babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » World Bank: Biofuels responsible for 75% increase in food prices

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: World Bank: Biofuels responsible for 75% increase in food prices
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 04 July 2008 11:49 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.


Burning food wasn't such a good idea, go figure!


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 04 July 2008 12:36 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd like to see the arithmetic. It's clear that biofuels have contributed to higher food prices, but that 75% number seems high. I've seen the story elsewhere, but I haven't yet seen a link to the actual study.

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 04 July 2008 01:19 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Should be no problem finding an economist to report the exact opposite. It is after all about ones assumptions in the formula. It is the same as in criminal trials you can always find experts from the same field who will testify for the opposing side.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 11 July 2008 04:43 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess that's why they are secret report findings. They contradict what Bush's government has been claiming all along.

quote:
CTV News The report finds these changes between 2002 and February 2008:

  • Food basket prices rose 140 per cent
  • Rises in costs of energy and fertilizer caused a 15 per cent rise in food costs.
  • Bio fuels caused a 75 per cent jump in food prices.

According to World Bank estimates, 100 million people worldwide have slipped below the poverty line as the result of skyrocketing food prices.

The paper suggests the damning report has been kept in-house in order to avoid embarrassing U.S. President George Bush at a time when the leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations prepare to meet in Japan next week.


And so in summarizing, the NeoLiberal voodoo still isn't working, but this time on a global scale.

[ 11 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 11 July 2008 06:31 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I too, would not mind seeing how they came to that conclusion. A 20 percant increase in meat consumption would probably have taken as much primary food to produce as the current ethanol program. Seems that not all that long ago I read that meat production consumes 6-7 times as much as the ethanol program.

Put the blame where it realy belongs and that is our unsustainable demand for liquid fuel to power our addiction to speed.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 11 July 2008 07:00 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well you can't.

Because it's a secret which could bring down Crazy George II's illegit government, and make NeoLiberalers everywhere appear to be full of hops.

It's D&G at the source of the problem.

That's G&D backwards

[ 11 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 11 July 2008 07:21 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
Put the blame where it realy belongs and that is our unsustainable demand for liquid fuel to power our addiction to speed.

Who do you mean by "us"? Our largest trading pardners are currently consuming somewhere over 20, 000, 000 barrels of oil a day. No country comes close to that. And Dion's Liberals want to slap them on the wrists gingerly with a carbon tax. Meanwhile Canada has somewhere around 13 years of crude oil left for the frozen Puerto Rico and that country helping themselves to our stuff at firesale prices.

Biofuel use 'increasing poverty' Oxfam

The replacement of traditional fuels with biofuels has dragged more than 30 million people worldwide into poverty, an aid agency report says.

And if oil prices continue higher, western democracies will just have to bomb Iran on speculation.

[ 11 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 11 July 2008 08:16 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The replacement of traditional fuels with biofuels has dragged more than 30 million people worldwide into poverty, an aid agency report says.

It is funny how language can be twisted. What is our traditional fuel, Fidel?

It amazes me the extend we will go to avoid the real culprit. And that is our use of fossil fuel, the non-traditional, unsustainable, species destroying fuel.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 11 July 2008 08:31 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My traditional fossil fuel is gasoline derived from oil. I gas-up on the American side as they can buy gasoline quite a bit cheaper than Canadians, even though Canada could be self-sufficient in every energy category. I love NAFTA and Brian Baloney, and Jean Chretien, too.

Hey I wonder if this will ever fly?


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 11 July 2008 08:41 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Guardian has now published in .pdf format the draft study on the causes of rising food prices by World Bank economist Donald Mitchell, dated April 8, 2008, on which the still-secret World Bank report's figures were based.

It appears that the 75% figure has been misconstrued by the media. The real picture is actually worse than that.

The study, says the Guardian, finds that biofuels caused 75% of the rise in food prices from January 2002 to February 2008. Note that this is not the same as saying that biofuels caused a 75% rise in food prices over that six-year period, as the Guardian originally reported (and CTV News is still reporting).

The thing is, there was an overall increase in the World Bank's index of food prices of 140% over those six years.* That means the index more than doubled.

The Mitchell study concludes that "three-quarters of the 140% actual increase was due to biofuels and the related consequences of low grain stocks, large land use shifts, speculative activity, and export bans." Now, three-quarters (this is where the "75%" figure comes from) of 140% is 105%. That means, according to the study, that biofuels and the related consequences mentioned above accounted for a 105% increase - a more than doubling - in the WB food price index over those 6 years.

The other quarter of the 140% (= 35%) was caused by a "combination of higher energy prices and related increases in fertilizer prices, and dollar weakness."

Today's Guardian article confirms the above analysis: "Biofuels are therefore responsible for an 105% increase in prices over the six-year period. The declining US dollar and rising energy costs are accountable for the rest."

The article continues:

quote:
A new report commissioned by the UK government, the Gallagher review, reaches similar conclusions to Mitchell's. It recommends slowing down the transition to biofuels and re-evaluating current EU targets for production. Though it does not assign hard numbers, Professor Ed Gallagher, who headed the project, concluded that the negative effects of biofuels are "real and significant".

---------

* The price index rose by 55% in the sixth year alone - the most rapid rise in food prices since 1973 and 1974, when food prices more than doubled in 12 months.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca