Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 6/4/2008 8:00:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/4/2008 8:03:47 AM EST by ArmyInfantryVet]
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_re_eu/un_food_crisis_summit


ROME - U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said Wednesday that progress is being made at a U.N. summit on determining the role that biofuels are playing in driving up food prices to the point of provoking riots in some countries.

"It looks as though consensus on this important issue is in reach," Schafer said in a statement acknowledging there had been "some confusion" on earlier comments in which he sounded doubtful an agreement would be found by the end of the three-day summit in Rome.

Briefing reporters on the sidelines earlier Wednesday, Schafer had said: "I doubt there'll be a positive agreement on biofuels." He had indicated that he thought some "acceptable" language, apparently a compromise, on biofuels would be in the final summit document.

Fuels made from sugar cane, corn and other crops have been seen as a way to combat climate change and rising oil prices. The United States has been heavily subsidizing corn-based ethanol production. Last year, the 27-nation European Union endorsed a plan calling for biofuels to make up 10 percent of the fuel for road vehicles by 2020.

But environmentalists, international groups and some countries are becoming increasingly wary of biofuels, which they say could accelerate global warming by encouraging deforestation — and contribute heavily to the commodities price hike by diverting production from food crops to biofuel crops.

Studies by international organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, show that the increased demand for biofuels is contributing by 15 to 30 percent to food price increases, said Frederic Mousseau, a policy adviser at aid agency Oxfam.

"In some cases, biofuel production is in competition with food supply," Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda told the summit. "We need to ensure that biofuel production is sustainable."

While agreeing that sustainability and innovation are needed, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said biofuels contribute only 2 or 3 percent to a predicted 43 percent rise in prices this year.

Last month, Congress enacted a farm bill that reduced a tax credit for refiners by about 10 percent per gallon. The credit supports the blending of fuel with the corn-based additive. More money would go to cellulosic ethanol, made from plant matter.

Also Wednesday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said as much as $20 billion per year will be needed to boost food production to combat hunger.

The three-day summit at the U.N. Food and Agriculture headquarters in Rome, which ends Thursday, was organized to come up with short-term solutions to the crisis and develop more lasting strategy to deal with its causes.


Now, I agree that biofuel is crap. It is not really efficient at all, and there are plenty of other "pollutions" such as so much water being used to grow all of the food.

However, since when did the USA become OBLIGED to be the bread basket of the world? Since when does the UN get to tell us how to run our agriculture? I don't mind helping other people out, but I don't like it when the UN or poor countries try tell us that it is our RESPONSIBILITY to provide them with food.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 8:16:41 AM EST
The UN can fuck off, but we've been the world's breadbasket since the 70s. We produce over 50% of all the raw food in the world. We've also given away cheap/free food to poor countries since WW2.

It's not inappropriate that the UN comes to us to discuss food prices. It's just wrong when they try to dictate our behaviors.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 8:51:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mr_Dictionary:
The UN can fuck off, but we've been the world's breadbasket since the 70s. We produce over 50% of all the raw food in the world. We've also given away cheap/free food to poor countries since WW2.

It's not inappropriate that the UN comes to us to discuss food prices. It's just wrong when they try to dictate our behaviors.


Is that any different than us trying to tell countries what to charge for oil?
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 8:55:46 AM EST
We need a six month moratorium on ALL food exports from the US.

To be extended if the price of oil has not dropped to under $100 a barrel by then.

Let the motherfuckers eat crude.

Link Posted: 6/4/2008 9:00:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Rocksarge:

Originally Posted By Mr_Dictionary:
The UN can fuck off, but we've been the world's breadbasket since the 70s. We produce over 50% of all the raw food in the world. We've also given away cheap/free food to poor countries since WW2.

It's not inappropriate that the UN comes to us to discuss food prices. It's just wrong when they try to dictate our behaviors.


Is that any different than us trying to tell countries what to charge for oil?


Well, the UN is neither a consumer or a producer, so yes it is different.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 9:02:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/4/2008 9:07:36 AM EST by callgood]
As stupid as corn based ethanol is, it has no bearing on the recent rice shortage. Weather conditions in Australia and other areas are as much to blame. Also, inefficient central planning by governments, not to mention thuggery in countries like Zimbabwe.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 9:17:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_re_eu/un_food_crisis_summit


ROME - U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said Wednesday that progress is being made at a U.N. summit on determining the role that biofuels are playing in driving up food prices to the point of provoking riots in some countries.

"It looks as though consensus on this important issue is in reach," Schafer said in a statement acknowledging there had been "some confusion" on earlier comments in which he sounded doubtful an agreement would be found by the end of the three-day summit in Rome.

Briefing reporters on the sidelines earlier Wednesday, Schafer had said: "I doubt there'll be a positive agreement on biofuels." He had indicated that he thought some "acceptable" language, apparently a compromise, on biofuels would be in the final summit document.

Fuels made from sugar cane, corn and other crops have been seen as a way to combat climate change and rising oil prices. The United States has been heavily subsidizing corn-based ethanol production. Last year, the 27-nation European Union endorsed a plan calling for biofuels to make up 10 percent of the fuel for road vehicles by 2020.

