Cartoon Of The Year!

[hatrack]

[Buzz Clik]

1. Yikes! That's about as ouchie a cartoon as I've ever seen.

Nice catch.

[Lasher]

2. Boy that's a powerful message.

I think I just decided corn ethanol is a bad idea.

[asthmaticeog]

3. Hmmm...

I think Bors may have beaten Ramirez to the punch.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. I laughed. I cried.

But mainly, I cried.

--p!

[snappyturtle]

5. If anything is too truthy, this is it. Good post...food for thought. nt

[DU9598]

6. Inaccurate

The corn grown for ethanol is not for human consumption. It could be argued that the acreage used for producing corn for ethanol could be used to feed the world. However, we still subsidize farmers not to grow food on land and thus keep it out of production. The production of ethanol does nothing to keep children in Africa from having nutritional diets. In fact, the byproduct of the corn used to produce ethanol creates a high grade protein fed to cattle and hogs, making full use of the corn for both fuel and food.

Too bad that the artist did not take the time to research it. Probably a cartoon straight out of Exxon Mobile or BP, if you want my opinion.

[NickB79]

11. What subsidies cut grain production in the US?

Are you thinking about the CRP program, where farmers are paid to put MARGINAL, non-fertile, easily erodible land into grasses, prairie restorations and trees? The same program that WON'T accept the deep, rich, flat lands that are prized for grain production? The same program that is misunderstood and misrepresented by people who don't know much about farming, over and over and over again?

[GliderGuider]

7. Right on the money.

Agrifuels are a crime against humanity.

As I've said before:

In effect the ethanol going into your gas tank will be pouring from the famine-bloated bellies of third world fathers, mothers and children. I don't much like that idea.

For a look at why we should not fuck around with Africa's food supply, read Africa in 2040: The Darkened Continent.

[DU9598]

8. Disagree

We are not "fucking around with" Africa's food supply when we produce ethanol. Food corn is far different from corn grown for livestock feed and protein content. Not one kernel that goes into an ethanol plant would ever be eaten in Africa. As I said before, the byproduct from the ethanol plants are a highly valued feed protein that is fed to cattle and pigs and produces leaner animals.

The myths that the oil industry spreads to people about ethanol and other renewable fuels is very unfortunate.

[DontGetFooled]

9. Disagree with Disagree

While you are technically correct that most corn grown is not directly for human consumption, a good majority of that corn is used in food products. Corn meal and corn syrup are used in a variety of foods that you probably consume on a daily basis.

Also, don’t let the MSM fool you; it takes almost as much energy (fuel) to convert corn to ethanol as is derived from it. The bottom line is that the use of corn for fuel is not only inefficient, but also depletes the amount of corn available for food products thus driving up the cost of food at your retailer.

But go ahead and let Al Gore tell you all how you are helping the environment if it makes you feel good.

[DU9598]

13. Disagree again

I hope you don't let the MSM (and Big Oil) fool you into believing that it takes as much energy to convert corn into ethanol as is derived from it - that myth was created by a fiction writer on an episode of the West Wing and it was so good that Big Oil adopted it as common fact. Simple economics would show that if that were the case there would not be an ethanol industry thriving in middle America. The small subsides to assist in the production of ethanol are not THAT great.

I agree that the use of corn is not the most efficient renewable source, but it is what is in production at the current time. As ethanol is more widely used, farmers will be able to convert their production equipment to switch grass and canes. As was pointed out above, those are better crops for the environment. The problem is the investment it will take to convert production to those crops on a larger scale. Have you seen the price of the equipment from John Deere?

The evidence just does not exist that using corn for ethanol affects children in Africa. If it does, it is curious that the World Food Prize works with the Ethanol Coalition - both working to find solutions to the need for increased grain production throughout the world. In fact, the increasing cost of oil which drives up delivery costs and productions costs are more likely to lead to starvation of kids in Africa.

Myself, I think it is kind of dirty to use the caricature of a dying African child to argue against ethanol production.

[MattSh]

24. myth created by a fiction writer?

