Talk:Food vs. fuel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Creation

I created this from some of the other articles that mention this topic, in particular biofuel. This topic is related to several other articles and so I think needs its own article. This current article is just a start. I think this is a hard problem with no easy answers and much controversy. Please try to play nice. Vincecate (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting reading...with a little more traffic this should get polished up in no time. Mirboj (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Deforestation is related. The competition between food and fuel is causing new land to be brought into farming. But leaving it as a see also is fine. Vincecate (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Update

This article is in desperate need of updating given the increased notability of the subject. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice thing about Wikipedia is that when you think something needs to be done you are allowed to do it. Vincecate (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. I am making a call for more specialist editors as well as this isn't a subject I know a lot about but was brought here from the food price crisis article, 2007–2008 world food price crisis which people have been doing a good job of it. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That page jumped up in just 10 days and looks very good. Wiki is amazing sometimes. Vincecate (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I realised that just after posting here before, same as the food crisis article, and of course it is n ice to improve it while asking others to do the same

SqueakBox, you keep editing the top of the article to indicate that it is a topic on which there is wide consensus. But in fact, it is hotly debated. Why would "considered by some" need a source if "widely considered" does not? "Widely considered" is the stronger statement and needs more support

Question

Would you please consider some research to support a pie diagram that shows the % of land used in the world to produce food (cereals), biofuels, tobacco, beer, wine, and spirits? I.E. showing what % of farming land is used for each product. Thank you. Glenne Glenne99 (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

USD/EUR impact

I've removed this line since it's unsourced and clearly untrue:

The US dollar is worth less on the world market so prices measured in dollars have increased dramatically. Food price increases measured in Euros are much smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you think is untrue about this? You agree the dollar has gone down relative to the Euro and most other currencies? You agree that that Euruo up 50% relative to dollar (i.e. now takes 1.5 dollars instead of 1 to get a Euro) is a dramatic change? Wheat, oil, etc plotted in Euros really don't go up so much. What is the problem? The dollar devaluation is part of what is going on, really. Only part, but part. Vincecate (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If you would pick up your calculator and do some simple math you would come to the conclusion that price increases in EURO are equally important. The numbers are smaller because the value of the EURO is higher compared to USD. There's no evidence to support that price increases in EURO are less important than in USD, taking into account the actual value of both currencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Help me with my math, I can't get a factor of 3 increase in price within 3 years for any grain when measuring in Euros, but I can in US dollars for corn or wheat. 207.42.133.245 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Where on this graph do you spot a 3 fold increase of corn and wheat prices in USD over 3 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Look at this one: http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/M 562/187=3. Other places I have seen articles saying corn went from $2/bushel to $6/bushel in under 3 years. Now you show me the same thing in Euros, if you want you can just calculate the exchange rates for 2 points on the same corn data in the URL I just used. Can't use one exchange rate for both times since the exchange rate changed during this period. So, show me corn prices in Eruos changing by a factor of 3 in under 3 years. Vincecate (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Note that 562 or 187 really mean $5.62/bushel or $1.87/bushel because of the number of bushels in that commodity contract. http://www.oxfordfutures.com/commodity_futures_options_contract_specs.htm Vincecate (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on your corn price chart and this overview of USDEUR for the same time period I came to these conclusions:
The $182 is hit in october 2005 at which time the USDEUR rate was approx. 0.83. The $562 mark is hit in februari 2008 at which time the USDEUR rate was approx. 0.68. Using my calculator I get these EUR prices: approx 155 EUR for oct 2005 and approx 382 EUR for feb 2008. This is an approx increase of times 2.45. Give or take a few EUR for the approx USDEUR rate and lets be conservative for the sake of argument so lets settle on a price increase of times 2.4 in EUR. Not exactly times 3 but close enough.
Anyway, it indicates USD devaluation only plays a minor part so should not be given undue weight. I seems market forces play a far more important role.
I agree it is only part of the explanation, and even a minor part, but this is a complex problem with many factors. I agree this should not be given undue weight, but I also don't think it should be deleted. It is part of the overall picture. Vincecate (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's unsourced. And it should not say Food price increases measured in Euros are much smaller. Instead it should say Food price increases measured in Euro are smaller due to USD devaluation but not more than 15%.
The increase is everything above "1", so it should be 1.4/2, so Euros only have 70% of the increase you get when you measure in USD. I put in something with one source. I think I have read better but can't remember where. Please look at that source and see if you agree with what it says now. Vincecate (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where 1.4/2 comes from. Based on the corn example above it should be 2.4/3 which is 80% of the price increase in EUR compared to USD.
If a new price was 1.1 times an old price, then the increase is 0.1 or 10%, not 1.1. For a new price that is a factor of 3 of an old price the increase is 2, or 200%. If the new price is 2.4 times the old price, the increase is 1.4 or 140%. So the guy who gets paid in Euros only looks at 140%/200% or 70% of the problem that a guy who gets paid in US dollars will feel. Vincecate (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. So the price increase we measured in EUR is 70% compared to USD and the current price in EUR is 80% of that in USD.

