prices by only three percent.

Biofuels, which supporters claim are a "greener" alternative to using fossil fuel and cut greenhouse gas emissions, and rising food prices will be on the agenda when G8 leaders meet in Japan next week for their annual summit.

The report's author, a senior World Bank economist, assessed that contrary to claims by US President George W. Bush, increased demand from India and China has not been the cause of rising food prices.

"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," the report said.

Droughts in Australia have also not had a significant impact, it added. Instead, European and US drives for greater use of biofuels has had the biggest effect.

The European Union has mooted using biofuels for up to 10 percent of all transport fuels by 2020 as part of an increase in use of renewable energy.

All petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include a biofuels component of at least 2.5 percent since April this year.

"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 report said.

It added that the drive for biofuels has distorted food markets by diverting grain away from food for fuel, encouraging farmers to set aside land for its production, and sparked financial speculation on grains.

But Brazil's transformation of sugar cane into fuel has not had such a dramatic impact, the report said.

"The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140 percent between 2002 and this February," The Guardian said.

"The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15 percent, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75 percent jump over that period."
 
Of course it was an act of rank folly to convert good grain into biofuel, because you can do the same with all sorts of inedible crap for far cheaper, but I doubt that drilling in ANWR would change things very much very soon.
 
The price of a free market economy.

If you announce a switch to bio-fuels without controlling grain futures markets, you get higher prices. The situation has been effected by poor harvests in grain growing regions over the last three years leaving grain reserves at low levels.

It is all good news as far as us 'tree hugging lefties' are concerned. More expensive gas reduces consumption, cuts down pollution.
 
I still say that Tobacco farmers should be the one switching. Less tobacco would be a good thing, and they are similar to oil barons anyway with the way they like to control things. I think it would be a great idea.
 
Of course it was an act of rank folly to convert good grain into biofuel, because you can do the same with all sorts of inedible crap for far cheaper, but I doubt that drilling in ANWR would change things very much very soon.

When they began drilling in Prudhoe Bay, it was widely announced that the drilling would kill off the Cariboo and that maybe 500,000 barrels of oil would be recovered. That was 12.8 BILLION barrels ago and the Cariboo not only cross the trans Alaskan pipeline on ramps the oil companies built, they huddle against the pipeline in the arctic weinter to keep a little warmer.

Blowjob Bill vetoed the ANWR drillling in 1995. If he hadn't done so we would now be using ANWR oil, instead of paying $140 per barrel of oil. By the way, the portion of ANWR to be drilled is the 10-2 region. The 10-2 region is a mud flat that supports no endangered species.
 
Back
Top