Cars Consume More Grain

August 29, 2006

Supermarkets and Service Stations Now Competing for Grain

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

In agricultural terms, the world appetite for automotive fuel is insatiable. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year. The grain to fill the tank every two weeks over a year will feed 26 people.

|

Investors are jumping on the highly profitable biofuel-bandwagon so fast that hardly a day goes by without another ethanol distillery or biodiesel refinery being announced somewhere in the world. The amount of corn used in U.S. ethanol distilleries has tripled in five years, jumping from 18 million tons in 2001 to an estimated 55 million tons from the 2006 crop.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

With so many distilleries being built, livestock and poultry producers fear there may not be enough corn to produce meat, milk, and eggs. And since the United States supplies 70 percent of world corn exports, corn-importing countries are worried about their supply.

|

Since almost everything we eat can be converted into fuel for automobiles, including wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, and sugarcane, the line between the food and energy economies is disappearing. Historically, food processors and livestock producers that converted these farm commodities into products for supermarket shelves were the only buyers. Now there is another group, those buying for the ethanol distilleries and biodiesel refineries that supply service stations.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The U.S. investment in biofuel production in response to runaway oil prices is spiraling out of control, threatening to draw grain away from the production of beef, pork, poultry, milk, and eggs. And, most seriously, the vast number of distilleries in operation, under construction, and in the planning stages threatens to reduce grain available for direct human consumption. Simply put, the stage is being set for a head-on collision between the world's 800 million affluent automobile owners and food consumers. Given the insatiable appetite of cars for fuel, higher grain prices appear inevitable. The only question is when food prices will rise and by how much. Indeed, in recent months, wheat and corn prices have risen by one fifth.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

There are other fuel options as well. While there are no alternatives to food for people, there is an alternative source of fuel for cars, one that involves shifting to highly efficient gas-electric hybrid plug-ins. This would enable motorists to do short-distance driving, such as the daily commute, with electricity. If wind-rich countries such as the United States, China, and those in Europe invest heavily in wind farms to feed cheap electricity into the grid, cars could run primarily on wind energy, and at the gasoline equivalent of less than $1 a gallon.

August 29, 2006

This is deeply worrying: one more way the richer countries will continue (and accelerate the rate of) taking food out of the mouths of the developing world to feed their (or, I should say, 'our') extravagant lifestyle. There are no easy solutions, but part of the answer has to be actually making lifestyle changes that cut back on our energy use.

August 29, 2006

I was going to simply tag on that I heat my home with corn, until I read Bravus' post.

Now I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Instead of taking this as good news, since it represents less usage of that old devil "fossil fuel," the left finds a way to twist this into "bad news."

Somehow this equates to "taking food out of the mouths" of "the developing world."

Wow!

Instead of driving to the local grain elevator and filling his truck with corn, I'll inform my son that he is actually traveling to some other distant location, and removing that corn from the hands -- no doubt they're too poor to afford spoons-- and the very mouths of people in the "developing world." He'll be interested to discover he's getting that sort of mileage out of his pickup.

Not only does the US donate many thousands, probably millions of tons of grain annually, we have pioneered new varieties--it's called the "green revolution"--to help so-called "developing" countries grow more food.

In so many of these countries, their leaders are more interested in fattening their offshore bank accounts and buying armaments to foment revolution and terrorism, than they are in distributing aid to their people, but somehow I'm taking food out of their mouths by saving money and actually living in a more environmentally friendly way.

This is inverted reasoning. Because we don't give them more, we're taking it away. When we don't confiscate people's money through taxation and give it to someone else, we're "taking if from the poor." I guess I'll have to stop drinking water, because we know that there's a shortage of potable water on the planet. Given this ludicrous reasoning, every drink of water I swallow is taking water from "developing" countries, despite the fact that both my country and my church go to great lengths to drill wells in many of these places.

August 29, 2006

I have a relative who is currently retired, and worked as a parts manager for a local automotive parts store. He told me that it costs $4.00 per gallon to bring you [that's a general "ya'll"], green gas to your cars. [by 'green gas', he meant that as 'alternative fuels' or fuel additives like biodisel and hydrogen fuel]. Whereas fossil fuel, at the time that we were talking [which admittedly was a couple of years ago], cost a little over 50 cents to produce and bring to you at the pump.

So, based upon that, I would expect that competition for resouces and allication of those same resources would increase and become more restrictive as the finacial rewards for car fuel increases.

So, as of right now, gas [in my area] cost $3.25 per gallon. Engergy producers are seeing jumps the price of fuels as they reach that magic $4.00 per gallon mark and as the public demands for cheaper fuel [which will never ever happen again] spurs alternative sources, you should see an increase competition of those grain resources.

Having experienced public transportation in Oz, I would say that we are focusing on the wrong agenda....as usual. Oh well....

On a more personal note, Bravus, I appreciate your 'thinking outside the box' and the different perspective that comes out. We need to see all the problems and see them as oppertunities to meet and fullfil.