Only a weak link

Wikipedia trys to present all of the main arguments in a topic where there is disagreement. Each of these points of view or arguments should have its own section. On this topic, one of the arguments is that it is a weak link.

Probably there should be a section arguing that it is the US corn subsidies that are the main thing, since that really is a common argument. But that should not be in this section. Also, the source claiming 45% biofuel target for US by 2015 just has to be an error. Maybe they mean 4.5%. Nobody else thinks the US gets to that kind of percentage that soon. Vincecate (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph is a reliable source. If you can find another reliable source to disclaim these numbers we can change the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I made a new "US government policy" section and put your stuff in there. I still don't buy the 45% biofuel target. Here is what they said, "America - the world's food superpower - will divert 18pc of its grain output for ethanol this year, chiefly to break dependency on oil imports. It has a 45pc biofuel target for corn by 2015." I think they mean that 45% of the corn produced in the US in 2015 will go to biofuel. Vincecate (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So now you have taken this confusing statement of "45% biofuel target for corn by 2015" and included it in our article? Does this seem wise? Vincecate (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

US Government Policy

There are a bunch of references that say the US government policy is the main cause. Since Wikipedia should show all the main arguments I have made a section for this. I put some references there but have not really written up the section. Vincecate (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Proposed causes" section removed?

What happened to the "Proposed causes" section? Why has it been removed?

The "proposed causes" section is still there. I changed the name of the "Only a weak link" subsection to "Factors other than food or fuel". Vincecate (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues with "Factors other than food or fuel" section

I'm listing my concerns with this section here. The section is highlighted in italics and my comments are in between.

That food prices went up at the same time fuel prices went up is not surprising and should not be entirely blamed on biofuels. Energy costs are a significant cost for fertilizer, farming, and food distribution.

I'm not sure in how far the cost of food distribution is a significant part of the market price of foodstuffs. I can imagine how it affects the price of products in supermarkets. But buying food on the international markets typically does not include the price to transport the food to factories to turn them into wafels or candy bars.
But you don't have to pick up the food at lots of different farms either. There is some transportation costs. Vincecate (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
But is it significant? I think we should be more specific in which price increase we're talking about. This price increase of commodity futures or the price increase in the supermarkets?
Most articles are using commodity prices, not supermarket prices. It is grains and oil seeds that have gone up so much, not Wheaties or Corn Flakes. I would expect a small percentage of the price increase to be due to transportation costs, but there are many factors to this problem and this is a small one. Seems worth mentioning though. Vincecate (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Today a new article says, "Growing crops takes energy, and countries that have to import food are now paying a high price for shipping because of fuel costs." http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=4683795&page=2 Even after corn has gone from $2/bushel to $6/bushel, it is still only $6 for 56 lbs of shelled corn. Compared to many things shipped internationally this is a low price/pound item, so shipping will be a bigger fraction of the end user cost. Vincecate (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Transport costs are indeed adding to the cost of getting food to consumers. Put in the article we've been using future prices, not consumer prices. We will need to make this distinction to avoid confusion. I think the transportation cost and other costs need more attention.
Yes. A few of the articles talk about price changes in other countries, which could include shipping costs. Vincecate (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, China and other countries have had significant increases in their imports as their economies have grown.[1]

Increased import of food or fuel, or both? I think the phrase needs to be more specific to avoid confusion.

