Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New York Times Editorial on Ethanol

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New York Times Editorial on Ethanol

    Like it or not this is what the ethanol industry has to contend with as food prices rise.

    March 3, 2008
    EDITORIAL
    <b>Priced Out of the Market
    New York Times</b>
    The world’s food situation is bleak, and shortsighted policies in the United States and other wealthy countries — which are diverting crops to environmentally dubious biofuels — bear much of the blame.
    According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the price of wheat is more than 80 percent higher than a year ago, and corn prices are up by a quarter. Global cereal stocks have fallen to their lowest level since 1982.

    As usual, the brunt is falling disproportionately on the poor. The F.A.O. estimates that the cereal import bill of the neediest countries will increase by a third for the second year in a row. Prices have gone so high that the World Food Program, which aims to feed 73 million people this year, said it might have to reduce rations or the number of people it will help.

    The world has faced periodic bouts when it looked as if population growth would outstrip the food supply. Each time, food production has grown to meet demand. This time it might not be so easy.

    Population growth and economic progress are part of the problem. Consumption of meat and other high-quality foods —mainly in China and India— has boosted demand for grain for animal feed. Poor harvests due to bad weather in this country and elsewhere have contributed. High energy prices are adding to the pressures.

    <font color="blue">Yet the most important reason for the price shock is the rich world’s subsidized appetite for biofuels. In the United States, 14 percent of the corn crop was used to produce ethanol in 2006 — a share expected to reach 30 percent by 2010. This is also cutting into production of staples like soybeans, as farmers take advantage of generous subsidies and switch crops to corn for fuel. </font id="blue">

    The benefits of this strategy are dubious. A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggested that — absent new technologies — the United States, Canada and the European Union would require between 30 percent and 70 percent of their current crop area if they were to replace 10 percent of their transport fuel consumption with biofuels. And two recent studies suggested that a large-scale effort across the world to grow crops for biofuels would add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere rather than reduce it.

    The human costs of this diversion of food into energy are all too evident.

    As a first step, the United States and other wealthy countries that are driving this problem must ensure that the United Nations and other relief agencies get the support they need to feed the most vulnerable people. But aid is not a solution.

    <b>Congress must take a hard look at the effect of corn ethanol on food supplies in the same way the new energy bill requires it to review the environmental effects. It must move toward ending subsidies that will become even more difficult to justify as oil prices rise and the costs of producing corn ethanol decline. And it must press other wealthy countries to do the same before hunger turns to mass starvation. </b>

  • #2
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Beaner</i>
    <br />Like it or not this is what the ethanol industry has to contend with as food prices rise.

    March 3, 2008
    EDITORIAL
    <b>Priced Out of the Market
    New York Times</b>
    The world’s food situation is bleak, and shortsighted policies in the United States and other wealthy countries — which are diverting crops to environmentally dubious biofuels — bear much of the blame.
    According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the price of wheat is more than 80 percent higher than a year ago, and corn prices are up by a quarter. Global cereal stocks have fallen to their lowest level since 1982.

    As usual, the brunt is falling disproportionately on the poor. The F.A.O. estimates that the cereal import bill of the neediest countries will increase by a third for the second year in a row. Prices have gone so high that the World Food Program, which aims to feed 73 million people this year, said it might have to reduce rations or the number of people it will help.

    The world has faced periodic bouts when it looked as if population growth would outstrip the food supply. Each time, food production has grown to meet demand. This time it might not be so easy.

    Population growth and economic progress are part of the problem. Consumption of meat and other high-quality foods —mainly in China and India— has boosted demand for grain for animal feed. Poor harvests due to bad weather in this country and elsewhere have contributed. High energy prices are adding to the pressures.

    <font color="blue">Yet the most important reason for the price shock is the rich world’s subsidized appetite for biofuels. In the United States, 14 percent of the corn crop was used to produce ethanol in 2006 — a share expected to reach 30 percent by 2010. This is also cutting into production of staples like soybeans, as farmers take advantage of generous subsidies and switch crops to corn for fuel. </font id="blue">

    The benefits of this strategy are dubious. A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggested that — absent new technologies — the United States, Canada and the European Union would require between 30 percent and 70 percent of their current crop area if they were to replace 10 percent of their transport fuel consumption with biofuels. And two recent studies suggested that a large-scale effort across the world to grow crops for biofuels would add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere rather than reduce it.

