Business

Biofuels Ban Act Signed Into Law, Seeks to Ease Food Shortage

WASHINGTON — In a dizzying about-face, the White House announced that the president will be signing the Ban Biofuels Act tomorrow.

His case has come to represent Acres of corn now to be used for feeding people, rather than being converted to car and truck fuel.  (JIM MEDIA)

His case has come to represent Acres of corn now to be used for feeding people, rather than being converted to car and truck fuel. (JIM MEDIA)

The controversial legislation was pushed through Congress by newly elected Democrats uncharacteristically willing to stand up to big agribusiness, bolstered by intense public pressure in part due to the efforts of international organizations like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network.

The shift was cheered by environmental activists as well as average Americans worn down by the steep rise in food prices. “Vegetable oil and corn are for feeding people, not cars,” said Elizabeth Johnson, a hospital worker and mother of three, at yesterday’s demonstration outside Capitol Hill. “There was only so much more we could keep paying.”

Six nationwide protests over the last four months had prepared the terrain for the bill’s success, according to Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center, who said that national polls indicate a sharp decrease in public approval of biofuels and increased concern about global warming. “The public sees the use of biofuels as profoundly irresponsible both environmentally and socially,” Kohut said.

He added that recent investigative reporting on the effects of biofuels, including one piece in the New York Times and several on C.N.N., had been key in sparking public outrage. “Television and print journalism haven’t done this type of reporting for years,” Kohut said. “We found that when people weren’t barraged with disinformation, they developed a much sharper analysis of the situation.”

In addition to turning off the tap on plant-based petrol, the Ban Biofuels Act sets out an ambitious plan of shifting over $10 billion in annual direct and indirect subsidies from oil companies to the construction of wind farms in rural areas of Texas, Kansas and Wyoming.

“One of the great things about the act is that it mandates the building of transmission lines, which has been a big infrastructural hurdle to getting renewable energy on track in the United States,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a press conference yesterday. In acknowledging her failure in the past to support alternative fuels in a meaningful way, Pelosi credited activists for her increased understanding of the need for renewable energy.

Delivering yet another jolt to Republicans, House Democrats tacked onto the act a mandatory transition of cropland from chemical-intensive “conventional” farming to chemical-free organic cultivation on all acreage that receives subsidy payments from the federal government. “We’ve been getting a lot of heat from our constituents on this issue,” explained Rep. Daniel Seals, Democrat of Illinois. “We had to do something and now was the time.”

Top executives from Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland rushed to the Capitol late last night for an emergency closed-door session with the vice president. According to an aide who attended the meeting, negotiations quickly unraveled when congressional leaders sent a memo announcing they would refuse all future campaign contributions from the powerful firms.
Today the stock of both corporations registered their sharpest single-day drop on record at the Dow. Neither company would return calls for comment.

International response has been mixed. “I must admit, no one saw this coming,” said a World Bank official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We’ve all known there were big problems with our subsidies for biofuel crops in developing countries, especially as they encroached on other crops, and on native ecosystems. We were examining that. We just never expected to be pushed on it by U.S. officials.”

Analysts at the World Bank predict that the legislation will have a ripple effect, eventually easing pressure on the remaining rainforests.

“If the demand for biofuels drops, then there’s far less incentive to clear-cut native forests,” explained a spokesperson from Friends of the Earth Indonesia, also known as Walhí. “This is what the people in the rainforest have been fighting for for years.”

The spokesperson added that the struggle would not be over until similar controls are implemented by governments around the globe. “Ecological destruction is a systemic problem, it’s not just one company or one place. The only way we’ll have real justice is if those who prosper from exploitation have nowhere else to go, and have to go somewhere else.”

