UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler claims that the use of biofuels are a crime against humanity:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm
Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?
- Thread starter Billy T
- Start date
I read that yester day or day before also, but note that only a small fraction of the cleared land, now used only for pasture* or not at all, in Brazil is producing sugar cane. (I forget the official percent but is like 10% of total available and not in other food crops. While what the report states is clearly true in US and already bing reflected in higher American food costs, there is only have small indirect effect in Brazil. This effect is "secodary" in that now some of the unemployed laborers are earning salaries by cutting cane and thus able to buy chickens etc rather than eat only rice etc. Thus, the cost of chicken may be up a percent or two due to increased sugar cane production. In the US the effect on food prices is direct. I.e. the chicken's corn now costs much more as some of the supply of corn is now going to the production of alcohol. This affects not only Joe American, but others the US previously exportred corn to, especially in Mexico. There have been riots in Mexico over the large increase in the price of Tortilias. I do not think any one has been killed in them, yet.
These same general results were presented in Geneva on 23Oct07 by Stefan Tangerman, director of Commerce and Agricultural division of international Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development, OCED, who also pointed noted the "distorion of global commerce in food stocks" cause by making alcohol from corn. Futhermore, his reported noted that only Brazil has the natural advantages to make alcohol production economically viable WITHOUT large government subsidies now. (US production may be economically viable without the subsides when the price of oil is greater than $145/ barrel.) He was, thus holding govenment, such as the US principlemently responsible for this "crime against humanity" althought he was diplimatic and did not use that phrase. He also noted that inaddition to the subsidies, the protective quotas and tariffs contribute to "the problem" (again very diplomatic language, but the meaning is clear).
In 2006, these subsides represented 27% of the reciepts of the producers or 268 million dollars and in 2005 was 29% of reciepts. (Subsidy were not decreased from '05 to '06, but revenue from sales was up to reduce the subsidy percent of total.) Also noted that agricultural subsidies are the main reason the Doha trade talks have failed. Thus effectively the US can not export as much as it could of manufactured, high value goods. (Brazil, et. al. has tariff walls against them which it would reduce if the agricultural subsidies and US tariffs were reduced - Doha's "Quid pro quo"). Thus the US is stupidly favoring the few agro-busnesses and their relatively few workers at the expense of the many who work in factories, or buy food etc. But the Cargill family is big contributor to the Republican campaigns so that is to be expected. (Few know that Cargill Corporation is still privately owned - perhaps the largest private company in the world. If you do not believe me try to buy stock in them as they are very profitable, with millions of your tax dollars collected every year in subsidies. - that is how I learned this fact.) More at my old thread: "How stupid can the US voter be?"
---------------------
* Perhaps eating beef is also a "crimeagainst humanity" as you can feed a dozen people on the production ot the land required for one steer. I eat none, but that is for heath reasons. I tend to think that the Earth would be better off, more ecologically diverse and better balanced with many fewer humans. - thus really hate those opposted to distribution of free contraceptives, abortion on demand, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is typical of your nonsense. If some neutrent is missing you can supply it.
One of CEOs of a large US makers of fertilizer had his front yard completely covered in concrete and then a few inches of very pure sand (small SiO2 crystals) were placed on top. He then processed to grow a green lawn that was the best in the neighborhood. Cost his company a lot of money I am sure - but the publicity and resulting sales were well worth it.
Hint: He could have had cows eating that grass if my point escaped you.
I don't agree with the UN guy's claim and probably should have said so and yes I eat beef and yes there are people who don't for moral reasons. I thought the most interesting point he made was that we should be able to produce fuel from bio-waste. Considering the amount produced in the US it would certainly seem sensible to wait 5 years instead of trying to develop fuel from corn.
