You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
US, EU must cut back on biofuels: UN
2008-05-06
All our fault, of course. Couldn't be that a big chunk of the world is incapable of settling down to grow food themselves.
BRUSSELS - The United States and Europe should cut back on production of biofuels because they are hurting food supply at a time of rising prices, an adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Monday. Biofuels derived from crops have come under attack in recent weeks on fears they compete with food for farming land and help to push up food prices, worsening a global crisis that is affecting millions of poor.

"We need to cut back significantly on our biofuels programmes," said Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent U.S. academic who is a special adviser to Ban on anti-poverty goals. "(They) were understandable at a time of much lower food prices and larger food stocks but do not make sense now in a global food scarcity condition," Sachs told a news conference.

"In the United States as much as one third of maize crop this year will go to gas tank. This is a huge blow to the world food supply," Sachs said before talks in Brussels with EU lawmakers.
Posted by:Steve White

#20  Ah another phony baloney environmentally sensitive alternate fuel bites the dust.

Everyone forgot to do the math that it takes more BTU's of fossil fuel to distill ethanol than the ethanol produces.

When the environmental wackos get over their pathology about nuclear power, we'll have some rational energy policies AND we'll be much less dependent on oil for power.

The law of unintended consequences always gets the goof ball enviro groups that seem to find some miracle cure for oil in about every looney idea that comes along.

I wonder how many of these nimrods wears a tin foil hat to bed.
Posted by: Ebbatle Protector of the Leprechauns7911   2008-05-06 22:27  

#19  I read just today that the Cyclone has destroyed about 1/4 of the world's rice crop, just how are we responsible for God's wrath?

And since when is the UN involved in the USA's crops? Go tend the third world you so love to reap(Sorry Rape)
What, nothing left to steal? tough shit.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-05-06 21:18  

#18  Abu, only if they are green.
Posted by: Rambler in California   2008-05-06 18:52  

#17  Maybe a program distributing free condoms to third worlders will help, Ban Ki?

Dunno for sure but I'd guess that condoms are unislamic.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2008-05-06 17:33  

#16  darrell you left out he's director of the Earth Institute.
Posted by: Beavis   2008-05-06 16:32  

#15  U.N. adviser Jeffrey Sachs "is an American economist known for his work as an economic advisor to governments in Latin America, Eastern Europe, the former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

With a resume like that, it's amazing he can even find work at all. I guess the U.N. was the best he could do.
Posted by: Darrell   2008-05-06 16:16  

#14  Iowa corn farmers are supposed to stockpile corn just in case there's a poor rice harvest in southeast asia or a poor wheat harvest in central asia? I think not. As usual, the world has problems and they're all our fault.

Just the other day we found out that the U.N. food program was begging for money while sitting on top of 1.2 billion dollars. Let's tell the hungry people about that instead.

We also recently learned that Africa is producing less food than in colonial times. Maybe the U.N. needs to relocate to Africa and give Africa its advice.

Posted by: Darrell   2008-05-06 16:08  

#13  The United States and Europe should cut back on production of biofuels because they are hurting food supply at a time of rising prices, an adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Monday.

Damn, guys, these banquet prices are killing us! We've even had to dip into the hooker money for crissakes!
Posted by: tu3031   2008-05-06 12:47  

#12  wxjames, in a word, no. If I thought feeding them would do any good, I would. It won't. It prolongs their misery and just makes us feel good. Most of these people are victims of their governments and holy men. Until they are willing to help themselves, I see no value in continuing to support them. Further, there have been too many scenes of western bodies being drug through the streets to the amusement of celebrating throngs of ghouls for me to feel much pity for these peoples. For people like the Somalis or the Palestinians, what good will sending more food do except feed our enemies?
Posted by: RWV   2008-05-06 12:12  

#11  Forcing the world to pay the same as we pay for food would indeed effect the populations of poorer countries. This would be a good thing. There is no practicle need for rising populations, rather, earth would be better off with fewer people. So, remove all food subsidies and let the procreating level off.

But all those people will starve, don't you care ?

I care. If the world population continues to grow, we all starve. Don't you care ?
Posted by: wxjames   2008-05-06 12:03  

#10  Mr. Moondog, go f**k yourself. We'll handle these big decisions ourselves. You just keep your toenails trimmed, that's all you can handle. And, McCain, alone, is strongly for an agressive buidup of nuclear power here. Way, waay past time.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700   2008-05-06 10:57  

#9  The UN has no business telling the US, or any country for that matter, what it should do with the food it grows. If we prefer to shift our foodstocks into countering our dependence on foreign oil and the despots of the world, screw them. The UN is envious of the rising clout of the US biofuel business model with our record production. We cannot let the UN interfere with our investment in the future, in an industry spawned by environmental caring (special interests) backed by (specious) scientific reasoning, vesting itself in rising commodity & raw material prices resulting in higher pump prices...wait a minute...HUH?
Posted by: Ike   2008-05-06 10:48  

#8  Last I looked, most of these folks don't like us. Their problem is they want us to provide them with cheap (preferably free) food so they can breed like rabbits and spend their money on weapons and madrassas rather than food, or even better, food production. They can FOAD.
Posted by: RWV   2008-05-06 09:36  

#7  It's not biofuel that's wrong it's the biofuel produced by the distorting effect of subsidies.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-05-06 08:46  

#6  Maybe a program distributing free condoms to third worlders will help, Ban Ki?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-05-06 08:11  

#5  Ah yes. The law of unintended consequences has bit us in the ass again.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-05-06 07:19  

#4  For once, the U.N. gets one right. Ethanol is highly inefficient - it is produced as a political subsidy to Iowans and its increased usage has had a spillover inflationary effect in wheat and rice with consequences for both American and foreign consumers.

The first political candidate who can propose a reasonable energy policy would have an enormous advantage. This issue will gain traction as the average citizen begins to understand its significance.
Posted by: Harcourt Jurong3303   2008-05-06 04:53  

#3  I hear there is lots of nice unused farmland in Zimbabwe. If Farmin B. Hard and his lazy-ass pals would get busy and grow something besides election fraud...
Posted by: SteveS   2008-05-06 01:52  

#2  Another reason for 2008-2012/13 > SKYNET needs to find somewhere to DOWNLOAD as its running out of Byte(s) space again???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-05-06 01:00  

#1  Okay-y-y, I'll bite, when did we start???

OTOH, NET > GLOBAL COOLING thru Year 2030 or so > SCOPE - nothing will grow + we're all staying mostly indoors/secluded anyways, correct??? WE'LL KNOW 2010-2015 as per HOW ACTIVE = INTENSE SOLAR/SUSPOT CYCLE "24" GETS.

*BIGNEWSNETWORK > PLAN IN WORKS TO PROBE/STUDY THE SUN.

*FARK/REDDOT.com POsters > CLIMATE MODELS > THE ONLY THING WE KNOW FOR SURE AS PER LIMATE CHANGE IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. US-WORLD PERTS are absolutely positively undeniably categorically..............................@ CERTAIN WE ARE UNCERTAIN = KNOW LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, ERGO KNOW EVERYTHING D *** YOU???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-05-06 00:56  

00:00