Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Victor Davis Hanson :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Impending Food Fight
by Victor Davis Hanson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


While we worry about gas prices, the costs of milk, meat and fresh produce silently skyrockets. So like the end of cheap energy, is the era of cheap food also finally over?

Since the farm depression of the early 1980s - remember the first Farm Aid concert in 1985 - farmers have gone broke in droves from cheap commodity prices. The public shrugged, happy enough to get inexpensive food. Globalization saw increased world acreage planted and farmed under Western methods of efficient production. And that brought into the United States even more plentiful imported food.

Continued leaps in agricultural technology ensured more production per acre. The result was likewise predictable: the same old food surpluses and low prices. My late parents, who owned the farm I now live on in central California, used to sigh that the planet was reaching 6 billion mouths and so things someday "would have to turn around for farmers."

Now they apparently have. Food prices are climbing at rates approaching 10 percent per year. But why the sudden change?

There have been a number of relatively recent radical changes in the United States and the world that, taken together, provide the answer:

Modern high-tech farming is energy intensive. So recent huge price increases in diesel fuel and petroleum-based fertilizers and chemicals have been passed on to the consumer.

The U.S. population still increases while suburbanization continues. The sprawl of housing tracts, edge cities and shopping centers insidiously gobbles up prime farmland at the rate of hundreds of thousands of acres per year.

In turn, in the West periodic droughts and competition from growing suburbs have made water for farming scarcer, more expensive - and sometimes unavailable.

On the world scene, 2 billion Indians and Chinese are enjoying the greatest material improvement in their nations' histories - and their improved diets mean more food consumed than ever before.

The result is that global food supplies are also tightening up, both at home and abroad. America has become a net food importer. We seem to have developed a new refined taste for foreign wines, cheeses and fresh winter fruits even as we are consuming more of our corn, wheat, soybeans and dairy products at home.

Now comes the biofuels movement. For a variety of reasons, ranging from an attempt to become less dependent on foreign oil to a desire for cleaner fuels, millions of acres of farmland are being redirected to corn-based ethanol.

If hundreds of planned new ethanol refineries are built, the U.S. could very shortly be producing around 30 billion gallons of corn-based fuel per year, using one of every four acres planted to corn for fuel. This dilemma of food or fuel is also appearing elsewhere in the world as Europeans and South Americans begin redirecting food acreages to corn-, soy-, or sugar- based biofuels.

Corn prices in America have spiked. And since corn is also a prime ingredient for animal feeds and sweeteners, prices likewise are rising for poultry, beef and everything from soft drinks to candy.

There is currently more corn acreage - about 90 million acres are predicted this year - than at any time in the nation's last half-century. But today's total farm acreage is either static or shrinking; land for biofuels is usually taken from wheat, soybeans or cotton, ensuring those supplies grow tight as well.

In the past, the genius of our farmers and the mind-boggling innovation of American agribusiness meant that farm production periodically doubled. Indeed, today we are producing far more food on far fewer acres than ever before.

But we are nearing the limits of further efficiency - especially when such past amazing leaps in production relied on once-cheap petro-chemicals, fuels and fertilizers.

As in the case of oil, we've gone through these sudden farm price spikes before. My grandfather once told me that in some 70 years of boom-and-bust farming he only made money during World Wars I and II, and the late 1960s.

But this latest round of high food prices seems coupled to energy shortages, and so won't go away anytime soon. That raises questions critical to the very security of this nation, which may have to import as many agricultural commodities as it does energy - and find a way to pay for both.

The American consumer lifestyle took off thanks to low-cost fuel and food. Once families could drive and eat cheaply, they had plenty of disposable income for housing and consumer goods.

But if they can't do either anymore, how angry will they get as they buy less and pay more for the very staples of life?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

Be the first to read Victor Davis Hanson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

dependancy
If we continue to try using food for fuel, we will soon be dependant on foreign food.

onceamarine
Thanks for the kind words. Yes you are right in that it was crystal ball gazing at its most unresearched, and I fully expect to be made a fool of. Fortunately, nobody will remember...


Not an expert here but
I suspect that, as in most other sectors of our economy, the factors affecting food production are "under control". We will see continuing price increases due to energy costs, government control some corporate greed, and importantly, our population growth.

In respect to food and energy consumption, we did ourselves a big favor by kicking the Shamnesty bill out of Washington. We didn't need an injection of 20 million to 100 million new Americans in a nation where you have to book a stay at a national park a year in advance, and where gasoline may still rise to $5 or $6 per gallon.

Hey - - - Repubsmake me cry
Change your moniker and maybe someone will actually read what you write. If there is any wisdom there someone will find it. Gold always looks like gold. Fools gold only fools, fools..

Consumer Reports..
...did the study that showed ethanol produced, upto, 27% less gas mileage.

It also gives off more VOC's (volatile organic compounds) in the summer.

thyickasabrick
Thursday, June, 28, 2007 3:40 AM
""Limits of efficiency""

Quite a piece. You obviously are writing what you live and breathe.. The article to me is not researched, but rather from the heart by someone who is fully close to these things and has definite ideas about the near future. 2025 is not far away except for older folk.. I don't know how accurate your statements are, but would guess you are not far from the way things will turn out. There will be things to occur that will surprise and change the prognosis somewhat.

In any case thanks for your look at the future.

Agree
With Henny Penny and Martha, among others.
Where I live in Pennsylvania, there are vast tracts of forest where I remember farmland being when I was a kid.
The farmers around here will take the opportunity of higher prices to plow that land and grow more, as I've seen just recently in the past couple years.
And yes, some of it is just a scare perpetrated by the media, as usual. People complain when milk prices go up to 3 bucks a gallon, then turn around and pick up a couple liters of soda that costs more at the same time.
Alert!! Did you know bottled water costs more per gallon than gasoline? I can maybe walk a couple miles after drinking a gallon of water, but stick a gallon of gas in my car, and I can effortlessly go 25 miles. Who's screwed up here?

It seems counterintuitive..
..to use A LOT of energy from fossil fuel to produce an alternative source of fuel from corn. Especially with no guarantees that it will be better for the environment. You can't really argue that it helps America be less dependent on foreign oil, because we need sooo much to produce ethanol....I'd like to see that ratio. How many gallons of fossil fuel does it take to produce one gallon of ethanol? 5:1?? Farmers want to grow corn so the land is monopolized by corn and we have less cabbage, lettuce, carrots...whatever. It seems counterintuitive.
I've been pondering this for awhile. When you watch PBS (the channel that boasts of having no commercials) they run an ADM 'commercial' (for lack of a better word). I kept wondering about this company. I think it's the company that produces ethanol......now I'm suspicious. Who owns this company and others like it? The Left hates 'Big Oil', what about 'Big Ethanol'? It almost feels like there is a driving force pushing ethanol. If it was really cheaper and better for the environment...great! But it's not either, and it's taking up a lot of valuable land. Who's profiting from ethanol production? George Soros? Al Gore? Who?

To aurorawatcher
I am very familiar with ethanol polution of water. or is it the other way around? I put ice in a glass and put imported Canadian ethanol over the ice. The ice turns to water if I do not drink it fast enough. LOL, I do know the health risks.

Judy and Vic
Actually, ethanol does take more energy to produce than gasoline. There have been several studies on this and quite a few articles on Town Hall about it.

As far as pollution goes, Google Oxygenated Fuels. These were mandated in certain areas by the EPA for a while in the early 1990s before they recognized the health hazards associated. Alaska was the only state to stand on its own two legs and say "no!" after only one month of use. Alaska and Hawaii (where trade winds reduce smog) are the only states that don't have contaminated ground water due to MTBE.

Ethanol is a bit different from oxy-fuels, but the potential for ground water contamination is as great and we don't know the health risks involved. The EPA was all too quick to pounce on MTBE use and now they've been all too quick to pounce on ethanol. We, the people who have to breathe the air and drink the water, are the ones who will pay the price.

Also, for those of us who live in cold climates, ethanol will be a disaster. I'm told by my mechanic to expect gas line freeze-ups on a regular basis unless I can afford to build a heated garage. It currently costs me $30 a month to plug in the engine heater of my car. A small heated garage will cost me about $50 a month in energy (forget what it would cost to build the thing). I really wish politicians, global warming alarmists and environmentalists would bother to work out the REAL costs of the changes they want to make before they force those changes into place. Of course, to them, people are expendable and don't need to be factored into their equations. You know, it's okay for the entire human population to take a radical step back a 100 years in civilization and starve a billion or so souls, but it's absolutely imperitive that we save the spotted owl.

The solution is probably safe, clean nuclear energy, but that's another hullaballu.

In one regard Georgetwin is correct
Much of the massive US oil fields of the 20th Century that are now closed or nearly shut in Glennpool, Burbank, El Dorado, etc) still have much of the oil locked underground in the rock.

There is yet to be found a way to get that oil out of those rock formations.

Wasn't it Liberals
Who spearheaded the Ethanol Craze? I GUARANTEE there is enough oil in The United States to fill every vehicle for a VERY LONG TIME! But NO, we have to save the reindeer and Global Warming will burn up the planet, etc. Now corn prices are dropping FAST, it smells to me like The Liberals have figured out what a STUPID IDEA Ethanol is and are trying to keep it quiet!

Liberal Stupidity! Coming Soon to a Fake Catastrophe near You!

dollar, 'nam and other optimists
Your faith in capitalism is touching, however you fail to understand all the elements which went into the obvious success of that system. The missing element seems to be the availablility of cheap energy.