Who? Link??

[DU9598]

34. Here you go MattSh

Who: Aaron Sorkin

Link: <http://www.alternet.org/environment/21147>

Several episodes have offered the unrebutted proposition that it takes more oil to make ethanol than is displaced by ethanol. The show's writers could easily have learned that there have been about 20 peer-reviewed studies of that issue. All of them agree that in 1980 the proposition was true. And all agree that since then both the ethanol refinery and the farmer have become much more energy efficient. Some 90 percent of all current studies conclude that ethanol is currently a net energy producer. And as corn stalks begin to displace natural gas as the refinery's primary energy source, the net energy ratio will become exceedingly attractive.

Is ethanol a perfect fuel? Of course not. There are no perfect fuels. Do agricultural states strongly support incentives for biofuels? You bet they do, in the same way that California lobbies for aerospace spending and Connecticut for shipbuilding. A more interesting question is, do farmers benefit from biofuels incentives? Only marginally. Of the 52 cents per gallon incentive for ethanol, the corn farmer receives about a nickel. But if farmers own the ethanol plants; that is, if they own a share of the manufacturing facility that converts their raw material into a finished product, they can receive dividends of 20-30 cents per gallon.

Biorefineries can be much smaller and far safer than oil refineries. They can rely on a wide variety of feedstocks available in virtually all parts of the nation. This allows us to envision a different future for agriculture, one in which farmers here and abroad do not compete with other farmers but with the fossil fuel industry. It's a future in which farmers are no longer condemned to sell their raw material at an ever-decreasing price, but can earn their income from multiple sources. Clearly, there is another side to the ethanol story. Perhaps it will get equal time on future episodes of The West Wing.

[GliderGuider]

10. Unfortunately

We are indeed impacting African food supplies by our actions. There is a chain of effects that spread out around the world. It starts from corn subsidies in the USA, ripples though crop substitutions that diminish exportable quantities of substituted grains, raises the prices of those grains, that causes consumption substitutions in other countries, and ends up as higher food prices for Africans that already have the lowest per capita GDP on earth and have to import 30% of their daily calories at whatever price the international market demands.

The FAO is worried about it, as outlined in this article. I tend to trust organizations like the FAO over the inchoate opinions I tend to find on the Internet.

[DU9598]

14. Lots of FACTS on the internets

A 2005 US Department of Energy and US Department of Agriculture study concluded that the US could produce 60 billion gallons of ethanol by 2030 from grain and cellulosic feedstocks without harming food, feed or fiber production.

The USDA does a great job of dispeling the myth of food supplies going down and prices going up due to renewable energy production tied to corn: <http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/Features/CornPrices.htm> Field corn is the predominant corn type grown in the U.S., and it is primarily used for animal feed. Currently, less than 10 percent of the U.S. field corn crop is used for direct domestic human consumption in corn-based foods such as corn meal, corn starch, and corn flakes, while the remainder is used for animal feed, exports, ethanol production, seed, and industrial uses. Sweet corn, both white and yellow, is usually consumed as immature whole-kernel corn by humans and also as an ingredient in other corn-based foods, but makes up only about 1 percent of total U.S. corn production.

Since U.S. ethanol production uses field corn, the most direct impact of increased ethanol production should be on field corn prices and on the price of food products based on field corn. However, even for those products heavily based on field corn, the effect of rising corn prices is dampened by other market factors. For example, an 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains about 12.9 ounces of milled field corn. When field corn is priced at $2.28 per bushel (the 20-year average), the actual value of corn represented in the box of corn flakes is about 3.3 cents (1 bushel = 56 pounds). (The remainder is packaging, processing, advertising, transportation, and other costs.) At $3.40 per bushel, the average price in 2007, the value is about 4.9 cents. The 49-percent increase in corn prices would be expected to raise the price of a box of corn flakes by about 1.6 cents, or 0.5 percent, assuming no other cost increases.

[hatrack]

15. OK, according to the Renewable Fuels Association . . .

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/

In 2006 (the most recent year for which they had data on their website), total US fuel ethanol production was 4.855 billion gallons. Divide that by 42 for a total of 115,595,238 barrels of ethanol (and certainly, fuel ethanol production has risen since 2006).

At current demand rates, the US uses a little under 21 million barrels of oil per day. So, total US ethanol production was equivalent to about 5.5 days' worth of oil consumption (21,000,000 X 5.5 = 115,500,000). Or, to slice things a bit differently, 115,595,238/365 = 316,699, or about 1.5% of total daily oil consumption. NOTE: I'm not factoring in the relatively less energetic nature of ethanol compared to gasoline, diesel or aviation kerosene, but IIRC it's approximately 65% as energetic a fuel as motor gasoline. I'm not quite certain as to other fuel comparisons, but you would need about 35 - 40% more ethanol by volume than these figures to perform the same work currently performed by gasoline-based cars, trucks and machinery.

So the issue is really twofold: first, with ethanol plants and the industry as a whole in serious financial trouble at the moment (save for the really big players like ADM & Cargill), a more than twelve-fold scaleup in production seems extremely unlikely in "conventional" corn-based ethanol, since current production numbers are only 8.01% of what the USDA/DOE are projecting. Will we plant twelve times as much corn as we currently do? If so, where, and how?

Also, cellulosic may, indeed, be scalable, or maybe not. At this point we just don't know. But given the uncertainties that exist regarding a promising but still experimental technology, I wonder about a projection of 60 billion gallons in two decades.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Ummm... I guess you missed this article from the same publication (Right?)

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/Features/RisingFood.htm

Rising Food Prices Intensify Food Insecurity in Developing Countries

The combination of rising energy prices, use of feed crops for biofuel, greater world food demand, and stagnant food aid may undermine the food security of low-income countries.

Stacey Rosen and Shahla Shapouri

• The use of food crops for biofuels, coupled with greater food demand, has reversed the path of declining price trends for several commodities.
• For highly import-dependent or highly food-insecure countries, any decline in import capacity stemming from rising food prices can have challenging food security implications.
• Food aid, a key safety net source, has stagnated during the last two decades, and its share has declined relative to total food imports of low-income countries.

...

[GliderGuider]

19. Oh, snap.

[DU9598]

22. Snap, Crackle, Pop goes your argument

I saw that it said MAY undermine the food security and it lists "rising energy prices and greater world food demand, and stagnant food aid" are all factors ... it is an opinion piece about what MAY - it says MAY - occur and the article actually says in the text that it is high oil prices which make it too expensive to transport food from the US and other countries to poor nations.

Sorry, but your article shows the need for renewable energy sources. Good try, but POP!

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Keep reading

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/Features/RisingFood.htm

...

Recent hikes in oil prices have raised serious concerns in low-income countries, both because of the financial burden of the higher energy import bill and potential constraints on imports of necessities like food and raw materials. Higher oil prices also have sparked energy security concerns worldwide, increasing the demand for biofuel production. The use of feed crops for biofuels, coupled with greater food demand spurred by high income growth in populous countries, such as China and India, has reversed the long-term path of declining price trends for several commodities.

Worldwide agricultural commodity price increases were significant during 2004-06: corn prices rose 54 percent; wheat, 34 percent; soybean oil, 71 percent; and sugar, 75 percent. But this trend accelerated in 2007, due to continued demand for biofuels and drought in major producing countries. Wheat prices have risen more than 35 percent since the 2006 harvest, while corn prices have increased nearly 28 percent. The price of soybean oil has been particularly volatile, due to high demand growth in China, the U.S., and the European Union (EU), as well as lower global stocks.

...

[DU9598]

25. That does not support your premise

So a drought and higher demand drove up food prices. It is called the marketplace. I don't see where it says that US production of ethanol kept anyone from having food. Here is a link which explains the rhetoric vs. real data on corn supply and overall food prices: <http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/2007/071007_RhetoricVersusReality.pdf>

Summary — If it was not clear before, readers should now understand that the fuel versus food issue is one of rhetoric, not reality. It is unlikely that the production of meat has been affected by higher corn prices to date. In fact, there is little evidence that any food category has been affected by higher corn prices in any significant manner. Certainly it is true that some food product manufactures have claimed higher corn prices are increasing their manufacturing cost, using this as justification for raising their product prices.

