Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The World Bank attacks biofuels

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The World Bank attacks biofuels
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The World Bank attacks biofuels
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
More about?

In reply to: The World Bank attacks biofuels

Go rent or buy the documentary "KING CORN" as it helps explain this in part.

Collapse -
I'm sure it's just

In reply to: More about?

more right wing denial !!!!!!

King Corn. I will look into it.

Collapse -
Good.

In reply to: The World Bank attacks biofuels

I hope it's hitting the oil producers the hardest. *** for Tat.

Collapse -
No....

In reply to: Good.

It's hitting Third World poor people the hardest.

Collapse -
hitting the oil producers the hardest

In reply to: Good.

yes sir! really hurting them.....

at $150 a barrel, it must be really painful

.,

Collapse -
wishful thinking on my part

In reply to: Good.

I think if you look at where some of the greatest famine is, you'll find many of them spend more time making war among themselves than planting and harvesting crops.

Collapse -
Another story...

In reply to: The World Bank attacks biofuels

Here's another story about the same report:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0436153420080704

It names the basis of the report. It said "The assessment is based on a detailed analysis by Don Mitchell, an internationally respected economist at the Washington-based global financial body, the Guardian said."
It also said "Recently, he wrote in the Financial Times that the use of corn for ethanol by the United States had consumed more than 75 percent of global corn production over the past three years, and called on the United States and Europe to ease subsidies and tariffs on biofuels derived from corn and oilseeds."
I wondered about statement about the U.S. consuming more than 75 percent of global corn production, so I went to the Financial Times web site and dis a search on Don Mitchell and corn. I got 2 hits. This appears to be the story:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0a5e0c2-818f-11dc-9b6f-0000779fd2ac.html
It did say "Some of the price rises are the result of temporary problems, such as drought in Australia, and diseases, such as blue-ear in Chinese pigs. But there is a more permanent increase in demand from Asia, as richer populations in China and India demand more protein, and from the biofuel industry, which is on course to consume about 30 per cent of the US corn crop in 2010 ? developments that will underpin prices for the medium term.'.
I'm a little confused. I guess the next thing to do is to search out a full copy of that leaked report.

Collapse -
The troubling thing about this is;

In reply to: The World Bank attacks biofuels

They obviously think of crops we've raised here in the USA as somehow theirs, as if we are obligated to raise enough food not just for our own nation, but extra for them. While I have no problems with trading food to overseas places, I do resent them acting as if it's some obligation on our part to trade food with them, and as if they have some inherent right to expect such trade.

Collapse -
Interesting POV

In reply to: The troubling thing about this is;

... For years the US has thought of certain commodities as being their own personal property and not the country which produces them. Heck, the US has even invaded and annexed these countries at several times in our history. I find it interesting that you seem outraged by other countries apparently expecting food from the US to be available to them. Today, it is called globalization, at other times it was called manifest destiny. Leaders such as Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, have all maneuvered the US into being part of the global market and the global community to open up closed markets for our use. Unfortunately the treaties opening up those markets works both ways now, and we are expected to make our goods available to others. It's a little too late to start suggesting that the goods any one country produces is only for the exclusive use of any one country.

Oh yeah... prime example of an independent nation that was invaded by the US based on the promptings of US business wanting access to the products ? Hawaii. More examples to be found as well. Also try researching the origins of the term "Banana Republic" and just exactly what the term actually means. The US has spent money, materials, and lives on securing commodities for it's use as recently as the 1990s.

Collapse -
Please explain how "globalization" is the same thing as

In reply to: Interesting POV

"manifest destiny".

Today, it is called globalization, at other times it was called manifest destiny

I await enlightenment.

Collapse -
Yeah

In reply to: Please explain how "globalization" is the same thing as

That really stuck out like a sore thumb. Maybe if we used manifest destiny concepts more for providing our own oil through expanded drilling, conversion of shale beds, cleaner coal, we'd not be so hamstrung by Globalist.

Manifest Destiny was Nationalist, Globalism is Socialist. Whether in agreement with one, or object to both, one thing is certain, they are NOT the same.

Collapse -
Globalism is socialism ?

In reply to: Yeah

Maybe somebody should inform Haliburton that they are a socialist organization. Then there's OPEC... The World Bank... NAFTA, CAFTA, all socialist trade treaties.

Wow, I guess the commies won after all.

Cheers comrade !

Collapse -
Manifest Destiny

In reply to: Globalism is socialism ?

It's aim was to protect and insure independence by securing the land and resources necessary to maintain that independence and deny adequate staging areas for continual wars which might have happened otherwise, ergo the reason to have the nation expand from sea to sea, across the entire continent. The main point being to insure independence.

Globalisation's goal is to insure interdependence in a misguided belief it will prevent future wars than be the cause of them. It's ultimate goal is a One World Government.

Collapse -
And the point of a one world government is ???

In reply to: Manifest Destiny

Those looking forward to a one world government do so for the consolidation of power... not because of increased efficiency of serving the public, but because of the prospect of increased profit that comes from selling to the public. Those in the catbird seat would say this is a symbiotic relationship which benefits everyone. They forget to mention it will benefit a select few more than the majority of us. That, my friend, is far from socialism. That is an intentional effort to widen and strengthen the gap between economic and social classes.

Collapse -
I think you need to brush up on your definitions.

In reply to: And the point of a one world government is ???

glob

Collapse -
You disagree with the use of the term ?

In reply to: Please explain how "globalization" is the same thing as

Wikipedia's definition of the philosophy, as well as the historical period goes like this...

Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious ("manifest") and certain ("destiny"). Originally a political catch phrase of the 19th century, "Manifest Destiny" eventually became a standard historical term, often used as a synonym for the expansion of the United States across the North American continent.

expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious ("manifest") and certain ("destiny")

Is this not what advocates for a global market preach ? ... That expansion of global markets is inevitable and the only way to bring economic prosperity?

Collapse -
Here's the original story...

In reply to: The World Bank attacks biofuels

I thought it might be a good idea to look at the original story by the Guardian rather than another source's reporting on that story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

Looking thru other Guardian stories on this subject I found one that caught my eye. In the story, the Guardian reporter said:

"World Bank President Robert Zoellick has said biofuels are a 'significant contributor' to the increase in food prices.
Recently, he wrote in the Financial Times that the use of corn for ethanol by the United States had consumed more than 75 percent of global corn production over the past three years, and called on the United States and Europe to ease subsidies and tariffs on biofuels derived from corn and
oilseeds.".
Those were the words of the Guardian reporter. But later in the story he gives a direct quote from World Bank President Zoellick saying "The use of corn for ethanol has consumed more than 75 percent of the increase in global corn production over the past three years".
If I read that right the Guardian reporter said 75 percent of global corn production, but Zoellick said 75 percent of increase. Total production is one thing, but increase in production is another.
Oh, BTW The Guardian said senior development sources believed the report, completed in April, had not been published to avoid embarrassing President George W. Bush. "It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one source. The article did not name that one source. It would have been better if they had.

Collapse -
good catch

In reply to: Here's the original story...

When I read it I just assumed the guy must have been a totally biased idiot. Nice to realize he's refering ONLY to a portion of the increased corn yield the past year or two. Of course that means the total yield of corn for food consumption actually increased during the increased ethanol production years. Let's not forget the protein by products from ethanol production are still used for feedstock, all that's really lost is the starcy component. What's in shorter supply the world over is adequate protein intake.

Collapse -
That byproduct...

