food riots
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
The oil runs out, cars stop running, people form neighbourhood militias and farming schemes, start tearing up the tarmac and planting crops, standing around them with semis.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Mad Max 2 then.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Australia is bloody empty though. They need to dig some big canals and irrigate the interior with all that excess sea water.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
So this in the Graun:
Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy
Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I don't even see what's so supposedly green about biofuels in the first place. I mean, you're still burning hydrocarbons, so it's still releasing CO2, right?* The only important difference between biofuels and fossil fuels is that the former is renewable, but that doesn't automatically make them green. Bring on large-scale nuclear energy, I say.
*although having said that, I guess you take carbon out of the atmosphere when you grow the plants before you turn them into fuel...still don't think they're a good idea though, what with habitat destruction and shortages of arable land.
*although having said that, I guess you take carbon out of the atmosphere when you grow the plants before you turn them into fuel...still don't think they're a good idea though, what with habitat destruction and shortages of arable land.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Makes more sense -- The Guardian just got it wrong:
Bob Davis of the WSJ spoke with Donald Mitchell, the author of the draft report—which wasn’t secret at all, but a working paper. And like all working papers, it doesn’t reflect the official position of the World Bank.
The report was meant to contribute to a World Bank position paper on rising food prices, which was released at the Bank’s spring meeting in mid-April.
The final April report didn’t include his specific calculation. But, Mr. Mitchell says, “I never saw that as political.” Instead, he says he believes the changes were made because of “editing.” He said that he has been encouraged by World Bank management to explore the issue of biofuels and the overall rise in food prices. “I had input” into the final report that was released at the spring meeting, he said.
Mr. Mitchell said that because of the publicity engendered by the Guardian piece, the World Bank is trying to put out a polished version of his report by the end of this week.
A World Bank spokesperson added:
[Mr.] Mitchell is still getting input from peer reviewers and the paper is still being finalized. As a result, the Bank chose not to use a specific figure in the Spring Meetings and G8 papers. As [World Bank boss Robert] Zoellick said today in Japan: “That’s an internal study that we’ve been circulating to people to try to get different views from other aid agencies and different economic analyses. So, my own view is that that is probably at the far end. You see other people talk about ranges of 20 percent, 25 percent. There’s s some at the lower end that I think are less credible. So, on this one I think I’m going to rely on the experts to be able to sort it through.”
The report was meant to contribute to a World Bank position paper on rising food prices, which was released at the Bank’s spring meeting in mid-April.
The final April report didn’t include his specific calculation. But, Mr. Mitchell says, “I never saw that as political.” Instead, he says he believes the changes were made because of “editing.” He said that he has been encouraged by World Bank management to explore the issue of biofuels and the overall rise in food prices. “I had input” into the final report that was released at the spring meeting, he said.
Mr. Mitchell said that because of the publicity engendered by the Guardian piece, the World Bank is trying to put out a polished version of his report by the end of this week.
A World Bank spokesperson added:
[Mr.] Mitchell is still getting input from peer reviewers and the paper is still being finalized. As a result, the Bank chose not to use a specific figure in the Spring Meetings and G8 papers. As [World Bank boss Robert] Zoellick said today in Japan: “That’s an internal study that we’ve been circulating to people to try to get different views from other aid agencies and different economic analyses. So, my own view is that that is probably at the far end. You see other people talk about ranges of 20 percent, 25 percent. There’s s some at the lower end that I think are less credible. So, on this one I think I’m going to rely on the experts to be able to sort it through.”
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
It does seem overly convenient (and unfeasible) to ascribe the large rise in food prices entirely to bio fuel production. And not even all bio fuel production:
I'm not sure what this is really about but it's also not surprising that the WB should come back with an explanation published in the Wall Street Journal is it?
And it does seem rather badly timed that such a a 'damning' paper should be leaked just as the G8 is discussing bio fuels.
I'm not sure what this is really about but it's also not surprising that the WB should come back with an explanation published in the Wall Street Journal is it?
vimothy
yurp
Er, WTF does the World Bank have to do with the WSJ? The Guardian's story is simply implausable and produced a number which you will find no experts agreeing with. 75%? All because of biofuels? Nothing to do with the slow-mo collapse of Bretton Woods 2?
Biofuels obviously have an effect, but describing them as the primary driver of food inflation is pretty weird.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
That's where the blog page you linked to with the interview with Donald Mitchell and the WB response was. It's no surprise they should respond to the publicity around this draft report is it?
No experts except the draft report's author, Donald Mitchell. Or perhaps he's not an expert. I agree it seems implausible though.
So actually not that overstated at all really. The original Guardian article didn't deny those 'related consequences':
Last edited:
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
It hasn't been published in full yet. According to the WB it was a draft paper that was leaked and they are now putting it together in a form for release because of the publicity it's had. But either way it covers price increases in the period from 2002.
vimothy
yurp
You said,
I'm not sure what this is really about but it's also not surprising that the WB should come back with an explanation published in the Wall Street Journal is it?
As though there is some sort of collusion between the WSJ and the WB to make biofuels look less responsible for food inflation. At least, that's how I read your post.I meant experts generally, as in, when have you ever heard or read an "expert" (according to whatever definition you fancy) claim that a clear majority of the increases in food prices are caused by biofuels?
That's the same bloody paper!
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Presumably that's why this draft report has had so much attention.
What? I know! I'll just quote it all again.
The WSJ quotes the draft report as saying this:
And yet says this about the Guardian article:Mitchell's Draft Report said:
Which said this about the report:WSJ blog said:
Which is almost exactly the same thing. So the Guardian reported what was there accurately. Of course we can discard all of this now because Mitchell has said it was a working paper and he's still taking advice and so on.Original Guardian Article said:
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
The Guardian reported a "a confidential World Bank report", according to which biofuels had caused food prices to rise by 75% -- "far more than previously estimated". Except it wasn't WB report, it was a speculative working paper that contradicts already published WB reports on the same subject. And the fact that the working paper kind of agrees with the Guardian's reporting of it, is, er, not too suprising and not too conclusive.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
And the point I was making about that was that this (quoted for the third time) from the WSJ blog is not true:
vimothy
yurp
And even that's only true if you can somehow read into what the Guardian reported that "biofuels" also means speculation, land use shifts, reduced inventories and, ahem, export bans.
In any case, the point is not whether the Guardian reported the paper accurately (it seemingly didn't), but whether the paper itself is accurate (it's seemingly not).
In any case, the point is not whether the Guardian reported the paper accurately (it seemingly didn't), but whether the paper itself is accurate (it's seemingly not).
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Except for export bans it did exactly that, explicitly, I've quoted the paragraph twice already. And why would there be export bans if not because food stocks were already low in those countries?
They say it's not. OK, it may not be, but I'm not surprised at that response anyway. 'Seemingly not', meaning he's back-peddled.
I'd say it looks like The Guardian did report the paper accurately however, and saying it didn't is disingenuous and unnecessary on the part of the guy writing that WSJ blog entry.
Anyway whatever the truth of all this, what really matters is that people can eat.
Last edited: