There is No Food Crisis – If Only We Stopped Burning it as ‘Green’ Biofuel

We’ve all been bombarded daily with horror stories about how food prices are being forced up and hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest risk starvation because the Russian invasion of Ukraine has prevented exports of grain and sunflower oil.

Well, let me give you some figures our politicians and the mainstream media don’t want to mention. They don’t mention these figures because these figures undermine the disastrous global-warming, climate-catastrophist, Net-Zero policies being forced on us by our rulers.

The U.S. produces abut 384 million metric tonnes of corn each year and around 50 million tonnes of wheat. Ukraine produces about 38 million tonnes of corn each year and around 33 million tonnes of wheat. Around 20 million tonnes of Ukraine’s wheat is exported each year.

Conclusion 1: The U.S. produces an awful lot more food than Ukraine.

But let’s look at how all the USA’s corn and wheat is actually used. Over a third of the USA’s corn – that’s more than 128 million tonnes of the USA’s corn production – is used to make biofuels rather than being used for human consumption.

It’s more difficult to find out how much of the U.S.’s 38 million tonnes of wheat is used for biofuels, but it may be as much as a quarter. However, we do know that in the European Union, 12 million tonnes of grain, including wheat and maize, is turned into ethanol – around 7% of the bloc’s production. It’s estimated that this is enough food to feed around 150 million people if it wasn’t being used for transport fuel.

Also just in the EU, 3.5 million tonnes of palm oil is used to make biodiesel. That’s almost the amount of sunflower oil coming out of Ukraine and Russia combined.

Conclusion 2: We’re burning food rather than using it to feed people.

You may have noticed that last year the petrol you buy changed from something called ‘E5’ to ‘E10’. E5 petrol is petrol containing 5% biofuel and E10 is, of course, petrol containing 10% biofuel.

According to calculations done by scientists at Princeton University, if the U.S. and Europe were to decrease their use of ethanol made from grain by 50% – that would mean just moving back from E10 petrol to E5 petrol – they would effectively have sufficient extra crops to replace all of Ukraine’s exports of grain.

If our rulers were to completely scrap the biofuel mandates they have imposed on us, the world would be awash with food and food prices would fall significantly. Then the only reason for hungry people would be distribution problems caused by mismanagement, corruption and conflict.

When the EU first mandated that 2.5% of all fuel sold in the EU should be made from biofuels, worldwide food prices shot up – wheat, for example, doubled in price – and the UN’s Rapporteur for Food said: “It is a crime against humanity to convert agricultural productive soil into soil which produces food stuff that will be burned into biofuel.”

He further argued that biofuels would only lead to further hunger in a world where an estimated 854 million people – one out of six in 2007 – already suffered from the scourge; 100,000 people died from hunger or its immediate consequences every day; and every five seconds, a child died from hunger

We’re now at 10% biofuels and, if I have understood correctly, following new climate change legislation passed in the U.S. last week, the biofuel content of petrol may be increased even further. This will mean diverting more potential food to fuel production at a time of world food shortages and rocketing food prices.

This is madness. But it get worse. Biofuels are less efficient than fossil fuels – you get fewer miles or kilometres per litre or gallon and they damage car engines more than fossil fuels. Moreover, the huge amounts of energy required to produce biofuels mean that they are probably more environmentally-damaging than fossil fuels.

Scrapping the biofuels mandates in the U.S. and EU isn’t something that would take years or months to implement. It could be done this week and the results – more food availability and falling food prices – would happen immediately.

So, why won’t our rulers do this? Moreover, why do they seem to be moving in the opposite direction – by pushing ever more food into fuel production?

It could just be utter incompetence. Or it could be fear of a storm of criticism by the ever more vociferous climate-catastrophist lobby. It could be that they are trapped by their own save-the-planet virtue-signalling. Or it could be the classic reaction of politicians and bureaucracies – the more evidence emerges that their policies are misguided, the more they double down on those policies as they can never admit that they got it wrong.

However, for the conspiracy theorists, there’s a fifth possibility – that our rulers are acting together to deliberately restrict food production, push up food prices and impoverish us all as a means of increasing their control over us.

You can choose which of the five possibilities – incompetence, fear of the climate catastrophists, feeling trapped by their own subservience to the climate-catastrophist cult, doubling down on misguided policies or conspiracy against us – you believe is the most credible explanation of the current food crisis.

David Craig is the author of There is No Climate Crisis, available as an e-book or paperback from Amazon.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
huxleypiggles
3 years ago

I could blood cry.

Arborvitae23
3 years ago

I would be interested to know the equivalent UK figures.

A Y M
3 years ago

Good for you David for including answer e.
Of course answer e means we are at war with our “masters”.

interestingly, our puppet leaders (chosen by our masters and offered to us in fake elections that do not include these issues between them) all choose the green death cult options. They all cocktail together about the climate emergency and take their orders from the climate “scientists” and think tanks who dictate the policies that they sign us up for such as the 2030 Agenda, but that’s a conspiracy? No just bad science and good intentions and fear of those rabid Thurnbergistas.

Oh and look at all that hot weather (which hasn’t been created).

Nope. Impoverish your electorate and get them so desperate for your petrol ration and your UBI and you get them on your digital ID so they can have your new CBDC account. And they will thank you for saving them from starvation and cold winters.

Just don’t protest.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  A Y M

Spot on.

NickR
3 years ago

That’s very interesting. Something to look into further.

Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
3 years ago

There could be a further reason not mentioned in the article. Especially in the U.S. but also to some extent in Europe farmers (and companies involved in agriculture such as Monsanto, Cargill etc.) are a very powerful lobby group and are therefore going to push for more biofuels as it means more government subsidies and more profits. In this respect it could be argued that governments have created a monster that they now find very hard to control, and in fact is actually controlling them.

Lancer
Lancer
3 years ago

Everywhere you go in the far recesses of the internet (yeah, I know, don’t believe everything you read), but it’s.. ‘Bill Gates is buying up all the farmland’ – he’s now apparently the biggest farm owner in the US. I’m sure we’re all wondering what would such a generous and philanthropic individual want with all this agri land? Of course with his god complex he’s big on saving the people by injecting us with novel pharmaceuticals, he’s big on saving the planet by slaughtering our livestock to be replaced with lab-grown bugs, maybe he’s having second thoughts and intends to grow more food to make up the shortfall/ oh wait.. it’s Biofuel isn’t it!?!

Lockdown Sceptic
3 years ago

How the ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ targets FARMERS…and YOU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9fd4FX5ux0
The Senate passed a 740 BILLION DOLLAR package over the weekend, with Vice President Kamala Harris giving Democrats the last vote they needed. The bill is called the ‘Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,’ but Glenn explains why it likely will do the EXACT opposite. And not only could it hurt your wallet, but it may hurt your food, too. Glenn details parts of the bill that target American farmers and the farming industry, all in the name of climate change. The ramifications — many of which are already happening in Europe — could be HUGE: ‘This is really, very dangerous.’
Glenn Beck

 Yellow Boards By The Road  BUILD BACK FREEDOM …

The finger is pointed at farmers
while we have tyrants flying around in private jets

Tuesday 9th August 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards 
Molly Millars Lane, 
Between Fishponds Rd & Eastheath Ave 
Wokingham RG41 2PT

Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane 

Wokingham 
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD   

Bracknell  
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA

Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell

Arborvitae23
3 years ago

I live in the rural East Midlands of England. I come from farming families and have many relatives still in farming.
Thier biggest earners annually are growing for biofueuls and 2 have digesters feeding into the grid.
Around me I see more and more land being used to grow biofuels alongside token wildlife strips.
Add in the wealthy buying up land to get the subsidies to rewild and lots of courses springing up about how to weave your own cabbages and I don’t think we are many years behind the USA.
Certainly we will be heading back to seasonal vegetables and fruits that can be grown in the UK as the sustenance of the poor and middle classes.
Although if the Global Warming alarmists are correct we might be able to grow avocados.