Most of the successes you point to in the past would not happen without cheap energy and cheap, clean, water. Your favorite example seems to be the productivity of modern agriculture. With the exception of genetic engineering, this has only become possible because of cheap energy for the artificial fixation of nitrogen, production of pesticides, mechanization and transportation. GE can reduce the need for some of these things, but it can only go so far since the basic limit is photosynthetic efficiency.

If energy and water will remain as cheap as they are now, forever, then there is not much problem. For example, if the entire world population could be brought up to a standard of living where there was no motivation to increase their number, then we could sit pretty on this planet forever.

I have always worked in scientific and technological fields, so I have an appreciation of man's ingenuity. However, it is foolish to think that just because things have been going swimmingly over the past few hundred years that they will continue that way. As they say in the company prospectus, past performance is no predictor of future results. Either you believe that oil, and substitutes like uranium, are an unlimited resource, or you believe they are finite. Call me a chicken little if you like, but I prefer to be called "cautiously pessimistic". If I'm a chicken, then at least I don't have my head in the sand.

YRMML
Little Boy! Until you do something with your life besides sit at a computer and spew Communist Lies, TAKE A HIKE!

inkling
'tis not nonsense.

Energy production is "on the edge". It is not simply a matter of refining capacity, although it seems true that refining blips are a big determinant of day-to-day pricing. No, it is a long-term trend of demand increase outstripping supply increase, hence increased prices.

As I said in my original post, it is not a short-term crisis, but will become noticeable over the next few decades.

Sure, if government and the environmental lobby "steps out of the way" as you say, then the crisis will be put off for longer, since we will be free to squeeze more out of the natural resources we have (at cost to the environment, but who gives a dang about that, eh?).

Unfortunately, governments are here to stay so as a realist I am counting on sub-optimal results. You see, it's not entirely up to the US administration and oil corporations (uh... I'm repeating myself). The bulk of the world's oil is in the hands of Muslims and socialists, so what ya gonna do about it?

fatalists
A capitalistic market of free enterprise will address these and other issues as they have done in the past, and will continue to do, until such a day when the brute force at the end of a gun says otherwise.

Now, will someone please take an axe to the chicken little routine, fix it up with expensive imported herbs, and uncork that vintage $200 bottle of Italy's finest?

To Pirate
The "standard" approved design has already been done. The real issue is regulations that make it very expensive to build a plant and the unwillingness of the State PSC's to add the cost to the rate base.

It is far easier for a utility to build those "low capital cost" combined cycle natural gas sites and recover the costs via the "fuel adjustment clause".

These sites are also politically acceptable to everyone except the radical eco-freaks who are against everything.

BTW, you will never see a plant built in an area with high background radiation because it would make it hard to determine what was from the plant and what was from the bomb test. It can be done, but it is more difficult and not worth the effort.

More Nukes!
The solution is simple, we gotta agree on one (or maybe two) approved & safe designs for nucular power plants and then we need to build a thousand of them. With anticipated improvements in superconductors, we could put them all out in the desert somewhere (possibly even in areas already radioactive from the nuke bomb tests of the '50s) and 10-20 years from now we could have most of our electricity coming from atomic power, not natural gas (the way we are going now.

The natural gas can then be used for fertilizer and electric heat could replace oil/gas heat (as was anticipated in the early '70s) and all of this oil can be used for transportation.

It is going to happen. It has to. Even the French do it, why not us?

thickasabrick
Wrote: "Energy production has, unfortunately, not kept pace with demand. I think the difference is that nobody has any clear idea about even how to proceed, since there is nothing remotely as good as oil, coal and gas."

Utter nonsense.

Energy production is just fine, thank you very much. Gasoline refining is short just now due to environmentalist restrictions, and we've had an unexpected near-term spike in demand from the Asian rim, but oil and gas are still plentiful, and will remain so. We've also had workable nuclear power generation for decades, but could not use it here in America due, again, to environmentalist restrictions. Development of plentiful, indigenous oil and gas resources is still prevented by (is this sounding repetitive?) environmentalist restrictions.

Moreover, reasonable alternatives are being developed all the time. Small, local fuel cell power generating stations are beginning to make a dent in coal-burning power generation, thanks to some of the big companies you accuse of manipulating the market.

The current spike in food prices is largely due to government interference.

All we need to do is elect representatives who will favor policies that make the government step out of the way.

Farm Energy Savings First
It makes no sense to produce ethanol with industial agricultural methods that use massive quantities of fossil fuels. In particular, it is ludicrous to use fertilizers made from non-renewable natural gas to produce the feedstocks for ethanol, then call the ethanol a "renewable" fuel.

Let's first focus on converting our agriculture to sustainable methods (which will yield both environmental benefits and energy security from reduced use of fossil fuels), then see what the prospects are for sustainable production of biobased fuels and other biobased products (e.g., plastics and lubricants) with left-over land, forest wastes, and non-edible crops (e.g., switch grass).