In reply to: good catch

That byproduct is called dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS). Concentrations of protein, fiber, fat, and minerals are increased depending on the concentration of starch in the grain. Corn grain is about two-thirds starch and when most of the starch is removed, concentrations of the other nutrients are increased. Protein goes from 9.4 percent in corn to 30 percent in DDGS. Fat goes from 4.2 percent in corn to 12 percent in DDGS.
I'll have to get around to trying to get price history statistics to see what has happened to the DDGS price after the ethanol situation developed. There may be something like an animal feed futures market out there somewhere.

Collapse -
Well, good for the World Bank!

In reply to: Here's the original story...

See, I knew they had it in themselves to do something constructive - if only to expose the unintended consequences of the great ethanol fraud...

Collapse -
The annoying thing...

In reply to: Well, good for the World Bank!

I wanted to see what that report actually said. The Yahoo report that started this thread said "an unpublished World Bank report published in The Guardian newspaper on Friday" So I went to the Guardian to get it, but their story of 4 July said that report had been "obtained by the Guardian." It doesn't look like they published the actual report itself as Yahoo had said.
With the confusion I mentioned about the Guardian saying "Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% in the story that got the attention and another Guardian story saying something about "75 percent of the increase in global corn production" I don't know what that World Bank report actually said.
It looks like the Yahoo reporter was confused, and I suspect the Guardian reporter may have been also. There is only one thing to do, look at the actual report itself.

Collapse -
Why don't we forget ethanol, and start converting coal to

In reply to: Here's the original story...

oil? Why waste valuable grains when coal is readily available?

Collapse -
Why waste valuable grains

In reply to: Why don't we forget ethanol, and start converting coal to

according to a couple of posts by J Vega, if grain production was increased by "X", then 25% of "X" probably went to the grain "food" market...

wouldn't it be ironic if in actual fact there was more grain as a result of ethanol Wink


.,

Collapse -
I want to know...

In reply to: Why waste valuable grains

I want to know how much the DDGS byproduct increased animal production. Think about, that "X", whatever it was, generated a lot of prime quality animal feed. A gentleman I once talked with who happened to run a bourbon distillery told me that he had a waiting market for it and the buyers told him they would take all he could produce. He told me that hogs love it.

Collapse -
It seems that you didn't understand what J wrote.

In reply to: Why waste valuable grains

It wasn't that hard to grasp.

Collapse -
wellllllllllllllllll

In reply to: It seems that you didn't understand what J wrote.

i understood J, and i think he understood me, so, who exactly didn't understand what....

.,

Collapse -
Think about something, Jonah...

In reply to: wellllllllllllllllll

Think about the story that started this thread. At the top, it said:
"LONDON (AFP) - Biofuels have caused world food prices to increase by 75 percent, according to the findings of an unpublished World Bank report published in The Guardian newspaper on Friday."
Think about what we have there. Yahoo reports their take on a story by AFP (Agence France-Presse), who is reporting their take on a story by the Guardian, which is reporting their take on a paper by one man at the World Bank.
The Yahoo take is 4th hand. How many people will see only that 4th hand report? How many of them will use it as "evidence" when they pass it along in a 5th take version of the report?

Collapse -
So unless you're in the room

In reply to: Think about something, Jonah...

it's second hand ......and tainted.

Collapse -
A reporter should...

In reply to: So unless you're in the room

You must not like what I said. Is that why you made such a silly statement?
A reporter is supposed to confirm what he reports. Basically, that's what I tried to do. The Yahoo reporter said the figure came from a document published by the Guardian. So I went to the Guardian to see the report for myself, but it appears that the Guardian didn't publish it, just their take on a part of it. When I looked further at the Guardian site, the cookie started to crumble.
I have doubts that the Yahoo reporter even tried to confirm that figure in the Yahoo report.

Collapse -
RE: I have doubts that the Yahoo reporter

In reply to: A reporter should...

I have doubts that the Yahoo reporter even tried to confirm that figure in the Yahoo report.

Because you weren't in the room to see him/her do the research?

Why that's just silly.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

REVIEW

Sublime suburban chariot

High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.