Are biofuel policies to help Mother Earth killing her most vulnerable children instead?

220mph
April 20, 2011 at 12:53 am
DesertYote says:
April 19, 2011 at 9:21 am
220mph
April 19, 2011 at 8:04 am
###
Thanks for your reply.
I was actually referring to all subsidies, not just as it relates to biofuels. Governments have great control over the activities of farmers through favoritism in allocation of subsidies.
I was also more talking about small farmers in underdeveloped areas of the world were private farms make sense, and currently little food production is happening due to war and the lack of a market for food goods.
thx again

Robert Eberhard says:
April 20, 2011 at 10:35 am
“I can totally see that biofuel does impact food prices and it is also easy to see the relationship that is drawn here. One thing that is not focused on though in this article is that fact that Biodiesel especially displaces millions of tons of carcinogens that are associated with petroleum diesel. These carcinogens are killing untold numbers of North Americans and Europeans each year”
Which carcinogens do you mean? How does Petroleum Diesel contain different carcinogens than BioDiesel? How big are your “untold numbers”? I’m German, half our cars and all our trucks run on Diesel, and the only significant carcinogen are soot particles according to our very green, very alarmist media. That is the reason we have mandatory soot particle filters in all new Diesel cars and trucks. IOW, provide data; your claim sounds questionable.

Indur M. Goklany, what educational background, if any, do you have in agronomics?
Are you aware that corn ethanol is only made from the starch of the corn? And that the distiller’s grain is a replacement for much more costly protein concentrate feeds?
Are you aware that soybean biodiesel is only made from the oil of the bean? And that the soybean meal co-product is an important food and feed?
Do you claim that when a biofuel producer buys a bushel of commodity grain like corn or soybeans, they are taking the whole bushel off the market ie out of the mouths of poor black African babies?

DirkH says:
April 20, 2011 at 11:20 am
Robert Eberhard says:
April 20, 2011 at 10:35 am
Which carcinogens do you mean? How does Petroleum Diesel contain different carcinogens than BioDiesel?
———————————————————
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol45/volume45.pdf
Neither diesel nor gasoline are classified as highly carcinogenic, but there is definite carcinogenicity of both. It would be rather strange if gasoline was not carcinogenic, given that many blends contain upwards of 10% benzene.
Not sure about biodiesel. I’d like to see Robert E answer that one.

From John Q. Galt on April 20, 2011 at 11:44 am:

Are you aware that corn ethanol is only made from the starch of the corn? And that the distiller’s grain is a replacement for much more costly protein concentrate feeds?
Are you aware that soybean biodiesel is only made from the oil of the bean? And that the soybean meal co-product is an important food and feed?
Do you claim that when a biofuel producer buys a bushel of commodity grain like corn or soybeans, they are taking the whole bushel off the market ie out of the mouths of poor black African babies?

Use a bushel of corn for biofuels, you get biofuel and animal feed. The edible products of animals (meat, dairy, eggs) are generally produced and consumed locally. So if a bushel of US-grown corn is diverted from export to Africa and used for biofuel instead, the Africans get nothing from that bushel.
It’s a similar situation with soybeans. Broadly speaking, there are two classifications of soybeans, “vegetable” (garden) or field (oil). So if you’re growing oil soybeans then you’re not growing “human food” soybeans. After oil extraction, the leftover meal is overwhelmingly used for animal feed, approximately only 2% is used for soy flour and proteins. (Ref one, two). So, for either reason, if you’re doing soybean production for oil then you’re not feeding those Africans.
Unless you’re examining local corn and soybean growing in Africa, with the generated feed used towards making those locally grown and consumed animal products, if you’re making biofuel then you’re not feeding those Africans.

