ForumGarden

Yes I saw it, horrendous. We are just so damn good at screwing things up. Save the environment and let thousands of people starve along the way. This is a perfect example when a good intention has catastrophic consequences because the full impact of the solution is not thought through.

Ya, and now we are so afraid of ‘Global Warming’ that we are taking crops away from the poorest of the poor so we can have environment friendly fuel.

I always did think that burning food crops for fuel is a most asinine idea. With weather patterns changing, a lousy growing season with a few natural disasters thrown in and "we in a heap o' trouble".

Have to hold my hand up and say that I DID think using a renewable source to make fuel was a good idea - especially since the pollutant emission level was so much lower.

However I hadn't realised that this would combine with crop failures so quickly. Didn't see the programme Jimbo, but it sounds dreadful.:-1

I'm afraid I think this is only the start and it's going to get much, much worse. Not perhaps year by year (at least we can hope not) but certainly decade by decade as the climate continues to destabilise.

I think that its important to be clear about what is happening in terms of the world's food supply. Its true that there are problems with the use of some crops for biofuels, but a lot of biofuels are grown on marginal land that wouldn't be used for food production anyway. Biofuels are only a small component of world agriculture, even now, and its a red herring to be honest, the real problem is about the growing number of people on planet earth and the unsustainability of the present systems for feeding everyone.

The 2 real factors are climate change which is already causing serious agricultural disruption, and also the ever increasing population and the inability of many parts of the world where there are huge populations to really support the amount of people, the obvious ones are places like China and India, which really are unsustainable at present population growth rates, they simply have too many people.

The problem we have at present is not so much that there isn't enough food, but more like demand in these countries, as well as buying power, is increasing rapidly and this is driving the costs of basic foodstuffs sky high, also harvests have failed in places like Egypt, several parts of south america and most particularly in Australia. The picture is uneven in that places like Europe and America are more than capable of feeding themselves, but places like China, India, and many parts of Africa simply cannot support the populations that live there, and there needs to be a serious debate about population control and sustainable agriculture.

The biofuels issue is only a small part of this problem, the real problem is that based on the present growth and consumption/population rates, humanity is just not living in a susutainable way and these problems are only going to get worse as it seems impossible to stop the population hitting 9 billion by 2050, with most of that growth coming in regions that are already overpopulated and unsustainable in the long term.

Where I live, there is only so much land available for crops. Farmers that might have grown soybeans are switching to corn, most of which is being used for fuel production. This equals less corn for food+less soybeans for food=less food.

Galbally: Then you are saying a lot of people, and I mean a LOT, are going to die either of starvation or in wars over resources starting around 2050, probably at the latest? (I rate the chances of the politicians sorting this one out in time as zero, or as close as makes no difference)

Thinking a litle further: Would you say that virtually no-one at present (a few workers in the area excepted) has any idea how appalling things are going to get, and programmes such as the one Jimbo refers to are just the beginning? I remember the Ethiopian famine, and now have the strong feeling that situations such as that are going to be commonplace in the next forty years.

Sometimes I feel very old.:-1

hoppy;850514 wrote: Where I live, there is only so much land available for crops. Farmers that might have grown soybeans are switching to corn, most of which is being used for fuel production. This equals less corn for food+less soybeans for food=less food.


Yes indeed. But the USA produces more food than it needs (please correct me if I'm wrong!) so you can afford to change production in the way you describe. The problem arises in areas where millions of people exist at the subsistence level and face crop failures: they can't afford to buy food, so it makes no difference to them whether there is a stockpile of soybeans in the USA or not.

Incidentally, I see all these reports saying the diversion of foodcrops to biofuel is the problem, but I've not heard of anywhere actually using biofuel, let alone a petrol station with biofuel pumps... Who or what is using this biofuel?

Clodhopper;850558 wrote: Yes indeed. But the USA produces more food than it needs (please correct me if I'm wrong!) so you can afford to change production in the way you describe. The problem arises in areas where millions of people exist at the subsistence level and face crop failures: they can't afford to buy food, so it makes no difference to them whether there is a stockpile of soybeans in the USA or not.

Incidentally, I see all these reports saying the diversion of foodcrops to biofuel is the problem, but I've not heard of anywhere actually using biofuel, let alone a petrol station with biofuel pumps... Who or what is using this biofuel?