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  Arborvitae23

Avocados are the most useless fruit/ vegetable I encountered so far. They’re basically devoid of anything but a very faint taste, of a marmite-like consistency and enormously fatty. That’s for people who absolutely want to eath unhealthy, high-calorie stuff which tastes bad but who have been brainwashed into that that must be composed of plants. A single avocado can probably be used to feed a starving family for two weeks but that’s not a problem we presently have.

JohnK
3 years ago

“Corn” across the pond is called “Maize” over here. It’s true that a lot of it is grown to be used to make ethanol as a fuel mixed in gasoline. Further south, say in Brazil, they use a lot of sugar cane for that purpose. Following the recent transition to E10 petrol (from E5) in the UK, more use of animal grade wheat seems to be happening to make ethanol for use in E10 fuel. Probably means that the market price for it has gone up – normally animal grade was a lot less than bread flour grade wheat, classified via the Hagberg Falling Numbers (HFN) test results. No doubt farmers will adjust their output, if the weather is compatible with that. E.g. this firm https://vivergofuels.com/ may be trading in it now. Their site describes the process used. It is not easy to redirect wheat from one to another, though, as flour millers won’t want it if it is not good enough for flour. After all, a fair bit of it is imported from Canada to the UK for some bread flour – maybe lass than it was in the past, but it still goes on. It’s true that the… Read more »

DomTaylor
DomTaylor
3 years ago

Every source of energy has its problems: land-use, environmental impact, cost, geopolitical impact, dependability, energy density and ease of storage, longevity of resources, etc.. Biofuels, and for that matter wind power, have been a key source of energy for millennia. Dependence on fossil fuels is relatively recent with dependence on oil (and dodgy oil barons) being a phenomenon of only the past century, nuclear and solar polar are even newer arrivals. So much of energy debate in recent years has focused on finding fault with one or other particularly energy source that we have inevitably been driven down the path of sourcing our energy from far away in the mistaken belief that we have someone avoided such problems when all we have done is exported them elsewhere and made ourselves dependent on some extremely dodgy people. More grown-up and balanced discussion about all energy sources, recognising that they all have their pros and cons and vested interests, and less naivity (whether climate change fanaticism or blindness to crimes committed to control access to petroleum) is greatly needed.

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  DomTaylor

I think the point of the article is that there’s no global food crisis, especially not one caused by climate change, but just a global food distribution crisis: The people controlling the sufficiently fertile soil chose to allocate resources to something they care for more. That’s especially true when considering that large parts of eastern Europe which used to be cultivated are nowadays unoccupied wilderness thanks to the great, communist rewilding project paid for by American money.

RW
RW
3 years ago

I suggest an alternate explanation: There’s money to be made by this, at least for as long as subsidies flow. The more land somebody owns, the more money can he make from it. Officials supporting that are either disinterested or corrupt, ie, they don’t care what they’re manageing for as long as they’re manageing something or they have been bought to ensure the money keeps rolling. A minority may also be stupid enough to actually believe in it, but that’s pretty much irrelevant.

JohnK
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

And some of them are so zealous and enthusiastic, and not necessarily corrupt, that they don’t care who has to pay for it all, as long as they get served when they need things.

RTSC
RTSC
3 years ago

Of course, it could be a combination of all 5 “causes” in the final paragraph.

VAX FREE IanC
3 years ago

From what I understand…”When you burn – or combust – ethanol (C2H5OH) in the air (which contains oxygen, O2), the final products obtained are carbon dioxide gas (CO2) and water (H2O).”

Can someone remind me please, what the supposed benefits of this Biofuel over fossil fuels are?

Trabant
3 years ago
Reply to  VAX FREE IanC

I think the idea is that because the plants grown for biofuels extract the CO2 from the atmosphere in the first place they are carbon neutral when burnt. This of course ignores all the other energy and other inputs to the process of making and distributing the ethanol.

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  Trabant

Based on the same logic, burning coal must also be carbondioxide-neutral because originally, it was just plants which extracted CO2 from the atmosphere.