Biofuels, the oldest fuels known to man, Wood, Charcoal and Dung, dont forget Oilive Oil and tallow.
They can be grown on marginal and poor lands adding additional crops and alnd usage. They replace fossil fuels, they provide work and income. They are carbon neutral if you consider that important. They provide not only fuel but food and feed.
So really what is the problem
POLICY, SUBSIDY AND CRIMINAL ACTS
They are the problem, not bifuels.
Oh and KD, stick with fresh wholesome natural foods and dont forget, fibre a very vital need. Also note biodiversity, Humans are OMNIVORES which means they eat a varied diet, not just factory processed inedible corn. That how we survive when others go extinct.
Organic farming, small family farms are more efficient, more productive and more able to survive and support healthier people. We have all the systems in place to grow all natural foods, great biofuels and more and please the planet.

John Q. Galt said on April 20, 2011 at 5:48 pm:

kadaka, that kernel in your personal biomass co-product is mostly just the pericarp.

Reference image.
As the person who actually conducts the visual inspection before flushing, I can confirm that not only does the pericarp remain, but large amounts of the endosperm will remain if the kernel is not significantly masticated with extensive rupturing of the pericarp. Only the germ is reliably digested, provided the pericarp is not intact. And that’s with my normal in-system time of 2-3 days, if circumstances are such that in-system time is a day or less then little change is noted. Without nixtamalization and its removal of the pericarp, I don’t get much out of corn.

Idur said
Quote
Regardless, the real problem is that if biofuel production were economic then it would not need to rely on subsidies, tariffs and mandates to be sustained in the market place. And I would quit complaining about it.
Unquote
Fundamental mistake and misperception. Its not the biofuels that require subsidies but the Corporations. They need to control the production, distribution and sales. Thats how small farmers are ruined, they are kept from the market and global prices from rigged markets impact that directly.
As with healthcare, if it works, it works, bugger what the experts say.
The only use for soy oil is biofuel and that being said it is a major contributor to the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest due to its growing needs unlike Oilpalm.
Take Pachuris Jatropha scam, he leveraged the capital, got the farmers committed, extracted the fees from them to make his profits but did not give a bugger about how they would sell their crops. I.E. no effort was put in to make a market. All that mattered was he got his money.

From philincalifornia on April 20, 2011 at 9:28 pm:

Maybe I missed something further up the thread. Why is it incumbent upon US farmers to feed Africans – if that’s what you’re saying ??

As used in the corn example, I was just setting the origin of the corn outside of the “animal products” region.
Distillers grains are available as Wet Distillers Grains (WDG) and Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS). WDG has a short shelf life (4-5 days) so is used near an alcohol plant. DDGS has an almost indefinite shelf life but the drying consumes much energy, this source places it at more than 40% of the alcohol plant’s energy costs. This source yields that about 1/5 of North American DDGS production is shipped to EU countries for feed, a small amount. Given this and other factors like current pricing relative to other by-product feeds, feeding recommendations (no more that 20% of the dry matter for dairy), and transportation costs, it’s clear that distillers grains are a feed of convenience, selected for price.
So unless it’s local production, and very local given the transport infrastructure, corn used for biofuels is corn that’s not available for feeding Africans.
BTW, it is not incumbent on US farmers to feed Africans. Indeed, we’ve done great damage over the years by supplying free/cheap food aid, which killed off local production. What we should do, the best solution, is to make them better able to feed themselves, with a very large chunk of that being increased availability of cheap energy, which would come from fossil fuels due to their great portability. But that’s a long term solution, and RIGHT NOW there are starving people needing food NOW, which the US (and Canada) can provide relatively cheaply, at least when we’re not driving the food prices up by playing around with biofuels.