1. The USA EXPORTS soybeans but not if we don't have enough. That would make a difference to those facing hunger.

2. Ever hear of ethanol? E85? That is gas coming from our fuel pumps at stations here.

E85 is gas with 85% grain alcohol. New cars are being built to run on it.

hoppy;850571 wrote: 1. The USA EXPORTS soybeans but not if we don't have enough. That would make a difference to those facing hunger.

2. Ever hear of ethanol? E85? That is gas coming from our fuel pumps at stations here.


1) As has been said, most of those going hungry would not be able to afford US soybeans even if they were available.

2) Not over here - the closest we get to biofuel is diesel with up to 5% vegetable oil in it.

jimbo;850556 wrote: you mean you dated carolly :wah::wah:





ahem i mean ,we never ever learn do we ,how many millions have to die before mankind grows a conscience :-3





i had better make that how many billions have to die :-5


No, haven't dated Carolly (yet). She's not that desperate! She's looking for a toyboy, and I haven't got a sixpack, I've got a small keg.

You know, I don't think it's that humankind hasn't got a conscience, it's more that conscience pulls us in different directions. To take a minor example:

Teen pregnancies. Everyone thinks it's a bad thing (in our Western societies) but the way people react - conscience driven - is very different. Some say give the kids the information they need to protect themselves; others say this only encourages sexual activity and kids should be kept away from anything to do with sex. Both sides are acting from the best of motives - help our kids stay safe and well - and the result is a complete mess.

The current situation as regards climate and food is much more complex and to be honest until the death toll that results reaches the millions I doubt we'll even have widespread acceptance that it is happening. Which means the death toll will reach the thousands of millions (billions) and the numbers are already too big for my head.

What will China do if/when its population begins to starve? Eye up all that real estate in Siberia that will be becoming agriculturally viable as the tundra thaws?

jimbo;850585 wrote: the trouble is the starving people dont have the money to but it


Buy it? The USA has been known to donate huge quantities of foodstuffs to starving nations, but we are condemned for that too.

Bryn Mawr;850598 wrote: 1) As has been said, most of those going hungry would not be able to afford US soybeans even if they were available.

2) Not over here - the closest we get to biofuel is diesel with up to 5% vegetable oil in it.


As I mentioned, the USA GIVES food to starving peoples when we can.

If you are only up to 5%, maybe your country needs to do more in that direction.

hoppy;850571 wrote: 1. The USA EXPORTS soybeans but not if we don't have enough. That would make a difference to those facing hunger.

2. Ever hear of ethanol? E85? That is gas coming from our fuel pumps at stations here.


Hoppy: I've made a decision not to own a car, so I don't know much about current fuels, but thanks for the info - if I've got it right you are saying that petrol stations in the USA are selling biofuel aka E85 fom the pumps? Is it widespread? Do you call biofuel "gas"? I haven't seen anyone on this site commenting on how they filled their car with "biofuel"...

I doubt the subsistence farmers facing crop failure could afford to buy imported soya anyway. You'd have to give it to them. If Galbally is right, there's enough food in the world at present (different story if we hit 9,000,000,000 people by 2050 perhaps) but the problem is distribution - ie getting the food to the places where it's needed at affordable prices.

Basic problem is that crops have failed in many places across the world and many of us strongly suspect that human driven climate change is an increasing factor in disasters of this sort.

hoppy;850626 wrote: As I mentioned, the USA GIVES food to starving peoples when we can.

If you are only up to 5%, maybe your country needs to do more in that direction.


Big difference in cutting petrol with ethanol and cutting diesel with oil.

We do not have enough stocks of ethanol to make any difference to the petrol and not enough spare land to grow crops to make it from (it takes us all our time to brew / distil enough to keep the off licences stocked).

The car manufacturers reckon that more than 5% oil will damage an unconverted engine and void the warranty if they can show a higher percentage has been used.

hoppy;850626 wrote: As I mentioned, the USA GIVES food to starving peoples when we can.

If you are only up to 5%, maybe your country needs to do more in that direction.


Hoppy: Yes indeed! I remember seeing the stars and stripes on the sacks of food aid you sent to Ethiopia - but this is disaster relief, not an economically viable long term system.

re fuel - you may well have a point. Better still is for people to stop driving so much and use public transport. It could be done in a small country like this, but too many folk view cars as extensions of their egos.

Clodhopper;850652 wrote: Hoppy: Yes indeed! I remember seeing the stars and stripes on the sacks of food aid you sent to Ethiopia - but this is disaster relief, not an economically viable long term system.

re fuel - you may well have a point. Better still is for people to stop driving so much and use public transport. It could be done in a small country like this, but too many folk view cars as extensions of their egos.


