Feeding cars instead of people

posted at 6:50 am on April 25, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

In a way, the entire concept of biofuels as currently applied makes no sense at all. Instead of using food to actually feed people or even animals, we use it to feed our cars. Ethanol has suddenly lost its luster as an alternative energy source as food prices have skyrocketed, including in global-warming-sympathizing Europe:

Alarmed by rising global food prices, some European leaders are rethinking their commitment to use ethanol fuel and are considering other policy changes to lower the costs of basic staples.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown became the latest official to say that the European Union may have to back off its goal of having ethanol account for 20% of the motor vehicle fuel burned on Europe’s roads by 2020.

The use of corn and sugar to make ethanol is a main driver of rampant inflation in worldwide food costs during the past year. Grocery bills are up across Europe, and the United Nations World Food Program says that rising food prices have pushed 100 million people into hunger worldwide.

Rising food demand from developing economies such as China and India, plus stagnant crop yields in food-producing nations, also are behind the recent jump in costs.

Perhaps turning food into transportation fuel would make sense if massive amounts of grain spoiled every year from a lack of demand, but that certainly isn’t the case. Farmers love the higher prices that come from the new demand to fill gas tanks, but higher prices have consequences for poorer nations that have just begun to be felt. Morally speaking, shouldn’t we feed people before we feed cars?

What makes this even more absurd is ethanol itself. It burns cleaner, but has significant problems as a transportation fuel. It has only two-thirds the potential energy of gasoline, which means more of it has to be used to get the same mileage. Ethanol has to be shipped by truck as it cannot be pumped through a pipeline, so much more energy has to get expended just to bring it to market. In order to use more than just a small amount in a mixture, car engines have to be designed differently to use it, which means more energy and resources have to go into producing the vehicles.

Every fill of the tank with ethanol uses the same amount of corn a child would eat in a year, and let’s not even talk about the amount of potable water used to grow the corn in the first place. Given the above, which is the better use of the corn?

If we produce ethanol from waste — such as with switchgrass, which shows promise — then no ethical problem would exist, although certainly the efficiency issues would remain. Until then, we should end the push to turn food into fuel, driven by the global-climate-change hysteria and pandering to the agricultural sector. Feed people ahead of cars. Is that really such a difficult concept?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Just offer them a chest full of basketballs.

BobMbx on April 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM

who to believe…..

PappyD61 on April 9, 2013 at 6:04 PM

If you want something done right, send Susan Rice.

steebo77 on April 9, 2013 at 6:04 PM

……….an government with a charismatic leader that lies or….

PappyD61 on April 9, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Barack will blink. He’ll offer something of substance behind closed doors. No way this escalates to war.

BKeyser on April 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Send Obama over there; maybe he’ll bore him to sleep with his speeches.

squint on April 9, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Second look at pulling U.S. troops out of North Korea?

and they say Palin is dumb. Allah when is the last time we had troops in NORTH korea?

unseen on April 9, 2013 at 6:08 PM

It’s tomorrow in North Korea right now…

Seven Percent Solution on April 9, 2013 at 6:10 PM

North Korea didn’t go for a comprehensive common sense balanced approach to not bombing anybody?

Apparently the Obama Campaign needs a better focus group consultant in North Korea.

forest on April 9, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Second look at pulling U.S. troops out of North Korea?

and they say Palin is dumb. Allah when is the last time we had troops in NORTH korea?

unseen on April 9, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Did you even click on the link. He was quoting Chuck Hagel.

RickB on April 9, 2013 at 6:12 PM

the difference between Korea and Iraq and Afgan is we have a treaty with SK and we would be the defenders not the attackers. the public is weary of empire building in far off corners of the world. empire building done poorly and for no reason it seems. A korean conflict is about defending an ally and friend.

unseen on April 9, 2013 at 6:12 PM

It’s a good thing Obowma has that party tonight…

Seven Percent Solution on April 9, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Did you even click on the link. He was quoting Chuck Hagel.

