Is it hypocritical for a meat eater to criticize biofuels?

Question

70 percent of the grain grown in the US goes to feed livestock.

70 percent.

Far less goes to biofuels. Biofuels are only a minor cause of increased food prices, and decreased supplies. The main reasons are worldwide drought (likely because of global warming) and that a lot more people are getting wealthy and eating meat.

I'll grant you that making ethanol from corn is a dubious idea. I see it as a bridge to ethanol from things like sawgrass, which grows in conditions unsuitable for growing food. Bad land, little water.

Answer 1

Given the current weak level of bio-fuel technology, I believe that 'meat-eaters', fish-eaters and salad-eaters all have the right to be critical of bio-fuels.

Food for thought:  (2007 article)

"One systemic cause for the price rise (food) is held to be the diversion of food crops (corn in particular) for making first-generation biofuels.  An estimated 100 million tonnes of grain per year are being redirected from food to fuel.   (Total worldwide grain production for 2007 was just over 2 billion tonnes.   As farmers devoted larger parts of their crops to fuel production than in previous years, land and resources available for food production were reduced correspondingly. This has resulted in less food available for human consumption, especially in developing and least developed countries, where a family's daily allowances for food purchases are extremely limited. The crisis can be seen, in a sense, to dichotomize rich and poor nations, since, for example, filling a tank of an average car with biofuel, amounts to as much corn (Africa's principal food staple) as an African person consumes in an entire year.

Since late 2007, "Agflation," caused by the increased diversion of corn harvests in biofuels, the tying of corn to rising oil prices by commodity traders, and a resulting price rise, has caused market substitution, with price rises cascading through other commodities: first wheat and soy prices, then latter rice, soy oil, and a variety of cooking oils."

In short..... corn-ethanol production in this country was a knee-jerk reaction based on little or no scientific/economic understanding of its world-wide impact.  Without heavy taxpayer subsidies, ethanol would be unheard of...... it is not economical to produce....nor does it help the environment....and most importantly....it DOES and IS promoting starvation in under-developed countries.

Answer 2

No. Our society and infrastructure was built with that 70% going to feed livestock. Corn based biofuels messed everything up.

And personally, I am not a huge fan of sawgrass based ethanol either--means more land converted to farmland. I think algae based ethanol is the way to go as far as biofuels go.

Answer 3

Why bother with biofuels anyway?  They pollute more and cause food prices to go up higher than normal.

Besides, they just found a way to get to the over 200 billion barrels of oil in the Dakotas.

We have enough oil for a very, very long time.

Enjoy !!

Answer 4

um, you have some point but i somehow disagree with you. you only just get your information in the US. try to see what is happening in the Amazon just to make those biofuels. yeah, biofuels are efficient and a good alternative but almost all biofuels are net carbon emitters.

we are looking for alternatives that is enough to cut carbon emissions here, not just alternatives. you are right that it is a bridge to make other forms of biofuels but specifically what kind of biofuel? biofuels that emit the same carbon as cars do? biofuels is not really eco friendly.

besides, we must do our best to eliminate every factor that causes food prices to shoot up.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...

Answer 5

I'm glad you said grain other wise I would have to put on the boxing gloves. It' the lack of distinction between small and large scale that upsets me. I could dive into the reason why but you already know the answer. Of course there's more to it then that, especially if one considers the government subsidies allocated to mass agro production. Much like the oil Co's free reign policies with little or no true regulation/enforcement. *(The Meat You Eat) by; Ken Midkiff.

Self dependency has been predisposed to global marketing strategies that has in all truth backfired,*"Get big or Get out. You do know that Tyson bought out IBP the largest wholesaler of beef in Brazil? It's the sugar content of certain plants that make them appealing for ethanol production not just their hardness to nature.

For those aspiring nature lover's check out your local Collage or University. Most are offering subsidies on educational programs in this area.

Sorry, almost forgot: it's not hypocritical for anyone to question anything. "So no is my answer".

ed: for a skeptic a zero is a good rating.

Answer 6

No,  because we are rich in Coal, why don't we develop ways to utilize more efficiently?  Last time I checked we can't eat coal.

Answer 7

Yes, you could make that argument.

The ideal use of our agricultural land would be to grow food crops and eat them directly, rather than feeding them to livestock and then eating the livestock, which is a much less efficient process.  However, humans are omnivores, and it's not easy for everyone to become a vegetarian or vegan.  I certainly think people should try to minimize our meat consumption for this reason though.

Biofuels exacerbate the problem by requiring further land use change.  Of course, some biofuels do more good than harm, while some (mainly corn-based ethanol) do more harm than good.  In particular biofuel from algae is extremely promising.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/are-al...

But to your question as to whether it's hypocritical for a meat eater to criticize biofuels, that's a valid point.  By feeding large amounts of grain and other crops to livestock, we're reducing the efficiency of our agricultural system, requiring more land to be used for crop growth, which contributes to global warming.  It also increases the demand for and thus the price of these crops.  These are the two reasons biofuels are criticized, so it is indeed hypocrisy for a meat eater to criticize biofuels for causing these same problems.

Answer 8

The rationale (rightly or wrongly) is all about stability.  The fear is that if we start using food crops for fuel, their price could rise and fall eratically with the price of crude oil.  In times of high oil prices poor countries might make good money exporting food stock at the expense of being able to feed their people.  

In the US, you use grain as stock feed - but that's a pretty stable demand.

Answer 9

Interesting question, it can be.

The reason biofuels are so bad is because forests are being cut down and crops for fuel grown instead of food. I remember being involved in a campaign against McDonald's, who were cutting down the rainforest to grow animal feed. So yes, it is an issue.

But you can achieve a lot, by just consuming meat more sensibly. Problem is we consume way more meat then is natural, especially beef etc.

Answer 10

Interesting post Bob, since just a couple of months ago you were stating that the increased snow was caused by global warming, since the warmer air would hold more water.  Now you're stating that droughts are caused by warming.  

Most  starvation are caused by war, as food is used as a weapon.

Currently there are 101 bio fuel plants on line and operational.  There are another 100 being built.  Other crops like rice and soy beans are being plowed under to grow more corn.

This causes people like me to jump into the markets and put my money into grain products as the demand is only going to increase.  This speculation also drives the prices up, and as long as bio fuels create the demand, the price will go higher.

Answer 11

No all the oil comes from plants not animal.

Answer 12

Bio-fuels are simply not sustainable energy supplies.  Imagine if every single fast food restaurant supplied their waste grease for fuel...  That might handle about four percent of the vehicles out there.  Plus, as ethanol is inefficient, so is bio-fuels.  Plus, bio-fuels put out far more carbon than fossil fuels ever could.

The good thing about fossil fuels is that mother nature broke down fossil fuels to such a great extent, that it is far easier to clean, filter and burn and with less waste than bio-fuels.  We are in essence, forcing bio-fuels to be what fossil fuels already are, however, we  cannot efficiently replace what mother nature has done over millions and possibly billions of years.

We are trying and that is a formidable effort but if we start flooding the market with bio-fuels, we would have to kiss goodbye the clean skies over Los Angeles and catalytic converters would have to be gone, because they would clog up so fast that cars would simply not run.