LONDON - Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 percent — far more than previously estimated — according to a confidential World Bank report published in a British newspaper on Friday.
The assessment is based on a detailed analysis by Don Mitchell, an internationally respected economist at the Washington-based global financial body, the Guardian said.
The figure contradicts U.S. government estimates that plant-derived fuels have contributed less than 3 percent to food-price increases, the newspaper said.
It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and Europe, which have turned to biofuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.
Due to Friday's Independence Day holiday in the U.S., the Guardian report could not immediately be confirmed.
World Bank President Robert Zoellick has said biofuels are a "significant contributor" to the increase in food prices.
Recently, he wrote in the Financial Times that the use of corn for ethanol by the United States had consumed more than 75 percent of global corn production over the past three years, and called on the United States and Europe to ease subsidies and tariffs on biofuels derived from corn and oilseeds.
"The use of corn for ethanol has consumed more than 75 percent of the increase in global corn production over the past three years," he wrote. "Policymakers should consider 'safety valves' that ease these policies when prices are high," he wrote.
The Guardian said senior development sources believed the report, completed in April, had not been published to avoid embarrassing President George W. Bush. "It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one source.
Food riots Leaders of the G8 leading industrial countries meet next week in 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.
Rising food prices have pushed 100 million people worldwide below the poverty line, according to the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt.
Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the World Bank study said: "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 have had a marginal impact. Instead, the report said the EU and U.S. drive for biofuels has had the biggest impact on food supply and prices.
"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.
Prices on the rise The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140 percent between 2002 and February 2008. The report estimated that higher energy and fertilizer prices accounted for an increase of only 15 percent, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75 percent jump over that period.
It said production of biofuels had distorted food markets by diverting grain away from food for fuel, by encouraging farmers to set land aside for biofuel and by sparking speculation in grains, driving prices up higher.
With the shortages caused by more crops and croplands going for biofuel that was a foregone conclusion. Most of us saw that coming.
And the rise in petroleum also rises the cost too. It costs more to fertilize the crops (most chemical fertilizers are made from petroleum), the cost to run the equipment needed to farm the land and then with the cost of getting the food to market, of course food prices are going up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LAUS DEO, Where ever I go, there I am. ..... major at nwi dot net ..... Zone 6a, Eastern Washington, sagebrush high desert, Columbia plateau.
Posts: 2521 | Location: Eastern Washington State, zone 6a. | Registered: December 13, 2004
I'd be a little more nuanced and place the blame on corn ethanol, which is the big one being subsidized in the U.S. and not particularly energy efficient.
Oil based biofuels (i.e. biodiesel made from oil seeds like canola, soybeans, and sunflowers) is more efficient and doesn't divert as much food and fertilizer.
Like Major said, petroleum prices play a big role.
But I'd primarily place the blame on the same thing driving up oil prices: it's a market bubble. We have people with no business investing in oil or corn futures doing so; there's far more money in the market then there is ways to put it to work (normal speculation is very important to the market), so prices are being inflated beyond all reasonable bounds.
We would have high prices without it, yes. But my guess is gas would be more like $3/gallon with the speculators, and corn prices likewise would be 25% less.
It's easier to take food from the world's hungry than to tell Americans driving around in Hummers and other wasteful, unnecessary gas guzzlers that their irresponsible behavior will no longer be tolerated.
It's only the recent Congress that has shown any inclination to raising gas milage standards, but they fell short by failing to order the removal of Hummers and other equally wasteful vehicles from the road immediately.
I don't care that irresponsible, immature and self-centered individuals legally bought these vehicles, it's time Americans tell them to wake up, that just because they are rich enough to waste the world's dwindling resources to build up their self-esteem and a bogus macho image, they will no longer be entitled to do so and have the rest of the world bear the costs.
Feed corn to the hungry, feed Hummers to the car crusher. Every last one.
Wayne
Where there are gardens and bicycles, there is hope.
Posts: 1378 | Location: Zone 4a, transplanted to the hills of Western Maine. | Registered: October 07, 2005
I can see ethanol production directly increasing the price of corn and indirectly causing increases in the price of some other foods (meat and dairy, which are raised on feed corn, and wheat and soybeans which are industrially farmed on the same land as corn) – but most other vegetables and all orchard fruits are not in competition with corn for farmland. So why is the price of those increasing at a higher rate than that of corn? Beyond the fluctuations of supply & demand, the one factor that affects all of modern agriculture is the price of oil. Biofuels are a contributing factor, but not the main reason for recent price increases.