I mean, really, I don't understand your problem, Billy. Land can grow grass quite well while being unsuitable for producing corn, wheat, or soy. Even with no-till the usual farm equipment cannot put seeds in rocky soil and yields would be low. Cattle are typically run on cornfields from harvest time until about January to salvage the waste from the ground. Wheat straw is recycled into silage and that is fed to the cattle. The UN models that I argued about a long time ago were as if wheat was grown to be the exclusive food of cattle and as if all water that went to cattle production was processed potable water. In short, cattle production does not interfere with the production of grain in the U.S. and is a good complement to grain production. They eat what humans can't and turn it into meat that we can eat.
Hemp for fuel is still the best hands down.
“ Originally Posted by MetaKron
Beef is grown on land that is not suitable for producing crops, on the leavings of corn fields, and on the byproducts of industries that produce plant-based foods. ”
Billy, this is one of those extremely rare occasions where I agree with Metakron becaue he's right.
I've no earthly idea what you're thinking but you've sure got your head screwed on backwards this time! In the BIGGEST part of the the U.S. that's exactly where most of the cow-calf operations are - on land that's too steep or hilly for row cropping or even hay production (too difficult for machinery to traverse). He was NOT talking about farmland that wasn't fertile because something was missing. Even pasture land has to be fertilized regularly - it goes away in the bodies of the calves when they are sold to feedlots.
So back up, take a deep breath, get your brain properly engaged and, like a man, admit that it was YOU that was speaking nonsense this time.
Beef is grown on land that is not suitable for producing crops, on the leavings of corn fields, and on the byproducts of industries that produce plant-based foods. ”
Billy, this is one of those extremely rare occasions where I agree with Metakron becaue he's right.
I've no earthly idea what you're thinking but you've sure got your head screwed on backwards this time! In the BIGGEST part of the the U.S. that's exactly where most of the cow-calf operations are - on land that's too steep or hilly for row cropping or even hay production (too difficult for machinery to traverse). He was NOT talking about farmland that wasn't fertile because something was missing. Even pasture land has to be fertilized regularly - it goes away in the bodies of the calves when they are sold to feedlots.
So back up, take a deep breath, get your brain properly engaged and, like a man, admit that it was YOU that was speaking nonsense this time.
A lot of the fertilization of pasture land is from nature, too. It gets nitrogen from lightning storms, if it has trees they bring up nutrients and bacteria process the rocks in the soil into usable nutrients.
Cattle can graze on tree farms, too, depending on what kind of trees.
Cattle can graze on tree farms, too, depending on what kind of trees.
Certainly, some land IN ITS PRESENT CONDITION is suitable for some crops and not for others. For example in much of Asia, the hill sides, in their original condition, could not be used for rice paddies, but once they were terriced, they were quite suitable. It is all a question of economics.
Nothing but some space (land) is absolutely required to grow any crop. (That point I illustrated by the CEO growing grass on concrete.) If sunlight is not available, for example, with MetaKron's favorate crop, your basement is suitable for hemp growing, as artificial light can be provided, but that crop will require a high sales price to be economical.
Next to sunlight, perhaps the next most important thing is areable soil, but that can be pure SiO2 (sand) for the roots to pass thru. (Little can grow on a recent lava flow - mainly a few types of licans, mosses, etc.)
Once you have both sun and some medium for roots (even water as in hydroponics, but I think sand is used normally.) all the other requirements can be supplied chemically. (Perhaps the most commonly supplied chemical is H2O.)
Obviously, in some locations everything needed is already available. For example, in some parts of Iowa, the "TOP SOIL" is 30 feet deep and rich. Some other locations have every thing needed, but the soil is to acidic, so lime must be added, etc.
It is nonsense to say land is not "suitable" for growing some crops, but perhaps I was to harsh too point that out so abruptly. For example, it is equally "nonsense" to say oil tar sands are "not suitable" for producing motor fuel. I may have just become too annoyed at his often, wild claims. For example a few months ago someone did give a useful link that showed the biopotential of many different crops. Hemp was near the bottom of a list of about 20.
