The issue of ethanol or food is getting uglier and uglier. Here's an article from the "Wall Street Journal" from today on the issue.
NOTE: Articles from "major" news media allow me to use their articles provide I only copy the first two paragraphs, then their web page link to the full article. Otherwise, I have to pay an exhorbitant fee to copy the full article.
Guess everyone has heard by now that LSU's Tyrann Mathieu, aka the "Honey Badger" has been thrown off the LSU's football team. Sources close to Tyrann say he failed another drug test. You may recall that last year, he and two other players missed the Auburn team for failing a drug test, apparently from the use of artificial marijuana. Sad to see this gifted athlete throw his career away. Some say he will enroll at McNeese in Lake Charles where he could play this year (lower class school - division 2a)
"Pete"
=====================================================
Ethanol vs. the World
The corn
fuel mandate is raising food prices and hurting the poor.
Wall Street
Journal - August
10, 2012, 6:33 p.m. ET
In 2007 and 2008,
food prices spiked, resulting in much higher U.S. grocery bills and far more
hunger in the poorest countries as the global supply chain buckled. The world
may now be on the cusp of a 2012 reprise amid the drought in the Midwest farm
belt, the worst in 50 years. Luckily, there are plenty of simple, modest things
Washington can do to alleviate and even prevent another crisis.
The problem is
that these fixes are opposed by a minor industry that adds little if any value
to the economy, even counting its prodigious Beltway operations. Yup, the
ethanol lobby strikes again. It can't succeed without a mandate that forces
consumers to buy its product every time they fill up the tank, and if the
resulting corn shortages drive food prices up in a way that punishes consumers
around the world, so be it.
(Read full
article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577581140907497810.html)
Friday, August 10, 2012
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Solyndra Revelations Show It’s Time to Close the “Bank of Washington”
My surgical procedure went well today.........learn results of biopsy next week.
Here's an article, while not "directly" related to ethanol gas issues, is nontheless important to show how our taxpayer money is being wasted, just like "corn gas" under this Washington administration..........we have a choice to stop this mess on November 6th, perhaps the most important Presidential and Senatorial election in our lifetime.
"Pete"
=======================================================
Morning Bell: Solyndra Revelations Show It’s Time to Close the “Bank of Washington”
Amy Payne
August 6, 2012 at 8:46 am
“The Bank of Washington continues to help us!” bragged Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet inemails released last week.
An investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee revealed that Solyndra—the solar company that went under, taking more than $600 million in taxpayer funds with it—wasn’t ever supposed to be an independent business. It was built to rely on the taxpayers.
“Getting business from Uncle Sam is a principal element of Solyndra’s channel strategy,” wrote Tom Baruch, founder of Solyndra investor CEMA Capital, in an August 10, 2010 email.
Getting federal money was integral to Solyndra’s business model. But even with government backing, Solyndra failed—just one of a growing list of companies in theGreen Graveyard that took taxpayer money and went bankrupt.
The emails released between Solyndra stakeholders and Obama Administration officials show that Solyndra’s investors knew the company was a bad bet for taxpayers, but the Administration wanted the energy loan guarantee program to be perceived as successful. Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office was finding that the Department of Energy played favorites with the program, and high-level advisers including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner were raising red flags.
When it became clear that the company wasn’t going to make it, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote to White House insiders Stephanie Cutter and David Plouffe: “This is going to be a real pain, Solyndra is about to go under apparently.”
Despite 12 such failures—companies taking taxpayer money yet going bankrupt—the Administration hasn’t given up its push for solar. In July, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar characterized the bankruptcies and delays that have plagued the solar manufacturing sector as “just minor (and expected) blips for the industry.”
“Across the Administration, we’re looking at ways to create jobs and strengthen the economy—and a big part of that is building a sustainable, clean energy future,” Salazar said. But as Heritage’s Michael Sandoval reports:
Salazar’s touting of job creation is at odds with the Department of Energy’s David Frantz, who oversees the DOE loan guarantee program.…Frantz told House members that these large, utility-scale renewable projects really could not be counted upon for creating jobs. “The predominance of our portfolio—and the objective, really, of the act—is to be creating large infrastructure, utility-scale projects; and, by definition, they are not a multiplier for job creation,” Frantz said.
Still, lawmakers in both parties have embraced the job creation fallacy. Heritage’s Nicolas Loris has noted that both Democrats and Republicans:
…like loan guarantees (or tax credits or direct grants) if they support projects for their politically preferred sources of energy, such as clean coal and nuclear, or if they bring jobs to their districts that they can take credit for creating. But these programs do not create jobs. They misallocate labor and capital by shifting taxpayer dollars away from economical projects and toward political ones.
Energy subsidies, whether in the form of taxpayer-backed loans or outright grants, are a bipartisan boondoggle that simply does not work. Looking back, President George W. Bush’s solar initiative sounds very similar when compared to President Obama’s.
The aptly named “No More Solyndras” Act, now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would stop the government from giving out new taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. For applications that are already under consideration or have received conditional commitment, the bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury to make a recommendation based on the merits of the program. Although not perfect, the legislation moves us in the right direction toward finally ending this program.
As subcommittee chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said last week, “Instead of handing out billions in loan guarantees to selected companies, we can do much more good by removing billions in unnecessary regulatory compliance costs.”
There are plenty of job-killing regulations holding back American companies. A lack of taxpayer dollars is not the problem. It’s time to close the “Bank of Washington” and allow truly successful, viable technologies to rise to the top.
See the 10 Most Revealing Solyndra Emails
Here's an article, while not "directly" related to ethanol gas issues, is nontheless important to show how our taxpayer money is being wasted, just like "corn gas" under this Washington administration..........we have a choice to stop this mess on November 6th, perhaps the most important Presidential and Senatorial election in our lifetime.
"Pete"
=======================================================
Morning Bell: Solyndra Revelations Show It’s Time to Close the “Bank of Washington”
Amy Payne
August 6, 2012 at 8:46 am
“The Bank of Washington continues to help us!” bragged Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet inemails released last week.
An investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee revealed that Solyndra—the solar company that went under, taking more than $600 million in taxpayer funds with it—wasn’t ever supposed to be an independent business. It was built to rely on the taxpayers.
“Getting business from Uncle Sam is a principal element of Solyndra’s channel strategy,” wrote Tom Baruch, founder of Solyndra investor CEMA Capital, in an August 10, 2010 email.
Getting federal money was integral to Solyndra’s business model. But even with government backing, Solyndra failed—just one of a growing list of companies in theGreen Graveyard that took taxpayer money and went bankrupt.
The emails released between Solyndra stakeholders and Obama Administration officials show that Solyndra’s investors knew the company was a bad bet for taxpayers, but the Administration wanted the energy loan guarantee program to be perceived as successful. Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office was finding that the Department of Energy played favorites with the program, and high-level advisers including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner were raising red flags.
When it became clear that the company wasn’t going to make it, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote to White House insiders Stephanie Cutter and David Plouffe: “This is going to be a real pain, Solyndra is about to go under apparently.”
Despite 12 such failures—companies taking taxpayer money yet going bankrupt—the Administration hasn’t given up its push for solar. In July, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar characterized the bankruptcies and delays that have plagued the solar manufacturing sector as “just minor (and expected) blips for the industry.”
“Across the Administration, we’re looking at ways to create jobs and strengthen the economy—and a big part of that is building a sustainable, clean energy future,” Salazar said. But as Heritage’s Michael Sandoval reports:
Salazar’s touting of job creation is at odds with the Department of Energy’s David Frantz, who oversees the DOE loan guarantee program.…Frantz told House members that these large, utility-scale renewable projects really could not be counted upon for creating jobs. “The predominance of our portfolio—and the objective, really, of the act—is to be creating large infrastructure, utility-scale projects; and, by definition, they are not a multiplier for job creation,” Frantz said.
Still, lawmakers in both parties have embraced the job creation fallacy. Heritage’s Nicolas Loris has noted that both Democrats and Republicans:
…like loan guarantees (or tax credits or direct grants) if they support projects for their politically preferred sources of energy, such as clean coal and nuclear, or if they bring jobs to their districts that they can take credit for creating. But these programs do not create jobs. They misallocate labor and capital by shifting taxpayer dollars away from economical projects and toward political ones.
Energy subsidies, whether in the form of taxpayer-backed loans or outright grants, are a bipartisan boondoggle that simply does not work. Looking back, President George W. Bush’s solar initiative sounds very similar when compared to President Obama’s.
The aptly named “No More Solyndras” Act, now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would stop the government from giving out new taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. For applications that are already under consideration or have received conditional commitment, the bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury to make a recommendation based on the merits of the program. Although not perfect, the legislation moves us in the right direction toward finally ending this program.
