The New York Sun turns up the heat on environmentalists who promote biofuels as an alternative to oil and an answer to global warming. The article cites a number of researchers who say government promotion of biofuels has contributed to rising food prices and could increase world hunger.
Now wait a minute,
isn't that over-simplifying things a little -- or a lot? How about the impact of delivery lines, subsidies, tariffs and weather?
The New York Times recently reported:
Many specialists in food policy consider government mandates for
biofuels to be ill advised, agreeing that the diversion of crops like
corn into fuel production has contributed to the higher prices. But
other factors have played big roles, including droughts that have
limited output and rapid global economic growth that has created higher
demand for food.
That growth, much faster over the last four
years than the historical norm, is lifting millions of people out of
destitution and giving them access to better diets. But farmers are
having trouble keeping up with the surge in demand.
While there is agreement that the growth of biofuels has contributed to higher food prices, the amount is disputed.
Work
by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington
suggests that biofuel production accounts for a quarter to a third of
the recent increase in global commodity prices. The Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
predicted late last year that biofuel production, assuming that current
mandates continue, would increase food costs by 10 to 15 percent.
Ethanol supporters maintain that any increase caused by biofuels is
relatively small and that energy costs and soaring demand for meat in
developing countries have had a greater impact.