Trouble is, our government took a decision that the public transport system is about making a profit rather than providing an alternative to private cars.

That was in the early sixties and successive governments have not changed that policy in the slightest.

Until there is a viable, economic, integrated rail and bus system, people will continue to use cars.

Bryn Mawr;850671 wrote: Trouble is, our government took a decision that the public transport system is about making a profit rather than providing an alternative to private cars.

That was in the early sixties and successive governments have not changed that policy in the slightest.

Until there is a viable, economic, integrated rail and bus system, people will continue to use cars.


Yup. If you live in the country you don't really have a choice. Some places insist that the terms of the bus operating licence mean outlying villages must have a service, but I have the impression that the bus companies actually set out to make that service as unusable as possible.

Living on the edge of London, I must admit I don't really miss the car.

Clodhopper;850682 wrote: Yup. If you live in the country you don't really have a choice. Some places insist that the terms of the bus operating licence mean outlying villages must have a service, but I have the impression that the bus companies actually set out to make that service as unusable as possible.

Living on the edge of London, I must admit I don't really miss the car.


Certainly when in London I walk or tube but London's a different world.

Consider getting to our office in Newcastle. By train it's £210 and takes four hours, by air it's £85 and takes fifty minutes.

Consider my ninety one year old mother in law's shopping trip. Walk a mile and a half to the main road for the only bus of the day to go into town then have to wait five hours for the only bus back and carry all of her shopping a mile and a half back home - it ain't going to happen.

Consider my weekly commute. I can come down Sunday night and then wait until 19:30 on a Thursday to go home and pay £50, or I can come down Monday morning and go home at 16:00 on Thursday when I finish work but that costs me £100 or I can drive for £25.

Until the train fare is less than the cost of driving then the added inconvenience of walk to the bus stop in the middle of the village, bus into town, walk to the train station, wait for the train, train to London, walk to the tube, tube to the East End, walk to the flat - total two hours forty five door to door for a hundred mile trip is going to drive a lot of people onto the road.

I no longer own a car either. I do, however, own a three wheeled bike, or trike. Problem is, my town is very hilly. That means I must walk about half way everywhere I go. Walking for me is difficult these days.

One thing that makes me irate is seeing some of the richest, black farmland in the state used for low income housing, a soccer complex and a little league complex. Toss in a few industrial sites and highways through it and many, many acres of very high producing land is gone forever. Marginal lane could easily have been used for these purposes. Pure waste.

Just a couple of points.

1. The US is already the worlds largest donor of food aid, much of it going to countries that you would not perhaps suspect, so lay off the yanks.

2. There are several specific problems with biofuels, particularly ones being made from corn, maize, and palm oil; however there are many forms of biofuel stock crops available such as Sugar Cane, Jatropha, Sugar Beet, Miscanthus, Oil Seed Rape, etc etc. This is a complicated scenario and its going to take several more years of research to get it right, (I know about it because I am involved in this research). There are problems with biofuels, and I think certainly that the current ways in which many of them are being produced will be changed to different crops and different localities in order to maximize the best amount of arable land for food crops, which after all are also becomming more lucrative again providing a big impetus to farmers to grow them. But we need to get fuel from somewhere, and it needs to be carbon neutral, Biofuels are not the panacea, but they are part of the medium term answer along with renewables, energy efficiency, changing transport systems, and yes Nuclear power.

3. The main problems again are climate change and the disruption to agriculture, the booming populations in countries that are ill equipped to feed all these people, and the unsustainable food consumption habits of human beings. We cannot simply use all the earths land resources to grow food, the earth also has forests, deserts, mountains, costal areas, tundra and wetlands, and there will always be large areas of the earth unsuited to food production, it would be folly to simply continue to allow the population to grow and grow, while the actual base from which we can feed everyone doesn't grow and there is only so much you can do with fertilizers and agricultural technology, and anyway, if every gain in productivity is simply wiped out by resulting in more hungry mouths to feed whats the point?.

Its already happening where the indonesians are cutting down virgin rain forest to grow palm oil for biofuel, thats insanity. It all boils down to getting the fact home to people that we have to all as a species start living more sustainably or to put it simply the agricultural and economic systems we have now will come under such pressures from climate change and overpopulation that they will collapse and a lot of people will quite simply starve.