    The human costs of this diversion of food into energy are all too evident.

    As a first step, the United States and other wealthy countries that are driving this problem must ensure that the United Nations and other relief agencies get the support they need to feed the most vulnerable people. But aid is not a solution.

    <b>Congress must take a hard look at the effect of corn ethanol on food supplies in the same way the new energy bill requires it to review the environmental effects. It must move toward ending subsidies that will become even more difficult to justify as oil prices rise and the costs of producing corn ethanol decline. And it must press other wealthy countries to do the same before hunger turns to mass starvation. </b>
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Beaner---the first thing that comes to mind is--why would you believe anything the New York Times says?After all,they did put out that stuff on McCain,and other "liberal" stuff.

    Comment


    • #3
      <font size="3"><font color="blue">David, the issue is not whether I believe it or not. The issue is that the NY Times has a large readership and is quite influential. It is the leader of the pack for main stream media. Therefore, what it says has a najor impact on what people in America will see and hear. The people on this board who are strong ethanol advocates should recognize that the attack on ethanol by the media now will ratchet up substantially. </font id="blue"></font id="size3">

      Comment


      • #4
        <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Beaner</i>
        <br /><font size="3"><font color="blue">David, the issue is not whether I believe it or not. The issue is that the NY Times has a large readership and is quite influential. It is the leader of the pack for main stream media. Therefore, what it says has a najor impact on what people in America will see and hear. The people on this board who are strong ethanol advocates should recognize that the attack on ethanol by the media now will ratchet up substantially. </font id="blue"></font id="size3">
        <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Beaner,So the truth is immaterial?What we seem to have is a shortage of food or oil.Either way there would be a hugh change in humanity.How much starvation would occur if we had no fuel in this country for two wks?What do you want,beaner--just cheaper food?

        Comment


        • #5
          before they start talking about wasted acres on fuel they might check and see how much cheap bread is just plain thrown away uneaten. When the writers at the New York Times stop throwing out good food then will I listen to them.

          Comment


          • #6
            The Times article lists some valid concerns. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Surprise, surprise, bio fuels ALONE will not fill the fluid fuel needs of the US. There is no one answer to our fluid transportation fuel needs- but bio fuels need to be a piece of the answer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Surprise, surprise, in some areas of the world converting FOR INSTANCE peat bogs to palm plantations for palm oil will make more CO2. That does not mean that it is unwise to use cropland in other parts of the world to make bio fuels.-------------------------------------- Surprise, surprise, yet another media source is taking the negatives and running with them in a story. Reasons- Lazy reporters?, stupid reporters? or media sources that have chosen a side in this and will only print the information that serves their pre existing opinion? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE MEDIA DOES A THOROUGH, BALANCED AND ACCURATE JOB OF COVERING ISSUES SURROUNDING BIO FUELS? DO YOU THINK THE MEDIA IS DOING JUST THAT? WHY OR WHY NOT?

            There is no free lunch.
            Milton Friedman (1912 - 2006)
            “Democracy is the worst form of government, -------------------------------except for all the others.”

            ― Winston S. Churchill

            Comment


            • #7
              When I was in school, back in the old days, I remember in our Civics class a couple kids gave a debate about farming practices. I remember distinctly that one of the kids sited the NY Times as a source for their side of the debate because I bet the kid that the Times would be wrong, and won $1 at our class reuinion (plus the ability to say I was right).

              What was the bet about?
              He quotes a NY Times article claiming that by the year 2000, there would be mass starvation around the world because of LACK OF FOOD due to our 'unsustainable' farming practices.
              It was a long time ago, but if memory serves me right the Times article quoted several 'experts' from the UN, as well.
              If anyone can do an archive search of the Times, this would have been an article from either the very late 70s or very early 80s.
              Needless to say, I don't put a whole lot of faith in the accuracy of the article. Did you notice how the 'poor' countries are hardest hit?
              Or how it is all the fault of the 'rich' countries, but the only one mentioned by name is the United States????
              No bias at all there, is there?