Sugar is one of the main feedstocks for ethanol and prices are down from 2 years ago. [2] [3]

These sources support the claim sugar prices have dropped but the part of the statement that sugar is an important feedstock for ethanol is unsourced.

Part of the food price increase for international food commodities measured in US dollars is due to the dollar being devalued. [4]

Let's try to be more specific here. Let's try to put a percentage number on how much prices in USD have increased due to USD devaluation.
In this talk section we have been looking at that (above a bit). But we have not found a reference with a number and so are reluctant to put it in. You could say that we just did some simple math and that is ok, or you could say it is original research. If you want to put it in I won't mind. Vincecate (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we can add a reference using the corn graph and USDEUR graph and add our calculation example. That would be good enough since we use reliable resources and both the data we use and the calculation is verifiable.
Ok, go ahead. Vincecate (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Protectionism is also an important contributor to price increases. [5]

I think this one needs a better source. Also, I think the impact of protectionism on price increases deserves a little more attention.

Any references that respond to Corn Growers Association arguments?

Has anyone come across any references that responds to the arguments made by the Corn Growers Association? Seems like it would be good to have something that addressed these specifically. Vincecate (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In particular, they say there was no shortage caused by ethanol plants because they planted more acres with corn/maize to answer that extra demande. Doesn't that imply that the surfaces used for some other crop have been reduced ? There must be someone who pointed that --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for changing the article's name

