Finally. A new crop farmers can grow - even in the third world - that the industrialized nations a desperate to get their hands on. But all is not well with biofuels. We should have heeded the warning of The House Martins from twenty years ago:
Me and the farmer get on fine,Actually, I have no idea what that song means except it's the only theologically anti-farmer song I know.
Through stormy weather and bottles of wine,
If I pull my weight he'll treat me well
But if I'm late he'll give me hell.And though it's all hard work no play,
Farmer is a happy crook,
Jesus hates him everyday,
'Cause Jesus gave and farmer took.
The pinch is being felt in the land of beer where prices are rising as there has been a shift from planting barley to malt to other crops to turn into automobile fodder. There has been some indication that there may be an increase in general planting as the marketplace adjusts in response but the effect on food crops has caused the UN to warn a year ago and now scramble to find enough for people to eat at an affordable price. And our Canadian House of Commons is grappling with how last year's darling has so quickly turned into this year's curse:
When the legislation was briefly debated in the House on Monday, NDP MPs were overwhelmingly negative toward the government's approach, expressing concern that biofuels could trigger "a global food catastrophe." The Bloc is supporting the government bill, but that party's environment critic literally squirmed this week when asked whether he supports his party's position. "We have a party line. The vote will be in a few days. I don't support corn-based ethanol," said Bernard Bigras. Asked whether he was uncomfortable with his party's position, he offered a polite "no comment" and left.A tragic if stunning dynamic is noting how a "green" and "sustainable" principle has caused harm to the poor, thus causing a clash on the left - where 100% of Canada's public debate is occurring.
So what to do? In the new price range and future expectations nuke, hydro and wind power fueling electric cars (like the forbidden Toronto one) are looking better and better. Maybe also regulations requiring expanded crop production for biofuels is matched by expanded crop production for food. Babbitts and Randian nutjobs will say it is none of government's business, that if people starve - well, that's the market! What do you want to burn in your tank? Do you care?
Comments
sean liddle - April 30, 2008 9:23 AM
Biofuel proiduced by farmed materials is so 2004.
Anaerobic composting/digestion of organic materials produces methane without the need for using huge tracts of land (said in my best Michael Palin) that should really be used to feed people. Its not like we don't produce a gazillion tonnes of organic wastes, and frankly, although mass municipal composting is nice to reduce 60% of the material going to landfills, we really don't need all that much compost for the City flowerbeds. (Not that municipalities are copnsidering composting for anything more than monetary reasons.)
Add to the pile the industrial organics and BAM, lots of workable fuel that is completely renewable.
Ben (The Tiger) - April 30, 2008 12:42 PM
Funny... I guess it did tie the food market to the energy market. Not so great after all.
I'm firmly pro-nuclear -- and that goes against my political philosophy. It takes a massive capital investment and therefore state ownership or guarantees, but it's clean (-ish), cheap, and uses Canadian resources. (We have, what, a quarter of the world's uranium?)
On the bright side, the rising food prices give us an opportunity to cut agriculture subsidies...
Ben (The Tiger) - April 30, 2008 12:42 PM
(I meant, it's cheap once we have the plants built.)
sean liddle - April 30, 2008 1:59 PM
I am pro nuclear as well, always have been. I am however concerned that whenever humans seem to manage things as large as a nuclear plant, corners get cut, people ignore proper management of environmental issues and things do south fast. State run non-profit driven nukes keep cost low. State mandated management of waste ensures corners are not cut. Maintaining production as a non-unionized essential service keeps a lot of problems away as well. Supplement it all with as much wind, solar and hydro/tidal as you can build and bam, utopia.
Mike C - May 2, 2008 8:25 AM
Seems like we will all love algae before long.
Previous attempts to post this have been rejected as spam; must be something to do with loving algae.
http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001722.html
The 'one-tenth of New Mexico' comment is helpful, I suppose, in describing the scale. But then again, I don't know how big New Mexico really is. Lomborg makes similar comments about solar - we could put solar panels on 2.5% of the Sahara and take care of our 21st century energy needs. It tells you the answer is out there, but no one should ever think that one-tenth of New Mexico or 2.5% of the Sahara will be used this way.
Now, if you take that algae idea to the Sahara...
Alan - May 2, 2008 8:50 AM
Sorry about that. All of Jay's posts are getting caught. You guys may live on the same IP as a big spammer. I am deleting about 100 a day behind the scenes. But now we get to compare your posting styles.
Mike Campbell - May 2, 2008 11:44 AM
Yes I am pleased that first one wasn't lost forever.
Ben (The Tiger) - May 4, 2008 10:36 AM
I'm sorry, I just have to add -- one example of a state-run, no-strike nuclear plant: Chernobyl.
(Yes, unfair to cherry-pick. But state-run enterprises are just as likely to have screw-ups.)