August 29, 2006

Cheaper fuels will happen sooner or later. That is just capitalism at work. In a capitalistic society, companies make their money by making products they can market to the masses. As fuel prices increase more research and development will be spent to find a cheaper fuel that can undercut petrolem-based products. Right now, coal looks like the biggest canidate although it could become electricity or hydrogen. The issue isn't so much "if" but "when" it will happen.

August 29, 2006

I found it interesting that the article didn't talk about the percentage of grain that animals consume and the impact less meat consumtion would have on our grain supplies.

August 29, 2006

I could get into a big detailed argument, Ed, but I think we both have pretty clear positions and know each other's. I do think alternatives to fossil fuels are important, but as just one example, where is much of the beef for the US grown? In South America. That land could be used for agriculture for Brazillians, but it is much more economically attractive to use it to produce Big Macs. In a global economy, it won't just be US corn that is made into fuel, but Aisan rice... because an American driver can pay more for it than an Asian housewife.

Of course the story is complex and my response was simple: but the quotes Shane included emphasised this facet of the story. The bottom line is that the world is over-populated, and that we *could* feed everyone in the world already, even despite their own leaders' propensities that you pointed out. We don't due to certain values and economic approaches that place the financial 'bottom line' as the ultimate value (along with some aid, agreed). And when food goods can be more profitably turned to fuel than fed to humans, that is what will happen.

August 30, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The bottom line is that the world is over-populated

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I think we both have pretty clear positions and know each other's

That's the first time I've seen you say that over-population is the "bottom line." Not only did I not know that to be your position, I find difficulty in believing it to be your posiiton. I find it shocking. Echoes of Scrooge's desire to be rid of "the excess population."

I cannot say strongly enough that I do not believe that "over-population" is the problem. Frankly, I find that assessment morally repugnant.

Because it raises a whole series of deeply troubling questions.

What would be the appropriate population for the world, and how would humans make that judgment?

If over-population is truly the problem then it would seem that the developed world is more than doing its part, because our birth rates are quite low.

If over-population is truly the problem then what measures should be taken in those areas of the world where the birth rate exceeds the replacement rate?

If over-population is truly the problem, then shouldn't responsibility for solving the problem fall on those who are causing the problem? i. e., having too many children?

How would you have those who are having these "extra" children" behave?

I find the whole notion that there are too many people quite troubling, because such a notion lends itself to really drastic totalitarian solutions, such as the China one-child policy.

Do you approve of the China one-child policy?

Once you define the problem as "over population," then the solution necessarily takes the form of how to limit that population.

THis makes the rest of your post a hash also. Are those producing the beef responsible for the over-population? Would their switching from beef production to something else help to reduce the over-population?

If you really believe the problem is over-population, then why would you penalize the groups that are are breeding at a a responsible rate?

August 30, 2006

You're right of course: I was (sadly, not unusually) imprecise, and should have been clearer. It would have been better to say that the nexus of consumption patterns in the developed world with population growth in the developing world is the problem (it's what I meant all along, which makes the rest of my earlier post more coherent, and I do apologise for not saying that).

I agree that simply saying that excess population is the problem is repugnant, and likely to lead to draconian approaches. (As an aside, the strongest correlation with lower birth rates is education for women, so it could be argued that that's a much better solution than China's. But that's off topic.)

But the problem then is that the world cannot sustain its current population at the standards of living enjoyed by those in developed countries. Is it equally repugnant to say that those in China and India should be denied that standard of living, even if they can obtain it for themselves? I believe so, or almost. As China's standard of living rises rapidly, its demand for fuels will be larger than that of the US.

So what I tried to say, rather clumsily, is that arable land is a finite commodity, and in fact a shrinking one due to climate change. Agricultural advances and bioengineering seem to be increasing yields, but not as fast as the increase in that (aggregated per person or per nation) product of population times standard of living (which essentially boils down to energy use).

The US already uses 25% of the world's energy with around 5% of the world's population. If China got to even half that level of energy use it would be using something like 40% of the world's current energy usage rate.

So anyway, I think the point that it's likely that it will be more attractive to use arable land for producing fuels than food, including in developing countries, is at least a problem that we ought to be aware of and looking for ways to avoid.

Of course, one alternative to the calamity caused if everyone on earth demands the standard of living of the developed world is for those of us in the developed world to find ways to live more efficiently, and take a fairer share of world resources.

August 30, 2006

Much of that is not accurate, Bravus. A failure to go to the word of God first and to science second has created many a double-minded man in our culture.

The fundamental problem with liberal environmentalists is a core belief that man is only a consumer and not a producer. Thus they begin to see man as an intruder to the earth and they freely quote one passage out of Psalm 24:1, while universally ignoring Psalm 115:16.

Environmentalists frequently claim that we are running out of resources. Take the ten top elements that we harvest out of the earth's crust. Coopper for instance. There is enough copper to last 800,000 more years. In the meantime, the onmarch of technology will continue to develop substitutes and alternatives for copper. Back in the early 1800's it was feared that we would soon run out of whale oil and the lights would go out. Enter Thomas Edison.