Shouldn't the article have a clearer and more understandable name, such as "Food vs fuel controversy", or even more specific "Food vs biofuel controversy". Check Wiki for other controversial articles, such as Antarctica cooling controversy, Global warming controversy, Creation-evolution controversy, etc. There is a whole series of articles with this name. Please give your opinion, make your suggestions and vote on your preference below. Mariordo (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Change for "Food vs biofuel controversy". Mariordo (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC) See below. I now prefer "Food vs biofuels debate".Mariordo (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There is now a real competition for land resources and commodities already grown between the food and fuel markets. It is not just some controversy humans argue about. In this case the "vs" is not the two sides to a debate, the people who believe in "food" and the people who believe in "fuel". This is a fundamental fight between the world food and the world fuel markets. The two markets, which used to be separate, are now linked and fighting for resources. As long as crude oil prices stay up high, significant vegetable oil will be used as fuel. Also, "Food vs fuel" is the description given in the articles on this topic. I think the current name is the correct name. Vincecate (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You are assuming the competition is real. In Wiki we have to assume NPOV. To see if actually there is a significant controversy just do a quick Google search, to see if such controversy exists. Also look for the reply the Brazilian Government gave this week to the FAO guy who declared last week in Brasilia that using crops for biofuels is a crime against humanity. Another example, there is consensus Global Warming caused by men is real. So how come there is controversy, and even a Wiki article presenting the facts about it? Another tip. Read on-line the article from The Economist entitled "The Silent Tsunami" (April 17th, 2008 issue). Ono position is that the competition of food for fuels is happening mainly in the U.S., but several public sources, including FAO, IMF and the World Bank are calling this trade-off a global problem. The Brazilian experience is not like that. See the Wiki article about Brazil and also the book in the Bibliography which is a good account of the evolution of ethanol production in the U.S. and explains the big difference with Brazil, and why Brazil is considered by some a successful case of sustainable use of ethanol, or are they cutting the Amazon forest? The problem is complex, includes business interests (already several OPEC countries have offically declared agaisnt biofuels for this reason), economics, world trade, China and India fast grow, the environment, and even climate change. Anyway, to call it a controversy means we will have to properly source such a controversy or public debate, and only from reliable sources, not the opinion of the editors. Otherwise, it will be Original Research which is not acceptable by Wiki policies. Clearly, I do believe there is a significant controversy. Mariordo (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In discussions I can have a point of view and say things without sources. I agree there is controversy, but this is not like your other controversies where the controversy is just about different explanations. This is different. There is a kind of fight between "food" and "fuel", not just an argument between different beliefs. Also, this is the name used in the articles. And when they say, "food vs fuel" they don't mean like "creation vs evolution". Anyway, you vote to change the name and I vote to NOT change the name. So we are deadlocked till more votes come in. Vincecate (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. You'll find more results by searching Google for "food or fuel" than for "food vs. fuel"/"food vs fuel". Both names seem rather pejorative to me, although I don't care enough about the subject to look for a neutral and reasonably common name. Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names seems relevant. John Nevard (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The saying "Rising food prices are a silent tsunami" is saying something real is going on. This is not just a debate about how best to explain something. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11050146 Vincecate (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A google search for "food vs fuel" returns 27,900 web entries. A search for "food vs biofuel" returns only 403 entries. Wiki is supposed to use the standard terms. If readers are misled into thinking the term is "food vs biofuel" and they go to google to search that they won't find much. We really should stay with the standard phrase. Vincecate (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am in favor of a name change to "Food vs biofuel controversy". This title is more consistent with many other article names in wiki V8rik (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm in favour of "Food vs fuel" or "Food vs biofuel", but think that "Food vs biofuel controversy" is going too far. Johnfos (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I put a redirect in food or fuel that points to this article. As someone above points out that is another good search phrase. Vincecate (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that "controversy" might be very strong. After listening to the comments, and researching a bit, I now suggest "Food versus biofuels debate", and let me clarify that reaching a consensus should be our goal, not just a majority vote. Additional reasons for this name are:
1) Let's look at other Google results regarding the popular use of the term:
The open search (w/o "") for food vs biofuels debate returns 2.740.000 entries.
The open search for food vs biofuels controversy returns 382.000 entries
The open search for the current article name food vs fuel returns 235.000 entries
The open search for food vs fuel debate returns 191.000 entries
The open search for food vs biofuel returns 163.000 entries
Any decision depending on Google is controversial, but at least these results show that the addition of "debate" or "controversy" is indeed relevant, since these words are almost always associated to article's question of food of biofuels.
2) Fuel vs biofuel: this article is refering only about biofuels, coal, natural gas or petroleum are not part of the issue, so the word fuel is incorrect because includes fossil fuels. See more below (4)
3) Debate vs controversy. Controversy means a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views", while debate means "a: contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides. Based on the slight difference I prefer debate because the article is about a public discussiont about a question by considering opposed arguments, while controversy has the meaning of a dispute, arguing irritably, a quarrel.
4) Wikipedia:Naming conventions suggest that "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." So if the other articles refer to this debate as food vs fuel, User:Vincecate has a point. However, the recommendations also say: (i) "be precise when necessary", then, fuel includes fossil fuels, biofuels, etc. Clearly, the debate is only about biofuels, including ethanol from biomass or bioalcohol, biodiesel, biobutanol and biogas (the so called first generation biofuels). The general term fuel is then imprecise and should be changed for biofuel because the content of the article is about the competition of land for farming these biofuels; (ii) "prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations", the example presented is that UK should be avoided, then, versus is preferible to vs., but I don't mine using either; (iii) based on the Google search reporte above, Food vs biofuel debate is more used than just food vs fuel or food vs biofuel.

Finally, please take into consideration that until now, the article seems to exist only in English. After collaborating a bit on this good article, I plan to translate it to Spanish and Portuguese, where just putting A vs B is vague, so the word debate will follow. Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't agree that when people say "food vs fuel" they only mean biofuel. The problem is "food market" vs "fuel market". Currently, with crude oil around $120/barrel, it is much cheaper to heat your house by burning wheat than by using any fuel derived from crude oil (in discussion here). This example is food vs fuel, but hard to call it food vs biofuel. Is this example either a debate or a controversy? Vincecate (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The content of the article as it is today relates mainly to biofuels. I agree there are many ramifications, and eventually, there might be articles on food vs biodiesel, as the issues and sustainability of each biofuel is different, but that is how Wiki articles naturally evolved. But, the current scope relates only to biofuels, and the ongoing controversy/debate is about biofuels. All the Google searches you, other editors and I did were related to biofuels. And, by the way, Brazil's ethanol industry is 30 year old, 40% of the vehicle fleet uses ethanol from sugar cane, car manufacturing is about to reach a 100% full flex-fuel vehicles, and not, their industry is not dependent on oil at $120, it just make it a better deal to fill it up just with ethanol, as vehicles are real 100% fuel-flex and their productivity per acre is much higher than US corn.
So today the issue of using grain to heat houses is now in the main article. I don't think my example is a debate or controversy but I do think it is part of the food vs fuel issue. Vincecate (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
PD: Please check the editing I did on the leading paragraph to make it more NPOV and to make it global, and define the scope of the article. Before it read very US-centric. Also, look at the editing on the controversy generated on April, 2008 by Ziegler and Zoellick. Please let's discuss in a separated section any disagreement you might have with the content as I edited it, I think edit wars are really unproductive. Feel free to improve my English writing, as it is my second-language. On the name change, let's wait for more input from others. Mariordo (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC) PS: Just in case, I am not Brazilian!
  • How about a title such as Political, economic and environmental impact of biofuels per sources such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethanol fuel around the world

Seems peculiar for this article to have all of these Ethanol fuel around the world links when Ethanol fuel does not have links to a couple of them. This article already links to Ethanol economy which is also ethanol fuel. From ethanol fuel people should be able to get to these different articles about ethanol fuel in different countries. Vincecate (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 

* Ethanol fuel in Australia
* Ethanol fuel in Brazil
* Ethanol fuel in Sweden
* Ethanol fuel in the Philippines
* Ethanol fuel in the United States
See the discussion above, because there is controversy if some countries have a sustainable ethanol industry (like Brazil) and other (the U.S) are being blame for the trade-off of food for biofuel. So, it comes handy to have the country case links in this article. I think we just have to add the links in the articles that don't have them. Mariordo (talk)
I already did included those missing articles and included this one too. Mariordo (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Additive vs. Alternative.

I think there needs to be a distinction between increased ethanol use in fuel as an additive versus its use as an alternative.

Abandoning MTBE due to pollution concerns in favor of Ethanol has made E10 (10% ethanol) the standard oxygenating additive for regular gasoline.

That means for ethanol use to be split between regular gasoline and E85, you would need to see one E85 pump for every 8-9 gas pumps. With less than 1000 of 200,000 US gas stations selling E85, I don't see where we even come close to that.

The concern is that stopping the biofuel form of ethanol will only dent the food as fuel issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.15.58 (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heating with Wheat

In Germany some people use Wheat for heating! This was forbidden for several years but know it is allowed! Wheat is cheaper than wood and a lot cheaper than oil or gas.Getreideheizung Stern: Heating with Wheat Canada has also a page on that topic! CBCnews:Grain gaining steam as home-heating option. --Stone (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Found a table showing how much cheaper BTUs of grain are than propane, wood, etc. http://www.grainburningstoves.ca/cost.php If grain is 1/3rd the cost of propane it makes sense for people to switch to burning grain. This table is by a company selling the stoves, so not sure I want to include this as a reliable source. But I do think we should put something on topic in the article. Shows how food just can't be cheaper that fuel because you can just burn it. Also makes it look like grain prices could go up for some time yet as more people will switch to this cheaper heating method. So this does seem notable. Vincecate (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I put something on this in the main article in the "Oil price increases" section. Vincecate (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored Impact on poor section

I put this section back. This is a major point in many of the articles on this topic. This section also has things that I don't think a reader new to this topic would already know. Things like: 

 * Huge numbers of poor people live on $2/day
 * Poor people use grains and oil seeds more than the packaged foods richer people are used to
 * Since a higher portion of a poor persons income is spent on food, price increases hurt much more
 * The combination of all of these and a factor of 3 increase in grain prices is a big problem

These points are not anywhere else that I notice. When someone writes "magazine" it does not mean delete that section. In the US people really are seeing very small price increases and this section tries to explain why things are so different in the poor countries. So please, feel free to fix up the writing in this section, but don't remove some very important points that are here. I think these ideas are key to helping readers understand what is going on. Vincecate (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored part of Non-food crops section

A key reason that simply passing a law saying "can only use non-food crops for biofuel" does not solve the problem is that farmers can still switch from growing food crops to growing biofuel crops. Please don't delete this point. Please discuss before making major deletions. Vincecate (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try to lighten up, Vince, and remember WP:OWN. Try not to stand watch over the article quite so much... Johnfos (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, and you try to remember that while biofuels are good and unstopable, the transition to biofuels is making changes that will cause some some troubles too. Vincecate (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That goes without saying. The commercialization of every new technology presents both problems and opportunities. Johnfos (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
And the more people that understand the problems and opportunities the better. I think this is one of the most important issues in the world today and that we should be particularly careful to be balanced and accurate here. Vincecate (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you are on a crusade Vince... Johnfos (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The 2007-2008 food vs. biofuel controversy

Hi Mariordo, and thanks for your recent contributions in this section. I can see how the first paragraph helps to provide context, but feel that the rest would be best in a "Biofuels politics" section towards the end of the article, where we normally have controversy sections. Johnfos (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