Posts: 904 | Location: Zone 7 - Charlotte, NC | Registered: March 28, 2007
Originally posted by adirondackgardener: ..... Americans driving around in Hummers and other wasteful, unnecessary gas guzzlers that their irresponsible behavior will no longer be tolerated. ....... removal of Hummers and other equally wasteful vehicles from the road immediately.
What is the magic number?
Dirt
PS. I don't really expect an answer! It's much easier to demonize in generalizations (Hummer excluded - from the generalization).
I may not be too smart and I doubt I would get elected if I ran for any public office, but I also saw the problems coming when people started talking about bio fuels. Yes, it is good for the enviroment, but it's not good for the immediate needs of the world, which is getting fed. It's like being stuck between a rock and a hard place, people don't want to give up their travels and such, but nobody wants to go hungry or pay half their weeks earnings for a bag of corn meal.
There is no real solution, the fact of the matter is there are just too many of us on this planet and the planet is letting us know that. Yeah, I don't like people that drive around in Hummers, but I"m just as disgusted with people that pay thousands of dollars for fertility treatment trying to have babies when there are millions of homeless kids out there ready for adoption. Adding another person who will therefore put there human footprint on the world does alot of damage. If we can't conceive, so be it, just adopt.
Nothing happens unless first we dream - Carl Sandburg
Posts: 348 | Location: North Central Alabama | Registered: September 22, 2007
I think the secret that the Senate is a club for the wealthy has been out for a couple hundred years now, Dirt. If there is any hypocracy involved, perhaps it falls on Americans who elect millionaires and then complain that they "don't represent the common man."
A funny thing about Sen. Kerry's huge wealth. It makes the net worth of Democratic Senators greater than Republican Senators, but there are more Republican Millionaire Senators than Democrats. So, I guess the hypocritical voting power still belongs to the Republicans while the purchasing power belongs to the Dems.
Actually, I think Americans in general vote for the candidate that best represents their beliefs and not their wealth. If it is a wealthy John Kerry or a more financially ordinary Bernie Sanders, I'd vote for either of them if they ran in my state because they represent my interests. That John McCain is a millionaire doesn't affect my vote, only his ideas and legislative history.
Another funny thing about John Kerry's wealth, and particularly about the photos of his homes in the link you posted. His wife Teresa is the widow of another wealthy US Senator, the only Senate Billionaire that I'm aware of, Henry Heinz, late Senator from Pennsylvania. Heinz, as in "Can you name the 57 varieties of rich?" Not sure how hypocritical he was in his lawmaking, being a billionaire Republican and all.
Can you tell us if the houses in the link you posted actually belong to John Kerry and not to his wife or the Heinz family? His wife's property has been reported to have been kept separate from his. (I know you only like to post links to the homes of wealthy Democrats but still, there are quite a few non-Dems making our energy policies living the life of oppulant luxury.)
While we're at it, how about an architectural montage of the homes of those responsible for the inflated prices we are paying for gas, today?
Wayne
Where there are gardens and bicycles, there is hope.
Posts: 1378 | Location: Zone 4a, transplanted to the hills of Western Maine. | Registered: October 07, 2005
Let me see if I can better express my opinion. It appears to me too many people are hypocritical, do as I say not as I do. Sorry if you don't approve of my examples, they're just so blaring to me. I'd be glad to use anyone as an example of hypocrisy. Feel free to point them out. We need more leaders to live like they want the rest of us to. While we're at it we need to get the money from the evil rich senators and their wives and their estates.
Dirt
PS. I would expect John Kerry doesn't own the house in the link, using his wife as a cover. I'm sure he lives a modest lifestyle and his wife keeps the houses for an investment. BTW, I thought the gist of my reply addressed the aforementioned group and their use of energy. I really didn't expect an answer. Or did you answer and I didn't recognize it? Nice re-direction!
"there are quite a few non-Dems making our energy policies living the life of oppulant luxury." - True, but are they roaming the world saying the sky is falling and you (we) need to walk to work! I anxiously await some examples of non-Dem hypocrisy as relates to our energy policy.
Here's a current (today) example. Our Non-Dem President met in Japan with the Group of Eight leaders. After the meeting he proudly proclaimed real progress was made in the area of climate change (an issue directly related to our energy policy.) The "real progress" was that they "decided" to adopt new goals, all concept and no actual steps. The only real progress was that he was able for a few moments to cloud the fact that he as President will merely be continuing on his decided path of ignoring the issue. A few minutes later, the rest of the world realized that once again, the Emperor has no clothes.
But on the positive side, here's a Non-Dem bit of fresh air and honesty from none other than Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, albeit from the early days of the Bush administration. In a speech before Congress, back when he and his Enron buddies were contriving the Bush Energy Policy, he spoke about how because we are Americans, we are rightfully deserving to consume any and all of the world's resources to maintain the standard of living to which we have become accustomed. He demanded that we exploit any and all resurces available to maintain our current energy levels and derided conservation as, at best, a noble but insignificant gesture. (I could, with some great difficulty, point you to the Congressional Record documenting his refreshingly honest but dangerously ignorant and bone-headed comments.)
More Non-Dem honesty and non-hypocracy. During the 1970's energy crisis, Jimmy Carter had solar collectors installed on the White House roof as a gesture that all of us must conserve energy and more importantly, use renewable whenever possible. President Reagan later had them removed, according to his White House Chief of Staff, Reagan "felt that the equipment was just a joke." Other accounts was that he saw energy conservation as a sign of weakness and a slap in the face to our oil companies. Today those very same solar collectors are supplying electricity to Unity College, up here in Maine. I don't see it as a sign of weakness, but I do see it as a slap in the face to the oil companies and also a well-deserved slap in the face to the President who charted the ruinous course we are following today.
So, I still maintain that, though you see hypocracy everywhere a rich Democrat treads, when rich Non-Dems tread forth, our nation often sinks deeper into the sewer. Give me a rich hypocrite that may lead us on the right path.
Wayne
Where there are gardens and bicycles, there is hope.
Posts: 1378 | Location: Zone 4a, transplanted to the hills of Western Maine. | Registered: October 07, 2005
Dirt: For your consideration (as Rod Serling was fond of saying,)
A gas MPG Executive Order:
"Any vehicle engaged in non-commercial use that gets 10 MPG or less is to be removed from use on public roads immediately. In 6 months, any non-commercial vehicle getting 12 MPG or less will be removed. Each successive year for 5 years, the Minimum MPG will increase by 2 MPG, requiring vehicles that do not exceed that rating to be removed.
In 5 years, the Minimum MPG will increase by 5 MPG per year for the following 5 year period.
After 10 years, the fuel efficiency order will be reviewed, taking into consideration the advances that the automotive industry will have achieved in that time so that these standards can be increased to reflect current technology.
So ordered."
A pipe-dream?
In less than 5 years there would be no vehicles on the road that gets less than 20 MPG and the gas milage will only increase annually. In 10 years, cars would be getting a minimum of 45 MPG. Auto manufacturers are already 15 years or more ahead of this schedule. I've just parked my 20 MPG Blazer in favor of a 13 year old GEO Tracker that gets at least 30 MPG. (Plus, 4 wheel drive, a convertible and cute as a bunny.)
I know I can and will do better, especially as a greater supply of good high-MPG cars appears on the used car market.
The Auto industry has to wake up. Being responsible for the Hummer, GM can't expect me to shed any tears over their hovering on the brink of death. They brought it on themselves and deserve it.
Wayne
Where there are gardens and bicycles, there is hope.
Posts: 1378 | Location: Zone 4a, transplanted to the hills of Western Maine. | Registered: October 07, 2005
Don't know if any one here saw this cartoon, but I like it's message:
I have to agree that Hummers, SUVs and any gas-inefficient cars must be taken off the roads. My dad drives a Chevy Astro van, and gets horrible gas mileage. He's thinking of getting a different car (most likely a sedan, like my '05 Ford Taurus), simply for his commute to work, and other places. But I hope that he gets rid of his van...
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* "As one learns more and more, they learn that they know less and less."
I live in Zone 5/6 NY...Differs due to Lake Erie....
Just got a couple bugs to work out! 