Environmentalists often parrot Lot who moved into Sodom because he feared that the land was not big enough to support them. He was wrong.

olger

August 31, 2006

So people are not starving?

August 31, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

So people are not starving?

Non sequitur.

Some people suffer malnutrition in the US because of the foods they choose, not because of a lack of either income or food supply.

The pertinent question is whether people lack grain because it's being used for ethanol production to fuel automobiles.

People die from exposure in cold climates, but not because all the fiber for warm clothing is being used for automobile upholstery.

The greatest cause of starvation in the last 100 years has been socialism. Socialist regimes in a score or more of countries have intentionally starved tens of millions of their own citizens. Russia was an exporter of grain in 1917, but not again for more than 70 years.

Today, the UN has decided that Africans should starve rather than eat genetically modified grains.

August 31, 2006

What I wonder is if all the grain grown in the US is even enough to provide enough ethonal for all our cars if we all used E85.

August 31, 2006

Wonder what that would do to the price of Bread??

August 31, 2006

The price of bread, as all my neighbors who are farmers will tell you, has little to do with the price of grain.

A graph showing the price of a bushel of corn, for exmple, in constant dollars would show a continual decline--with a few blips of course-- over the last two hundred years.

Since I burn corn, I can tell you that right now it's just a little below $2/bushel. Thirty years ago it was at least that high. But the price of bread is much higher today than it was thirty years ago.

Like the box of corn flakes, the loaf of bread contains only a few pennies worth of grain. So if the cost of that grain trebled or quadrupled, you'd barely notice it in the cost of bread.

August 31, 2006

My point throughout has simply been that it's about human decisions. The question is not about whether there is sufficient food to feed everyone on earth, but whether we will choose to do so. The specific topic of this thread is the use of food crops for another purpose, and I simply wanted to flag the extra pressure that this puts on human decision-making: one more thing that we might value more highly than feeding the hungry. None of the responses from the right have really directly responded to that issue.

September 1, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The specific topic of this thread is the use of food crops for another purpose, and I simply wanted to flag the extra pressure that this puts on human decision-making: one more thing that we might value more highly than feeding the hungry. None of the responses from the right have really directly responded to that issue.

There are no satisfactory responses to a question with a false assumption, to wit: That using grain for ethanol is an indication that we don't value feeding the hungry.

Whenever you start out with a false premise, you will not receive good answers.

Also, the fact tha the U.N. refuses to let genetically modified grain be used to feed the hungry in Africa is a demonstration of the illogic of the left, not the right.

It is the socialist priorities of the left that have destroyed agriculture in Ethiopia through collectivism.

Your assumption that the left cares and the right does not is contradicted by the facts.

The time of the so-called "robber baron" capitalists was also the time of some of the greatest philanthropic efforts.

It was the left that intentionally starved millions of Ukrainian kulaks in the 1930's, starving the very farmers who raised the grain-- and all this in the name of the proletariat. And leftist journalists who ignored Stalin's crimes to declare, "I have seen the future and it works."

It has been the capitalist right--not the collectivist left--that has developed the hybrids and the tools that can produce enough food to feed the world, and transport it around the globe--while it has been the left that has used starvation as a weapon (often against its own people), or doctrinal "purity" as with genetically modified grain, to keep the food from the people.

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is not perfect, as nothing in this world can be, but it has proven again and again to be morally superior to the fals messiahs of the left.

Will we "choose to feed the hungry?" I don't know. But history tells me that if it gets done, it will be free people choosing to do it, not collectivist "systems so perfect that no one has to be good."

September 9, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Instead of driving to the local grain elevator and filling his truck with corn, I'll inform my son that he is actually traveling to some other distant location, and removing that corn from the hands -- no doubt they're too poor to afford spoons-- and the very mouths of people in the "developing world." He'll be interested to discover he's getting that sort of mileage out of his pickup.

You underestimate the american farmer. When there is more demand he will find ways to fill that demand. People are uneasy about using gentically altered corn for food but we should have no problem with using genetically altered corn that is resistant to bugs and drought for fuel. Production of corn and grains will go up when the demand goes up and the price as well.

It is about time the world know that the food producers of the world also have economic power.

In 1973 when the arab oil embargo was in full swing a country song made a hit in the USA that made the arab world tremble with fear. One phrase in the song was "A barrel of oil for a bushel of wheat. We shall see who can go without oil or food longer." That made Saudi Arabia concerned as they get a lot of food from the USA and many talk shows had callers calling for this very sort of embargo on the oil producers. A food embargo until the oil embargo was lifted.

September 9, 2006

One more point. If americans were to become vegartarians there would be ten times the grain so says a report I read once. Right now a cow eats a lot of grain and takes up land that could be used for growning grain. I know this is not going to happen but eating meat does use up a lot of resources as far as producing grain for food.

Sign In

Cars Consume More Grain

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Bravus

there buster

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Bravus

there buster

Bravus

olger

Bravus

there buster

Dr. Shane

Stan

there buster

Bravus

there buster

CyberGuy

CyberGuy

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity