food riots

[vimothy]

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?

Hold on: are we actually arguing about whether it's fair to say that the conclusion of Mitchell's working paper was "a little overstated" in the Guardian article, or are we arguing about whether biofuels are the majority cause of food price movements (even to the extent of causing export bans and historically low food inventories)?

 

[noel emits]

I pointed out that your link to the WSJ blog where it was supposedly shown that The Guardian 'just got it wrong' didn't show that The Guardian 'just got it wrong' at all.

Let's just have the whole thing:

Bad Juice II: Biofuels Maybe Not Quite So Bad, World Bank Says
Posted by Keith Johnson

The biofuels battle just gets hotter.

We just wrote about the Guardian story on a World Bank report allegedly blaming biofuels for 75% of the recent rise in fuel prices, and which was reportedly suppressed for political reasons. Alas, it ain’t so, Joe, the World Bank says.

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 draft itself—which we saw—makes clear that the headline figure for biofuel’s role in the food crisis was a little overstated in the original article:

Thus, the combination of higher energy prices and related increases in fertilizer prices, and dollar weakness caused food prices to rise by about 35 percent from January 2002 until February 2008 and the remaining three-quarters of the 140 percent actual increase was due to biofuels and the related consequences of low grain stocks, large land use shifts, speculative activity, and export bans.

Not that biofuels are off the hook entirely. The draft report did say: “Increased biofuel production has increased the demand for food crops and been the major cause of the increase in food prices.” That’s still a stronger indictment of biofuels that most other recent studies, draft or otherwise.

What it shows is what the WB boss has said, which is that this is an internal study and that 'you see other people' talk about different figures. It doesn't actually contradict the Guardian report at all.

 

[vimothy]

The Guardian reported a WB report which wasn't a WB report and gave the frankly ludicrous figure of 75% of food price moves as caused by biofuels. Turns out that it wasn't a WB report (in fact it contradicts other WB reports); it was an internal working paper by one researcher in the WB and is firmly outside the consensus.

It wasn't a WB report. It was a working paper by Donald Mitchell.

What you are saying is that the although the Guardian reported a leaked report, squashed because it might embarass W and all the Reps with exposure to environmentally friendly alternative energy (and which was proposing an almost unbelievable influence for biofuels), the newspaper was in fact in the right, because despite falsely reporting unpublished speculative research as politically supressed official opinion, it at least got the general jist of the working paper right.

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.​

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.​

 

[vimothy]

The Guardian got it wrong: this was no killer blow, just one random, speculative working paper. I'm sure they could find any number of papers, all with different results and publish them as earth shattering news. Why don't they?

 

[noel emits]

The figure may or may not be accurate, it's something that is obviously massively complicated to calculate, but it's not a 'random working paper', it's an internal report by a senior World Bank economist that was intended to contribute to the official World Bank report for the G8. They trust this guy but can't use his figures as they stand. Either way everyone agrees that bio fuel policy has contributed significantly to increases in food prices and what is at stake is people starving, not the reputation of a Guardian journalist.

Donald O.
Lead Economist
DONALD MITCHELL is a lead economist for the Development Prospects Group. He is responsible for agricultural commodity price forecasts and analysis of issues and policies related to commodities. Prior to joining the World Bank, he was an Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University. Mr. Mitchell holds a Ph.D. from Iowa State University in Agricultural Economics.

 

[noel emits]

What you are saying is that

I've said what I've said, don't put words in my mouth.

the although the Guardian reported a leaked report, squashed because it might embarass W and all the Reps with exposure to environmentally friendly alternative energy (and which was proposing an almost unbelievable influence for biofuels), the newspaper was in fact in the right, because despite falsely reporting unpublished speculative research as politically supressed official opinion, it at least got the general jist of the working paper right.

These are all your terms. I'm not sure what you are getting at here anyway.

How would I know why or if the report has been 'squashed'?

All research is speculative, does something magically become absolute truth when Robert Zoellick puts his signature to it?

The paper was reported as an 'unpublished assessment'.

 

[vimothy]

If your reading is that removing biofuel subsidies will end food inflation, good for you. If it is that simple, and only marginally influenced by a change in the fundamentals, it's great, great news for everyone.

Mitchell's working paper was just that: a working paper. I'm sure that there are many, many working papers floating round the world bank. If they actually publish something as a result of all this, we can read it and comment, until then...

And I don't doubt that Mitchell is competent. For myself (and probably unlike many on the board), I've never mistrusted the WB (or the IMF) depite the fact that they've obviously pushed some fairly misguided policies on countries at times.

But still, this was a non-story. Yes, we know biofuels have an effect. I've linked to plenty of stuff saying as much all over the board.

 

[vimothy]

These are all your terms. I'm not sure what you are getting at here anyway.

How would I know why or if the report has been 'squashed'?

That's what the Guardian said.

All research is speculative, does something magically become absolute truth when Robert Zoellick puts his signature to it?

The paper was reported as an 'unpublished assessment'.

The way it works round here is that a working paper is tentatively worked at and reviewed and chopped and changed until you are very confident in what you put your name to. Quoting an unpublished, unfinished piece of research as proof of anything is bad form.

But this is getting silly.

 

[noel emits]

If your reading is that removing biofuel subsidies will end food inflation, good for you. If it is that simple, and only marginally influenced by a change in the fundamentals, it's great, great news for everyone.

My reading is that I'd like to know the truth of the matter. I think it looks like that might help, yes. I also realise that there are other factors that affect the price of food. Not entirely sure what is meant by 'only marginally influenced by a change in the fundamentals'.
Apart from that I am of the opinion that growing fuel at the expense of food is patently absurd*, and as Mr. Tea has asked above, how much greener is it anyway?

* Yes I'm sure there is some bizarre self-justifying argument about how the fuel is needed to drive the wheels of agriculture.

 

[noel emits]

That's what the Guardian said.

It is?

I think they quoted a guy from Oxfam and referred to 'Senior development sources'. The word squashed wasn't used.

"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."

 

[noel emits]

But still, this was a non-story. Yes, we know biofuels have an effect. I've linked to plenty of stuff saying as much all over the board.

It's highlighted the issue in a high profile way and provided opportunities for it to be discussed which is no bad thing. Parts of the report may be ever so slightly hyped but that's the way newspapers work. Maybe necessary to get attention.

 

[vimothy]

Yes, biofuels are bad. I've been saying that for months, FFS.

I don't agree that they explain 75% of recent food price inflation, which the Guardian reported as the conclusion of an internal report by the world bank that had "not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush".

[The squashed wasn't used, no, but I think it's pretty clear what I meant.]

If you think that biofuels explain most of food price inflation, not fundamentals (i.e. increases in demand not caused by inflation, which is to say commodity price increases are not caused by the development of emerging markets), or BW2 collapse, poor Fed policy or just plain old traditional inflationary dollar weakness, all that needs to be done is end biofuel subsidies, and we can go back to business as usual, head in the sand.

 

[vimothy]

It's highlighted the issue in a high profile way and provided opportunities for it to be discussed which is no bad thing. Parts of the report may be ever so slightly hyped but that's the way newspapers work. Maybe necessary to get attention.

Why not just quote some actual published research rather than try to make it seem as though the WB is sitting on some controversial findings that proves it was the biofuels wot done it, just so GWB doesn't feel bad?

You know, why not print something that's closer to the actual truth?

 

[noel emits]

I don't agree that they explain 75% of recent food price inflation, which the Guardian reported as the conclusion of an internal report by the world bank that had "not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush".

It's an estimate of course, not a conclusion.

The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.

What you've quoted above about embarrassing GWB is reported as a quote from someone (Senior development sources, whatever that is) anyway.

 

[noel emits]

Why not just quote some actual published research rather than try to make it seem as though the WB is sitting on some controversial findings that proves it was the biofuels wot done it, just so GWB doesn't feel bad?

The answer to that from The Guardian I guess would be:

Other reviews of the food crisis looked at it over a much longer period, or have not linked these three factors, and so arrived at smaller estimates of the impact from biofuels. But the report author, Don Mitchell, is a senior economist at the Bank and has done a detailed, month-by-month analysis of the surge in food prices, which allows much closer examination of the link between biofuels and food supply.

 

[vimothy]

*Gives up*

 

[version]

Anglo American’s high-stakes bet on a new way to feed the world​

About 340 metres beneath the North York Moors in England, a huddle of miners are gathered in a cavern soaked with groundwater. A day earlier, they had used 100kg of explosives to blast through rock and access a tunnel leading to the coast.

That tunnel will eventually stretch for 37km, connecting a 1,600m shaft with a Teesside port. It will help convey output from the planned Woodsmith mine to export markets around the world.

The Woodsmith project will produce polyhalite, a fertiliser described as “gold dust” by Dave Cook, a 60-year-old former coal miner standing in the rubble next to a metallic yellow bucket that can carry nine people up and down the shaft.

“When the coal mines shut in the UK, we thought mining was over for us,” he says. “We’re going from warming the world to feeding the world.”

https://archive.li/LCecs

 

[sufi]

Anglo American’s high-stakes bet on a new way to feed the world​

About 340 metres beneath the North York Moors in England, a huddle of miners are gathered in a cavern soaked with groundwater. A day earlier, they had used 100kg of explosives to blast through rock and access a tunnel leading to the coast.

That tunnel will eventually stretch for 37km, connecting a 1,600m shaft with a Teesside port. It will help convey output from the planned Woodsmith mine to export markets around the world.

The Woodsmith project will produce polyhalite, a fertiliser described as “gold dust” by Dave Cook, a 60-year-old former coal miner standing in the rubble next to a metallic yellow bucket that can carry nine people up and down the shaft.

“When the coal mines shut in the UK, we thought mining was over for us,” he says. “We’re going from warming the world to feeding the world.”

https://archive.li/LCecs

I'm looking forward to increased energy costs making the internet too expensive to be viable
dunno if there would be internet riots if they cut off tiktok?

 

[version]

Asda's potatoes are terrible atm.

 

[version]

The global population is forecast to rise to 9.8bn by 2050 and a larger portion of those people will demand a richer diet. “Not a single country” has developed without increasing the proportion of animal protein in diets, says Alzbeta Klein, who heads the International Fertilizer Association. “You will need more grains, oilseeds, soy and corn to feed those animals.”
At the same time, soil health is deteriorating as a result of over-farming and climate change. A third of the world’s soils are already degraded, according to UN agency data, and available arable land could be halved by 2050.