<Koppelaar: Peak Oil, Separating Facts from FictionThe Oil DrumDrumBeat: October 27, 2006>
<DrumBeat: October 25, 2006DrumBeatDrumBeat: October 27, 2006>

142 comments on DrumBeat: October 26, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PeakEngineer on October 26, 2006 - 9:36am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
I don't want to make this my pet issue, but the following paragraphs in the last article caught my attention:


He and others predicted that some sectors could be hurt by the growing industry. Corn production may take cropland from soybeans, for instance, making soy products more costly. Higher corn prices, driven up by demand from ethanol plants, could increase costs for many livestock feeders.

"The intersection of agriculture and energy is going to be a disruptive event," said David Miller, director of research and commodity services for the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation. That "can be good or bad, but it is going to be disruptive."

Biofuels will and are competing for food.  It's obvious, inevitable, and worrisome -- and even when it's mentioned in mainstream articles like this one, the serious implications are glossed-over.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on October 26, 2006 - 9:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yup.  That article is from the DesMoines Register. Lot of farmers read that paper.  Anyone who knows anything about agriculture knows that fuel vs. food is very real.  

But I don't expect the average American to get worked up over it, until they're the ones priced out.  As it is, we import luxury foods from countries that cannot feed their own people. If we don't care that our chocolate is grown by child slaves who can never dream of tasting the crop they grow, why should we care if the ethanol in our car is grown by people who should be growing food for themselves rather than fuel for us?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakEngineer on October 26, 2006 - 9:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm originally from Iowa, and as I recall the DMR typically leans fairly conservative, so I suppose it's progress that they even mention the issue.  For farmers, though, none of this news is bad -- crop prices will increase substantially whether it's grown for food or fuel.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NC on October 26, 2006 - 10:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
PeakEngineer,

You are correct on the benefits to farmers.

I live in Iowa, have been imployeed by a seed company in the past, currently work for an agricultural related business and attended the Growing the Bioeconomy Conference this year in Ames, Iowa.  Take special note of the talks given by Dr.'s Miranowski, Jolly, Wisner and Euken, all professors in agriculture economics.  They clearly show in their presentations that there will be a squeeze on the supply side of ag products when we build ethanol plants.

Farmers are at their wits end in getting paid a living wage for producing food.  Food is kept cheap in this country at the expense of the people who grow it.  Not every year granted, but over the long haul a few bad years can drive a farmer out of business.  They are backing anything that increases commodity grain and food prices.  

I disagree that people in Iowa do not understand the ramifications of using plants for fuel.  They understand very well and expect a balance to be achieved some time in the future for land being used for food, fuel or structural materials.  Currently it is only food.  When other countries have a good crop, farmers lose money or must get a subsidy (greater subsidy?) from the government.  Iowa farmers would rather have everyone pay them more but have the country spend less on imported oil and subsidies.  Most people in Iowa understand this as well.  Give the farming base more money and they will be better stewards of the land and spend more money locally, that translates into jobs.  With enough income in the state you get new business development making farm equipment, service jobs and maybe even a new industrial base making real physical goods other than farm equipment.

The harsh reality is if Iowa ships more finished goods and less raw food stocks, out of state, the state nets more income.  It is all about transfer of wealth.  Where is the wealth being generated vs where do we want it to be generated?  Right now there is a giant sucking sound of money going to oil companies and/or overseas.  This must end, either by design or after all the wealth is sucked out of the state and country.  And I am sure this means more food must be grown outside of Iowa but isn't that what the shop locally for food movement is all about?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
vtpeaknik on October 26, 2006 - 12:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Farmers don't make money growing food because they've been squeezed by the middleman (ADM, Cargill...).  What's to stop those corporations from doing the same to fuel crops?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MillMan on October 26, 2006 - 1:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That's what I'm wondering. Throw fuel producers into the mix and you've got more potential buyers to bid it up, but the overall number of potential buyers will still be low and look like an oligopoly.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on October 26, 2006 - 7:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
the truth?
absolutely positivly NOTHING will stop them short of the government breaking them.
pigs will get wings and fly before that happens.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on October 26, 2006 - 11:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A disruptive event is when I profit; a disaster is when I starve or pay much higher prices for my food.  So called disruptive technology that threatens our ability to have food at reasonable prices and contributes to world wide deficits in grain production is a bit more threatening than, say, the invention of the microchip.  They talk about "some sectors being hurt" but they don't talk about the most important sector, the ultimate consumer. They have a very narrow and scary view of the world.

Our agricultural, industrial system needs a disruptive event, but it is not the intersection between agriculture and energy. We already have said intersection with respect to all the massive inputs of energy to keep said system going. Energy saved is energy earned. I think it would be much more productive and good for the land if we rediscovered ways to use less energy in our agriculture rather than turn our agriculture into energy.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NC on October 26, 2006 - 11:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I disagree with your premise.

Historically (more than 150 years ago) almost everything of value came off of land.  As recently as the early 1900's many products were made from plants.  Pigments, paints, fibers, insulators, structural material, and on and on.  Furniture, dwellings, fabric are all made from plants even today.  Farmers grow more than just food and always have.  The problem is that oil has forced farmers to grow almost exclusively food because oil products substitute for everything they used to grow.  And I haven't even started on the animal products that are used for non food uses.  Oil makes many of these pure waste products, rather than the added value products of my Grandfathers day.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
airdale on October 26, 2006 - 3:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
NC,,,it was termed Food and Fiber. Older books by the USDA spoke of it that way. Food and Fiber.

I remember well the sheep we used to shear on the farm. The geese for feathers. Hemp needs to make a comeback.

I think if this country survives the meltdown then it has to come back else we won't have anymore plastic clothes.

I always did prefer cotton and wool. Let the wimmen go back to the ironing board and forget 'permament press'. Obligatory smiley and several LOL's so I don't get lambasted. Only kidding wimmen, only kidding!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on October 26, 2006 - 7:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
there were less people back then too.. billions less.
reduce the population enough and we can once again do the same but of course the required die-off is not what you want if you want to go back to that.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Halfin on October 26, 2006 - 11:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Food has always competed with other things. In a market economy, everything competes with everything. Most directly, food competes with housing for land; with cities for water; with everyone for energy, chemicals, all the commodities needed to grow, harvest, prepare and ship food. There's nothing new about the existence of competition and tradeoffs between food and other products in the world.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on October 28, 2006 - 3:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'll grant you that food competes with a whole host of things, but doesn't that pale in comparison with a use like ethanol which could swallow up our whole corn supply?  It has already been stated elsewhere that even using 19% of our supply it hasn't even been able to fulfill the increse in demand for our fuel. Therefore, the argument  that is has always competed sounnds to me like a non sequitur.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
72myz on October 31, 2006 - 9:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The entire USA industrial agro-oil industry is a mechanism to transfer hydrocarbons into carbohydrates while obesifying the USA population, impoverishing the taxpayers, and shafting photon to carb producers elsewhere.

In other words, it must be more profitable than selling the crude directly to refiners,

You can eliminate the feedlot cattle/cheezo subsidies now, or be forced to later.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.