Indur M. Goklany says:
April 20, 2011 at 7:15 pm
220mph: You don’t show the entire “equation” from start to finish, and in fact you change from estimated poverty headcounts (which as you note have been decreasing dramatically) to the 32 million number for increased poverty headcount due to biofuels, while presenting nothing to show how that number was derived – (or why it should be arbitrarily increased 14% when it was created using the new data and methods already).
RESPONSE: As I explained in my earlier response — which apparently you didn’t read perhaps because, in your own words, “its late and I don’t have energy to give your response the time in reply it deserves” — the 14% adjustment is due to the fact that DHM’s analysis did not cover all developing countries, and I am trying to get an estimate for all developing countries. It’s not rocket science. In fact, it doesn’t even travel at 220mph! Read the paper and read the earlier response
220mph: You should it would seem, include at least an explanation of the basics of the calculations used in the papers [ie DHM] that are integral to your claims … for example how the the 32 million number at the heart of your paper arrived at?
RESPONSE: There is an explanation on p. 10 and on p. 12. Also, the citation for DHM is provided. It can be googled and downloaded for free. I recommend you read that
220mph: A proper study in my uneducated opinion would show the changes in poverty headcount for the comparison periods, and considering that the poverty headcount has been dropping dramatically how the 32 million number was calculated.
RESPONSE: A number of factors determine trends in the poverty level. They include economic growth rates as well as changes in the prices of food and other basic necessities. Because of rapid economic growth in China, and East and South Asia, in particular, global poverty rates have been declining very rapidly. But a part of this decrease has been offset by the increase in food prices. All this is in the paper, which observes on page 10, “The dramatic drop in headcount from 2005 to 2010 is due to increasing economic development. Thus, biofuel production would retard the developing world’s progress against poverty.”
But of course, since you were reading at 220mph, you skipped that part. For my part and contrary to my normal practice, I’ll skip the rest of your comments, since it seems to me your comments are not made after a good faith effort to understand what was done.
——————————————————
220mph Response:: Dr. Goklany … Now it is you who are speed reading it appears … you continue to fail to comprehend my comment and stated concern, and do it again above and throughout your responses. You make, and rely on, a number of broad statements that you claim are the support your findings.
Yet they are just that – broad statements with no supporting fact nor illustration of the equation/calculations involved. You expect the reader to take you at your word – that what you claim is fact is indeed so. That is NOT IMO the basis for an allegedly scientific paper – especially one that make the claim that 200,000 people may die.
I agree you DID state your reasoning for the 14% increase in DHW numbers – both in the paper, and here – here are your exact words from your paper:
“The difference between the two estimates is mainly
that the World Bank’s analysis covered more countries”
That statement provides zero scholarly support for your claim an adjustment is proper because of difference in countries covered, nor for your selection of the 14% number. None. We do not know any of the details involved in your calculations.
We DO however know that on page 10 you also stated:
“… [the DHW paper] covered 90% of the developing world’s population”
So we know from you that the MAXIMUM difference between the two reports was 10% of the developing worlds population. Yet you came up with a 14% multiplication factor. And offer no support for how that number is calculated.
This 14% increase is at the very heart of your paper’s conclusions Dr. Goklany – yet we have no idea how you came up with it. Simply “telling” us is not, and should not be, good enough for an allegedly scientific paper that claims “200,000 may die” …. that is exactly the type problems we have see throughout the IPCC reports.
There are a number of entirely legitimate questions you provide no answers to:
-How many countries were covered in the World Bank report?
-We do know the DHW paper covered “90% of the developing
world’s population” assuming your statement there is correct.
-How many countries were covered in the DHW vs World Bank studies?
-What % of the developing worlds population was covered in World
Bank vs. the “90%” covered in DHW.
-How did you come up with the 14% number – what is the
data – what is the math to support it?
As to the 32 Million number… the increase in poverty headcount allegedly due to increased biofuel use.
You are correct – once could read DHW and ascertain how this number was achieved. Yet your paper and conclusions are directly based on this number – again it is at the heart of your entire claim – and when the claim is as serious as “200,000 may die” I think it proper and important to include at least a basic discussion of how that 32 million number was arrived at.