21 Comments so far ...

1. orivarna

clean low waste nuclear fuel - that is the answere…even in the future to travel as individual , as an individual car user

Comment on November 13, 2008 12:54 pm
2. Everett

Biofuels, in and of themselves, are not a bad thing. These fuels can be produced from a myriad of different plants that are indigenous to the different regions around the world. It is not necessary to require only one crop be grown to distill into fuel. The products and byproducts of biofuels are much cleaner than electric (battery acids, heavy metals…) or nuclear energy (spent fuel). *Admittedly, biofuel vehicle emissions still need improvement.*

Ecological and economical trouble comes when a monoculture is encouraged to produce biofuels. Until this is an established industry, Big Agriculture and Big Oil should be nationalized to keep profits and shareholders out of the way.

Comment on November 13, 2008 01:09 pm
3. Justin

The only good bio fuel it seems is algae. The rest can suck it.

Comment on November 13, 2008 08:40 pm
4. Mizz Ludite

Fuck cars. We need better public transportation in this country–like trains for instance. Amtrack should have its own tracks for starters..

And people should ride bikes for Chrissake.

Comment on November 13, 2008 11:05 pm
5. orp

corn is for to feed people? people don’t eat like 9~% of our corn, animals do.

Comment on November 13, 2008 11:35 pm
6. César

The crop in the field is wheat, not corn (Picture)

Comment on November 13, 2008 11:45 pm
7. LQD

What about subsidies for local groups making biodiesel from used veggie oil?

Comment on November 14, 2008 01:11 am
8. Mabus

The next day:

Food Prices Skyrocket

Economists warn that the combination of “organic” crop regimes, which produce a much lower yield, and the collapse of the transportation infrastructure due to the rising price of oil and the ban on biofuels has created a “perfect storm” for food prices. Food lines stretched for blocks yesterday in urban California after deliveries failed to arrive, while the price of even simple foodstuffs such as bread has increased tenfold on the East Coast. Even some rural areas are quite literally tightening their belts, although the ability to produce food locally has prevented the worst effects from reaching them.

“We could be seeing a return to subsistence agriculture in rural areas,” warns Princeton economist Roger Stern, “which means an employee shortage and a massive loss of taxable income by the government. In the cities? We may be looking at a worst case scenario: a huge exodus on foot or bike, followed by starvation among those who remain. People thought the biofuel ban would lead to lower food prices, but it just brought the shortages home to America.”

Comment on November 14, 2008 05:10 am
9. Glowworm

uh, did someone say….nuclear? I prefer to glow with pride. At no stage of the nuclear cycle–collection, transport, use and storage of the fuel–is it anything other than incredibly dangerous. It’s expensive (all nuke plants must have massive subsidies), unproven (we’re still figuring out what to do with the waste; currently the favored solution is to ship it all off to Indian reservations).

Conservation is a far more effective––cheap and proven––way for us to fight climate change and energy shortages.

Comment on November 14, 2008 01:02 pm

This is fucking hilarious. I love you, whoever did this.

Farms are for food not fuel!

Comment on November 14, 2008 05:35 pm

Thank you, Yes Men, for helping keep us sane these past 8, dark, years. This tops all the rest.

BIofuels:
Don’t burn food in car engines! However, do use waste material to make fuel. With responsible Biofuels thinking we can begin to transition to non-flame-based engines… we are basically running to the store in a car using the technology of Thomas Edison… we can do better, and will, but BioFuels are not the final answer, as they require energy input to make the carbon-rich original product we would extract from… Let’s see Biofuel as a stepping stone to wean us off petrol. It can be done and must be done and soon. We need a 50-80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from our industrial culture and cars on gas are a big part of that, here, in China, europe and soon, India and the rest of the developing world.

See Biofuels as a bridge to air-powered cars, solar-powered, gyro-powered, electric, custom mass transit you name it, just think anything but a continuance of producing mobile CO2 factories with sound systems.

Comment on November 15, 2008 01:51 am
12. chemteach

Sigh, same tired arguments both in this article and in the comments. Let me start with just two examples of crop waste (esp. corn) that far exceed biofuel use:

1. The majority of crops grown in most developing countries is used for factory farming meat. Meat consumption wastes far more corn than biofuels.

2. The biggest use of corn in the US is the production of cheap corn syrup, much of which is used to make soda and other non-nutritious foods. Junk food wastes far more corn than biofuels.

It’s true that some types of biofuels, like some types of fossil fuels, should be stopped. In particular, cutting down rainforests in lowland Borneo to produce palm oil biofuel is senseless. But banning all biofuels is even more senseless.

I have another point. Yes, to produce one gallon of corn ethanol we have to burn the energy equivalent of roughly one gallon of gasoline, but the same is true of gasoline. That is, to pump, transport, refine, and distribute a gallon of gas we have to burn yet another gallon in the process. Thus even corn ethanol makes more environmental sense than gasoline. Sugarcane ethanol requires about 1/3 as much energy to produce, and thus makes a lot more environmental sense than gasoline. Ending Bush’s import tariff on Brazilian cane ethanol would make this whole discussion academic.

Last point. In response to Mabus’s claim that food prices would “increase tenfold” if all food was produced organically, many agricultural authorities and my personal experience contradict you. Converting to all-organic is estimated to increase food costs by 30%. I know that this is not small, but it’s not catastrophic either. You doomsdayers are spreading fear about sensible changes we need to make in how food is produced. Also, organic farming does not decrease yields on average, it make those yields more labor-intensive.

Comment on November 15, 2008 06:21 pm
13. Deb

A question for you good readers of this hilarious piece. Assume goals to sustainably develop and use biofuels as a bridge to nonC02 cars. What is sustainable? What isn’t? For example, growing food crops isn’t sustainable, growing non-invasive crops may be.

Comment on November 15, 2008 07:42 pm
14. Starwalker Hightower

This is the most marvelous & cretive idea I have encoutered and I thank all envolved for the courage to make it happen! It is building hope in the minds of people all over the world for the restoration of our freedom from slavery by Corporate America. Many people are coming forth with good cretive ideas and many of us know that we could have been “off the grid” a long time ago and I believe the Tesla Technology that has been withheld from us and used by the “secret miltary” for purposes of war and to put money in the pockets of the elite would be a good place to start via the energy problems, not to mention other fields that would also benefit. We could, right now, have free energy in every household and run our vehicles on water. Thank you guys for starting the “ball rolling”, but let’s not stop here … let’s TAKE BACK AMERICA and Restore this planet … accept nothing less! Let’s boot out the criminals in office and install people with true integrity who support the people first! Thanks again … you guys are talking our language … that is no spoof!

Comment on November 16, 2008 07:14 pm
15. gg
16. Michael Ibarra

Hey guys, wind farms aren’t perfect. The real future of wind power lies with high-altitude wind-power. Just by going 1000 feet higher, you get more consistent and constant winds, think about!

Comment on November 19, 2008 05:49 pm
17. jane doedewy

Very clever! Lets us not leave out the state of secrecy, lack of reseach and regulatory “oversight” for synbio and nanotech that nextgen biofuels utilize to synthesize sugars to fuel.

Comment on December 12, 2008 06:27 pm
18. Keep dreaming

What!?? This doesn’t go far enough! Farms are an ecological disaster! Modern farming must be banned outright. “Bush farmed, the environment was harmed!” is the new slogan. We must stop destroying the earth simply to fulfill our neverending desire to stay alive. Oh, sure, you’ll probably have to watch your young children or grandchildren die horribly, but hey, with the rest of the laws being passed (see the other articles in the website) they were doomed to a life of poverty and misery, anyway. It’s all for the best.

Comment on December 19, 2008 11:54 am
19. cwxwwwxdfvwwxwx

well, hi admin adn people nice forum indeed. how’s life? hope it’s introduce branch ;)

Comment on December 24, 2008 06:41 pm

[...] newspaper article ” Biofuel Ban Act Signed Into Law, Seeks to Ease Food Shortage “, written by William Petty deals with the law’s causes and [...]

Pingback on February 15, 2010 10:38 pm

[...] February 16, 2010 by Hai Biofuel Ban Act Signed Into Law, Seeks to Ease Food Shortage [...]

Pingback on February 15, 2010 11:17 pm
(required)
(will not be published) (required)
(opitional)