This is not a new idea. J. I. Rodale said something similar in the 1940s.

I wonder
... if this will be catastrophic, even if it plays out exactly according to Mr. Hanson's pessimistic prediction.

I'm not sure Americans really "need" all the food we buy, or need it in all the packaging permutations in which it's now available. It's no one's job to make that decision for others, but if market competition makes prices a bigger decision factor than they are now, it's not mass starvation I would predict -- at least not for Americans.

(We obviously don't "need" the crops bought and not used by the federal government each year, or the crops foregone when Uncle Sam pays growers to not grow on a portion of land. Laughing Boy, bless his heart, has finally gotten one right. There are no genuine conservatives who have ever favored corporate welfare for the agricultural industry.)

One thing we can be sure of: where people are FREE to, they will arrange to live in the way that best marries the need for food with other priorities. Anyone who thinks free men and women will sit around helplessly watching their food supply disappear, because of any other convenience they are "addicted" to, is probably someone whose only experience of life has been in school, so far.

The market will adjust this -- if we let it. Other commentators here are 100% right: rising prices today are an artifact not of a free market, but of a network of government subsidies, regulations, and artificially-created "demand" (e.g., for ethanol). We haven't LET the market work to set food prices, for a very long time.

undue economic influence the cause
There will never be a food production problem anywhere. Just a couple of years ago the Netherlands, with a country slightly larger than Lake Ontario and a population of 15 million with 2.3% of the labour force employed in agriculture, was the world's THIRD LARGEST EXPORTER OF ASGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS after the U.S. and France.

The real problem is the heavy emphasis on the impact of applied economics on the agricultural markets. $20 billion in farm subsidies is outrageous. No doubt many of those farmers are getting paid NOT to grow certain crops. Ludicrous!

Obviously, in the world of the future there must be an "economics free zone", read - agriculture, in which market forces cannot be allowed to apply and in which the international community co-operates in agricultural production and exports where necessary because the situation must not be allowed to continue.

I declare that with the application of non-profit motivated efforts toward sustainable co-operative agricultural production this world could feed a hundred billion.




"cheap" food
there's a nickel's worth of wheat in a pound loaf of bread: if the wheat goes up 20%, should the blame go to the grower, or to the beyond-the-farmgate folks, who opportunistically raise the total retail price by 20% and complain about wheat prices?
For a dollar loaf of typical bread, a doubling of the wheat price would justify only another nickel on the price, not the quarter that retailers hope for.

To borntofarm
The chart shows a dramatic rise in corn prices coinciding with the government mandate. Going back several years on the same site as you posted shows corn prices fluctuating around 2.50 a bushel vs the 3.50 and 4.00 it is running now.

I don't have any problem with corn prices going up on their own. My problem is with it going up because of a government mandate.

And yes, milk and meat prices will go up considerably and the farmers will not profit because feed corn is going up in price.

To Vic Yet Again
In the essence of brevity, I don't have a dog in this fight. I grow neither corn nor any other crop. The long and the short of my comments, however, is that regardless of whatever your neighbor did during the Carter Administration is largely irrelevant now. Thousands of farmers went out of business during those years because of the insanely idiotic policies of that administration. Be that as it may, your point is moot because the farm policy landscape is as different today as is the geopolitical one.

And as far as Brazil is concerned, it is true that they sugar based ethanol there, but it is cane sugar, not beet sugar that produces the lion's share of their fuel. They also use a fair amount of biodiesel, which is slowly gaining acceptance here. However, they use but a fraction of the fuel that we do, and they've been working on self-sufficiency for fifty years - we're just getting warmed up.

To those asking about the energy efficiencies involved here, the claims that it takes more energy to create the fuel than the fuel generates are untrue, spun by a few shills for the oil industry who understandably have something to lose if alternative fuels are wildly successful.

Bottom line is simple - ethanol is not the Great Yellow Hope here, neither is it the Great Yellow Hype. In the typical media cycle, biofuels spent many years as the great savior, and now the industry is spending its 15 minutes as the great satan. The truth, as per usual, is roughly in the middle. Ethanol and biodiesel are a part of the solution, not the entire solution.

RE: Vic
Reread my post. Corn prices are retreating. True, they had risen but they peaked in the early spring, and have dropped back considerably.

The chart don't lie:
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/W
Not a really good chart but cbot isn't open yet.

After the market opens, go to http:www.cbot.com
Click on the corn quote, then click on the chart for Dec Corn. It's quite dramatic. (The market isn't open yet, you'll have to wait)

I don't suppose you remember when corn was over $4 in 1989. It was over $3 for several years in the '90's. Amazingly food was a hole lot cheaper then than it was last year when corn was in the $2 range.