RickB on April 9, 2013 at 6:12 PM

no I didn’t and I didn’t see any quotes around it either.

unseen on April 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM

There’s a key distinction in the public opinion I think between Yes South Korea should be defended as an ally of the US and No the US should not keep nearly 30,000 troops along the DMZ trip wire for 60 years as little more than cannon fodder while the ROK goes from war-ravaged refugee to economic mini-superpower more than capable of meeting the great majority of its military/security needs.

Sacramento on April 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM

if China didn’t intervene on the NorKs’ side.

It would seem more likely that China would intervene on the NorKs’ side if we did simply leave South Korea to defend for themselves, our presence may give China second thoughts about intervening.

fourdeucer on April 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Did you even click on the link. He was quoting Chuck Hagel.

RickB on April 9, 2013 at 6:12 PM

ok clicked the link still didn’t see where it mentioned pulling troops out of north korea.

unseen on April 9, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Must have delivered it to the wrong general. How’d that work out for ya?

jake49 on April 9, 2013 at 6:16 PM

We should pull all of our troops out of Korea and most other countries across the world, and then when someone attacks us our response should be BARBARIC. That’s what military policy should be.

thphilli on April 9, 2013 at 6:23 PM

I guess the wording wasn’t sufficiently stern, or something.

msmveritas on April 9, 2013 at 6:25 PM

There’s a key distinction in the public opinion I think between Yes South Korea should be defended as an ally of the US and No the US should not keep nearly 30,000 troops along the DMZ trip wire for 60 years as little more than cannon fodder while the ROK goes from war-ravaged refugee to economic mini-superpower more than capable of meeting the great majority of its military/security needs.

Sacramento on April 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Distinction in public opinion or not, the US keeps 30,000 troops on the DMZ because the US is still at War with North Korea.

SWalker on April 9, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Why give anything to Barky, it’s not as if he will respond back forcefully; the norks have his number just as everyone else does.

Bishop on April 9, 2013 at 6:30 PM

This just goes to prove the demo-rat socialists running our nation into the ground now believe everyone (including the NORKS) are just as stupid as the low information voters that got Obummer elected not once, but twice!

Problem with BS talking point spinners (like most demo-rats are) is they eventually start to believe their own BS spin…problem with that is doing so in such a delicate foreign affairs situation like we now find ourselves in with the NORKS BS spin can get us and South Korea blowed up!

SMART POWER INDEED!!

Liberty or Death on April 9, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Why give anything to Barky, it’s not as if he will respond back forcefully; the norks have his number just as everyone else does.

Bishop on April 9, 2013 at 6:30 PM

The GOP has Bark’s number?

Cudda fooled me.

Bruno Strozek on April 9, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Why in the world did they not try the reset button Hillary carries around??

HotAirian on April 9, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Maxwell Smart Power!

Bet they met in the cone of silence.

Marcola on April 9, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Fortunately there are no Muslims involved front and center to paralyze you into submission. It’s all up to leftard common sense and how they feel about social justice.

BL@KBIRD on April 9, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Why in the world did they not try the reset button Hillary carries around??

HotAirian on April 9, 2013 at 6:37 PM

It got busted during that Benghazi dust-up.

antipc on April 9, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Should have sent Dennis Rodman. He talked to Li’l Kim and his wife personally. Sheesh.

Philly on April 9, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Second look at pulling U.S. troops out of North Korea?

and they say Palin is dumb. Allah when is the last time we had troops in NORTH korea?

unseen on April 9, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Says ‘South’ now; corrected?

Midas on April 9, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Jeez, the libertarians are ‘slow’. We have an international treaty with South Korea. We always honor our treaties. Period. Financial pointyheads will always complain. Thats in their nature. Lol.

tommy71 on April 9, 2013 at 7:01 PM

North Korean diplomat

Isn’t that a contradiction?