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks for the heads up Beaner. Doesn't matter if the article is accurate or not, farmers will soon be more hated than big oil. Guys, we need to thicken up our skin and get ready for the verbal assault. We need to keep our cool and refute this stuff that is untrue and be willing to admit what is. Man made global warming has been refuted with the facts. We did not try to say there is no global warming, we proved that it was not caused by man. It will be up to us to refute the untrue stuff put out by the MSM about us. Remember, this will be nothing more than a money grab by the left to fund their social programs. We are just the next target for their funding. They care not about starvation, the environment, or the climate, all they care about is power.

                Comment


                • #9
                  123,
                  That is interesting, I can give an account similar, only nearly 2 decades earlier. A neighbor, former service man, vet of cold war--Germany, pre l965 VietNam--
                  He came home to farm, becaue he thought that the farming limitations were nearly maxed as for production, so he could see great profits in production agriculture. I couple years ago, I reminded him of that, and he said, yep, Monsanto, for one, has increased production past most past imaginations, through technology, plus changes in farming practices.

                  the good ole USA!!!

                  beaner is correct, the readers will take the material as fact, when in fact, there are several errors, and it needs to be corrected, apparerntly by the producers, as it is eadsier to sit and watch, rather than get in and do sometihing productive, and progressive.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The people WILL take it as fact ad they know no better. These kinds of articles have been printed about the livestockdairy industry for YEARS!! Corn Producers NEED to educate the media and the viewers/readers. I believe that the NCGA needs to learn some leesons forn the Pork Checkoff, NCBA. or The American Dairy Association and learn how to get the message out. good luck.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The NCGA, Renewable Fuels Association, ethanol.org, and the DOE need to run ads in the NYT, WSJ, and on TV to counter the NYT & WSJ misinformation. And, while they are at it, they need to point out to the tree huggers how many trees go into the printing of the NYT. lol. Best.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        <font size="3"><font color="blue">I suggest a few of you on this board also should recognzie there is some truth to what the NY Times editorial stated. The best way to tarnish American agriculture's image is to appear to be so greedy you could care less about the situation of the rest of America and the world. Ag commodities are at a level none of us have ever seen and some of you think they need to go even higher. </font id="blue"></font id="size3">

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree beaner I just went to Wal Mart and laid down two bucks for a 5 lb bag of flower. They gave me back 51 cents. I think I will go back and buy the rest of their stock... New York Times has me scared.

                          I honestly don't think it matters what we say or do. They will shed a bad light on it. The fact is the environmentalist will not let us farm certain acres and other acres they will not let us water. If there is a true concern for people starving then maybe it is time to start pumping some of that water from the Mississippi back up here to water the crops. I think they want to have their cake and eat it too.

                          Beaner I have no problem with you letting us know what the New York Times has to say. As a matter of fact I thank you for it. I fee like I should be able to respond the way I feel on this board with the hope that the final outcome with benefit all.

                          <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Beaner</i>
                          <br /><font size="3"><font color="blue">I suggest a few of you on this board also should recognzie there is some truth to what the NY Times editorial stated. The best way to tarnish American agriculture's image is to appear to be so greedy you could care less about the situation of the rest of America and the world. Ag commodities are at a level none of us have ever seen and some of you think they need to go even higher. </font id="blue"></font id="size3">
                          <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I just spent a week in HAITI helping with some trade schools our denomination supports there. HAITI imports 50% of their food while a substantial amount of the fertile ground goes unplanted!!! They don't use much fertilizer and no hybrid seed.While trying to teach them a better way they have many suspicions and refuse to believe that seed and fert make much difference.There is a reason they are hungry and poor!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tut</i>
                              <br />I just spent a week in HAITI helping with some trade schools our denomination supports there. HAITI imports 50% of their food while a substantial amount of the fertile ground goes unplanted!!! They don't use much fertilizer and no hybrid seed.While trying to teach them a better way they have many suspicions and refuse to believe that seed and fert make much difference.There is a reason they are hungry and poor!!!
                              <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Isn't that what orgainc food is?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X