Food, fuel, and foodstamps
by George SeldesJuly 5th, 2007 at 18:01:23
Over at BlueOregon, Chuck Sheketoff wrote about the ethanomania boom pushing up the price of beer (the horror!), leading to a weird parallel discussion by some of us about biofuels and others about beer … It’s here if you want to check it out.
Thinking about the session, I’d have to say the Governor’s failure to veto the biofuels subsidy is really the low point, especially because the good Governor got so much press and attention with his brief visit to the food stamp diet, which allows for just $21/wk.
It’s hard to square compassion for the poor and concern about the growing plague of hunger in Oregon with annual $5 million giveaway to agribiz, . . . (continued) especially when the decision to make hungry people compete with SUVs for the use of crops and crop land was so casually made, with so little investigation. We’ve gotten completely out of the agriculture policy business as a people, leaving it entirely up to the good graces of Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, IBP and a handful of other massive conglomerates to decide food policy; meanwhile, other arms of those same corporations shake down their ATM-like legislators for biofuels subsidies, meaning they win both at the subsidy roulette and in the form of higher food prices.
There is no more government cheese, did you know that? And, thanks to biofuels, the price of cheese and all other dairy is skyrocketing as the price of feed grains goes through the roof. Wheat prices are pushing up the price of bread, as land is diverted to grow corn for ethanol and soy for biodiesel. Oh, and don’t expect an end to people fleeing poverty in Mexico any time soon — the skyrocketing price of corn is bringing more and more hungry people north.
Was there ever a policy more immoral than one that encourages farmers to stop growing food for people in order to fuel up SUVs?
July 6th, 2007 at 12:14 am
The naive acceptance by most of biofuels as the clean, green energy alternative to oil hasn’t been overlooked by many politicians. They promote it as not only environmentally friendly but a boost to local agriculture. Isn’t it interesting that virtually no substantive criticism of biofuels has been forthcoming from the oil producers. Sadly, the reality is that agribusiness will be the winner here, not the consumer.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Yeah, the meme that Big Oil opposes biofuels is one that a lot of people pick up without a thought and repeat until they believe it must be true, despite the total lack of evidence. It simply fits in so nicely with the frame that says that industrial sectors compete with each other — which is totally not how the energy sector works (since it powers all the others).
Big Oil LOVES biofuels because they keep us in thrall to the liquid fuels that Big Oil sells, and Big Oil loves Big Ag because Big Ag uses a LOT of Big Oil’s products, both directly (tractor fuel, fuel for transporting Ag products) and indirectly (fertilizer is nearly all natural gas; pesticides and herbicides are all petrochemicals; plastic packaging is all made from oil and natural gas).
Now that we’re at or near the peak in cheap oil availability and it’s all down hill from here, biofuels are the perfect thing for Big Oil — anything that keeps from switching away from the private auto works for them, especially if the biofuel subsidies means that they can raise prices for their liquid fuels AND for all the other, indirect uses.