Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Why should I consider Cattlenetwork to be a more reliable source than the ones I used?

THIS SOURCE uses a smaller percentage than your source but concludes this which I think, if true, is significant:

Quote:

Right now, 16 percent of American corn goes into the ethanol pipeline, but even if 100 percent did, that would cover only 5 percent of our liquid energy use, according to an article in the journal Science.

It's pretty hard to convince me that your interpretation is the right one when my personal experience indicates otherwise. I'm certainly not suggesting that my personal experience is conclusive of anything other than what I have personally experienced, however, nor will I ever consider a single source, contradicted by numerous others, to be proof of anything.

The study indicates corn yield gains would be sufficient to moderate grain price increases if corn-based ethanol production peaks at 14 billion to 15 billion gallons annually by 2010 (10 percent of U.S. gasoline consumption),

The problem with ethanol is that it probably could not prosper without big tax incentives to prop it up, and anytime the free market is skewed, the law of unintended consequences takes over, and of course those people that pushed biofuels big time as the answer to our problems do not want to acknowledge alot of this.

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Why should I consider Cattlenetwork to be a more reliable source than the ones I used?

THIS SOURCE uses a smaller percentage than your source but concludes this which I think, if true, is significant:

Quote:

Right now, 16 percent of American corn goes into the ethanol pipeline, but even if 100 percent did, that would cover only 5 percent of our liquid energy use, according to an article in the journal Science.

It's pretty hard to convince me that your interpretation is the right one when my personal experience indicates otherwise. I'm certainly not suggesting that my personal experience is conclusive of anything other than what I have personally experienced, however, nor will I ever consider a single source, contradicted by numerous others, to be proof of anything.

It is obvious, Foxfyre, I agree that using food crops for energy would drive up the price of food. The only argument is how much of the rise in food prices is caused by that effect, vs other effects, such as the general rise in fuel to raise crops, etc. The conversion of croplands to corn from other food crops also causes shorter supply in those food crops, so that the production of ethanol from corn also causes other food prices to rise in a more indirect way. The rise in cost of corn and other grains also causes a rise in cost of meat products, eggs, milk, and many other things because those products are produced by using corn and other grain products to raise and feed the cattle, chickens, etc. There is undoubtedly a ripple effect throughout the entire network and chain of products.

Without reading every post and link, I don't know exactly what the disagreement is, whether Parados is completely dismissing it, if he is, he is full of it as usual, and if it is merely over how much, I think it is virtually impossible to calculate how much, considering all the ripple effects, etc. One thing is sure, the production of fuel from food products does affect the price more than in a trivial way, throughout many more products than just corn. I would suspect most of the rise in food price now may be due to increased energy costs, but not a trivial amount is also due to the ethanol industry.

I think Parados would argue with a post no matter how convincing an argument might be or how far he has to stretch to discredit it. And yes, there is no single factor one can point to as THE problem in any of this stuff. As one of the links I posted this morning, more than food crops are affected for sure. Ethanol production has had a direct affect on cotton prices, for instance.

All I know is that our economy is reeling on several different fronts right now and, while I am confident we will absorb the blows without lasting harm, energy and food prices are one very large factor in the mix.

I would be less concerned if there were not so many politicians, ideologues, and religionists who are of the 'win at any cost' mentality sufficently to deliberately avoid effective solutions lest they would then not achieve their goals. They will keep up such avoidance no matterwho gets hurt. Such I do not see as patriots but a bane to America and the interests of a free and prosperous people. For them successes in Iraq, a stronger dollar, lowering oil prices, lowering unemployment, a positive stock market, etc. are or would be all BAD news.

My opinion of that is to wish them a pox on all their houses.

okie wrote:

The problem with ethanol is that it probably could not prosper without big tax incentives to prop it up, and anytime the free market is skewed, the law of unintended consequences takes over, and of course those people that pushed biofuels big time as the answer to our problems do not want to acknowledge alot of this.

How much does each family in the US owe because of a war to keep oil flowing in the Mideast? The tax incentives for biofuels are pretty small compared to what we pay that can be linked to oil.

The undated article you reference is copyrighted 2008, so I think it is pretty safe to assume it is fairly recent.

The articles that I posted were not all addressing the exact same things, but I selected them because each provided a somewhat different perspective. Nor do I think there is any evidence that any, nor yours, necessarily contradict any others except in minor differences of quantity or percentages, and even those could be explained if we knew their sources and dates. I didn't challenge your source because at least one of mine agreed with the percentages provided.

I do challenge the interpretation you seem to be making of the data. But hasn't that been a major sore point all along in these discussions? Disagreements on what the data means?

I think the realists are far more likely to see things as they are than are the religionists

It's an example of somebody who see that we are can create a crisis to deal with what is a non-crisis. I see evidence of the truth of it on the prices at the gas pump and when I see the alarming inflation in food prices over the last year. I see it in the destruction or handicapping of whole industries at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs. This will be the first year in my memory that General Motors has not paid a dividend. Why? Because of high gas prices, a not-well-though-through-energy policy, and all the spiderweb of consequences related to that.

Foxfyre wrote:

The undated article you reference is copyrighted 2008, so I think it is pretty safe to assume it is fairly recent.

Copyright on a web page is not evidence of the age of the document put on the web page. I could cut and past Chaucer's tales in their original form and the web copyright would be the date I posted them but no one would think Chaucer wrote his tales in 2008.

Quote:

The articles that I posted were not all addressing the exact same things, but I selected them because each provided a somewhat different perspective. Nor do I think there is any evidence that any, nor yours, necessarily contradict any others except in minor differences of quantity or percentages, and even those could be explained if we knew their sources and dates. I didn't challenge your source because at least one of mine agreed with the percentages provided.

I do challenge the interpretation you seem to be making of the data. But hasn't that been a major sore point all along in these discussions? Disagreements on what the data means?

You are the one that claimed there was a food "crisis" because of biofuels. I pointed out you have no evidence of that and are only acting in the manner you said others shouldn't. You have not presented any scientific evidence of this crisis, nothing published in a competent science journal.

Let's see your posts

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the realists are far more likely to see things as they are than are the religionists

Foxfyre wrote:

It's an example of somebody who see that we are can create a crisis to deal with what is a non-crisis. I see evidence of the truth of it on the prices at the gas pump and when I see the alarming inflation in food prices over the last year. I see it in the destruction or handicapping of whole industries at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs. This will be the first year in my memory that General Motors has not paid a dividend. Why? Because of high gas prices, a not-well-though-through-energy policy, and all the spiderweb of consequences related to that.

Based on the lack of any hard evidence I see you must be a religionist Fox.

The world-wide food crisis has far more to do with the current banking and lending problems, then it does any real shortage in food due to ethanol production

Cycloptichorn

Four basic drivers seem to stimulate rapid growth in demand for food commodities: first, rising living standards in China, India and other rapidly growing developing countries, which lead to increased demand for livestock products and the feedstuffs to produce them; secondly, stimulus from mandates for corn-based ethanol in the United States and the ripple effects beyond the corn economy that are stimulated by inter-commodity linkages; thirdly, the rapid depreciation of the US dollar against the euro and a number of other important currencies, which drives up prices of commodities priced in US dollars; and finally, massive speculation from new financial players searching for better returns than in stocks or real estate. Underneath all of these demand drivers is the high price of petroleum and other fossil fuels.

Geez, that reads like it was ghost written by Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul. It certainly wasn't written by a Steve Forbes or any other free trader who talks about this stuff. But on the chance that there is something to it, I'll see if there is any credible source out there that will support it.

Food shortages and USA price inflation are primarily the consequences of Congressional prohibition of drilling for oil in oil rich domestic fields, for example, ANWR.

diverting food crops to ethanol

Ethanol from food? Forget it. From wood waste, maybe

Don Cayo
Vancouver Sun
Friday, July 04, 2008
The headlong rush by Ottawa and most provinces to support grain-based ethanol as a renewable fuel for cars and trucks is a waste of money, says a new C.D. Howe study released Thursday.

When you allow for the energy it takes to make grain-based ethanol and its inefficiency compared to gasoline, the science is inconclusive as to whether it really reduces greenhouse gas emissions, the study says. And even if it can be shown to reduce the total amount of CO2 spewed into the atmosphere, the cost per tonne is as much as seven times higher than other GHG-reducing strategies.

Meanwhile, the subsidies paid by governments richly reward some lucky farmers, but they hurt the more numerous livestock growers who have to pay more to buy corn or wheat. And, finally, the diversion of so much otherwise useful crop into fuel is driving up food prices both in Canada and around the world.

Let's see. I would be a religionist if I insisted that my point of view is the only valid point of view. I do believe, however, that I have tried to support my point of view many times over during the long duration of this thread while consistently arguing for keeping an open mind. That last point automatically removes me from the religionist crowd.

ican711nm wrote:

Food shortages and USA price inflation are primarily the consequences of Congressional prohibition of drilling for oil in oil rich domestic fields, for example, ANWR.

Do you think that's it?

Yes!

The weak dollar doesn't help, but a weak dollar I believe is caused a great deal by trade deficits and spending deficits and of course these two things feed on each other. Certainly if we took pro-active measures NOW to do what is necessary to significantly reduce $700 billion of foreign oil imports, we would have far less of a trade deficit and far less of a spending deficit and a stronger dollar.

Exactly!

Then if we could agree that we are not going to cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to make any kind of difference re global climate, and reversed nonproductive policies such as encouraging diverting food crops to ethanol production, I think we would see everything get better almost immediately.

Exactly!


And I do think wind, solar, geothermal development, etc. will be a factor in that, but we certainly should back off trying to discourage increasing fossil fuel supplies too.

These supplemental developments will not provide significant enough energy over the next 30 years to justify continuing to delay the required oil drilling we need to start now in order to obtain an adequate domestic oil supply for us to achieve a healthy economy within the next decade.