More than politics, the goal was to present the origin or historical background of the 2007-2008 controversy, so probably if we change the section title, something like "Origin of the 2007-2008 controversy", or something shorter, but surely the origin was political mixed with a convergence of factors, discussed in the following sections. I was not planning to go any further on the historical account, there are plenty of other reactions by key politicians, some, already in the article. By the way, I think it is important to have a structure for the article. Before it was very US/UE centric. Also, most of the text is related to the 2007-2008 controversy, but it is presented as if it is general. I called 2007-2008 because there might be other surges in the future, against corn based biofuel or some other crop. I think it will be interesting to proposed among the main collaborators some kind of outline, to forsee the structure of the article as new developments occur. Mariordo (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Who said what to whom in world politics is interesting but I also think this should go toward the end. Wiki tries to present something first then the controversy at the end of the article. Things like the 3 year rise in food prices are the important historical background for the issue. Not some comments by politicians last year. The focus should be on the issues, not the debate or controversy about the issues. Vincecate (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear friends. As Colonel Warden suggested above, this subject is about the Political, economic and environmental impact of biofuels All of them are equally important, so I do not understand your disregard for the political part, when in fact, the article would be a theoretical one without that debate, which indeed was the origin of the current controversy and headlines. It is the politics that will dictate the course of action. Furthermore, Wiki articles dealing with polemical topics have the history or origin of the controversy upfront. See for example New York congestion pricing, Global warming controversy, Antarctica cooling controversy. Or would you please tell me what was the origin of the current controversy, if it wasn'st the recent declarations of the guys from the UN, IMF and the World Bank. Environmentalist have been expressing concerns for years, and indeed, there are several triggers, but have you wondered why if rice, which is not use to produce biofuels, is the major culprit of the popular uprisings, we are talking a lot about corn? It is the politics! international politics. Mariordo (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The origin of the conflict is part of what is under debate. The article has a "proposed causes" section with a number of sub-sections with different proposed causes. Personally I think the main factor in this is that oil prices per BTU of energy passed above food prices per BTU of energy so the global markets started using food as energy. At the end of the day I think the markets are really in charge here. I think that the "impact on poor" section explains why things are now a crisis. Many millions of people may not be able to afford food. This is why this issue is suddenly important. It is the meat of what Castro said that matters, not who said it. If farmers stop planting rice so they can plant high priced corn, then rice prices go up. I like "dilemma" in the lead by the way. To me when people say "food vs fuel debate" the phrase "food vs fuel" is the name of the issue that is debated, not the debate itself. There are real issues here. And there are actions to be taken to help deal with them. Politics are part of this. But there is much more going on that just politics and I don't think politics should go first. My first comment in this discussion at the top was, "play nice". We all want to make a good article and are trying. Vincecate (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned rice because the US does not export rice, and Brazil exports are too low to affect global supply, besides, they are grow at different regions of the country. So there is no substitution of rice per corn. As the article about the food crises explains, it was a drought in Australia that reduced rice exports and began the series of events. Anyway, let me read each of the section carefully and check on other sources before I get back to you. Mariordo (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There are other factors and I am not sure how important each is for rice. But the US has reduced the amount of rice it is planting. I quote, "2007 U.S. Rice Planting Intentions: USDA estimates that U.S. all rice producers intend to plant 2.64 million acres, 7 percent below 2006 and 22 percent below 2005. If these planting intentions materialize then this would be the lowest U.S. planted rice acreage since 1987." http://www.aragriculture.org/agfoodpolicy/radio/may2007/042_05082007_audio.htm Vincecate (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read about Australia's reduced rice production, which it does affects global food supply. Also read 2007–2008 world food price crisis, from where I found the reference. This is not a contest, I as already said, let's keep the WP:NPOV regardless of our opinions and beliefs. Mariordo (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. If the US stops growing so much rice this affects the world markets even if they were not exporting in the past. The reason is the US then imports more which uses up part of the world market supply. Things are all connected. Note that article mentions the biofuel angle and rich country subsidies of biofuels too. If corn and wheat go up by a factor of 3 I would expect rice to go up too. Things are connected in too many ways. For example, when corn goes up farmers in the US switch from wheat to corn and so wheat goes up, then farmers in Australia switch from rice to wheat (which takes less water and lets them sell water rights to grape growers), which causes rice to go up too. Also a poor family, say in Africa, that used to eat a lot of corn and wheat would switch to rice if wheat and corn were up by a factor of 3 and rice did not go up. So rice prices are affected by biofuels indirectly. I am a bit skeptical that a 6 year drought in Australia is really responsible for rice prices doubling in the last 3 months. They have probably not been a net exporter for a long time. Like they say in rice shortage it may be the thing that tipped the scale but there are other things as work here. Here is a new article rice http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2008/gb20080428_894449.htm Vincecate (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I will move the political stuff (now the section Origin of the 2008 controversy) to the end of the article as suggested by Johnfos and organize it differently, so I can do a bit more of editing to complete the international politics' controversy taken place so far in shorter paragraphs. Feel free to summarize since there are already more quotations than I like. In order to avoid the endless arguments, later on I will raise several issues in different sections as suggestions to try to improve the quality of the article, based on my experience in articles dealing with controversial issues, and mainly, to try to establish togetther some criteria to avoid edit wars in the near future, and to have some guidelines as to how the article should be developed. I still believe the article content today is 90% regarding the current controversy, and not a general article on the dilemma of food vs fuel, but let's move on. Mariordo (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WPFood assessment

High importance B-class article. A very important subject for the global economy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

POV issue? Or rather a lack of point of view

As an urban planner and economic development specialist, I find some of these articles unnerving because the tone and seriousness isn't appropriated very well. While most of this article is spot on, I would like to point out that the word "water" only shows up twice in the article or argument. There's two main things that almost all these articles relating to alternative energy seem to fail to get.

For starters, even if we ignored the argument of the feasibility of biofuels and their production, there is not enough water to make it physically possible. Large portions of the food-producing US have been running in water deficits for years (Imperial Valley, Central Valley, Rio Grande Valley, Plains, Florida-- not a complete list but a list of all the places with year-round growing seasons). Now, to push the issue further, if we completely ignore the water issue or rather the lack thereof issue, we do not have enough arable land to pursue this without severe impacts to land use issues in this country. For starters, it'd be easy to attack some of the other "food vs" like tobacco land uses.

