• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food prices increased by 75% due to biofuel says World Bank

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

There are those here who call me many names for saying this.

Biofuel is evil. Biofuel has happened due to the bad science of global warming.

Bad science does vast harm.

Almost half the planet lives on less than $2.50 a day and has life expectancies in the 40's.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,237
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From 2008. I'm not saying that invalidates it, but it raises the question of subsequent research, if any.
 

ThoughtEx.

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
5,138
Reaction score
2,124
Location
North America
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
75,514
Reaction score
59,399
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not a big fan. Also, the ten percent ethanol has clogged my Mini multiple times, and it costs like eight hundred dollars to fix it. It's currently clean but garaged, as I can't float that expense again. Just build solar and wind farms and get it over with.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,252
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy



There are those here who call me many names for saying this.

Biofuel is evil. Biofuel has happened due to the bad science of global warming.

Bad science does vast harm.

Almost half the planet lives on less than $2.50 a day and has life expectancies in the 40's.

I remember when the USA went all in for ethanol from corn, forcing the price up making poverty in south America even worse that it already was.

Side story: I hired a guy once that was skin and bones and spoke very little English. One of my Hispanic guys talked me into it. He was from one of the most rotten ratholes in Mexico. I paired him up with a fat guy to train him. I told the dude to "feed him". In a year he was over weight! Finally, he was OK on his own and slimmed down to a trim ~ 190 LOL, AND was damn near fluent English. The boy learned what it was like to have his feet to the fire. He finally got a job in LA in the Glaziers Union after he got legal.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You been living with those prices for 10 years so must not be to bad, for you to just now notice it...

It is not a problem for us rich people. As you say we hardly notice the extra $700 a year or so.

For the world's poor however, it is vicious.

I have been posting stuff about this fr some years.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I remember when the USA went all in for ethanol from corn, forcing the price up making poverty in south America even worse that it already was.

Side story: I hired a guy once that was skin and bones and spoke very little English. One of my Hispanic guys talked me into it. He was from one of the most rotten ratholes in Mexico. I paired him up with a fat guy to train him. I told the dude to "feed him". In a year he was over weight! Finally, he was OK on his own and slimmed down to a trim ~ 190 LOL, AND was damn near fluent English. The boy learned what it was like to have his feet to the fire. He finally got a job in LA in the Glaziers Union after he got legal.

The mass migration of desperate people is part of the result of biofuel.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
19,013
Reaction score
6,881
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
There are those here who call me many names for saying this. Biofuel is evil. Biofuel has happened due to the bad science of global warming. Bad science does vast harm. Almost half the planet lives on less than $2.50 a day and has life expectancies in the 40's.

The only name that comes to mind is fake news repeater... ;)

So we all remember the BushII era- has the cost of food doubled since then? (World wide includes us doesn't it????)

Fact is local and regional food prices can be greatly affected by third world dictators needing cash. They would support massive planting programs, allow massive outside land ownership, and limit internal food crop harvests by putting foreign aid food into the local markets (at a profit for the dictator of course)

Now the cash crop is focused on biofuel not cheap textiles- same melody just a different lyric.

But the world wide price of food hasn't gone up over 100% (exact timeline isn't mentioned- a year- a decade- a wet dream???)

Sorry even a cursory look at the world wide food prices since BushII's time would end this silliness.... :peace
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
48,448
Reaction score
14,154
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
48,448
Reaction score
14,154
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm not a big fan. Also, the ten percent ethanol has clogged my Mini multiple times, and it costs like eight hundred dollars to fix it. It's currently clean but garaged, as I can't float that expense again. Just build solar and wind farms and get it over with.

Another thing about USA fuel standard.

Ethanol only has 60% the energy as gasoline. That means a 10% mix is only 96% as much per per gallon as 100% gasoline. Something else to consider when comparing European gas mileage, beside the imperial gallon vs. the USS gallon. Then another factor yet is the mandatory mix ratios of hydrocarbon chains now enforced on USA gasoline. Different gasoline makers used to have different energy levels per gallon. Premium used to have more energy than regular.

Now it's all the same, except for the additives used.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The only name that comes to mind is fake news repeater... ;)

So we all remember the BushII era- has the cost of food doubled since then? (World wide includes us doesn't it????)

Fact is local and regional food prices can be greatly affected by third world dictators needing cash. They would support massive planting programs, allow massive outside land ownership, and limit internal food crop harvests by putting foreign aid food into the local markets (at a profit for the dictator of course)

Now the cash crop is focused on biofuel not cheap textiles- same melody just a different lyric.

But the world wide price of food hasn't gone up over 100% (exact timeline isn't mentioned- a year- a decade- a wet dream???)

Sorry even a cursory look at the world wide food prices since BushII's time would end this silliness.... :peace

Yes, if we were to stop uselessly using food as fuel the price would halve.

That would mean that the world's poor would have an effective 80% increase in wealth.

That would make a massive difference to the world of th epoor. Their economy would boom. The year after they would be lots beter off still etc.

In 1846 the corn laws were repealed in Britian. These were tariffs imposed to protect British farmers from cheap American corn. The day of the budget there was dancing in the streets. From that time British people have enjoyed steadily rising standards of living. Before that was not the case.

Today's strangling of the poor of the world is far worse.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Another thing about USA fuel standard.

Ethanol only has 60% the energy as gasoline. That means a 10% mix is only 96% as much per per gallon as 100% gasoline. Something else to consider when comparing European gas mileage, beside the imperial gallon vs. the USS gallon. Then another factor yet is the mandatory mix ratios of hydrocarbon chains now enforced on USA gasoline. Different gasoline makers used to have different energy levels per gallon. Premium used to have more energy than regular.

Now it's all the same, except for the additives used.

the issue is that the guys fueling the tankers don't actually measure.

they just walk over to the ethanol pump and dump it in. when it hits full or close to it they stop.
there could be more or less ethanol than 10%.

it is advertised at 10%.

i can't use it in my weedeater it eats the carb up.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
48,448
Reaction score
14,154
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
the issue is that the guys fueling the tankers don't actually measure.

they just walk over to the ethanol pump and dump it in. when it hits full or close to it they stop.
there could be more or less ethanol than 10%.

it is advertised at 10%.

i can't use it in my weedeater it eats the carb up.

Go with an electric. That's what I use.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
75,514
Reaction score
59,399
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Another thing about USA fuel standard.

Ethanol only has 60% the energy as gasoline. That means a 10% mix is only 96% as much per per gallon as 100% gasoline. Something else to consider when comparing European gas mileage, beside the imperial gallon vs. the USS gallon. Then another factor yet is the mandatory mix ratios of hydrocarbon chains now enforced on USA gasoline. Different gasoline makers used to have different energy levels per gallon. Premium used to have more energy than regular.

Now it's all the same, except for the additives used.

i would definitely recommend against using US ethanol mixed gasoline in European cars, at least cars with BMW engines. if the car is still under warranty, you'll be inconvenienced, but basically ok for a year or so at a time. if it's not under warranty, you'll likely be paying around eight hundred dollars for a walnut shell blast cleaning once a year. in my state, i have not seen a station selling premium gas that doesn't have ethanol in it.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Go with an electric. That's what I use.

They do not make an electric car big enough yet or cheap enough for my family.
I would need something the size of a mini-van or SUV.

also right now they are too expensive and get sucky millage.
they are great if you have a small family or are single.

if you have a larger family then they are not so great.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
48,448
Reaction score
14,154
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
They do not make an electric car big enough yet or cheap enough for my family.
I would need something the size of a mini-van or SUV.

also right now they are too expensive and get sucky millage.
they are great if you have a small family or are single.

if you have a larger family then they are not so great.

I meant the weed wacker. i also use an electric lawn mower.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
19,013
Reaction score
6,881
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Yes, if we were to stop uselessly using food as fuel the price would halve. That would mean that the world's poor would have an effective 80% increase in wealth. That would make a massive difference to the world of th epoor. Their economy would boom. The year after they would be lots beter off still etc. In 1846 the corn laws were repealed in Britian. These were tariffs imposed to protect British farmers from cheap American corn. The day of the budget there was dancing in the streets. From that time British people have enjoyed steadily rising standards of living. Before that was not the case. Today's strangling of the poor of the world is far worse.

Well can call you clueless on how prices are set. (do note you dodged the question on food costs and if they have doubled since BushII (they haven't))

A tariff is a poor comparison for today's situation. Do the poor nations divert vast parts of their corn/soybean/sugarcane ground to biofuels (remember those crops are very demanding on fertilizer, climate and rain) Which 'the poor' do you think can benefit??? Most countries that have trouble feeding their people lack the ability to grow major food crops, pay for imported food stuff, or distribute it in a timely fashion.... no matter the cost the poor nation must be able to distribute the food before it rots, have a climate that can produce large amounts of nutritious food, and something exporter nations want in trade for their food stuffs...

Actually the British haven't enjoyed a steadily rising standard of living- they lost an Empire to exploit and a collapsing industrial base- they have struggled far more than steadily risen- paying for imports, no matter the cost, requires a balance of trade- something the corn/wheat/beef producing nation will buy in exchange...

World economies isn't your strong suit.... :peace
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,860
Reaction score
13,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
There are those here who call me many names for saying this.
The rejection of your views is well deserved, when the best thing you can come up with is a ten year old article which, in retrospect, doesn't really explain what's been happening with food prices over the past ~15 years, and you constantly ignore anything that disproves your excessively (if not deliberately) oversimplified hot take on the topic.

For one thing, as I keep pointing out to you: There is no correlation between the biofuel production and global food prices. Let's start by looking at those prices:

fredgraph.png


Why did food prices drop in 2009, when biofuel production continued to rise? Why did food prices drop from the middle of 2014 to the end of 2015, when biofuel production continued to increase? Oh, wait, I know. It's because global food prices are heavily influenced by the price of oil, not the use of crops for fuel. (Note: The chart is given a simple adjustment to make the correlationreally, really obvious, even to those too stubborn to accept it.) The impact of biofuels on prices is obviously quite small overall.

fredgraph.png


By the way... What do you think happens when the price of corn drops too much? Farmers stop growing corn. Woah! Yep, it's basic economics. The costs involved in growing and transporting corn don't determine the price of corn on the market; the price is based on both supply and demand. If the price falls too low for farmers to break even, they will grow less corn, and this will cause the price of corn to rise. In fact, US corn farmers have relied heavily on government subsidies for decades, in no small part because farmers couldn't afford to grow corn without those subsidies.


Biofuel is evil. Biofuel has happened due to the bad science of global warming.
Nope nope nope, total bull****. Environmentalists are NOT the chief advocates of biofuels. Y'all really need to stop spreading this lie.

In the US, for example, it is climate change denialist Republicans who push biofuel mandates. Even the article you quoted makes that clear, as it has Bush 43 -- who started ethanol mandates in the US in 2005 - explicitly pushing for biofuels. More recently, Trump -- who is notorious for denying climate change -- also backs ethanol mandates, as a sop to Midwestern farmers hurt by his trade war policies.

Speaking of Trump's trade war, guess what? Because Trump pissed off China, some American soybean farmers can't sell their crops. Soy is difficult to store, storage space is nearly maxed out, and talks are going nowhere, meaning that the most likely outcome is millions of tons of soybeans that will rot. Soybean prices peaked at ~1750 in 2012 and collapsed at the end of 2014 (surprise!). They spent much of this year around 1000, and Trump's policies whacked off another 125. Your 4th grade "cheap prices good!" mentality might cheer at this, but you'll probably be the only one -- because no one is buying the excess soybeans, it's all going to waste, and as a result a lot of farmers are going to suffer. Why aren't you screaming bloody murder over this? Oh, I know, it's because you can't blame those nasty environmentalists for it.

Oh, and guess what? Environmental NGOs generally oppose ethanol and similar biofuels, and have done so for the better part of a deca. They waste water, they don't significantly reduce emissions, cause agricultural pollution, the list goes on. A few examples:
https://content.sierraclub.org/grassrootsnetwork/team-news/2015/02/sierra-club-guidance-biofuels
biofuelwatch | raising awareness of the negative impacts of industrial biofuels and bioenergy
https://www.conservationgateway.org/News/Pages/new-conservancy-research-.aspx
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/business/energy-environment/25iht-rbogeth.html

Even the IPCC has occasionally dampened its enthusiasm for biofuels:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...stone-ipcc-climate-report-shifts-on-biofuels/


Bad science does vast harm.
Oh, really?

Does "bad science" result in consumers in affluent nations throwing out 30-40% of the food they purchase?

Did "bad science" result in about 30% of crops used to produce meat?

Did "bad science" result in steadily increasing crop yields?

Did "bad science" result in the drop in the number of hungry people in the world?

Or did bad science permanently poison your understanding of the situation, because you're so utterly desperate to attack environmentalists?
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well can call you clueless on how prices are set. (do note you dodged the question on food costs and if they have doubled since BushII (they haven't))

A tariff is a poor comparison for today's situation. Do the poor nations divert vast parts of their corn/soybean/sugarcane ground to biofuels (remember those crops are very demanding on fertilizer, climate and rain) Which 'the poor' do you think can benefit??? Most countries that have trouble feeding their people lack the ability to grow major food crops, pay for imported food stuff, or distribute it in a timely fashion.... no matter the cost the poor nation must be able to distribute the food before it rots, have a climate that can produce large amounts of nutritious food, and something exporter nations want in trade for their food stuffs...

Actually the British haven't enjoyed a steadily rising standard of living- they lost an Empire to exploit and a collapsing industrial base- they have struggled far more than steadily risen- paying for imports, no matter the cost, requires a balance of trade- something the corn/wheat/beef producing nation will buy in exchange...

World economies isn't your strong suit.... :peace

Not-Quite-Right-in-the-Head,

I am British. British standards of living have been steadily rising, with a few steps back now and again, since the middle of the nineteenth century.

Syria fell into civil war due to a spike in food prices that resulted from a change in US biofuel policy.

The very large population of Egypt imports most of its' food. World food prices are very important to those people.

In India the people living on the street and dying in their 40's live on imported food.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The rejection of your views is well deserved, when the best thing you can come up with is a ten year old article which, in retrospect, doesn't really explain what's been happening with food prices over the past ~15 years, and you constantly ignore anything that disproves your excessively (if not deliberately) oversimplified hot take on the topic.

For one thing, as I keep pointing out to you: There is no correlation between the biofuel production and global food prices. Let's start by looking at those prices:

fredgraph.png


Why did food prices drop in 2009, when biofuel production continued to rise? Why did food prices drop from the middle of 2014 to the end of 2015, when biofuel production continued to increase? Oh, wait, I know. It's because global food prices are heavily influenced by the price of oil, not the use of crops for fuel. (Note: The chart is given a simple adjustment to make the correlationreally, really obvious, even to those too stubborn to accept it.) The impact of biofuels on prices is obviously quite small overall.

[removed to get through the charachter limit:- more meaningless drivel in any case]

Even the IPCC has occasionally dampened its enthusiasm for biofuels:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...stone-ipcc-climate-report-shifts-on-biofuels/



Oh, really?

Does "bad science" result in consumers in affluent nations throwing out 30-40% of the food they purchase?

Did "bad science" result in about 30% of crops used to produce meat?

Did "bad science" result in steadily increasing crop yields?

Did "bad science" result in the drop in the number of hungry people in the world?

Or did bad science permanently poison your understanding of the situation, because you're so utterly desperate to attack environmentalists?

Food prices have been maintained/increased due to large amounts of food being diverted away from feed people to make biofuel that does not actually save on CO2 output in any case (is that good science as far as you are concearned???).

Food prices should have been dropping very markedly because there has been a very effective agricultural revolution in making the world be far more productive of food. Between better breeding of seed crops and GM output today is far higher than it was just 20 years ago. Prices should have fallen.

If we allowed the food that is currently diverted away from people to get to the world market the price would drop a lot. Probably halve. The above article is only talking about the amount of food we used in 2008. We use loads more than that now.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,860
Reaction score
13,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Food prices have been maintained/increased due to large amounts of food being diverted away from feed people to make biofuel that does not actually save on CO2 output in any case (is that good science as far as you are concearned???).
So basically, you just ignored pretty much everything I wrote, so you could keep repeating your deliberately oversimplified claim. Impressive :roll:

Unfortunately, it appears a formatting error prevented the charts from displaying. Although you've seen it before, I'll show the chart with global food prices and global oil prices. Again, note that I added a consistent indexed $75 adjustment to the oil price to make the correlations really, really obvious:

Food vs Oil.jpg

One point that should be obvious is that prices shot up in 2008 -- and declined rapidly by December 2008. It should be screamingly obvious that a Top Secret document which attributes the 2008 rise in prices to biofuels is obviously missing a critical component, because it doesn't explain that massive drop in prices. Nor does it describe any of the subsequent price changes.

What does explain it? It's on the tip of my tongue. Seriously! I can't see on the chart what it is -- oh, wait, it is screamingly obvious that there is a strong correlation between food prices and oil prices. Since food requires energy at almost every step of the process, the causality is clear. In fact, it seems very likely that this is the primary cause of fluctuations in food prices.

And as we've discussed here and elsewhere, your primitive analysis ignores all sorts of of factors which impact prices, including:
• changes in demand for different types of food
• changes in crop yields
• production costs
• subsidies
• globalization of food production
• globalization of food markets
• weather events and climate change
• wasteful habits of food consumers in affluent nations
• monopolistic practices by Big Agriculture (especially Monsanto)
• the increasing consolidation of farms, especially in the US
• the development of better futures markets and methods of delivery
• the relatively small percentage of global grains used for biofuels
• the substantial portion of global grains used to raise livestock
• the fact that grains is only a part of global prices in the first place
• impacts of political changes, such as Trump's trade war with China
• how the rise in incomes for the poorest in the world changes what the poor eat, which in turn impacts the price of food overall

And yet again! You completely and utterly ignore that when prices for a commodity fall too much, then farmers will not be able to produce the commodity. Corn, again, is so rock-bottom cheap that American farmers can't grow it without a subsidy. Your repeated claims of "low prices good!" shows the utter ineptitude of your understanding.

And yet again! Lots of environmentalists do not advocate for biofuels. The few that do focus on the use of agricultural waste, e.g. European environmental organizations are pushing for "second generation" biofuels (which are made from non-food/non-land based biomass, i.e. waste products). And yet, you repeatedly ignore this fact and keep blaming environmentalists for a policy pushed mostly by conservative politicians, who are in the pocket of Big Ag. Get it straight.


Food prices should have been dropping very markedly because there has been a very effective agricultural revolution in making the world be far more productive of food. Between better breeding of seed crops and GM output today is far higher than it was just 20 years ago. Prices should have fallen.
And if Woody had gone straight to the police, none of this would have happened!

I.e. Global food prices is an incredibly complex subject that you clearly do not understand. Reducing it to one factor is every bit as flawed as blaming environmentalists for a policy that they don't advocate.

Now do you see why people criticize you for holding such simplistic positions....?
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So basically, you just ignored pretty much everything I wrote, so you could keep repeating your deliberately oversimplified claim. Impressive :roll:

Unfortunately, it appears a formatting error prevented the charts from displaying. Although you've seen it before, I'll show the chart with global food prices and global oil prices. Again, note that I added a consistent indexed $75 adjustment to the oil price to make the correlations really, really obvious:

View attachment 67244648

One point that should be obvious is that prices shot up in 2008 -- and declined rapidly by December 2008. It should be screamingly obvious that a Top Secret document which attributes the 2008 rise in prices to biofuels is obviously missing a critical component, because it doesn't explain that massive drop in prices. Nor does it describe any of the subsequent price changes.

What does explain it? It's on the tip of my tongue. Seriously! I can't see on the chart what it is -- oh, wait, it is screamingly obvious that there is a strong correlation between food prices and oil prices. Since food requires energy at almost every step of the process, the causality is clear. In fact, it seems very likely that this is the primary cause of fluctuations in food prices.

And as we've discussed here and elsewhere, your primitive analysis ignores all sorts of of factors which impact prices, including:
• changes in demand for different types of food
• changes in crop yields
• production costs
• subsidies
• globalization of food production
• globalization of food markets
• weather events and climate change
• wasteful habits of food consumers in affluent nations
• monopolistic practices by Big Agriculture (especially Monsanto)
• the increasing consolidation of farms, especially in the US
• the development of better futures markets and methods of delivery
• the relatively small percentage of global grains used for biofuels
• the substantial portion of global grains used to raise livestock
• the fact that grains is only a part of global prices in the first place
• impacts of political changes, such as Trump's trade war with China
• how the rise in incomes for the poorest in the world changes what the poor eat, which in turn impacts the price of food overall

And yet again! You completely and utterly ignore that when prices for a commodity fall too much, then farmers will not be able to produce the commodity. Corn, again, is so rock-bottom cheap that American farmers can't grow it without a subsidy. Your repeated claims of "low prices good!" shows the utter ineptitude of your understanding.

And yet again! Lots of environmentalists do not advocate for biofuels. The few that do focus on the use of agricultural waste, e.g. European environmental organizations are pushing for "second generation" biofuels (which are made from non-food/non-land based biomass, i.e. waste products). And yet, you repeatedly ignore this fact and keep blaming environmentalists for a policy pushed mostly by conservative politicians, who are in the pocket of Big Ag. Get it straight.



And if Woody had gone straight to the police, none of this would have happened!

I.e. Global food prices is an incredibly complex subject that you clearly do not understand. Reducing it to one factor is every bit as flawed as blaming environmentalists for a policy that they don't advocate.

Now do you see why people criticize you for holding such simplistic positions....?

Short term fluctuations do indeed follow the oil price.

The long term trend on your pretty graph is upward for the food and downward for the oil. It also starts after the biofuel thing started.

The amount of agricultrual produce produced had increased a lot. The demand from humans has not. The price should have dropped.

Palm oil is a massive problem fo rthe world due to large areas of tropical forrest being chopped down for palm plantations. This is due to the elevated food price.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,860
Reaction score
13,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Short term fluctuations do indeed follow the oil price.
Uh, hello? The correlations to go back to at least 1990. 28+ years of correlations is not "short term."


The long term trend on your pretty graph is upward for the food and downward for the oil. It also starts after the biofuel thing started.
Wow. So again, you completely ignored not just tons of relevant facts, but also my point that there are over a dozen factors that have impacts on global food prices. #monomania


The amount of agricultrual produce produced had increased a lot. The demand from humans has not. The price should have dropped.
Are you out of your forking mind?

Global population in 2005: 6.5 billion
Global population in 2017: 7.5 billion

A global population increase 1 billion people in just 12 years has no effect whatsoever on demand?!? You've completely lost it.

And again! These billions are not eating the exact same amount and type of food every single day. As noted in previous discussions, the number of people in dire poverty is falling, and incomes are going up for those who are incredibly poor (mostly in China and India). One thing these people do is buy tastier calories, mostly meat -- which is more expensive.

Tell us, oh economic genius: What happens when Chinese consumption of pork per capita jumps by 20% between 2005 and 2015? Surprise! The answer is not a simple linear formula, because there are lots of other factors involved such as an outbreak of disease (e.g. blue-ear pig in 2007), hog farms getting larger, the availability of imports and more.

Anyway.... All of these complexities defy such pathetically simple claims like "biofuels double the price of food!" We're dealing with global economic systems that are impacted by factors as varied as...
• population size
• changes in disposable income in different income tranches
• changes in consumer tastes (i.e. demand)
• the impact of disease
• the impact of weather
• industrial uses for biomass
• the ability to use waste biomass for non-food products
• the interconnected nature of global finance and supply chains
• consolidation of Big Ag
• the impact of weather on the nutritional properties of crops (e.g. Brazilian soybeans enjoy better growing weather than the US, thus higher protein content)
etc etc


Palm oil is a massive problem fo rthe world due to large areas of tropical forrest being chopped down for palm plantations. This is due to the elevated food price.
That doesn't respond to a single point I've made.

It's also pretty much a bull**** point for you to raise. Palm oil production started its rapid increase in the late 90s, years before biofuels were all the rage. Much of this was due to the policies of governments who didn't give a crap about environmental concerns, such as Suharto pushing palm oil in Indonesia as early as the 1970s. In fact, global demand for timber encourages Indonesia to chop down its forests, and then use the cleared area for agriculture (have I mentioned yet that global agriculture is incredibly complex and interconnected?) We could even look earlier to British colonists planting palm oil in Malaysia for export, if we wanted. Some of its virtues include high yields, use in a variety of products (margarine, soap, lipstick, ice cream, lubricants etc). Price is only part of the equation.

I.e. You have to be a very special kind of person to believe that the only reason to grow more of a crop, which has a variety of industrial and food uses, is because "the cost of food went up."

Unsurprisingly, environmentalists object to the heavy use of palm oil because of its environmental impact. Organizations like the WWF are trying to hold corporation's feet to the fire over sustainable palm oil. MEPs voted to ban palm oil use in biofuels last year. I could be here all day quoting examples.

Oh, wait. I forgot. You don't care about facts. All you care about is: "Bad thing! Blame environmentalists!" :roll:

Thanks for making it apparent, yet again, why you keep getting thoroughly trashed when you raise this ridiculous point.
 
Top Bottom