Biofuel boom threatens food supplies?

[Simfan34 11]

The thing about ethanol is this:

You have a starving kid in Africa. Or Asia. Or anywhere else.

You have a PERFECTLY fine ear of corn.

Rather than giving the kid the corn, you use it for your car.

It's like going "HA HA! I consider using this to power my CAR more important than YOU not starving!"

My dad and uncle are planning to grow some biofuel plant in Ghana (where they're from). The good thing is that it's not edible, so you can't call it "a waste of food"

[serebii666 3]

Well although hunger is a problem, so is pollution. Therefore we believe it is easier to tackle pollution because global warming is making Africa Inhabitable... Understand?

[hym 358]

Fukuda, adding what you said earlier, there is also the question of how much CO₂ is stirred up and released into the atmosphere from the increased farming that has to be done to both feed people and increase corn output for cars.  Not to mention the new "FlexFuel" engines that are being used are roughly 10% less efficient at burning gasoline, leading to more oil consumption.  Plus the question about the increased use of nitrogen fertilizers, which, depending on who you talk to, has caused a massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, causing all living things in that area to die, save algae.  Seems to me that those proposing biofuels to save the environment didn't think too far into the future.

Originally posted by: Simfan34 The thing about ethanol is this:

You have a starving kid in Africa. Or Asia. Or anywhere else.

You have a PERFECTLY fine ear of corn.

Rather than giving the kid the corn, you use it for your car.

It's like going "HA HA! I consider using this to power my CAR more important than YOU not starving!"quote>

There's another important consideration.  One of of the biggest problems with getting food to the "starving areas" of Africa has not been lack of food, but rather getting it there before it rots.  Some of these areas take weeks to get to because they are only accessible on foot.  Preserved food would survive the trip, but you can't can the food because in many of these same places, the villagers are too poor to afford can openers to open the food.  In the words of one guy I know who has done relief work in Africa:  "Basically, you have people that can't grow enough food for themselves, or if they do, it gets stolen from them.  They can't really defend their property because they are too poor to get the things they need for that.  They're too poor to afford items of value, or if they get some such item, it often gets stolen.  Because they have nothing of value, they can't barter for anything.  They're too poor to try to move out, so they are stuck in a situation where they are effectively trapped and there is no hope of salvation."

[M-SIL 2]

This is why we need algae based biofuel! According to the US Dept of Energy, 30 times more energy per acre than land crops such as soybeans. Here is a link for more info.

[LivingInThePast 364]

To the original topic: Congratulations for discovering the obvious.

[fukuda 351]

Sorry, I felt the need

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: fukuda

It seems that the new trend is to waste food, there's not enough for everyone and we now should burn it, riiight.quote>

No kidding... haven't people ever heard of a certain place... hmm, I think it's called "Africa"?

[Palpatine001 57]

Alright with food, last I looked all the food we grow we have around a 25% surplus of it at this point in time. However as some pointed out the problem is access, access ranging from poor infrastructure to politics such as the EUs down right criminal Common Agricultural Policy that distorts food trade and prohibts improvement of access especially in Africa.

Now with biofuels, I see this a new curse for the people of the Earth. No way in our right mind should we use our productive lands nor forests that would be cleared to drive your hunking V8 down the motorway at all. That productive land should be used for food, lumber for construction and when not in use returned to its pre colonial native landscape to at least repair some of the damage we have done through time. Where do we get our fuel from then for our transportation fleet? Same as always. Oil, of which there is still enough (politics aside) for at least 50 years and coal for synthetic gas (which burns even cleaner while giving more power) for another 300 more. The pollution that comes from oil and syntho gas, last I looked filters minimised carbon soot emissions and the oxides such as Nitrous Oxide, Carbon Mono-oxide reacts anyhow in the air to create a mix of water, CO2 and O2, and good old carbon dioxide, well, wouldn't be a problem if we didn't convert our land to bio-crap and restored surplus land back to forest.

Not that I am a believer in the mongering Anthropological Global Warming debate anyhow.