As subcommittee chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said last week, “Instead of handing out billions in loan guarantees to selected companies, we can do much more good by removing billions in unnecessary regulatory compliance costs.”
There are plenty of job-killing regulations holding back American companies. A lack of taxpayer dollars is not the problem. It’s time to close the “Bank of Washington” and allow truly successful, viable technologies to rise to the top.
See the 10 Most Revealing Solyndra Emails
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
NO POST TONIGHT
No post tonight readers as I have to be up real early in the morning for a surgical procedure. Hope to be back home tomorrow evening.
Have a GREAT day Wednesday.
"Pete"
15% Ethanol Gasoline May Be in Stations by the End of 2012
Readers, here is an article I wrote recently about the upcoming 15% ethanol gas. The very first station to start selling "E-15" opened in Kansas about a month ago. There are some very serious issues with this new gas. This article will be on my new, re-designed website which we hope to launch before the end of August.
Here's the article to give you a "heads up":
"Pete"
====================================================
15% Ethanol Gasoline May Be in Stations by the End of 2012 By
Pete Landry – July 15, 2012
Readers of my
website (PeteLandrysRealGas.com) may recall I
wrote an article in 2011 about Growth Energy, a lobby group for a large group
of ethanol manufacturing plants in the Midwest petitioned the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in early 2009 to increase the ethanol content of motor
fuels from the current 10% maximum to 15%, a 50% increase (see the website’s “Ethanol
Articles” page for original article titled: “15% Ethanol Gasoline – A Potential
Crisis Developing”). The EPA allowed
input into this proposal and were inundated with replies, almost all
negative. Despite the response, the EPA
began testing vehicles with 15% ethanol.
In December, 2010, the EPA issued “conditional approval” for the use of
15% ethanol gasoline (E-15) in 2007 and newer cars and light trucks. Then, in January, 2011, they extended the
approval to use this new gasoline in 2001 thru 2006 cars and light trucks,
despite lawsuits against the EPA from over eight different groups. The biggest concern expressed by litigants was
the potential for “misfueling”, or using this gasoline in equipment which was
not designed to operate with this fuel.
In the EPA’s
approval of this new fuel, they made the following statement on their website:
What Vehicles and Engines MAY NOT USE E-15 ?
• All
motorcycles.
• All
vehicles with heavy-duty engines, such as school buses, transit buses, and
delivery trucks.
• All
off-road vehicles, such as boats and snowmobiles (includes four wheelers and
jet skis).
• All engines
in off-road equipment, such as lawnmowers (all lawn and garden tools) and chain
saws.
• All 2000
model-year and older cars (and light trucks).
(Gasoline
powered home generators cannot operate on E-15 gasoline either)
The EPA has
now completed all regulatory requirements necessary to authorize retailers to
sell this new fuel. Ethanol plants have
registered to become authorized to sell the ethanol to blenders. It is expected that E-15 may start showing up
in retail stations in Louisiana before the end of 2012. It is most likely this new fuel will be sold
in major, branded stations (Exxon/Mobil, Shell, Chevron, etc). Independent gas stations, grocery and convenience store have
expressed serious concerns about
the liability associated with selling this fuel when a customer’s
equipment is damaged, exposing them to lawsuits. The EPA indicates that it is VOLUNTARY, NOT MANDATORY for
stations to sell this new fuel. Retailers
are CAUTIONED NOT to let their gas supplier force
them into selling this fuel against their will.
Also, many grocery and convenience stores may have older underground
storage tanks and pumps which may not be compatible with E-15.
In my continued research of E-15, I have learned that despite EPA’s claim that this new fuel is safe to use in all 2001 and newer passenger cars and light trucks, ALL automobile manufacturers, domestic and foreign alike, warn owners of 2001 and newer passenger cars and light trucks NOT to use gasoline with greater than 10% ethanol and further say that any damage caused by the use of gas with greater than 10% ethanol will void the vehicle warranty! E-15 should NEVER be used in vehicles model year 2000 or older as manufacturers warn that engine damage will likely occur. So, PLEASE read your owners manual carefully before considering putting this fuel in your 2001 or newer car or light truck, despite the EPA claim that it is safe. The ONLY vehicles which may use E-15 without the risk of damage are “Flex” vehicles, which are designed to tolerate all concentrations of ethanol, up to and including E-85 (85% ethanol/15% gasoline).
I am very concerned that despite pump label warnings, some consumers may be tempted to try this new fuel in equipment for which it is NOT designed. It will likely be priced about $0.10 - 0.15/gallon lower than E-10. But, don’t fall for the cheaper price temptation. As a reminder, here is the EPA approved label which EPA requires to appear on all pumps which will be selling 15% ethanol gasoline:
In addition to 2000 and older model passenger cars and light trucks, this E-15 fuel is also NOT COMPATIBLE with marine engines, motorcycles, four wheelers, jet skis, chain saws, all gas powered lawn and garden tools, gas powered home generators and all gasoline powered heavy duty engines like school buses, transit buses and delivery trucks. Use of E-15 in these engines may destroy the engines according to almost all manufacturers and warranties will NOT cover damages.
SO, when you pull up to a gas station and see the above new “E15” label on the pump, the old saying of “BUYER BEWARE” applies………use at your own risk! Use of this fuel in equipment it is not designed for may be very costly and the buyer may not have any recourse for damages that may result!
Sunday, August 5, 2012
HAVE A GREAT MONDAY READERS!
Do hope everyone has had a great weekend! Was GREAT to see the Saints back in action in a pretty good game in Canton tonight.
Here's yet another article on the issue of the ethanol mandate........
"Pete"
=============================================
Our View: It's time for ethanol mandate to go
Corn prices affect most sectors of our national and local economy
Aug. 5, 2012 |
The recent upward motion in gas prices is not entirely the fault of the petroleum industry. It's partly because of the drought that's plaguing much of our country this summer. That's right, it's related to agriculture -- specifically, the nation's corn crop.
That's because since 2005, the federal government has mandated that 40 percent of the American corn crop must go to ethanol production, for use in the fuel that is pumped into our motor vehicles. Gasoline prices rose 17 cents per gallon in July, the largest increase for July in more than a decade. Ethanol itself rose 17 percent in July, gaining 37.9 cents. Most ethanol is made from corn.
Corn is a commodity in the United States with intrinsic value because it is found in so many places. It's used as food, animal and pet feed, in ethanol (by federal mandate) and, well, it's used in some form in just about anything you can think of --toothpaste, crayons, paint, medications, candies, yogurt, plastics, paper, oil drills, preservatives, detergents and even blue jeans. It's transformed into cornmeal, corn oil, cornstarch and sweeteners that include corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup. It's fermented for use in whiskey. Even the waste products -- cobs and germ, primarily -- have uses. Cobs are used in livestock feed, as absorbants for oil and other hazardous waste, in insecticides, fertilizers and as grit for tumbling and blasting. Corn germ is used to make stronger industrial glues.
Since 1990, the United States has increased its use of corn-based ethanol by more than 1400 percent, from 349 million bushes in 1990 to 4,900 bushels 2010, according to the Corn Refiners Association.
Under normal circumstances, this is all good news for the U.S. economy. America's corn production eclipses that of any other country in the world; it's more than double that of China, which is the next highest corn-producing nation.
But in 2012, we are experiencing normal circumstances. A severe drought is hitting the nation's corn crop hard, driving price skyward. And that either has or will affect the prices of all those products.
It's contributing to an untimely rise in gas prices, as noted above. It also threatens the poultry industry here on Delmarva, because up to 70 percent of a chicken's diet is corn. And unlike the corner gas station that can raise and lower pump prices as the price of a barrel of oil fluctuates, poultry is sold under contract, making it difficult to account for rising corn prices and remain profitable.
What we have right now is the equivalent of a perfect storm surrounding the price of corn.
The federal government mandates 40 percent of the nation's crop go to ethanol production. But some estimates have 40 percent of the 2012 corn crop already in jeopardy. If that estimate is roughly accurate and ethanol production from corn was halted immediately, the supply of corn for all the other uses listed above would be about the same as in more normal years.
What would this do the nation's automotive fuel supply? There's no definitive answer, but anecdotally, some claim the ethanol blend (10-15 percent of the fuel we pump) reduces gas mileage in most vehicles, even those that are supposed to operate efficiently using the blend. Smaller engines (lawn mowers, recreational boats and more) cannot handle the blend and must use pure gas. If using pure gas increases vehicle mileage by, say, 10-15 percent, we'd be using the same amount of fuel, but without the ethanol additive. So possibly zero effect.
If poultry takes another economic hit because of the corn shortage, it will have a ripple effect across Delmarva that will include lost jobs, higher unemployment and poverty rates, greater personal financial need and more closed businesses.
Poultry companies are asking, therefore, that the federal government grant a temporary exemption from the 40 percent mandate, along with a longer-term solution that would tie the amount of corn earmarked for ethanol production to each year's crop. If the net effect of the exemption is cost-neutral on motor vehicle fuels, a smarter long-term solution might be to scrap the mandate altogether.
The world's food supply --not a government biofuel mandate --should be the top priority. And with an expanding demand worldwide for corn exports, U.S. farmers should be fine with an increasing market demand for their product instead of a government mandate.
Here's yet another article on the issue of the ethanol mandate........
"Pete"
=============================================
Our View: It's time for ethanol mandate to go
Corn prices affect most sectors of our national and local economy
Aug. 5, 2012 |
The recent upward motion in gas prices is not entirely the fault of the petroleum industry. It's partly because of the drought that's plaguing much of our country this summer. That's right, it's related to agriculture -- specifically, the nation's corn crop.
That's because since 2005, the federal government has mandated that 40 percent of the American corn crop must go to ethanol production, for use in the fuel that is pumped into our motor vehicles. Gasoline prices rose 17 cents per gallon in July, the largest increase for July in more than a decade. Ethanol itself rose 17 percent in July, gaining 37.9 cents. Most ethanol is made from corn.
Corn is a commodity in the United States with intrinsic value because it is found in so many places. It's used as food, animal and pet feed, in ethanol (by federal mandate) and, well, it's used in some form in just about anything you can think of --toothpaste, crayons, paint, medications, candies, yogurt, plastics, paper, oil drills, preservatives, detergents and even blue jeans. It's transformed into cornmeal, corn oil, cornstarch and sweeteners that include corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup. It's fermented for use in whiskey. Even the waste products -- cobs and germ, primarily -- have uses. Cobs are used in livestock feed, as absorbants for oil and other hazardous waste, in insecticides, fertilizers and as grit for tumbling and blasting. Corn germ is used to make stronger industrial glues.
Since 1990, the United States has increased its use of corn-based ethanol by more than 1400 percent, from 349 million bushes in 1990 to 4,900 bushels 2010, according to the Corn Refiners Association.
Under normal circumstances, this is all good news for the U.S. economy. America's corn production eclipses that of any other country in the world; it's more than double that of China, which is the next highest corn-producing nation.
But in 2012, we are experiencing normal circumstances. A severe drought is hitting the nation's corn crop hard, driving price skyward. And that either has or will affect the prices of all those products.
It's contributing to an untimely rise in gas prices, as noted above. It also threatens the poultry industry here on Delmarva, because up to 70 percent of a chicken's diet is corn. And unlike the corner gas station that can raise and lower pump prices as the price of a barrel of oil fluctuates, poultry is sold under contract, making it difficult to account for rising corn prices and remain profitable.
What we have right now is the equivalent of a perfect storm surrounding the price of corn.
The federal government mandates 40 percent of the nation's crop go to ethanol production. But some estimates have 40 percent of the 2012 corn crop already in jeopardy. If that estimate is roughly accurate and ethanol production from corn was halted immediately, the supply of corn for all the other uses listed above would be about the same as in more normal years.
What would this do the nation's automotive fuel supply? There's no definitive answer, but anecdotally, some claim the ethanol blend (10-15 percent of the fuel we pump) reduces gas mileage in most vehicles, even those that are supposed to operate efficiently using the blend. Smaller engines (lawn mowers, recreational boats and more) cannot handle the blend and must use pure gas. If using pure gas increases vehicle mileage by, say, 10-15 percent, we'd be using the same amount of fuel, but without the ethanol additive. So possibly zero effect.
If poultry takes another economic hit because of the corn shortage, it will have a ripple effect across Delmarva that will include lost jobs, higher unemployment and poverty rates, greater personal financial need and more closed businesses.
Poultry companies are asking, therefore, that the federal government grant a temporary exemption from the 40 percent mandate, along with a longer-term solution that would tie the amount of corn earmarked for ethanol production to each year's crop. If the net effect of the exemption is cost-neutral on motor vehicle fuels, a smarter long-term solution might be to scrap the mandate altogether.
The world's food supply --not a government biofuel mandate --should be the top priority. And with an expanding demand worldwide for corn exports, U.S. farmers should be fine with an increasing market demand for their product instead of a government mandate.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
NuStar, Eco-Energy planning D.C.-area ethanol transportation facility
Two companies partner to build an ethanol distribution and storage facility to feed ethanol to blenders on the east coast. I explained earlier this year that ethanol cannot be pumped through existing pipeline networks because it is corrosive.
"Pete"
====================================================
NuStar, Eco-Energy planning D.C.-area ethanol transportation facility
San Antonio Business Journal by James Aldridge, Web Editor
Date: Monday, July 30, 2012, 11:12am CDT
NuStar Energy LP and Eco-Energy Holdings Inc. are developing an ethanol unit train and storage facility to serve the Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., markets.
NuStar and Eco-Energy will jointly build an ethanol unloading, storage and outbound truck loading system at NuStar’s Dumfries, Va., facility. Each company will bear their own development, construction and refurbishment costs. Dumfries is located about 20 miles south of Washington, D.C.
The terminal will have 155,000 barrels of ethanol storage capacity and will be capable of distributing more than 400,000 barrels of ethanol per month. The terminal will be equipped to receive up to 96 rail car units through a connection with CSX Transportation. Operations should commence sometime during the third quarter of 2013.
San Antonio-based NuStar (NYSE: NS) is a publicly traded, limited partnership that owns 8,420 miles of pipeline; 84 terminal and storage facilities; two asphalt refineries and a fuels refinery with a combined throughput capacity of 118,500 barrels per day.
Franklin, Tenn.-based Eco-Energy markets and distributes biofuels. The company has more than $3 billion in sales.
"Pete"
====================================================
NuStar, Eco-Energy planning D.C.-area ethanol transportation facility
San Antonio Business Journal by James Aldridge, Web Editor
Date: Monday, July 30, 2012, 11:12am CDT
NuStar Energy LP and Eco-Energy Holdings Inc. are developing an ethanol unit train and storage facility to serve the Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., markets.
NuStar and Eco-Energy will jointly build an ethanol unloading, storage and outbound truck loading system at NuStar’s Dumfries, Va., facility. Each company will bear their own development, construction and refurbishment costs. Dumfries is located about 20 miles south of Washington, D.C.
The terminal will have 155,000 barrels of ethanol storage capacity and will be capable of distributing more than 400,000 barrels of ethanol per month. The terminal will be equipped to receive up to 96 rail car units through a connection with CSX Transportation. Operations should commence sometime during the third quarter of 2013.
San Antonio-based NuStar (NYSE: NS) is a publicly traded, limited partnership that owns 8,420 miles of pipeline; 84 terminal and storage facilities; two asphalt refineries and a fuels refinery with a combined throughput capacity of 118,500 barrels per day.
Franklin, Tenn.-based Eco-Energy markets and distributes biofuels. The company has more than $3 billion in sales.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
The Coming Food Crisis: Blame Ethanol?
Here's an interesting article from Forbes on what they are predicting is "The Coming Food Crisis"..........many people believe that the severe drought in the corn belt States may in fact lead to a food shortage, in part because ethanol plants get first priority on corn produced, over animal feed and food products..........
PS: The reason I can't display the full article is that major news medias allow use of only the first 2-3 paragraphs into the article and the link to the full article without having to pay a very large re-use fee.
"Pete"
=================================================
The Coming Food Crisis: Blame Ethanol?
(Read full article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2012/07/28/the-coming-food-crisis-blame-ethanol/
PS: The reason I can't display the full article is that major news medias allow use of only the first 2-3 paragraphs into the article and the link to the full article without having to pay a very large re-use fee.
"Pete"
=================================================
The Coming Food Crisis: Blame Ethanol?
ENERGY
– Forbes - William Pentland
A series of spikes in global food prices resulted in riots in 2008
and contributed to violent uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East in
2011. The culprit is a matter of considerable and frequently heated debate, but
the most commonly cited candidates include market speculators, global warming
and aggressive government renewable fuel mandates.
If you
believe the folks at the New England Complex Systems Institute in
Cambridge,
Mass., the global food supply system is stumbling into a drought-induced supply
shortage that could galvanize a global food crisis far more severe
than those implicated in the widespread uprisings known as the Arab Spring.
In an updated version of a paper first
published in September, Marco Lagi, Yavni Bar-Yam and Yaneer Bar-Yam considered
the possible consequences of the prolonged drought in the mid-western United
States, the worst in half a century, on global food prices. The analysis,
which relied on a quantitative model of historical food prices, concluded that
the drought could amplify the impact of market speculation and corn-to-ethanol
conversion policies on the impending global food crisis by an order of
magnitude. To
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)