Reasons we don't have the land? Sprawl, phosphate resources, water rights issues to name a few. But I'd like to focus purely on sprawl to limit the conversation. Suburban land use, coincidentally the same people worried about fuel shortages, consumes most of the nation's non-farmed arable land-- comes out to roughly of the 12% of arable land in the US, sprawl now consumes half. It also consumes most of the nation's water that isn't use for making money or food-- depending on whose numbers you use, the water breakdown is either [ind. and ag. 80%, bus. and res. 20% with landscaping consuming roughly 8-11% of the total water] or [ind. and ag. 65%, bus. 10%, res. 25% with total landscaping consuming 15% of total water output].

So, my point is that the point of this article is missing the point. If we removed suburbanization in this equation, we would have nearly double the amount of farmable land which would drive down the price of food. Of course, the hilariousness of this is that if got rid of suburbanized land use... we wouldn't need biofuel as fuel consumption would plummet, we would be having less water supply issues and we would have less overall food spoilage due to food miles being dramatically reduced?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.198.116 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy within the international system

That looks good, Mariordo. You really have been doing your research! And if you wish to expand this section more you could consider starting a new and separate Food vs fuel controversy article, and leaving a summary here. Up to you... Johnfos (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Price/Energy for food and energy commodities

I have made a spreadsheet comparing the price and energy content of different food and energy commodities. You can see what I have so far at: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p0GMzVso191YCbj6erYECYw My question is would this make a good Wikipedia page? I think the results are interesting. However, any page depending on prices will always be out of date and I wonder if Wikipedia avoids price related stuff. Vincecate (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of minor alterations

I have deleted the sentence about Lord Oxborough claiming that Monbiot had 'gone too far' in calling for a 5 year moratoriam as this is inaccurate: he did not say that Monbiot had gone too far in calling for a five year moratoriam, he said that he had gone too far in saying that 'apart from used chip fat, there is no such thing as a sustainable biofuel'. I have also slightly changed the following sentence as it was stating as fact something that is POV - it is not clear that the development of 1st gen biofuels is necessary to stimulate the development of 2nd gen, many would disagree with this. Also added that there are some who think that 2nd gen will not solve the problem. I will find a ref for this as soon as I can. Best wishes Josie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.202.219 (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Overpopulation

I'd like to put in a reference to overpopulation also being a cause for rising food prices - see [http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/growing-population-food-intake-may-fuel-food-prices-this-decade/398338/]. Allens (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dated.

While this article is interesting, it's dated more or less to 2008. It'd be nice if someone with some expertise in the field could come in and update this page.Lunaticshell (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Too many reduplicated overlapping articles

One reason this formerly-good article is now an embarrassing eyesore that talks about policy debates in 2007 as if they were happening "now": Articles about biofuels, corn ethanol, US agricultural policy, US ethanol policy, etc. contain so much overlap. I have been trying to learn about these topics from Wikipedia, and it is a daunting business. Someone should grab a large WP:FORK to unravel this giant confused information spaghetti. KerrMudgeonMT (talk)

Done so. I'd say the whole story was completely overdrawn.Serten (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to cut out references, please fix the orphaned refs that result.Dialectric (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, as they had a name, a friendly bot did that for me. Serten (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Food price inflation section out of date

The article's most recent data seems to be 2005, ten years ago. Seems rather out of date in light of all of the economic macro-events which occurred since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.171.133 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Food vs. fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Food vs. fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Food vs. fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Food vs. fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Food vs. fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Food vs. fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ ‘Weak correlation' between food and fuel prices Farm and Ranch Guide: Regional News
  2. ^ World sugar supply to expand - 3/6/2008 6:38:00 AM - Purchasing
  3. ^ http://futures.tradingcharts.com/printchart/SU/M
  4. ^ http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=497&language_id=1
  5. ^ http://biz.yahoo.com/tm/080411/17085.html?.v=1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Food_vs._fuel/Archive_1&oldid=1029322154"