This is especially important/relevant IMO considering that you DO talk about (and make adjustments to) the numbers for total poverty headcounts – for several years related to your paper. You also acknowledge those numbers have been dropping significantly due to improved economic conditions from a 2004 poverty headcount of 1,454 million to 1,374 million in 2005 to 798 million 2010.
We can do the math – and know the poverty headcount from 2005 to 2010 decreased by 576 million – nearly 42% … yet the claim is during that same period, the poverty headcount due to alleged biofuel production increased by 32 million people?
What we don’t know is how do we get 32 million increase in poverty headcount during the time overall poverty headcount – using the numbers you presented – shows a nearly 42% – almost 600 million decrease?
You ask the reader of your paper to rely on blind faith that the 32 million number is correct – despite that it is at the heart of your claims. But then you go a step further yet. You apply the 14% to the 32 million estimated increase in poverty headcount. Again with absolutely no documentation of why. Again you ask the reader to accept on blind faith that this adjustment is correct and proper.
It would certainly seem the 14% adjustment – if it were to be legitimately applied – requires us to know the calculation that gave the 32 million result. Without it we cannot know if it should be applied to the 2010 count or only to the 2005 numbers – or something in between.
I purposely have not read DHW yet – so as not to taint my observations and comments on your paper. Very few people will ever read DHW. And the point is they should not have to. I should be able to read a paper – especially one this important, that claims “200,000 MAY DIE” – and see ALL of the important data and calculations, even those from other papers relied on for reference. This does not mean every observation or claim from another paper must be included, but to exclude the methods of the most IMPORTANT number in the entire paper is simply wrong.
All that said, I suspect the author, as we see so often in the AGW discussion, knows well very few will read anything but the Press Release – many won’t read further than the headline. The failings in the paper are essentially irrelevant because the goal has been achieved – to promote the agenda point – the preconceived conclusion – the sensational headline that BIOFUEL USE MAY KILL 200,000. That is all most care about or will remember.
I would offer that Dr. Golkany might well apply his own words, with slight modification, to the entirety of the issue:
There can be no honest analysis of the costs and
benefits of biofuel policies if they do not consider
ALL of the effects, both pro and con, that
effect death and disease in developing countries”
To make a claim that “200,000 MAY DIE” while ignoring even the most basic positive effects of biofuel use is simply wrong and renders this paper in my opinion of little value. It’s conclusions are not well documented nor supported, it makes a number of broad claims without support or documentation, and it dismisses the many well documented positive effects on health (and potentially on poverty) that biofuels use can offer.
I am just about certain inclusion of these known positive effects into Dr Golkany’s death scenario would easily tip the balance significantly positive – would show “current” biofuel production actually decreases poverty overall.
Even if you simply add the value of known, undisputed biofuel byproducts, distillers dried grains, corn meal, corn gluten, corn oil etc and ignore the positive environmental aspects the balance has to tip significantly. DDGs alone are essentially the same product as the corn they began with, only in a more useful higher quality form.
Further this paper fails to offer any perspective on the context of size and scope of the problem claimed, how the number of deaths it alleges may occur relate to the world population, nor any discussion of margin of error and how those alleged deaths relate.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
April 21, 2011 at 3:45 am
From philincalifornia on April 20, 2011 at 9:28 pm:
—————————————————-
Thanks for responding. I pretty much agree with all of that and especially this:
“BTW, it is not incumbent on US farmers to feed Africans. Indeed, we’ve done great damage over the years by supplying free/cheap food aid, which killed off local production. What we should do, the best solution, is to make them better able to feed themselves,”
Unfortunately, that solution never seems to occur to the people who are incapable of actually doing anything constructive. It’s easier to whine about carbon dioxide, get elected, do f***-all about the unintended consequences they mandated, and now whine about biofuels.
It’s not as if the unintended consequences weren’t fairly obvious and quantifiable – as Richard Courtney points out, he was on this in 2006.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/biofuel_issues.pdf
We could have been teaching “Africans” to feed themselves from way before this happened. Anyway, I’m a positive thinker. Maybe “Africans” will be able to make themselves biofuels too, along with food, now that the die is cast. Given the corruption though, I’m not holding my breath on that one.