The use of land for producing crops is only a question of economics, not "suitability." My head is screwed on just fine, thank you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brazil's trade with US is steadly dropping as it trade with China and even the Arab world rapidly grows:
"... Exports of the Brazilian agribusiness to the Arab countries grew 17% in the month of September over the same month of last year. During the first nine months of this year, exports increased by 16% in comparison with the same period of 2006. In total, US$ 417 million in agricultural products were shipped last month, and US$ 3.45 billion from January to September. During the two periods, meats and sugar led the list of exported products. "Meat became the first item of the basket in the accumulated result for the year," {sugar/ alcohol was.} says the president at the Arab Brazilian Chamber of Commerce, Antonio Sarkis Jr. ..."
FROM:
http://www.anba.com.br/ingles/noticia.php?id=16352
"... Exports of the Brazilian agribusiness to the Arab countries grew 17% in the month of September over the same month of last year. During the first nine months of this year, exports increased by 16% in comparison with the same period of 2006. In total, US$ 417 million in agricultural products were shipped last month, and US$ 3.45 billion from January to September. During the two periods, meats and sugar led the list of exported products. "Meat became the first item of the basket in the accumulated result for the year," {sugar/ alcohol was.} says the president at the Arab Brazilian Chamber of Commerce, Antonio Sarkis Jr. ..."
FROM:
http://www.anba.com.br/ingles/noticia.php?id=16352
So, Billy, you are stating the farmland in Iowa IS suitable for growing sugarcane? Sugarcane requires less fertilizer than corn, so why don't they grow sugarcane if the land is suitable?
Winter
BTW, it is not just the diverting of corn to alcohol production that is driving up the cost of food, especially corn eatting animals, like chickens and feed lot fatten cazttle (I do not shop in US super markets, but assume that prices are increasing.):
"Corn Rises as Dollar Weakness May Boost Demand for U.S. Grain - By Jeff Wilson
Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Corn rose, capping a second straight monthly gain, as the dollar weakened to a record low against an index of six currencies, reducing the cost of the grain for overseas importers.
The dollar, down 10 percent in the past year, fell after the Federal Reserve cut its key interest rate a quarter percentage point today to bolster economic growth. Corn exports for delivery by Aug. 1 were up 45 percent as of Oct. 11, compared with a year earlier, data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show. The U.S. is the largest exporter and the USDA forecasts that sales this year will rise 6.4 percent.
``U.S. exports are impressive, and that's a function of a weaker dollar,'' said Jim Riley, a broker and analyst for the Linn Group in Chicago.
Corn futures for December delivery rose 5.25 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $3.755 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade. Prices rose 0.7 percent in October to the highest month-end close since May.
Futures still have fallen 17 percent since reaching a 10- year high of $4.5025 in February after farmers boosted acreage to the highest since 1944. The USDA forecasts a record crop of 13.318 billion bushels this year, up 26 percent from 2006.
...
``My farmer clients are disappointed with the yields they are harvesting,'' Mortensen said. ``The crop is not as big as the USDA forecast.''
A 4.6 percent surge in crude oil to a record high boosted investor buying in corn, analysts said. Oil rose after a U.S. Energy Department report showed inventories declined 3.89 million barrels to 312.7 million barrels last week, compared with the 400,000-barrel gain expected in a Bloomberg survey. Rising crude-oil prices increase demand for ethanol, a fuel additive made from corn.
Crude oil rose $4.15 to $94.53 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices have risen 28 percent in the past two months.
Corn has had a correlation of 0.48 against the price of crude oil during the period, up from a one-year correlation of 0.19. A figure of 1 would indicate the two commodities move in lockstep.
``The correlation between corn and crude is very strong right now,'' said Dale Durchholz, a market analyst for AgriVisor Services Inc. in Bloomington, Illinois. ``Grain markets are responding to what is happening in crude oil.''
Corn is the biggest U.S. crop, valued at a record $33.8 billion in 2006, with soybeans in second place, at $19.7 billion, government figures show. Wheat is the fourth-largest crop, behind hay.
Last Updated: October 31, 2007 15:47 EDT ..."
"Corn Rises as Dollar Weakness May Boost Demand for U.S. Grain - By Jeff Wilson
Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Corn rose, capping a second straight monthly gain, as the dollar weakened to a record low against an index of six currencies, reducing the cost of the grain for overseas importers.
The dollar, down 10 percent in the past year, fell after the Federal Reserve cut its key interest rate a quarter percentage point today to bolster economic growth. Corn exports for delivery by Aug. 1 were up 45 percent as of Oct. 11, compared with a year earlier, data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show. The U.S. is the largest exporter and the USDA forecasts that sales this year will rise 6.4 percent.
``U.S. exports are impressive, and that's a function of a weaker dollar,'' said Jim Riley, a broker and analyst for the Linn Group in Chicago.
Corn futures for December delivery rose 5.25 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $3.755 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade. Prices rose 0.7 percent in October to the highest month-end close since May.
Futures still have fallen 17 percent since reaching a 10- year high of $4.5025 in February after farmers boosted acreage to the highest since 1944. The USDA forecasts a record crop of 13.318 billion bushels this year, up 26 percent from 2006.
...
``My farmer clients are disappointed with the yields they are harvesting,'' Mortensen said. ``The crop is not as big as the USDA forecast.''
A 4.6 percent surge in crude oil to a record high boosted investor buying in corn, analysts said. Oil rose after a U.S. Energy Department report showed inventories declined 3.89 million barrels to 312.7 million barrels last week, compared with the 400,000-barrel gain expected in a Bloomberg survey. Rising crude-oil prices increase demand for ethanol, a fuel additive made from corn.
Crude oil rose $4.15 to $94.53 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices have risen 28 percent in the past two months.
Corn has had a correlation of 0.48 against the price of crude oil during the period, up from a one-year correlation of 0.19. A figure of 1 would indicate the two commodities move in lockstep.
``The correlation between corn and crude is very strong right now,'' said Dale Durchholz, a market analyst for AgriVisor Services Inc. in Bloomington, Illinois. ``Grain markets are responding to what is happening in crude oil.''
Corn is the biggest U.S. crop, valued at a record $33.8 billion in 2006, with soybeans in second place, at $19.7 billion, government figures show. Wheat is the fourth-largest crop, behind hay.
Last Updated: October 31, 2007 15:47 EDT ..."
False (and not even addressed in your link):
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3510.html#2007
Thanks for the clarification I failed to make.
I was speaking of the relative significance, not the absolute value.
Last year, as I recall data from a few months ago, US trade was 16% of Brazil's total but the year before it was 18%.
I.e. Brazil's trade with the US is becoming less significant because Brazil's trade with China and several other developing nations is rapidly growing.
Even in absolute terms, Brazil's exports to US increased very slightly in first 7 months of 2007 (my annual data was a little earlier, thru June '07, I think):
$2,185.5 million in January '07 going to 2,196.0 million during August '07 according to the link you supplied. that is only a 10.5billion increase or less than half a percent. (data of the two extremes of your links range but August is the highest month of all seven given)
As commoditity prices have increased several percent during that period, it seem very likely that even in absolute terms trade as measured by volume, has indeed decreased. I.e. the increase is not real even in absolute terms, only the effect of inflation and measuring trade by dollars, not volume shipped.
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay. So what? America's trade with Brazil (and Mexico, England, etc.) is also becoming less significant for the same reasons. Every time an underdeveloped country gets its economy together, the result is that the relative significance of every country's trade with every other country goes down. This doesn't tell us anything interesting.
I think it certainly does. It tells you that the world is not as dependant upon the US as it once was.
BTW, you posted before I had finished my editing again. here is the last paragraph I added:
"As commoditity prices have increased several percent during that period, it seem very likely that even in absolute terms trade as measured by volume, has indeed decreased. I.e. the increase is not real even in absolute terms, only the effect of inflation and measuring trade by dollars, not volume shipped."