The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: October 23, 2006

165 comments on DrumBeat: October 23, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

PeakEngineer on October 23, 2006 - 9:44am

Finally, it looks like solid evidence is coming in that demonstrates biofuels will compete for food. The idealistic viewpoint that "Oh, we would never let ourselves starve to get more fuel" is proven false. Perhaps we wouldn't let ourselves starve on a personal level, but by using ethanol in your car, you're putting the price of food out of reach of people poorer than you.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

joule on October 23, 2006 - 10:26am

The conflict between crops for food and crops for fuel is obvious and inevitable, regardless of claims to the contrary by people looking to make a buck on ethanol from corn.

I doubt this concerns Americans very much, as the unspoken principle seems to be that WE will never starve but THEY might. The rationale is the if there is no more US surplus grain available due to domestic ethanol production, then it is just a sign of the free market at work.

However, hungry people do have a way of getting extremely upleasant, and we can expect serious trouble if the leaders of poor Third World countries ues their limited food crops to make ethanol or biodiesel for sale to the US and Europe. This sort of thing conjures up the situation in Ireland during the mid-1900s, when rich landowners (many of whom were British) were exporting beef to England in the midst of the Irish potato famine. The Irish are still carrying a grudge over that one.

If we are going to be more and more heavily dependent on biofuels, then we had better establish some sort of biofuel strategic reserve to contend with the inevitable years of poor crop yield. Biodiesel could be stored in large tanks or in underground cavities. But as ethanol is difficult to store, it might be more practical to just build more large grain silos dedicated to ethanol production.

People in the US expect to both eat and drive. People in the Third Word may wind up doing neither.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PedalPusher on October 23, 2006 - 11:20am

I honestly don't see what the problem is with this for us Americans. It's not our fault is the citizens of other countries want to sell us their crops. What is this "let's blame America" attitude? They made the decision whether to use their crops for food, or sell them to us.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Supaluminal on October 23, 2006 - 12:08pm

I see this as a classic case of reality vs. perception. It isn't the fault of the western world that other people will sell their food crop for fuel, ignoring the potential for the western governments to introduce policies that might cause this. However, for the people on the ground in the third world, who likely do not have a say in who gets the food they grow, it doesn't matter who's fault it is. What matters is how they see the situation. Moreover, most humans have a bit of a selfish streak, especially when it comes to food, and in the long run, there is a lot of potential for trouble when people percieve others as living well while they starve.

Unfortunately this ties in with one of the great potential problems with PO, namely that how people see things will drive their decisions, whether those perceptions are right or wrong, which may not (or maybe more often than not) lead to the best outcome. These sorts of issues can scale to the local level as well.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on October 23, 2006 - 10:25pm

"Itisn't the fault of the western world that other people will sell their food crop for fuel..."

No it's never the fault of the powerful,greedy and amoral what happens to the weak. Powerful marketplayers are entitled to kill anyone they want.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

step back on October 24, 2006 - 4:16am

Powerful marketplayers are entitled to kill anyone they want ... and to call it preemptive "self defense"

Yes. That's the Golden Rule. (He with the gold makes the rules.)

While tooling around yesterday in my SUV looking for some $2.30 gasoline, I heard some right wing Harpie on the radio proclaim that America has the "best" democracy in the world. Then the fair-and-balanced Ronn Owens chimed in, "Yes, of course we do." (He is a popular talk show host out here in the San Francisco --Bay Area region who has rightish leanings but claims to be in the middle. He's basically the guy who says I supported George Bush 100% before I didn't support him totally now.) Sheesh.

Point is that many of my fellow Americans never heard of Parlimentary government. They are so deluded they actually think their button push on the Diebold voting machine counts. They religiously believe we Americans have the Bestest "democracy" in the world and it is our manifest destiny to spread its word around the globe and also the word of our true lord & savior, Adam Smith.

But then again, when our "elected" public officials go off and do a shock-and-awe thing on some 3rd world country, or bully them into selling us their crop for our fuel, we rationalize our responsibility away. We wash our hands of the whole messy affair. Hey it wasn't me. It wasn't me. I didn't go & ask all those dumbass 3rd world sub-humans to do foolish things, to sell their food to us and to starve themselves to death. The "blame" falls on "them". I am pure and clean as the Christmas snow. It wasn't me.

End of rant. (Note from me to me: What were you thinking dude? That's like narly irrational.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

phineas gage on October 23, 2006 - 1:29pm

But in a sense it is our fault as our gov't subsidize not only the end product (ethanol), but also the corn itself, which creates an artificial price against which a farmer in a thrid world country cannot compete. If we subsidize the ethanol eperiment to try to wean ourselves of oil, that might be OK (I doubt it'll work out that way, but that is a decent motivation), but if we continue to subsidize corn to support our automobile infrastructure as others starve bc/ we've economically funneled food from them to meet our energy "needs", that's unethical. Other nations have been grumbling for years at the WTO about Americas unfair farm/ food policies.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on October 23, 2006 - 3:14pm

BS. You need to give a deeper thought of what the words "globalization", "free market", "liberalisation", "privatisation", World Bank, IMF, WTF mean for the third world countries. They may call it free market but I call it neocolonialism.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

southpaw on October 24, 2006 - 1:22am

Speaking of globalization...

It looks like the second law of thermodynamics is kicking in and the wheels on the neoliberalization bandwagon are coming off.

Whether it is the idea of the unrestricted movement of goods and people! (despite the fact that humans are not "sentient pork bellies") or just the short-sighted policies of the WTO and the like, there seems to be a great unraveling taking place as nationalism and populism overtake globalism.