Why? Because our city cousins have gotten raises for the past 20 years. And all of that is factored into the price of food. $4 corn vrs $2 corn raises the price of a box of corn flakes 7-8 cents. Corn Flakes have gone up more than that now haven't they?

Wait until you see the price of milk and ice cream next month. My milk check will be quite a bit larger. But still isn't enough to make up for all the bad years.

Misguided Liberalism
The rising cost of food is the direct result of the "eecology" idiots who are pushing ethanol use as a gas substitute instead of working to incresse gas production. Millions of tons of corn is being taken out of the food chaing and diverted into fuel production. Everythign that corn feeds is getting more expensive. Already there ahve bene tortilla riots in Mexico City because of the high price of corn. And all the other animals eat corn, cows, pigs, chickens, dogs, cats, horses, all of them. Most corn is feed for animals, not humans. So ethenol fuel excitement drives up food cost for all animal related products. It also takes land out of production of other food grains and products. Every agricultural product is going to cost lots more because of the pig headed idiots who are wasting our tax money to buy companies to waste food making gas. It will destroy the food economics, while having very little effect on gas prices because even the whole food crop can't be a large percentage of gas.

How stupid can they get. The poorest people are the ones hurt the most, of coursse, the very people who the Dem liberals claim to be helping.


Bob

Catch more of The World According to Bob at http://bobstruth.blogspot.com


John Konop
When I worked for a foreign-owned company, I learned a bit about the game of bringing in a foreign worker.

The way it was played then, late 1980s and early 1990s, was to place an ad for a worker in the paper. This ad would say something like "Help wanted, German-speaking, five years experience in -----," and so forth and so on, listing the exact qualifications of the person they wanted to bring in. When, mirabile dictu, no US citizens applied for the job, the company got the necessary approval to bring in the person they wanted to bring in.

So now we import 95,000 engineers and, probably, other scientific types while kids graduating from college in the sciences have a tough time finding work that utilizes their skills. Heck, a lot of them can't even get into college in the first place, or pay for it when they get there.

Something's wrong somewhere.

Barry

nam65-66
Bingo!

Julian Simon, the most under-publicised economist of the mid-20th century, and Paul Erlich, he of "Limits of Growth" and "Doom and Gloom", got in a discussion years ago about the future course of commodity prices. Erlich saying that prices of everything would skyrocket as we reached the limits of the planet due to overpopulation, etc. Simon saying that prices would at worst hold stable, but probably decline. I don't remember, but I think the argument was prices in nominal terems, not even real terms.

So they agreed on a basket of commodities and wagered, as I remember $100, and made the term of the bet 10 years.

After about six or seven years, Erlich called and conceeded defeat.

The point is, as you correctly state, we've heard it all before and it's been wrong. The naysayers will say that "This time it's different," and they will be right, but so what? It's always different. Except that it's not -- it's usually government that's to blame.

Every famine I can think of for the past 100 years has been government-induced. Ukraine 1930s, The Great Depression, China 1960s-1970s, Africa 1980s-1990s, and lots of smaller ones inbetween. In fact, most economic dislocations I can think of have been either caused by or made worse by the government in its attempts to "do something.".

With the world population on track to be stable or decline, if we could get the governments of the world to get out of the way of the people, we would have a chance. If governments around the world continue to try to do what they do worst, predict the winners and losers and manage economies, we'll have a tough time.

As far as supply of and prices for oil, there is evidence that our ideas of the source of petroleum, crude oil, have been wrong. If this is the case, and the new thinking turns out to be right, then the price of energy will stabilize and fall, even as the Arabs work to keep oil prices high.

Barry




Borntofarm
Corn prices have in fact increased dramatically. That is why nearly every field that I see is growing corn now.

Corn prices; actual

http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/4/8/95132584.html


Lawmakers Sell Out Americans!

When I ran against Congressman Tom Price I pointed out how Price was selling out American jobs and wages in exchange for campaign donations by co-sponsoring a bill (H.R. 3938) to increase the annual cap on all employment-based visas (not just technically-oriented H1Bs) by over 115% (from 120,000 to 260,000).

Please watch this training video by a law firm that teaches companies how to disqualify American workers and instead hire low-wage immigrants.

CLICK HERE

LD-According to the According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 2000 and 2005, the United States’ employment for computer workers grew by about 332,000.

During the same time period, the United States imported about 330,000 H1-B workers for computer occupations.

The situation for engineers was even worse, with 95,000 H1-B visas issued in the same period for engineering, yet according to the Department of Labor, engineering jobs shrank by almost 124,000 jobs.

Do you think any of the front runners from both parties (Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain, and Mitt Romney) will address this issue? Or will all of them be blinded by the corporate donations?

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/lawmakers-sell-out-americans


If the situation is so dire
Why does the corn price keep dropping?