I am a strong anti bio fuel campaigner and will back coal to be used as synthetic fuel as the best way foward until fuel cells come on stream for my home nation and economy.

[autoVino 26]

It seems that politics (or at least in america, last time I kept up with it) are geared away from use of oil as a fule and want alternative energy.  Namely hydrogen fule cells.  Problem with that is that there's no efficient way of getting hydrogen (yes it's the most common element in the universe... but not in its pure form on Earth)... A simple way is to give it the good 'ol electrode as any 5th grade chemistry class will show you, but that's not very efficent energy wise.  Another way is to use a more biological methodology (such as plants, which seperate water for use of its hydrogen for sugars, and give the extra oxygen off as a byproduct)/use some pretty creative cattalysts (which is probably being worked on currently).  The next problem is storage of hydrogen in cars.  That's not practicle.  Many more problems exist, the easiest way would be just to use hydrogen fules cells in a power plant setting.

The next "eco-freindly" thing is bio fules, which according to many above posts (many of which I agree to) isn't very eco friendly... but the polititions don't know that... or at least don't want to tell it to the people.  The point is that bio fules are inevitable, they're going to come and be used just like oil was, and wood was before that, coal, etc.  Can't be stopped.

But, hunger, in America that is, won't arise because of it.  The majority of americans (at least for now) will put a hot breakfast in front of biofules.  That may change though.

Hunger in other countires, though, is not because of there is a lack of food.  exact opposite (otherwise we wouldn't be wasting it so).  It's because the distribution of it.  America has too much of it and so do some other countries.  Some countries in Africa and other third world countires don't have enough of it.  That's probably the third world countries political system's problem, not America (they definatly could do more to help, but Ameria isn't the one to blame).

But really, why worry so much about biofules and all that other nonesense when the real answer lies in the railways?

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: Callbat

ever tried to walk from queens to downtown nyc?

from malibu to the dodgers stadium?

or from philli to the coast?

you can walk, sure, but that's limited to a few short ways.

If I had to walk to the next supermarket or convenience store, I'd be out for hours, and it's just across (the pretty small) town.

Not to mention the aquiered stuff that needs to be carried...quote>

Its just too bad nobody ever invented public transportation eh?quote>

Oh yea, I love public transport.

back in school, I had to take a 1hour trip for 4.5miles(!) to school or, with a change, half an hour with 20 minutes waiting in between the lines.

not exactly funny in winter or when it rains, bus shelters are a rare sight where I live (tho it's about 300k people within a radius of 7miles, 35k in my town.

Public transport is a nice thing, but your often very limited.

if I would go to the next mall by bus (the one mentioned in the other post), I had to take 3 different busses and a 40+ minutes trip. it's 5 minutes by car.

one small bus that circles the town and all others just pass through.

and if this wasn't enough, we got new plans last year. plans that where designed by someone who's bureau is about 200 miles away from where I live. I doubt he ever was here in his life, but he redesigned our plans, cancelling some of the most frequent lines we had, redistributed others to destinations literally nobody wants to go...

not to mention the costs. 4$ for a oneway ticket in downtown and the surrounding borrows. I know of towns with 5 times the population where you pay this price for a daytrip ticket...

public transport here where I live is a pain in the ass.

not to mention that if you drive a small car like the smart, or a normal (european) car and are 2 or more, it's much cheaper to go by car (and more comfortable).

see, in big cities, public transport is just the right thing (at least in many cases). but the smaller the towns get, the worse it gets with public transport.

terrible schedules (not very well synchronised, too long waiting times when you have to switch the line), stupid connections (staying in town works well, getting to the neighboring town becomes a holiday trip, tho it's the same provider) and (at least here) too expensive.

EDIT1: No, I don't hate public transport. tho it sounds alike. It's just that the local corp. has literally no plan what they do, and made it even worse by asking someone to design the new plans who I (and many others if I think about the discussions back when the new plans were introduced) lives a 200 miles away and probably never has been here before.

I've been to a lot of towns, also big cities and even capitals and towns of huge cultural interest all over europe, and I used public transport systems there. And liked it most of the time, I agreed with the fares and the routes. But if I compare it to our small municipal area, they seem to know what they do.

EDIT2: Just to make one thing clear callbat: the question I answered (if you have read it) was to WALK places...

[autoVino 26]

This is unfortunate about small towns, that is that public transport is unprofitable.

In bigger cities, public transport is profitable though, more time and money can be spent on making it more efficient, etc.  Plus in big cities everyone lives closer together (and often the suburbs of big cities aren't served as well with public transport as the city itself).

Suburban life and the American dream of "owning land" doesn't do good for public transport.

And there are a lot of small towns in america.  The cities also have lots of people, but a good portion of large cities also use cars and don't use public transport because the people live in the subrubs (it is rather expensive to find a nice condominium in a large city).

In the end, gas piles up because of this inefficiency.  And now the biofules they're adding.  Of course biofules are always profitable for the agricultural corperations that run distribut the corn and crop, store it, etc.  Man, if I were the CEO of such an agricultural corperation that has invested in biofules (not to mention sells a good portion of product for biofule production), I would give the politicians an extra million bucks or so... just as a little... "promotion."

[TRNSTN 0]

Well small towns usually are in more open areas, so they're planning practices are not as limited, hence you have them more spread out and based on the holy grail of public transit, they are never desnse enough to have efficient and effective mass transit.

Many issues involving fuels and transportation should not be solved on a technological level, instead we in North America particularily (and the sad state China is currently heading towards, so much potential !) need to rethink the way we plan our cities and our lifestyles. I'll leave out small towns because those are very subjective. In large urban centres, transportation infrasturcture has to include many different methods for people to travel. Right now most of our roads and streets are made for one way of travel, the car. Of course, if everyone drove a car we'd run into fuel problems. But, if urban infrastructure included: cars, divided lanes for buses/ trams, divided lanes for bicycles, and wider sidewalks, we woudn't really have a car problem/ fuel shortage, because we don't all depend on it. Not to mention densified building and more close-knit populations.

I won't lie, I live in a previously suburban neighborhood (now being surrounded on the main arteries by condo after condo) and when I'm taking that 10 minute walk up the hill to the subway station, I'm thinking "if you filled in all the gaps betweeen these mega houses with townhouses, cut the megahouses in half and ran a light rail line through the street, how AWESOME it would be. When you think of urban mass transit, it doesn't always have to be large streetcars, accordian buses, or 6-car subway trains, if they put in that light rail with a half-sized tram that just ran along the streets, I sure bet a lot more people would take it. There are so many variations to how mass transit can be approached. Instead of having full sized streetcars, cut them in half for non-peak hour usage or lower-density areas, but they'll always be there.

Honestly, mass transit in North America sucks, because of the way we think about it. Mass transit has to be an integrated system that brings you as close to your destination as possible. A subway station cannot cover a certain radius, if most of the population in that radius takes more than 10 or 15 minutes to get to it. There needs to be breakdowns, just like any system. You have larger heavy reail trains connecting certain districts together over longer distances, then subway lines running along the main arterial roads, and shorter distanced stops of light rail or bus(divided for both) between all the subway stops, and of course walkable distance to any of the three, and all of them connected together. Only then can you have a great mass transit system, not the monomethod we think of which is usually just busses, or just subways.

I went way off topic here, but in conclusion, biofuels and fuel cells are a joke for the near future, it's all about the Planning!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: TRNSTN Right now most of our roads and streets are made for one way of travel, the car. Of course, if everyone drove a car we'd run into fuel problems. But, if urban infrastructure included: cars, divided lanes for buses/ trams, divided lanes for bicycles, and wider sidewalks, we woudn't really have a car problem/ fuel shortage, because we don't all depend on it. Not to mention densified building and more close-knit populations. quote>

Just to point something out, Manhattan does have bus lanes (most notably on Madison Avenue), and in recent years has gained some bike paths and bike lanes, too. Trouble is, us New Yorkers never follow the rules and people drive in the bus lanes, anyway. And dividing them out would be impractical since then you'd cut off one side of the street from people in cars, you'd make making a right turn for a car and making a left turn for a bus dangerous due to having to cross the other traffic, and given the barrier would have to break every block to let cross street traffic through, you wouldn't keep people in cars out of them anyway.

As for bicycles, well, they aren't reliable since if it's freezing cold, or blistering hot, or raining, not too many people are going to be inclined to use them. You need nice weather, and no place has that 365 days a year. Plus, seeing as it's physically exerting and gets you sweaty, you can't really bike to your job in an office where you need to be clean and neat in appearance. Not to mention that while they can get you farther than walking faster, they still lack the range and speed of a car.

I went way off topic here, but in conclusion, biofuels and fuel cells are a joke for the near future, it's all about the Planning!quote>

For some countries, maybe. For the US, there's way too much of this country that's spread out sparsely populated open space where mass transit is impractical no matter what. If you live someplace like New York or Chicago, mass transit can be quite useful... and yet it's always the first area to cut funding in a budget crunch since the well-to-do people with power get around in cars or even limos and would completely turn their nose up at the idea of getting on a bus or the subway- that's what the "common riffraff" does.

On the other hand, if you live on a farm in Kansas, how is that mass transit thing supposed to work for you exactly?

[belfastuniguy 18]

I think a debate about how terrible public transport is in America is worthless. It is a vast country and there is no-way they are ever going to have public transport on the scale smaller countries like Germany or the UK has. It would be vastly expensive and just impractical . Hence Americans rely heavily on cars. I would if I lived there.

Public transport in American cities isn't exactly fantastic either even the largest have their problems, Chicago is an example. Though what measures you do have should be enforced. Duke mentioned bus lanes in Manhattan, well they need to be enforced otherwise they're pointless. Here in Belfast and across the UK (I think) bus lanes have 'Bus Lane cameras' that will detect and photograph cars abusing the lanes during the hours of operation and that person will get a fine in the post and points on their license. I know some Americans will howl with outrage at the thought of road cameras (though you do have them especially for HOV lanes), but they effective and I very rarely see bus lanes being abused by drivers.

Food based Biofuel is a short-term thing, we will have bio-fuels derived from other sources, but we need to spend the money on research and development to make that happen as well as stricter environmental standards on vehicles.

[Callbat 8]

EDIT2: Just to make one thing clear callbat: the question I answered (if you have read it) was to WALK places...quote>

Well I walked plenty of places in London. Just take the tube and you're there. I guess it's different where you live? Also, I though taking a bus or a subway was sort of still considered walking?

[TRNSTN 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

For some countries, maybe. For the US, there's way too much of this country that's spread out sparsely populated open space where mass transit is impractical no matter what. If you live someplace like New York or Chicago, mass transit can be quite useful... and yet it's always the first area to cut funding in a budget crunch since the well-to-do people with power get around in cars or even limos and would completely turn their nose up at the idea of getting on a bus or the subway- that's what the "common riffraff" does.

On the other hand, if you live on a farm in Kansas, how is that mass transit thing supposed to work for you exactly?quote>

Well it is impractical because of the way the the US's population is spread out and sparsely populated, back to the planning issues. I agree with you though, when there are budget shortfalls transit is always the first to be considered for budget cuts.

Obviously mass transit is named mass transit because of the amount of people using it. I would never consider implementing mass transit in rural areas, that just doesn't make sense. But, for where it's needed and practical, the large cities yes.

belfastuniguy:

Food based Biofuel is a short-term thing, we will have bio-fuels derived from other sources, but we need to spend the money on research and development to make that happen as well as stricter environmental standards on vehicles.quote>

More efficient use of fuel would be the next logical step in reducing the dependence on any kind of fuel and the volume needed to fulfill that demand. I agree with you 100%, R&D needs a lot more money.