A notable example might be a cereal company that makes some variety of corn flakes. The value of corn going into a box of corn flakes was previously estimated to be 2.2 cents. Even if the cost of the corn doubled, it is hard to understand how this relates to an increase of 10 to 20 times that much in the price of a box of cereal. There are other examples, such as a feeder/packer complaining about how the higher price of corn has raised company costs. Yet, just a few days prior, this same company reported record high profits in its’ quarterly income statement.

While there is plenty of rhetoric in the media about higher corn prices due to ethanol causing higher consumer food prices, nearly all the evidence points to other factors. The reality is that to date higher corn prices have had very little impact on consumer food prices. At some future date higher corn prices will probably be more of a factor in rising food prices, but even then the increases are likely to be moderate and extended over a period of several years. Finally, any increase in food prices will be more than offset by the diversification of our energy supplies, lower farm program payments and the improved environmental effect of utilizing ethanol. It is a win-win situation for consumers, farmers and taxpayers.

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. "I don't see where it says that US production of ethanol kept anyone from having food."

I also don't see where the cartoon said that. Perhaps, a guilty conscience told you that. However, let's go back to the article once again:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/Features/RisingFood.htm

...

Price Rises Will Have Greatest Impact on Import-Dependent Countries

The 2006 ERS Food Security Assessment report for developing countries projected a slight increase in food availability during the next decade, mainly because of improvements in Asia. This increased availability is projected to lead to a 5-percent drop in the number of food insecure people in the 70 low-income countries included in the ERS analysis. But, with the recent surge in food prices, prospects are not so bright for many of the lowest income countries. Projections of food availability consider both domestic production and food imports. Changes in import capacity have direct implications on the food security of low-income countries where food import dependency has increased because of greater demand stemming from income and population growth, as well as slow gains in domestic production. For highly import-dependent or highly food-insecure countries, any decline in import capacity stemming from rising food prices can have challenging food security implications.

...

Now, certainly you will not dispute that food prices have increased. (Right?)

At the same time, you will not dispute that increased demand for "biofuels" (especially ethanol) has contributed to those price increases. (Right?)

Okay. Increased food prices (spurred at least in part by increased demand for "biofuels") leads to poor people/countries being less able to afford to buy as much food. (Right?)

Therefore, those people/countries who were just barely able to buy enough food in the past, will (due to increased prices) now be unable to buy enough food.


Here's a paper from those silly people at the National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1544066

...

Abstract

Negative environmental consequences of fossil fuels and concerns about petroleum supplies have spurred the search for renewable transportation biofuels. To be a viable alternative, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, have environmental benefits, be economically competitive, and be producible in large quantities without reducing food supplies. We use these criteria to evaluate, through life-cycle accounting, ethanol from corn grain and biodiesel from soybeans. Ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93% more. Compared with ethanol, biodiesel releases just 1.0%, 8.3%, and 13% of the agricultural nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide pollutants, respectively, per net energy gain. Relative to the fossil fuels they displace, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12% by the production and combustion of ethanol and 41% by biodiesel. Biodiesel also releases less air pollutants per net energy gain than ethanol. These advantages of biodiesel over ethanol come from lower agricultural inputs and more efficient conversion of feedstocks to fuel. Neither biofuel can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies. Even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. Until recent increases in petroleum prices, high production costs made biofuels unprofitable without subsidies. Biodiesel provides sufficient environmental advantages to merit subsidy. Transportation biofuels such as synfuel hydrocarbons or cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input biomass grown on agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass, could provide much greater supplies and environmental benefits than food-based biofuels.

...

[kestrel91316]

31. Best. Slapdown. Ever.

Thank you.

[DU9598]

33. Hardy Har Har

You must be pretty sheltered if you thought that weak reply that is wrong was either a slap down or somehow persuasive. LOL - Better luck with the next lame response.

By the way, how is your Kucinich guy doing in his primary? Are we going to get to keep him in Congress?

[kestrel91316]

35. Wouldn't you be happier someplace else, since you

obviously hate liberals?

[DU9598]

36. Huh?

That was the Best, Comeback, Ever! Not

Duh, I like liberals ... I am one. I don't like people that are misinformed, spouting off big oil arguments that hurt working men and women in my state. There are a lot of interests in the world trying to stop the advancement of renewable energy sources. I try to counter those arguments.

[GliderGuider]

38. This debate is not about "renewable energy sources" in general

It's about biofuels. Wind/solar/tidal power -- knock yourself out, their only real problems are technical issues and scalability. Biofuels on the other hand are a blind alley with a tiger trap at the end, masquerading as a garden path.

[DU9598]

39. Don't understand

Are you saying that ethanol does not fit within the definition of a renewable energy source? You may want to check out the Renewable Fuel Association at <http://www.ethanolrfa.org/>. Perhaps let them know that the name of their organization is wrong.

[GliderGuider]

40. No,

I'm saying that the constraints on biofuels are different from (and much tighter than) those on other forms of renewable energy.

[DU9598]

32. NOT Right - on number 3

Now, certainly you will not dispute that food prices have increased. (Right?) RIGHT

At the same time, you will not dispute that increased demand for "biofuels" (especially ethanol) has contributed to those price increases. (Right?) "CONTRIBUTED" - RIGHT

Okay. Increased food prices (spurred at least in part by increased demand for "biofuels") leads to poor people/countries being less able to afford to buy as much food. (Right?) NOT RIGHT

Therefore, those people/countries who were just barely able to buy enough food in the past, will (due to increased prices) now be unable to buy enough food. NOT RIGHT

Your third proposition is wrong and is unsupported. It is the reduced production of oil, increased demand for grains in India and China, and environmental factors set forth in the prior article. Your persistent, but persistently incorrect.

Sorry!

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. How can you /possibly/ agree with the first two, but not the 3rd?

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25766

Surging food prices could lead to nutritional crisis for Central Americans – UN

26 February 2008 – The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is warning of a potential nutritional crisis in Central America, where the prices of wheat and corn have nearly doubled in the past year, bad weather has pushed the price of beans to unprecedented levels.

The agency notes that the surge has meant that the actual calorie intake of an average meal in rural El Salvador, for example, is today roughly 60 per cent of what it was in May 2006.

“At this stage it is still premature to provide figures, but we fear a deepening nutritional crisis among the poorest segments of the population, those already food and nutritionally insecure,” says WFP El Salvador Country Director Carlo Scaramella, who is coordinating a study of the impact of recent rising prices in the region.

“At the same time, what we are seeing is the emergence of a new group of nutritionally and food-insecure people among the poorest strata of the population,” he added.

...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25283&Cr=afghan&Cr1=

Over 1 million Afghans face food shortage due to rising prices – UN agency

14 January 2008 – More than 1 million people in rural Afghanistan are at risk of food shortages due to an increase in prices for staples such as wheat flour and vegetable oil, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) said today.

“There are as many as 1.3 million Afghans who before were considered at borderline risk of food insecurity, but now, because of large price increases may have been pushed into a situation of high-risk of food insecurity,” WFP Country Director Rick Corsino said at a press briefing in Kabul today.

...

WFP has been working with the Afghan Ministry of Agriculture to assess the scope of the increase in prices and identify those most affected by it. The price of wheat flour, for example, has increased by nearly 60 per cent throughout the country over the past year, with some locations having seen price increases of close to 80 per cent.

“These increases are not necessarily unique to Afghanistan,” Mr. Corsino stated, noting that over the past 12 months the price of wheat globally has increased by nearly 100 per cent. The increase is attributed to several factors, including higher demand for cereals in some parts of the world, particularly in Asia, the conversion and use of some grains for bio-fuels, and a poor harvest in one or two parts of the world that have traditionally had very strong wheat production.

...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24584&Cr=WFP&Cr1=Africa

UN food agency chief to visit West Africa to spotlight 'silent emergencies'

8 November 2007 – The Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) will visit West Africa next week to spotlight the “silent emergencies” gripping the region, the agency announced today.

“WFP is working in partnership throughout West Africa to address chronic malnutrition and climatic shock, and to ensure food security,” said Josette Sheeran, who will travel from 12 to 16 November to Mali and Senegal.

“I look forward to meeting national and village-level leaders, as well as our beneficiaries, to discuss how we can beat hunger at its root.”

...

West Africa, WFP said faces a “gathering storm” of desertification, land degradation, spiralling food prices in the face of the rise of biofuels, child malnutrition and low school enrolment rates.

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2008/webarticles/080318_global_hunger.html

The New Face of Global Hunger

By United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

The price of food is soaring. The threat of hunger and malnutrition is growing. Millions of the world’s most vulnerable people are at risk. An effective and urgent response is needed.

The first of the Millennium Development Goals, set by world leaders at the UN summit in 2000, aims to reduce the proportion of hungry people by half by 2015. This was already a major challenge, not least in Africa where many nations have fallen behind. But we now face a perfect storm of new challenges.

The price of basic staples—wheat, corn, rice—are at record highs, up 50 percent or more in the last six months. Global food stocks are at historic lows. The causes range from rising demand in major economies like India and China to climate and weather-related events such as hurricanes, floods and droughts that have devastated harvests in many parts of the world. High oil prices have increased the cost of transporting food and purchasing fertilizer. Some experts say the rise of biofuels has reduced the amount of food available for humans.

The effects are widely seen. Food riots have erupted in countries from West Africa to South Asia. Communities living in countries where food has to be imported to feed hungry populations are rising up to protest the high cost of living. Fragile democracies are feeling the pressure of food insecurity. Many governments have issued export bans and price controls on food, distorting markets and presenting challenges to commerce.

...

This is the new face of hunger, increasingly affecting communities that had previously been protected. And, inevitably, it is the so-called “bottom billion” who are hit hardest: people living on one dollar or less a day.

When people are that poor, and inflation erodes their meager earnings, they generally do one of two things: they buy less food, or they buy cheaper, less nutritious food. The end result is the same—more hunger and less chance of a healthy future. The UN’s World Food Program is seeing families who previously could afford a diverse, nutritious diet dropping to one staple and cutting their meals from three to two or one a day.

...

[jpak]

28. US corn exports to Africa *UP* in 2007-8...

http://westernfarmpress.com/news/corn-exports-0208/

U.S. corn and sorghum exports up in Asia, Africa, Middle East and Europe

The first 5 ½ months into the 2007-2008 marketing year have shown noteworthy increases in the exports of U.S. corn and sorghum in markets where the U.S. Grains Council has been active in demand building and trade development programs. Corn imports are up in Asia and the Middle East with 5.7 million tons (2.24 million bushels) imported compared to 3 million tons (118 million bushels) the same time last year, according to the Foreign Agricultural Service.

South Korea is the driving force in Asia. Its imports have increased over a million tons since the end of January 2007, having so far imported 3.9 million tons (154 million bushels) of U.S. corn. The North African market has also shown impressive growth with Egypt, Morocco and Algeria being the biggest importers in that region. The Council has been actively working with users in those countries to promote U.S. corn and its by-products. In addition to corn, sorghum sales have increased, especially to Europe. Latest reports show imports topping off at 2.7 million tons (106 million bushels) compared to 500,000 tons (19.7 thousand bushels) this same time last year. Primary delivery points include Spain, Holland, France, Denmark, Italy and the UK.

“This is the first time I can recall the U.S. exporting sorghum to the Northern European countries,” said Chris Corry, USGC senior director of international operations. As a result of the EU’s biotech policies, member countries’ access to corn from the United States has been severely restricted.

“A poor harvest in Europe has pushed the need for EU countries to import more feeding ingredients,” said Erick Erickson, USGC special assistant for planning, evaluation and projects.

<not much more>

US corn exports to hit a new record

http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/id102-33208/us_corn_exports_to_hit_a_new_record.html

Corn exports from the United States are projected to reach a record 62 million tonnes in trade year 2007/08, up 2 million tonnes this month, according to the monthly outlook from the Agriculture Research Service of the American agriculture ministry USDA.

The US marketing year is also a record at 2.45 billion bushels, up 100 million bushels this month. The early-season pace of US corn sales and shipments has been strong, and reduced competition and strong demand are projected this month. Increased exports were the only change in projected US supply and use this month resulting in a corresponding 100 million bushel decrease in ending stocks.

<snip>

Buying in advance
The early pace of US 2007/08 corn sales and shipments has been very strong. According to U.S. Census data, October 2007 corn exports were up almost 20% over those of the previous year. Export sales shipment data indicate November 2007 corn exports topped 6 million tonnes, up over 1 million from those of the previous year.

Moreover, at the end of November, outstanding export sales of corn reached 19 million tonnes, compared to 11 million tonnes a year ago. Census plus Exports Sales data indicate commitments up 10 million tonnes over those of a year ago. With exports forecast to increase only 6 million tonnes, importers are believed to be buying ahead more this year than last to assure supplies

<more>

[jpak]

29. US Food Aid is ‘Wrecking’ Africa, Claims Charity

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/17/3224/

WASHINGTON - Critics of US food aid subsidies say they help cause obesity among Americans and starvation among Africans.
Now Care, one of the world’s biggest charities, has announced that it will boycott the controversial policy of selling tons of heavily subsidised US produced food in African countries. Care wants the US government to send money to buy food locally, rather than unwanted US produced food.

The US arm of the charity says America is causing rather than reducing hunger with a decree that US food aid must be sold rather than directly distributed to those facing starvation. In America, the subsidies for corn in particular, help underpin the junk food industry, which uses corn extracts as a sweetener, creating a home-grown a health crisis.

The farm lobby meanwhile has a stranglehold on Congress, which has balked at making any changes that would interfere with a system that promotes overproduction of commodities.

Critics of the policy say it also undermines African farmers’ ability to produce food, making the most vulnerable countries of the world even more dependent on aid to avert famine.

<more>

[Goat or Panic]

12. Might want to re-think linking to Ramirez

Check out some of his other talking points...er..cartoons.


http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoon.asp


This is ultimately an anti-alternative fuel toon under the guise of giving a rat's ass about world hunger.

[GliderGuider]

16. It's not exactly an "anti-alternative fuel" toon

It's an "anti-corn ethanol" toon. That's an important difference. I don't know many people who are violently opposed to biobutanol, for example.

[hatrack]

18. Exactly.

nt

[Goat or Panic]

20. Just being cynical

:)

[NNadir]

21. That will remain true until someone actually tries to scale up "biobutanol."

All of these schemes sound wonderful in the abstract, less so in practice.

In fact, humanity survived on biofuels for several millenia, but on the other hand, life expectancy was a few decades at best and, here's the big one, the population of the planet was consistently much lower than one billion.

The oil and coal we are just finishing burning represents hundreds of millions of years of collected biofuels.

[GliderGuider]

27. I agree. There are no biofuels that will scale up in the context of our industrial civilization

We use 400 years' worth of captured, concentrated photosynthesis to power our civilization for one year. Even if we used the entire current flow of photosynthetic energy on the entire planet we would have only one quarter of one percent of the energy we need.

As a result we will be using much less fuel in the future. We will not be able to substitute biofuels for any significant use, so it may be time to consider not considering it.

[kestrel91316]

30. What's really weird is that it's by Ramirez, who is normally such a

RW hatemonger and freak that I am tempted to burn his cartoons.......

[losthills]

41. No shit. Ethanol no longer passes the common sense test--

even for right wing whackos......