JetBoy on April 9, 2013 at 7:08 PM

For nearly two decades the U.S. stalwartly fought for the six party talks. The bipartisan consensus in the foreign policy establishment is and was that bilateral talks would quickly turn into pure blackmail sessions, and the potential for crises (and danger to the world) would grow larger. America fought for those talks for twenty years, un Democrat and GOP administrations, precisely because the alternative would endanger alliances and, potentially, populations.

So in come the Obama smarty-pants. And look where we are: they give in, and commence bilateral talks (even if they aren’t calling them that formally). The Japanese are scared out of their minds, because the Americans have been secretly negotiating with their craziest enemies, and the NORKS are threatening world peace.

There is no imbecility too far off the balance-beam for these Democrats.

MTF on April 9, 2013 at 7:12 PM

North Korea is full of it, they aren’t going to do anything more than try to test a few missiles (that might get shot out of the sky by Japan, assuming they make it that far), and irradiate their own lands. I gotta say, Obama is actually handling a foreign ‘crisis’ pretty well for once. China has been flexing its muscle against a lot of our allies in the region lately, particularly against Japan over the Senkakus. Obama is using the North’s belligerence as cover for bolstering the defenses of our Pacific allies, and calling out the Kim regime as a bunch of blowhards in the process.

Lawdawg86 on April 9, 2013 at 7:17 PM

I’m betting Obama sent an IPod with all his speeches and a box of DVDs that only work in the US.
Should have sent him your recipe for Getman Shepard Soufflé, you limpd!ck jug eared jackhat.

RovesChins on April 9, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Report: U.S. met secretly with top North Korean diplomat last month to, er, deliver talking points

…no food…no peace

KOOLAID2 on April 9, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Just offer them a chest full of basketballs.

BobMbx on April 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM

How about offering them Dennis Rodman and a player to be named later?

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Says ‘South’ now; corrected?

Midas on April 9, 2013 at 6:59 PM

yes.

Update: Whoops — accidentally typed “North” when I meant “South” up above. Corrected now.

Just pointing out how easy it is to get them “confused” when talking about the conflict. not trying to say Allah thought there were troops in North korea.

unseen on April 9, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Not sure I can follow this let the South do it…blah blah twice as many people, blah blah 40X larger wallet. Would the South want to risk what they built or would they make a sweet sweet deal with China as their new protector? My bet, the latter. Smart power indeed, inside The Great Wall.

Limerick on April 9, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Not sure I can follow this let the South do it…blah blah twice as many people, blah blah 40X larger wallet. Would the South want to risk what they built or would they make a sweet sweet deal with China as their new protector? My bet, the latter. Smart power indeed, inside The Great Wall.

Limerick on April 9, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Hmm.

slickwillie2001 on April 9, 2013 at 9:13 PM

A North Korea crisis might be a good thing. It will collapse like a house-of-cards, and perhaps the “international community” (of hypocrites) can get off their backsides and end the NK concentration camps.

NK as a society does not have far to fall, so I recommend kicking away the stool and letting them hang.

The Norks are not completely nuts. Nobody has done anything to provoke them. They hope to get some freebies to keep their pantomime on the road. They can probably launch a few missiles but I doubt they can hit anything. A first launch with a nuke would be instant death for them, they have to know that. And Obama would love to be credited with saving the free world, so he’ll be ready with his finger on the buzzer.

The only thing we know they have done for sure is to fire at some SK fishing boats and worry some islands, so I don’t think nuclear is the next stage (even if they can do it). They probably need gas money for the launching trucks.

virgo on April 9, 2013 at 10:20 PM

My bet, the latter. Smart power indeed, inside The Great Wall.

Limerick on April 9, 2013 at 8:53 PM

good point.

unseen on April 9, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Deterrent
Fry the little bastard. No one will really care.
Unite the peninsula into one Korea under the flag of South Korea.
Give the infrastructure reconstruction contracts to China.
China will kiss off Lil Kim, the Koreas will again be united.
The World will be at ease and no one will mess with us for a long time to come.

jpcpt03 on April 10, 2013 at 2:01 AM