Dec Corn futures settled yesterday at $3.60. Months ago it was close to $4.50


To Judy
What you may have heard is that the places that make ethanol are creating pollution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/03/tech/main508006.shtml

What the CBS story does not say is that this is a very small amount. It also doesn't say that the reason the politicians give for the mandate (global warming) is also bogus. It is a political solution to a non-problem. Even the AGW alarmists do not advocate the use of ethanol.

I am glad someone is dealing with this
issue!

If Globalization is so swell, if cheap labor brings down the cost of manufacturing, then would someone please explain to me why the cost of everything, let me repeat, EVERYTHING, is going up up up?

MEANWHILE, wages are going down.

Capitalism is the best system we have available, but it is not the "end all and be all."

There is no system that will be good unless it is tempered with participants who have VALUES! The idea that everyone acting in their own best interest will make things generally better is good, but ONLY if people have character!

We have permitted ourselves to be yoked together with multinationals, with countries who do not share our values- such as the Chinese- and we are reaping what we have sewn.

The Chinese, may I remind you, sold us food with poison in it. Here in the USA, we lost some pets, but in South America, some HUMANS died due to tainted food from China.

We are getting what we deserve for not sticking to our core values.

Will the United States survive?

Not if we keep our present leadership!

Energy and Food
Just as the vehicles we drive can be far more efficient than they currently are, driving down fuel consumption, we also have options for the generation of electricity - to include those mentioning shale, coal, and conversion to nuclear power. These are market decisions consumers will make. If competition for land for growing food arises, then perhaps Americans will start taking a far more serious look at the cars and trucks that they drive, as well as the way we generate electricity. The paranoia over nuclear power is a classic example of how a relatively small group of people have held the US hostage on this issue. We have the technology and it is safer than it ever was 30 years ago - when it was still very safe. In a very practical sense - there is no shortage of energy - just of common sense.

Ethanol - to my mind, is one of those issues that has little common sense attached. It requires subsidies because it isn't efficient. The cost that goes into growing and processing is far greater than the price it is sold for. Like most "subsidized solutions", it is not a solution.

Biofuel
Recently read that it takes more energy to produce biofuels than it does to refine oil to gasoline. Also that biofuels pollute more than gasoline. Has anyone else heard this?

To Farm Broadcaster in OH
I am just telling you what the farmer told me. The feds paid him market price for the corn and he plowed it under. This was in the early 1980s. I know that he plowed it under because I saw him do it. He was not allowed to harvest the crop. The government paid him to NOT harvest it.

As for the efficicy of corn vs sugar beets, I guess Brazil has it all wrong. They have ceased importing oil and grow all sugar beets for ethanol.

I guess you are a corn farmer and my post was goring your ox. My reply is why should I pay 20% higher food prices for your return on corn from a government mandate. If corn-based ethanol was such a wonderful thing why wasn't it being done before the government made it a law?

This problem
is one that is solvable. Hanson didn't address another problem...lack of water. Central Valley California has turned thousands of acres of farmland into housing and shopping malls. The reason is water cost too much to farm, even with subsidies. Farmers made millions by subdividing their land and selling it off in lots. The source of the problem is LA. La gets more rain than any other part of CA yet they have no dams or desalination plants. San Frasicko owns Hetch Hetchy and charges a phenominal profit for the water. This scenario leaves Central Valley residents with little choice. It's like being held hostage for water. One thing they have done is put alot more acreage into almonds. Less overhead and water required. All of this has caused the prices of produce to go up across the board. Anyone notice the huge prices for oranges? Raisins, strawberries, avocados, tomatoes, etc? Normal lack of availability has caused this increase. Couple that with ethanol and we are heading for a wall.

Vic Is Out of His Mind
No farmer in his right mind would plow under a crop that wasn't a disaster. Why, you ask? Because even if he were receiving a subsidy, he still would want to harvest the crop and collect the market price for it. Unless it was a case of crop failure and he wanted to plow it under and plant something different to generate a higher economic return on the acreage, his expense (time, fuel, and equipment maintenance) in plowing the crop under would certainly not be covered by the subsidy, crop insurance, or disaster payment. The government dollars simply aren't there to justify that kind of wanton waste of resources.

Sugar beets could certainly be processed into sugar based ethanol, but the efficiencies aren't there in the way they are for corn-based ethanol. We also don't grow sugar beets in the same relative abundance with which we produce corn because the acreage can't yield as productively as when planted to corn.

What otherwise well-meaning commentators on this issue neglect to consider is that they are relatively uninformed on issues related to production agriculture. Playing arm-chair farmer and wannabe policy wonk is a disservice to the men and women who produce the cheapest, most abundant, most wholesome food supply in the history of the world.