In today's news:

DISCONTENT SPREADING ACROSS EASTERN EUROPE

"Political life has fallen into disarray in Eastern Europe, and many are asking what has gone wrong in the 2 1/2 years since these former communist countries joined the European Union, expecting to reap the fruits of democracy and open markets.

Many experts say people are simply exhausted after years of economic sacrifices made to join the EU and NATO. They now lack the clear goals that drove them toward the West after the fall of communism in 1989.

And their discontent is mounting as the instant riches many believed would come from EU membership have failed to materialize."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2596817&page=1

Also, France is continuing to struggle with problems related to discontent immigrants.

FRENCH POLICE FACE 'PERMANENT INTIFADA'

"On a routine call, three unwitting police officers fell into a trap. A car darted out to block their path, and dozens of hooded youths surged out of the darkness to attack them with stones, bats and tear gas before fleeing. One officer was hospitalized.

The recent ambush was emblematic of what some officers say has become a near-perpetual and increasingly violent conflict between police and gangs in tough, largely immigrant French neighborhoods that were the scene of a three-week paroxysm of rioting last year."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061023/ap_on_re_eu/france_suburban_violence_4

A few years ago I read Amy Chua's book World on Fire and was taken aback at just how much of a powder keg many societies have become under globalization policies, particularly ethnic conflicts that seemed to underscore the unshakeable strength of tribalism - cultural and ethnic identities that are not easily blended into a neoliberal paradise.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TrueKaiser on October 24, 2006 - 4:13am

it isn't surprising to me to see the most ethnic/racial hatred in area's with the most integrated society's.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

step back on October 24, 2006 - 4:27am

Neoliberal?

I thought this was the height of neocontopian extremism. This was having our police enforcing the rights of our ownership society in a fair and balanced way. If those hoodlums can't get jobs, it's their "fault". Let them eat cake.

BTW, who is this Neo guy and why does he assault our non-negotable way of life?

Long live The Smith.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on October 24, 2006 - 9:59am

Speaking of Eastern Europe, I think that the West can blame nothing but themselves. After the collapse of the Soviet Union these countries were basically left to desintegrate. By using consultants and the power of international institutions the West actively pushed them in the direction of ruthless privatisation, abandoning of independant econominc policy, and finally reducing the state to a (not very good) police agent. The results are well known: without govt support the local industries basically vanished. Unemployment is very high and poverty is wide spread. There is a whole class of extremely riched people who got rich by scrapping off what was left from the previous industries.

In the end these countries are slowly turned into a source for cheap and highly qualified labor for the western companies which took over their markets - which I suppose was the initial intent anyway.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Valuethinker on October 24, 2006 - 8:44am

The thing about the 19th century classical liberal consensus was that it was promulgated by the British, who ran an Empire on the principle that they did the manufacturing and shipping, and their colonies produced the raw materials.

The US never bought into that: they ruthlessly protected new industries. Neither did the continentals: Germany and France in particular.

Classical liberalism is the preserve of the powerful.

There are undoubtedly huge gains to trade, but they don't serve the interests, necessarily, of creating a strong nation state.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on October 24, 2006 - 9:37am

Absolutely agreed with that. It is only enough to take a look at China and its state protected economy.

Somebody said that pure capitalism works well only when it is among equals. Otherwise it easily turns into robbery in the end.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mencial on October 23, 2006 - 3:16pm

The governments of rich countries, mostly USA and EU, have stunted griculture in poor countries by stopping rich people from buying poor people's produce with quotas and tariffs, but more importantly by subsidizing exports to the point where US rice is cheaper than local rice in African markets. This is very well known and has been brought to the attention of rich governments for a long time.

If now, suddenly, the rich countries reduce the amount and raise the prices of food for export, places where the food supply is already strained will suffer. The rich governments are completely responsible for this, as they created this situation and are fully aware of this.

Capitalism is only efficient and somewhat fair when between equals. The wealthy and the powerful will subvert the rules to their advantage, without even noticing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Syntec on October 23, 2006 - 6:44pm

We've covered this time and again with those from the ethanol echo chamber here Mencial, but they just don't seem to get it.

I challenge any Food vs. Fuel protagonist here (Airdale, Pedal and Telum in particular) to explain why the WTO Doha Conference collapsed if not as a direct result of 1st world protectionist trade policy as it relates to 3rd world agro economies.

Furthermore I challenge Airdale, Pedal and Telum to watch the movie 'Darwin's Nightmare' before posting anymore 3rd world mea culpas.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Samsara on October 23, 2006 - 10:11pm

"Capitalism is only efficient and somewhat fair when between equals. The wealthy and the powerful will subvert the rules to their advantage, without even noticing. "

That got me thinking about the big Seed Companies that do GM seeds. They got this thing that the 3rd world nations have to take the GM seeds. I think Iraq farmers are caught in this. They don't reproduce, after a short while the farmers have NO seed for next year unless they buy it.

Imagine something going wrong with one year's GM selection
(nudge nudge wink wink). Maybe a virus that only affects That certain variety of GM seed?

One year's harvest is gone for everyone who used that year's seed. Mass starvation of a whole country or region... Talking about having a monopoly on FOOD. Buy from us or you Don't eat...

Hey, maybe I'll sell the movie rights to that plot.

Any, do some googles for GM

Iraq's new patent law: A declaration of war against farmers

<SNIP>
When former Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) administrator L. Paul Bremer III left Baghdad after the so-called "transfer of sovereignty" in June 2004, he left behind the 100 orders he enacted as chief of the occupation authority in Iraq. Among them is Order 81 on "Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety." [1] This order amends Iraq's original patent law of 1970 and unless and until it is revised or repealed by a new Iraqi government, it now has the status and force of a binding law. [2] With important implications for farmers and the future of agriculture in Iraq, this order is yet another important component in the United States' attempts to radically transform Iraq's economy.

WHO GAINS?

For generations, small farmers in Iraq operated in an essentially unregulated, informal seed supply system. Farm-saved seed and the free innovation with and exchange of planting materials among farming communities has long been the basis of agricultural practice. This is now history. The CPA has made it illegal for Iraqi farmers to re-use seeds harvested from new varieties registered under the law. Iraqis may continue to use and save from their traditional seed stocks or what's left of them after the years of war and drought, but that is the not the agenda for reconstruction embedded in the ruling. The purpose of the law is to facilitate the establishment of a new seed market in Iraq, where transnational corporations can sell their seeds - genetically modified or not, which farmers would have to purchase afresh every single cropping season.
<SNIP>

http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=6

A couple others

http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/v12/1/gmo.html

http://www.countercurrents.org/en-sharma200703.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

airdale on October 24, 2006 - 9:25am

Samsara, It isn't because the seed is GMO or Non-GMO. Its because they are hybrids. Hybrids do not reproduce 'true to form'.

I haul GMO and some NON-GMO corn to the elevators. The NonGMO has a premium attached to it.

Myself I raise both hybrid sweet corn to eat and open pollen(non-hybrid) just in case. I eat one and save the seeds to the other.

Now as to Round Up Ready corn or soybeans. You can replant the soybeans but Monsanto finds you doing it and you get fined big time. I haven't checked this closely but take it on what I have been told.

No doubt though that Monsanto and other seed companies want a headlock on seed and they are getting it. Truth though is that they do produce very good genetics and it shows in the yeilds which are sometimes unbelievable.

Many varieties for many conditions. I think most big growers in S. America and elsewhere have already switched to the same seed we use domestically.

Funny thing is that the highest producing corn has the small ears and only one per stalk but the seeding population is very high and this must be the reason for the large yields.

It looks puny compared to the open pollen which can grow 12 feet high and have two huge ears per stalk.

All this being said. Like I said before. We are getting ready and already started to starving the rest of the world who can't feed themselves. I am not clapping my hands over this. I deplore it.

Yet not anyone on the right nor left is saying anything about it. I believe the left has a tendency to watch whose ox is being gored and acts accordingly.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Telumehtar on October 23, 2006 - 11:41am

This may sounds cold but the people of the third world are screwed when PO and its decline hit anyhow.

The people of the third world have in many regions built up populations that the land cannot sustain on its own. They've been permitted to build up to these levels by the influx of food from other sources. Our charity, and commerce with these regions has just escalated the cliff that these countries will jump from when they collapse.

It won't matter if we have 100s of tons of grain to send to these people in a PO world. The cost to ship this food will be so prohibitive that excess grain is a non-issue.

So since it will be prohibitive to send it to them anyway, the use of it as fuel is actually going to prevent waste. The grain would be burned or rot in the field otherwise. Or if we really wanted to lower waste, we would simply cut back on the amount we grow to just that of what our population requires.

The issue for Third World countries is not what can the US or EU or Russia send in terms of food... its how quickly and controlled can they bring their population levels down to a self-sustainable level. But since I doubt they realize the danger they are in, I expect their population levels to be decreased suddenly, and with virtually no control, bordering on chaos.

So please don't blame the US on this matter. The third world will self-correct itself once the outside influence of imported food is removed. Yes it will be ugly, tragic, and result in a lot of violence as mobs with food and weapons kill off those without, but then isn't that what we've been seeing already in several African nations?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PedalPusher on October 23, 2006 - 12:20pm

Yet we still see politicians and "movie stars" calling for even more aid for African nations. In Jim Rogers' books, he talked about seeing firsthand the horrible negative effects that Western "aid" does for African nations - it puts farmers and local merchants out of business because off all the foreign aid that gets sent to Africa. Thus, they have lost the skills and determination to take care of themselves and are now wholly dependent on foreign aid. The clothes that get donated as actually sold once they are offloaded and undercut the local merchants.

PO will force the people of Africa to become self-sufficient again and stop relying on Western foreign aid.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

roel on October 23, 2006 - 12:49pm

Thousands of Africans have died this year so far trying to reach Europe, while more have made it. Greece stands accused of throwing dozens overboard their ships in the Aegean Sea. Of course there are already millions who moved to Europe in the past decades, but it's starting to take the shape of an exodus.

It would be a mistake to believe the African misery will play out itself in Africa alone.

Just as the US-Mexico wall will not stop the South American destitute from coming here. At a certain point it boils down to the question how many of them you are prepared to shoot down.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Substrate on October 23, 2006 - 1:25pm

"...Of course there are already millions who moved to Europe in the past decades, but it's starting to take the shape of an exodus."

Overcrowded deathboat syndrome

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

step back on October 24, 2006 - 5:01am

Overcrowded deathboat syndrome ...

Ah God, yes.
Why my Compassionate Christian heart weeps for those wretched refugees of the world out there.

Sadly, they are the unwitting victims of Global Warming, of Globalized Free Trade and of the Fickled Flip Off of the Invisible Hand.

I got it.
Let's have a concert.
Let's gather in a circle and sing "Kumbaya". Let us sing, 'We Are The World'. Light some candles on the water.

I feel so much better now that I have cleansed my soul with a solid sing-a-thon.

BTW, God damn it. Where are the keys to my SUV? They're having a sale down at the mall and I don't want to miss it. Scented bath candles are marked down 50% --while supplies last. Sure hope there aren't any foreigners or towel-heads at the mall today to mess up its saintly ambience. I hate it when they pollute my pure world. Just cause they're having a bad day. Not my problem. Not my job. Hell. Am I my brother's keeper? Am I the world?

</sarcasm>

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on October 23, 2006 - 10:41pm

If self sufficiency is good for the Africans, how about the Americans? If China quits holding our debt, where will we get the wherewithal to buy all that oil. Perhaps someone should cut us loose as well. In the long run, it will be good for us.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Telumehtar on October 24, 2006 - 10:50am

I'm not arguing to cut anybody loose.

Rather I think a weening off the current paradigm would be good for a lot of countries in a lot of areas related to basics.

Countries being able to grow their own food and provide for themselves is a basic foundation in national security. If you are dependent upon another country for food, then that country can dictate your policy anytime they want.

Likewise for the US and oil. So long as we NEED that oil from the ME, they will have a strong influence on our policy decisions. The recent actions in Afganistan, Iraq, and most likely soon to be Iran I think pan this line of thought out.

If we were energy self-sufficient, we really could tell the rest of the world to bugger off, and we really could go off and bunker bust Iran on general principle alone without any of the conspiracy bull that this is about oil. But so long as oil is a factor there will always be doubt about the purity of our motives, and the impact of our actions.

Likewise if we could fully make ourselves energy independent, we could select based on idealistic, rather than resource dependent, those countries we choose to favor or not. For now, and for the pass 50 years we've been willing to accept working with Dictators despite it flying the in face of our values... we've been willing to work mass murderers, terrorists, and other anti-social aspects of humanity because our oil supply depended on it.

Getting the US off oil and onto a self-reliant energy source would give so much clout, power and flexibility to the US that it would set us up to remain the major force for the next century and oddly, I think it would give our diplomatic influence a HUGE boost, as countries who deal with us wouldn't be needing to worry whether or not we are just there for the oil anymore.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

joule on October 23, 2006 - 12:36pm

I now realize the error of my original comment re food vs fuel.

A massive increase in the use of former food crops for fuel will actually be a GOOD thing, because it will help depopulate the Third World of all the untermenschen and thus free up more lebensraum for us superior westerners.

Sorry I got it wrong.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Telumehtar on October 23, 2006 - 1:55pm

Joule get off your high horse and read my statement for what it is. A hard look at what awaits the third world, NOT a value judgement of the people living in it.

The implied holier than thou tone you react with is no way the matching the intention by which I was speaking and is instead your projection of an image (a false one at that) onto my statement. The value of lives in the third world is not being debated here. The impact that high energy costs, and the dependence upon which many third world nations have fallen under is what is being spoken of here.

The tables could be just as easily turned you know. Europe has an extremely dense population that will need to feed itself also. They have the breadbasket areas by which to do it, I think. But I don't believe they will have enough extra land to allow themselves to be fed and fueled. And if something goes wrong, (say a series of harsh winters, higher oceans which shrink the size of some these countries, and "pollute" fresh water reservoirs with brackish water) then Europe could very easily find itself in the same starvation scenario as Africa.

America will also have its own issues with food vs fuel production internally. The rate at which we consume arable land is alarming, and eventually through a combination of over-farming and potential effects of global warming, America might turn into a desert area unsuitable for sustaining 300 million people.

This type of problem is not only set in third world countries, BUT it will be third world countries that experience it first in my opinion.

But please, don't try to be holier than thou, when my addition to the topic was NOT talking about the moral ramifications of selecting people to live or die, but rather looking at the cold hard facts and logic regarding the plight that faces Africa and much of the third world, and even parts of the First and "second" world.

The third world is the canary in the mine shaft Joule. They are the warning bells that something is not right. And what is ultimately the fate of mankind if we go into collapse will most likely be played out in the third world before its played out elsewhere. That's not a judgement statement... that is an impact assessment of what will be effected first when our systems start to fail.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

pstarr on October 23, 2006 - 11:24pm

sure. But your high-minded 'objectivity' certainly does not get us off the hook. That Africa is a victim of 500 years of colonialisation is not mollified by a mere 30 years of "independence".

You clearly implied the Africans fault for no infrastructure, no education, and basic abandonmnent by its former colonial masters to convienient warlords and corporate slaves willing to sell off resources and the people.

Africa will fall and so will the poor and eventually the middle class in our own corrupt societies regardless of academic justification.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on October 23, 2006 - 11:48pm

Good Lord pstarr you seem to think History matters.
How un-American.
Well, that makes 2 of us here but don't expect anyone hears you

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Telumehtar on October 24, 2006 - 11:05am

And umm when was America one of those Colonial Masters?

The statement I take issue is the all too quick to blame America for Africa's woes. I believe it was the Europeans who abandoned their responsibility to those nations. They left those colonies upended and in disarray. Not the Americans.

But when do you hear the blame being cast at the Europeans? No its American corporate greed that is at fault. Nevermind the European and Asian corporations who do the same kinds operations in their former colonies.

And ultimately, the warlords and corporate slaves of the African nations are to blame also. They've betrayed their people for riches. Their previlege I guess, its their land and their people right, but damn America for accepting the offers of those traitors, and oh yeah.. give a pass to those European and Asian corporations.

There appears to me to be plenty of blame to spread around, to just about all involved. So when I say don't blame the US, perhaps what I should say is don't blame the US alone singularly. The Europeans, the Asians, the Americans, and even the Africans themselves all are part and parcel to this game we are playing.

But hey... We can't be disparaging anyone besides the US, right?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

cynus on October 23, 2006 - 3:21pm

This is my invasive species theory of modern medicine. Naturally predators and prey evolve side by side in an ecosystem and slowly. Usually, any advantage one gains can be adapted to by the other. Therefore, in a stable ecosystem polulations of predators and prey remain stable. When an invasive species enters an ecosystem, if it has no predators the population of the species will explode since the existing species will have no defenses to the newcomer.
For thousands of years Africa and Asia had a stable population. Women might have had 8 kids, but with the high mortality rates, population remained stable. In the west, medicine developed gradually, allowing society time to adjust to the expectation that more children would survive, and so people had fewer children and population has become stable even with the greater expectaion that children will survive. However, when modern medicine is introduced overnight to a culture that has not had time to adjust to the expectation of higher survival probability, and they continue to value large families, just like introducing an invasive species that has no local predators, rapid population explosion is the norm.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 23, 2006 - 4:41pm

I think JD had several reports showing how its actually fairly cheap to ship things via ships even when prices escalate. Right now, it cost something like $0.005 a pound to ship somthing from China to the US.

You would have to have a major price increase on oil to hurt those margins :P

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jkissing on October 23, 2006 - 4:49pm

Right in principle, wrong specifically. It costs about $2000 to ship a 40000 lb (max) container round trip, so about $.05/lb. Many containers are too lightweight to take full advantage of the weight limit, about 60.5lb/ft3, or water density, so actual /lb costs are usually higher. Your number might be right for bulk cargoes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tgrdrgnphnx on October 23, 2006 - 5:18pm

I agree with you, jkissing, but one thing not being examined is the friction costs. Those crops are not being grown on the coasts as much as the Heartland. Add another 600 to 700 dollars to the cost of every 45,000 pounds transported over land, maybe 350 to 400 if rail is feasable in any scenario. Hoth baby, your posts always mention data but never show any. Sack up and let us see your "mystery" data, either that or send us pictures of Hitler's brain. And by the way i use to work for the DOT, I know transportation tariffs and costs.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 23, 2006 - 10:48pm

Thats not my own research, I was quoting something that I read from Peak Oil Debunked. You can follow some of the other links where he talks about how much it costs to ship food worldwide. And since most of the population is located near the coasts...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

pstarr on October 23, 2006 - 11:26pm

trust nothing there

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 23, 2006 - 11:40pm

LOL, care to explain why?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hurin on October 24, 2006 - 4:22am

JD's speciality is/was to launch personal attacks on people disagreed with.

Outright lies and manipulation

Absurd claims

And in general being retarded concerning basic economics and science

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 24, 2006 - 10:24am

LOL. So pointing out the obvious makes someone an outright liar, someone who deals in personal attacks and uses junk science thats based on information from reputable sources? Man this just gets better and better :P

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rethin on October 24, 2006 - 12:01am

You quote very poorly Hothgor.

From your linked article.

Doing the calculations, and assuming a conservative rating of 17,500kg per container, I come up with $.04/pound.

yet you said

Right now, it cost something like $0.005 a pound to ship somthing from China to the US.

You're off by an order of magnitude.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 24, 2006 - 12:15am

Notice I said 'I think that'. As I already said, I was just going off of memory, seeing how that particular thread is several months old!!! And I really did mean to type $0.05 a pound, due to $60 a barrel as opposed to his rounded down $0.04 for $55 :/ BTW: still waiting to hear why that site cant be trusted :P

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rethin on October 24, 2006 - 12:38am

Try to be a little more accurate with your numbers. It will make your comments much more believable. ie. don't post numbers you vaguely remember from a a several months old thread. The search function on this site is quite good. Try it.
When you do cite a resource double check it doesn't invalidate the point you are trying to make. This again goes to believability. But at least this time you attempted to source yourself. Kudos.
I didn't comment of the validity of that site. Perhaps pstarr might have something to add.

4.

Notice I said 'I think that'. As I already said, I was just going off of memory, seeing how that particular thread is several months old!!!

but you said:

Thats not my own research, I was quoting something that I read from Peak Oil Debunked.

Which was it? Were you recalling an old thread or were you quoting Peak oil Debunked?
Try to be self consistent at least within the same thread. This again goes to believability.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rethin on October 24, 2006 - 12:46am

Let me correct my self. I misunderstood you post a bit.

I thought you were recalling a TOD thread from several months ago. It seems you were recalling a Peak Oil Debunked article from several months ago. So my comment about using this sites search feature was a bit off. Please replace that with google's search function.

My Bad

But the question still remains. Which one is it?

Did you incorrectly recall an old number?
Did you make a typo after you re-read the article and tried to revise the authors number for 60$/barrel oil?

Again self consistancy. Pick a lie and stick with one. Or better yet, stop lying.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 24, 2006 - 12:55am

I mistyped 0.05 'the revised number for higher oil' and instead typed 0.005. Please, nail me to the cross and crucify me now!! :P BTW: I did a ton of 'research' on my EV energy usage viablity rant a few threads down, and strangely enough, I silenced every critic of a nationwide fleet of EVs. It's a shame I didnt see you there!!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rethin on October 24, 2006 - 1:03am

You said you misrembered the number from an old thread.
You also said (in the very next sentance) you made a revision mistake when quoting a source.

I am mearly making the point that if you want people to take you seriously you have to be more believable.

Contradicting yourself from one sentance to the next (lying) doesn not lead to believability.

Nor does begin inaccurate with numbers that are pivital to the point you are trying to make. $0.05 vs $0.005 are off by a signifigant degree whatever the source of the error.

BTW I read that thread about EV energy usage. Seems to me just about everybody was quite sure you made a mistake estimating the energy requirements. But that's outside my expertise so I can't really comment on it.

PS You can't "revise" something when you are trying to "quote" someting. Again it goes to believability.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rethin on October 24, 2006 - 1:05am

And yes
1. Misremembering an old number
and
2. Making a revision error on a cited source

are mutually exclusive. Its one or the other, you can't have done both.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 24, 2006 - 1:13am

Dude, how hard it is to understand?

I was typing a fairly quick response to a post.
I remember reading the average price/pound to ship an item from POD
I quote the price I think it was, including the revised amount for slightly higher oil prices, but have a typo by adding a single 0.
Someone responds with an ultra witty comment asking for a source.
I link the source, and again state I was working off memory.
You post and act like a condescending asshole stating that everything I said was a lie and I should stop trying to cover it up with another lie.
I explain that it was a simple mistake
You retort again about how I lied, and state that I should check my own posts for consistency.
You ninja respond admitting your own mistake, and then bash me more for making a simple mistake.
Present...'LOL'

Honestly man, is it that impossible to believe that someone could make a mistake in typing $0.05 and accidentally type $0.005? People say I resort to personal attacks but damn man, you take the cake completely!!

FWIW: More people agreed with my price calculations then disagreed. GG finally developed an ounce of common sense when I posted the figures without factoring in efficiencies and gave up. If an amateur like me could do the math, what is stopping you from doing so? I'm more then willing to have a debate on the matter with you, though I bet your not up to the challenge ~_~

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rethin on October 24, 2006 - 1:23am

Wait I get it!

You made a typo of a revised figure from a quote that you cited that you couldn't recall correctly.

Tell me again why anyone shoule take what you say seriously?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 24, 2006 - 1:28am

I thought I'd get this response in before you ninja respond yourself!!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rethin on October 24, 2006 - 1:42am

Hothgor, why are you here? What are you trying to accomplish on this board?

It apperantly isn't to learn. You are a self admitted amerature trying to slay giants. Why?

I came here to learn. Hence I post very little. There are some very knowledgeable people on this board with much to offer. What would be the point of trying to argue with them? It would defeat the whole purpose of coming to this board.

Do I believe everything I read? No, not really. But I try to ask questions instead of challenging people.

For example, instead of attacking people on EV energy requirments, why don't you ask them to explain their reasoning first? Then ask them why that doesn't square with the number you "researched." I gurantee you it will be much more productive.

My goal with our exchanges is not to defame you. But in your case I have something to offer. That is advice on citing your sources, credibility of sources, and just plain presenting yourself in a believable way.

I didn't say you lied about $0.05 vs $0.005 per pound of shipping. I said being inaccurate with numbers undercuts you credibility.
I said you lied when explaining the wrong figures. But maybe I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I think now that in your mind it is perfectly acceptable to simutanously

recall a 6 month old figure from memory
revise it
Claim you were quoting the author.

So if conditions 1, 2 and 3 were all met than you sir were not lying. I appologize.

However I regret to inform you that you can not do that and remain credible.

Take the time to make your figures accurate. Its important.
You can't revise a quote, especially one from memory and call it "quoting."
When yo cite yourself, and you source contradicts you and back ups the post you arguing against, aknowledge it. If a reader has to read your source material to double check your own figures, it undercuts you credibility.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 24, 2006 - 1:30am

And then one up your double response by pointing out the fact that you are spending so much time bashing me when apparently no one takes me seriously at all. Have that much time on your hands? Or am I rubbing some people the wrong way with an in your face anti-doomerism response in your otherwise collective sea of tranquility involving how TOD readers are all knowing, the rest of the analyst are wrong, and we-know-everything-pat-on-the-back-bump responses!!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SelfAggrandizedTrader on October 24, 2006 - 1:47am

http://peaceisthewayglobalcommunity.org/Videos/Peacemaker_Large.mov

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on October 24, 2006 - 2:55am

I looked at the thread on EV energy use, saw your error and decided not to comment since 1) others were doing so and 2) you did not seem to be (my impression) in search of the truth but looking for ammunition to support a predetermined position.

I am not a doomer per se for reasons that I have stated, and devote my time and efforts to partial solutions. Other than eric blair, I am not the subject of personal attacks.

I recently had a guest article posted and my original proposals; about electrifying freight railroads and building much more Urban Rail and electric trolley buses is now generally accepted as part of a solution. I will be moderating a Saturday workshop on Mitigation of Peak Oil at the Boston Peak Oil conference.

I am quite careful with by numbers, explain my reasoning, give links and justify when asked to whatever level of detail is needed. When my data gets thin, I admit it (1 significant digit is all some data has).

TOD is a unique blog in several ways. Courtesy is reciprocated, facts and data rule, differing opinions are respected IF based upon solid evidence.

You did not "silence the critics", you convinced no one that I noticed. Please accept my advice to not lead with an emotional based, rather than fact based conclusion and then creating data to support that conclusion.

I can follow the logic thread that doomers have and cannot say that it is certainly wrong. I can point to paths away from doom and how to reach them, and they cannot say that I am certainly wrong. We can coolly and logically discuss the delta between these paths, with respect on both sides.

I put some real work and original analysis into this because it is important ! If you cannot do so, lower your goals. Work on a single ray of sunshine and what it might do to mitigate Peak Oil. You cannot come in here with misremembered data and supposition and faulty analysis & calculations and change the emerging consensus.

Post less, think more, work more, more facts, fewer conclusions !

And yes, I do sign my posts,

Best Hopes,

Alan Drake

Just updated my 10% reduction of Oil Use Plan

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 24, 2006 - 10:23am

How does it go? What do people use against me?

"If you have all these 'facts' to debunk the argument, why dont you back it up with your links and mathematical analysis!!"

Oh the irony of it all!! But please, return and show me your facts!! I'm sure even the DoE, whom I took my information directly from, would love to know how they are also wrong :P

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on October 25, 2006 - 3:40am

Hothgor wrote in quotes

"If you have all these 'facts' to debunk the argument, why dont you back it up with your links and mathematical analysis!!"

Despite the indentation, he was not responding to my advice to him, So I first looked manually and could not see what he was responding too.

I then did a string search on "debunk the argument, w" and found nothing in this thread but him.

Hothgar appears to have erected a straw man and then attacked, using a reference to authority (per earlier analysis he misunderstood or mis-used some stats).

I gave him some decent advice and he ignored it. I will not waste further time on him.

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 25, 2006 - 10:25am

Translation: On principle, Hothgor's argument that switching our entire gasoline consumption to its energy equivalent with electricity is a viable alternative and I can find no fault with his analysis of the situation. So, I shall now attack him instead, as I can not attack the cold hard truth that faces all of us on the direction automobiles will go in the future.

I'm loving it btw!!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 25, 2006 - 10:26am

Go here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on October 25, 2006 - 1:03pm

"Transfering our entire gasoline consumption to its energy equivalent with electricity is a viable alternative"

That goal, as stated, is nonsensical. EVs have different energy consumption patterns than gasoline alternatives. The number of kWh to replace 1 gallon of gasoline is a similar size EV (not weight, due to batteries) varies considerably between stop & go driving vs. freeway driving.

And battery storage losses & electric motor efficiency + energy losses carrying a heavy battery around do not = gasoline ICE losses.

So energy equilavancy is a nonsensical goal.

Are EV Hummers (TERRIBLE aerodynamics, grossly overweight for their role) a desireable goal ?

I am against a 1:1 replacement of gasoline pax-miles by EV pax-miles, even in smaller cars. Such a replacement will create a new problem in a generation, as other energy sources deplete and will dramatically slow even minimal progress on Global Warming.

Of the 25 million b.day of oil that Americans use, a bit less than 9 million are used in personal cars, the sole focus of Hothgar's goals. That leaves a massive problem untouched.

I prefer massive investments in Urban Rail & electrifing our freight railroads. Get large to massive increases in overall energy efficiency (20:1 improvements are doable) which can reduce GW impacts faster and are sustainable for many generations. Oil for lubricants ! :-) 3% or 4% of US electricity for transportation (plus bikes & shoe leather, good for obesity & diabetes) is doable with more conservation and renewables, primarily wind.

BTW, I will not respond to Hothgar for a few days/weeks. I have better uses of my time in Boston and back home.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on October 26, 2006 - 1:26am

Yes, I'm SURE you wont respond to me for the next few days/weeks laugh

BTW: You need to get your own facts right. For starteres, the US consumes on average only about 21 million bpd, not 25. Of course, I wont be a prick like you and hold that against you, as I am sure it was just a simple typo or a quotation by memory rolls eyes.

Secondly, ~10 million bpd is almost HALF our current usage of all oil in the country. Are you honestly suggesting that eliminating 45% of our oil consumption is a non-starter for dealing with peak oil? Call me crazy, but that just seems moronic.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rethin on October 25, 2006 - 12:02pm

Hothgar appears to have erected a straw man and then attacked, using a reference to authority (per earlier analysis he misunderstood or mis-used some stats).

Yeah, I noticed this too.
I couldn't find the source of it either.

Who is he quoting?

Hothgor who are you quoting?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Valuethinker on October 24, 2006 - 8:51am

The size and the amounts are so trivial, relative to total world trade, that this argument doesn't stack up.

2 billion people at 1 kilo of grain per person per day is 1m tonnes. 365m tonnes per annum. 18,250 ship loads at 20k tonnes pa (I am conflating tonnes displacement with weight, which is wrong, in that calculation).

Double that for the barges to get it to the ports, and the trains and trucks to get it to the people in Africa and other places.

Starvation is almost always not the consequence of an absolute shortage of food, but an inability by the poorest to pay for that food.

This was true in Ireland in the 1830s, and in India in the 1870s (the local British governor established a food ration that was lower than prisoners were allocated in the Nazi concentration camps). And again in 1943 in Bengal.

There's enough food in the world, and even with a bad harvest there is enough food-- but we will tend to feed cattle and other livestock, over African farmers.

If there are mass starvations in the future, it is a consequence of our own inaction, rather than the insufficiency of resource per se.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JN2 on October 24, 2006 - 11:18am

Exactly. Food was being shipped to England during both the Irish and Indian famines. So it wasn't lack of locally grown food, more a lack of (economic) demand.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

airdale on October 23, 2006 - 2:46pm

I spoke on this issue a few Drumbeats ago when I stated that
we (the USA) have now embarked on what will start to starve 3rd world countries and others when we start up the many ethanol plants and begin to divert our grain to fuel energy.

We know that will happen and no one speaks about it.

When all those hungry people start looking for a scapegoat we will , and rightly so, be it.

They will go beserk , of course some will just roll over and starve to death but many will surely join the terrrorists ranks and take the fight right to us. IMO of course,as always.

Right now spot corn is hitting about $3.30 or so. Lots of corn to go to mkt yet it appears farmers are starting to do on farm storage since many got burned on the early $2.20 corn and made contracts. They now begin to sense blood in the water and are naturally going to store what they can.

Besides some elevators are charging $.40 / bushel for fees, or so I was told by a trucker for a huge intermediate elevator. He has to empty his elevators but refuses to pay the $.40 so now hauls it all elsewhere.

This mkt is likely to go crazy. Soybeans and wheat are and have been surging.

With the outlook of ethanol ...I can only say ..someone is going to die, maybe huge numbers. How can they afford high fuel costs and now added to that food costs?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PedalPusher on October 23, 2006 - 3:04pm

This still doesn't put blame on the US. Each country needs to take care of their citizens first, then export their surplus to other countries. How is it our fault if the leaders of 3rd world countries choose to starve their own people by selling their grains to the US?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on October 23, 2006 - 3:15pm

Ask Hugo Chavez. We support those who are friendly to our interests, and work against those who are not.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

optimist on October 23, 2006 - 4:42pm

uh, because we force them to do it at gunpoint? just like we've forced them to take our grains instead of growing their own, again at gunpoint, for the past 50 years?

just a wild guess here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ImSceptical on October 23, 2006 - 6:08pm

NO, moron, by subsidizing the grain for export so that it undercuts the local price. Not quite the point of a gun, but close. Also, I've read that subsistence farmers in Mexico are being undercut on price because of NAFTA forcing the opening of Mexico's corn agricultural market to subsidized; so they leave their land and head for the border.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Telumehtar on October 23, 2006 - 3:24pm

Airdale excess grain is a moot issue when talking about the Third World in a PO context.

When PO hits, and energy costs skyrocket, the cost for shipping grain will kill the Third World. It won't be for lack of food, it will be for lack of way to MOVE FOOD.

They might go batty-ape-shit in the third world when the food stops coming, and they can blame the US or whoever all they want. But that won't change the fact that it will simply be uneconomical to move food for the types of distances we are able to today.

We will very likely have excess food to do whatever we please with it LOCALLY. To send it abroad however will simply become unfeasible.

Part of "powerdown" in a post-peak world means regions of the world that have higher populations than the local environment can support will vanish. That most likely means unpleasant death via starvation, disease, and ultimately war. Rwanda, and Sudan, and the stuff we've seen in the last 20 years in Africa will become the norm once ENERGY becomes the limiting factor to our ability to MOVE food, not the ability to the grow the food itself (though energy plays a huge role in that too).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on October 23, 2006 - 4:04pm

Shipping today is extremely fuel efficient. Several thousands miles of ocean = 100 miles by truck. Not good for inland 3rd World areas, but coasts can be supplied.

4 to 7 masted sailing ships were able to compete economically will coal powered ships until 1920s/30s. They can again for cargoes that are not time sensitive like food.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Telumehtar on October 23, 2006 - 4:17pm

If that infrastructure on the interior of the US is in place once PO happens then that would change the picture some agreed.

But that isn't the world we live in at the moment, (perhaps someday though). But with Big trucking out there, I don't think that rail stands much of a chance until trucking begins to fail economically in a big sort of way due to PO. Once that occurs however rail, and barges should move in for the kill.

But shipping in the US only solves half of the problem. There is still the other half of distribution with your Third World country of choice. Many of those areas rely on trucks themselves, and unlike the US which I think could feasibly survive an economic shock with enough momentum left to implement good rail, and mass transit/shipping, I kind of doubt most of the Third World will be able to.

The other problem for the Third World(and ultimately all of us, though like I said the third world will feel it first) is that we have several resource problems converging at the same time.

There is Peak Oil/gas, along with Water, mineral, and arable land depletion. The main reservation I have with Bio-fuels isn't the food vs fuel problem. I think ultimately its going to prove futile because without petro based products we don't have the surplus of food we enjoy without, which means using what's there for fuel is stupid to say the least because we will need as much as we have for feeding ourselves, let alone anyone else.

Ethanol is a doomed technology for mass appeal because the inputs required to make it are more valuable in other forms.

Course I could be wrong... oil has many other more important uses than to be burned but that doesn't stop us now does it?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ET on October 24, 2006 - 12:32am

Shipping may be fuel efficient but in an extended age of extreme energy prices not only the fuel for shipping will be high but the cost of the ship, food for the crew, wages for the crew, maintenance for the ship and all its supporting land-based infrastructure. Considering only the fuel is missing the boat :-/

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on October 23, 2006 - 4:24pm

Joule wrote:

This sort of thing conjures up the situation in Ireland during the mid-1900s, when rich landowners (many of whom were British) were exporting beef to England in the midst of the Irish potato famine.

Good analogy, wrong century. The Irish Potato Famine began in 1845.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

joule on October 23, 2006 - 7:20pm

Yes, it was merely a typo, the result of typing too fast. and not carefully editing it before posting.

I am WELL aware that the Irish potato famine was during the mid-1800s, and not the mid-1900s.

Haste makes waste.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Syntec on October 23, 2006 - 6:26pm

Peak Engineer - feel free to point out the so-called 'solid evidence' coming in that demonstrates biofuels will compete with food cause this article sure ain't it.

Food vs. Fuel is a myth and I don't how many times I'm going to have to spell that out for you.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.