But environmentalists, international groups and some countries are becoming increasingly wary of biofuels, which they say could accelerate global warming by encouraging deforestation — and contribute heavily to the commodities price hike by diverting production from food crops to biofuel crops.

Studies by international organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, show that the increased demand for biofuels is contributing by 15 to 30 percent to food price increases, said Frederic Mousseau, a policy adviser at aid agency Oxfam.

"In some cases, biofuel production is in competition with food supply," Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda told the summit. "We need to ensure that biofuel production is sustainable."

While agreeing that sustainability and innovation are needed, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said biofuels contribute only 2 or 3 percent to a predicted 43 percent rise in prices this year.

Last month, Congress enacted a farm bill that reduced a tax credit for refiners by about 10 percent per gallon. The credit supports the blending of fuel with the corn-based additive. More money would go to cellulosic ethanol, made from plant matter.

Also Wednesday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said as much as $20 billion per year will be needed to boost food production to combat hunger.

The three-day summit at the U.N. Food and Agriculture headquarters in Rome, which ends Thursday, was organized to come up with short-term solutions to the crisis and develop more lasting strategy to deal with its causes.


Now, I agree that biofuel is crap. It is not really efficient at all, and there are plenty of other "pollutions" such as so much water being used to grow all of the food.

However, since when did the USA become OBLIGED to be the bread basket of the world? Since when does the UN get to tell us how to run our agriculture? I don't mind helping other people out, but I don't like it when the UN or poor countries try tell us that it is our RESPONSIBILITY to provide them with food.



How is it that the US goverment OBLIGES me to subsidise corn to the tune of 2$ a bussel? Can't make a living of corn farming, then quit like I'd have to if construction stopped paying the bills. And why am I forced to contribute to the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico created by wide scale corn farming run off? (I'm not a big tree hugger, but killing of a huge part of an ecosystem the other people USED to be able to make a living off seems wrong). And what happens if rising food prices really do continue to destabalise parts of the world, how is that going to affect what's left of our manufacturing sector? It is said that a country is always 9 strait meals away from revolution.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 9:21:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cpt_Kirks:
We need a six month moratorium on ALL food exports from the US.

To be extended if the price of oil has not dropped to under $100 a barrel by then.

Let the motherfuckers eat crude.



For the motherfucking win!!!!!

Link Posted: 6/4/2008 9:21:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By callgood:
As stupid as corn based ethanol is, it has no bearing on the recent rice shortage. Weather conditions in Australia and other areas are as much to blame. Also, inefficient central planning by governments, not to mention thuggery in countries like Zimbabwe.


The so-called rice shortages are largely a result of idiotic farm policies in the US, Japan and a couple of other Asian nations. Japan currently hold 2.3 MILLION tons of rice, most of it imported from the US. Japan stockpiled all that rice to keep it off the market in Japan. Now, they cannot resell it to other nations without the permission of the US.

If Japan released it onto the world market, the price of rice would drop by about half.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 9:28:58 AM EST
Just like "global warming", "biofuels" covers a lot more stuff than most (ignorant) people have any clue about.

Not all "biofuels" are made from plants, much less food crops.

The smart money is betting on engineered bacteria (or possibly even new life forms we don't have a name for yet). They don't need sunlight, land area, or "growth seasons".

Link Posted: 6/4/2008 9:34:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By HighStrung1:

Originally Posted By Cpt_Kirks:
We need a six month moratorium on ALL food exports from the US.

To be extended if the price of oil has not dropped to under $100 a barrel by then.

Let the motherfuckers eat crude.



For the motherfucking win!!!!!


Brilliant indeed.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 9:54:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By strat81:

Originally Posted By HighStrung1:

Originally Posted By Cpt_Kirks:
We need a six month moratorium on ALL food exports from the US.

To be extended if the price of oil has not dropped to under $100 a barrel by then.

Let the motherfuckers eat crude.



For the motherfucking win!!!!!


Brilliant indeed.


Yes, trade wars are oh so good for the economy.

Once again, my sigline comes in handy.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 9:58:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By webtaz99:
Just like "global warming", "biofuels" covers a lot more stuff than most (ignorant) people have any clue about.

Not all "biofuels" are made from plants, much less food crops.

The smart money is betting on engineered bacteria (or possibly even new life forms we don't have a name for yet). They don't need sunlight, land area, or "growth seasons".



I didn't think the article was about hypothetical ways to create biofuels.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 1:01:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By SNorman:

Originally Posted By webtaz99:
Just like "global warming", "biofuels" covers a lot more stuff than most (ignorant) people have any clue about.

Not all "biofuels" are made from plants, much less food crops.

The smart money is betting on engineered bacteria (or possibly even new life forms we don't have a name for yet). They don't need sunlight, land area, or "growth seasons".



I didn't think the article was about hypothetical ways to create biofuels.

Right. It was about biofuels created from food crops, just like most people mean "man-made" when they say "global warming".
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 1:03:11 PM EST
Garin cartels like archer daniels/ADM the only thing that creates famine in the 21st century.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 5:11:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/4/2008 5:13:15 PM EST by OFFascist]
I'd rather our "food" get used to power our cars rather than to be given away to other nations.

When oil producing nations want to trade grains for oil then we can do business.
Top Top