A few years ago I lived out in the
country with acres of field corn growing behind my house. The farmer who was growing the corn told me to pick all I wanted (if you pick field corn when it is green you can eat it like sweet corn). The reason I could pick all I wanted was because when it was ripe the federal agent would come out and inspect it for crop payments. After his inspection the farmer would plow the entire field under and the government would pay him for it. I always thought this was obscene. Now the government has mandated that we will make ethanol from corn and mix it with gas. That way they can get high prices without direct payments. Anytime I drive out in the country now every acre I see is covered with field corn. What people don't know is that sugar beets make ethonol better than corn but there are more corn farmers than beet farmers. Another wonderful political solution to a non-problem.

We're running out of energy? Bah!
There is more oil locked up in the shale in the Rockies than there is in the entire Middle East.

There is more coal in Wyoming and the Escalante preserve than there is in the rest of the world.

Yet, Americans insist on importing more than 50% of their energy. Don't blame anyone else for this debacle. Our politicians were bought and paid for a long time ago, and nothing is going to change until the American public demands it.

Truth in Advertising
InsightingTruth has some great points about the transfer of wealth via property and estate taxes. Getting rid of (or at least greatly reducing the burden of) either or both would greatly aid the success of family farms in the United States. The quotes mentioned by Heritage and Cato are a bit misguided in that the overwhelming majority of USDA's budget is spent on food and nutrition programs like food stamps and WIC. The amount of dollars actually delivered to the dollar are far outnumbered by those other responsibilities of the USDA.

Here's a research suggestion:
Since 1970, how much has the cost of milk and fresh produce risen relative to the cost of living? Or just make it the last ten years. Skyrocketing? Hmmmm....

The percentage that the average US consumer spends on food is microscopic compared with most countries. As long as I see people buying $6 packages of obscure flavorings, $3 packs of tiny, cut up lunch meat packages for their kids, and $22 bottles of wine in addition to their milk and eggs, I'm not going to worry too much about our food budgets. The American family could use a little belt-tightening, in more ways than one.
It doesn't need to threaten our national security.

Martha

Idle land
Another part of this is all the farmland sitting idle. I grew up in southern Illinois, and our home was surrounded by cropland. Now hardly any of it is planted in any crops. Houses have been built on some, but most is just there, not being used. I see the same thing in North Carolina and Virginia, as well as many other parts of the country.

And don't believe all the stories about farmers losing money year after year. A man simply can't lose money every year and continue to farm for 30 years. It defies economic reality. I agree that farm subsidies (or any other subsidies) are not only harmful in general in the long run, but unconstitutional as well.

Prophets Of Doom...
In my seventy two years on this planet,I have been listening to the doomsayers such as Thick as a Brick tell everyone how things are going to pot and we are all doomed! Doomed,I tell you!

Please excuse me if I just laugh.In my expierence,everyone of them have been wrong.They never seem to understand the ingenuity of human beings,let alone Americans.T of B,your kind has always been with us,but fortunetly so has the guy tinkering in his garage and/or laboratory.All of a sudden you wake up some morning and the problem you were so worried about has been solved,and you are free to make more predictions of doom.What a terrible way to go through life.

A few thoughts:
What made America great was freedom and respect for individual rights. Both are being eroded.

The best way to protect farmland is to eliminate property taxes, inheritance taxes, and zoning.

Reduce the size and cost of government at all levels. Let market forces work.

The days ahead need not be bleak. Individuals are quite accomplished at solving their own problems when they are left alone to do so.

"Corporate Welfare" is an Urban Legand
Ethanol production has moved from a policy push to a demand pull market. Consumers have demanded alternatives to foreign oil, plan and simple. As far as federal farm subsidies, those are directed for the production of corn and other program crops regardless of the commodity's end use. Farmers are not subsidized for producing ethanol any more than they are subsidized for producing tortillas. The rising cost of meat and milk, furthermore, has nothing to do with the rising cost of corn. The supply and demand - basic economics - of these commodities determine the pricing. In fact, milk specifically is priced by Federal Milk Marketing Order formulas based on supply and demand of the various dairy products and components. In other words, the ethanol demand-driven price of corn has nothing to do with the price of milk. Supply and demand determine the price of meat as well, because farmers have no mechanism through which to pass on the increased costs of production. They are basically at the mercy of the market price for their livestock, getting the price, rather than setting the price. Farmers are not the villain here, federal farm policy is not the villain (in this one case, at least), and biofuels are not the villain here. Good old fashioned market economics are at work here, plain and simple.

I guess I'm getting old
You know when you are getting old when deja vu kicks in. I have this vague feeling of having seen this movie before, increasing gas prices, increasing food prices, declining national vigor, and of course subsidies. Everyone in my state hates when it when subsidies are on a product that we don't grow but treats as essential to the farmer from here.....just more vote buying pork and it all works the same. And it has always been the same but the reportage goes up and down on the issues of national calamity. We are currently in a global calamity cycle of reporting...and it will be that way until it isn't.


and yet
the average suburban dweller has plenty of backyard space wherein a sizeable amount of fresh fruit and vegetables can readily be grown. Even in the cities there are many spaces wherein, say, fruit trees instead of merely ornanebtal shrubberies may be cultivated. As long as accessible arable land is greatly under-utilised I see no immediate cause for concern.

Limits of efficiency
Photosynthesis is certainly limited. I think 4% conversion of sunlight to chemical energy is the max theoretical, for sugar cane in optimal condition. You'd need a huge field of cane to run your Humvee in the way to which you are accustomed...

It's possible that technology could improve on Nature's photosynthesis, but I wouldn't hold out hope since we don't even understand how it works.

Folks often point to the successes of the past, and assume that human ingenuity will keep improving things at the same old rate. Certainly those folks have not been disappointed in the field of electronics and computing. Energy production has, unfortunately, not kept pace with demand. I think the difference is that nobody has any clear idea about even how to proceed, since there is nothing remotely as good as oil, coal and gas.

People have dreamed about putting vast solar collectors in space, and beaming down the energy, but these things are completely impractical: for example, the energy consumed in making a solar cell and blasting it into orbit is far more than the cell would ever deliver to the ground.

No, this is really how it is going to play out:

Over the next 20 years or so we will continue to burn oil and gas just as fast as we can. AGW proponents will have a minimal effect in cutting demand, since development in China and India will swamp any savings made by "enlightened" Americans and Europeans screwing in their CFLs.

Instability and sabotage in the Middle East will hasten the decline, but will ironically mask the telltale signs of resource depletion, because prices will spike and pull back as the news is respectively terrible and merely bad. There will be frequent accusations of "gouging!" and futile attempts by politicians to tamper with market forces.

The ethanol/biofuel industry will have a minor boom, however it will be short lived since people will prefer a full stomach to having a big car. Belatedly, auto companies will finally start to cut their implicit ties to oil companies and produce lightweight, efficient vehicles. [This is one thing that hasn't really been developed, but there is a great deal of room for efficiency improvements. For example, cars are currently only about 15% efficient, but the theoretical limit for heat engines is much higher. It's actually disgraceful that for 100 years we have been wasting 85% of the fuel we burn in our totally oversized cars - future generations will curse us!]

For their part, oil companies will use their vast profits to buy up all viable alternative energy technologies. So don't worry, they'll survive. Not that this is a bad thing, but it certainly makes life difficult for small entrepreneurs (like myself) who are barred from a lot of promising technological avenues by a wall of patent attorneys... Just try to obtain the batteries used in hybrid electric cars - impossible, because an oil company holds the patents and rights to those large NiMH cells, and they don't want no competition. (Hybrids are permitted, since they burn a lot of gas anyway).

Past the 2025 mark, there's going to be a very noticeable decline in living standard. In spite of what the starry-eyed economists might say, the economic output is mostly dependent on energy inputs. If we have to work harder per Joule, then living standards must drop. Ingenuity be danged, it's cheap energy, stupid.

"Decline in living standard" is universally believed to be a "bad thing". Most would consider having to walk, bus or cycle to work (rather than self-drive) to be an insult to their standard of living. Not many of us would consider it an improvement. I think that the so-called decline is inevitable (unless we really luck out and some little green men deliver a magic power plant to us) so we may as well be prepared for it, and have a positive attitude. After all, most of the stuff we point to as shining examples of our superb standard of living are basically junk: big houses, commuting too far in big cars, flat screen TVs with Paris 24/7, Chinese-made everything, aphrodisiac pills (as if we needed encouragement to breed!), etc. etc.

Of course, there will be some real adjustments for those in the lower 9/10 of the economic heap. The outer suburbs will become wastelands owing to the unbearable expense of commuting. People will migrate to the city centers, and things will look more like Dickensian London, with some truly grinding poverty. Population will decline. But people will get used to it. Humans are very flexible when it comes down to it, and (in spite of everything) I don't think they will be very much less happy than they are now.





Natural limits
There are natural limits to food production efficiency. Maybe outsourcing of food production to other countries will help for a while, but transportation costs will become a larger and larger share of food costs. As with the recent food contamination issues in China show, there are potential health hazards, and also national security issues. We would do well to protect farmland and keep food production as localized as possible.

well,now is right
we have heard it before. it seemed like the late 70's was the end of the road till Mr Reagan came along and rekindled the national optimism by reminding us of who we are and what it was that made us great.

I object also to this:
"But we are nearing the limits of further efficiency..."

That's what they said before.

Only time will tell, but I hope I am right, and VDH is wrong on this one.

Not quite so dire
A missing part of the analysis is the role free trade (or its prohibition) will have to increase, and diversify the source of food in the world as we export farming methods, equipment, and fertilizers.

The dilemma between food and ethanol is somewhat overstated since ethanol can be made from the corn stalk, while we eat the corn kernel. The price of corn will tell the story.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.