Will any Presidential Candidate mention a link of Rising World Food Prices with the pursuit of Bio-Fuels? (before May 15,'08)

This is a remake.
Good comment dialogue on former question:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_any_Presidential_Candidate_mention_a_link_of_Rising_World_Food_Prices_with_the_pursuit_of_BioFuels_at_the_upcoming_debate_of_April_1908_5851/view

great info from todays NYT re: global food crisishttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/worldbusiness/17warm.html?ex=1366171200&en=72dbbedf7fa87c7c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink.

If anyone does mention it, it would be McCain... but I doubt even he will want to risk raising the ire of any potential "green" voters, however few they may be!

I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about but I think Obama is the only one that has the slightest chance of having enough integrity to not deny the elephant in the room.

I just read the comments from the previous question. We now have one vote for each candidate.

Most likely scenario: One of them is forced to respond to the topic by a reporter.

In such a case it would seem that, technically, they do "mention" the topic insomuch as they have made reference to or alluded to it, if only in response to an interrogative. However, in common use English, the word "mention" tends to to imply a topic was initially introduced into the conversation by the person who "mentions" the topic. Therefore, the first candidate who responds to a question about the food/biofuel issue will technically settle this question, despite the fact they find no honor in putting a serious, contentious matter before the public to be judged.

That BS aside, there are two major constituencies the candidates do not want to alienate:
1) Superficial Eco-Freaks (i.e. I'm for the environment and feel good promoting it, but don't understand it)
2) Agricultural Concerns (i.e. profit for me is far more important than anything else)

If the candidates goal is to get elected they will not address the topic. If they want to do the right thing, they will. But then this brings up another disgusting topic: Can they self-justify saying anything to get elected so they can "do good once they are in a position of authority"? - Does the end justify the means?

I'm no political scientist but I wonder if any candidate could use this subject to gain 'street cred.'. By pointing out the obvious the people who have an interest in food may be inspired to vote.

Just to be clear. There are other "lesser known Presidential candidates" Nader on one hand, is this being included in the market or is it only McCain, Obama and Clinton?

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub US Politics Content Editor

Thanks for pointing this out Ryan.
I should have worded this better. I did intend it to be among the main three contenders.

mork, an interesting opening to your first statement: "I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about"

lol

anyhow, no one will DARE to suggest or even APPEAR to have suggest that we look away from a possible alternative fuel source, gas on my way home from school today was 3.80 a gallon. Forget people trying to save the environment, looking away from a viable short term solution for using less oil will alienate all the people who have an interest in getting to work!

however, rather than say that we should look into it they will avoid the issue altogether and hope the public will forget about it...

ryan,

Good point! Nader will have no problem talking about this, despite the probability he will be on the wrong side of the answer. He's a weird guy - amazingly and refreshingly correct about some things, yet crazy off-base on others. In his favor, though, he does tend to speak with sincerity and not the vagaries typical of politicians.

To supplement ironman288's comment: The only redeeming aspect of using the current biofuels in lieu of oil is that it MAY slightly reduce dependence on foreign oil. It has been said that planting and harvesting corn crops requires a substantial amount of oil derived petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides in addition to the oil/gas consumed by the planting, fertilizing, pest control, and harvesting machinery before the corn even arrives at the alcohol conversion plants, which themselves consume certain quantities of oil and oil based derivatives. The sum of oil consumed in these processes may actually equal or exceed the potential energy harvested from the corn. The use of food crops as energy serves little or no purpose from an energy standpoint and is likely more detrimental than the status quo.

However, the use of certain low-maintenance, non-food crops that can be planted in areas not conducive to growing food crops IS an economically viable solution IF they ever get around to economically 'cracking' the cellulosic bonds that render these plant materials difficult to ferment. It is this aim that has stirred the interest in 'switch grass'. Bottom line: Right idea - wrong crop.

Asian Development Bank: Biofuels making food more expensive
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ASIA_FOOD_PRICES?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

oil guy talks:
http://snipurl.com/256um

Good reference article, mork.

There was a particularly incisive comment in the article worthy of reprint:

"A 2007 law mandates that U.S. refineries produce at least 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. U.S. farmers receive large government subsidies to switch from growing corn for food to producing ethanol, which burns cleaner than gasoline—though it is not as energy efficient."

Mandates and subsidies such as these short-circuit the free market. Additionally, by artificially bolstering an industry that ties food crops in with the petroleum supply they set the stage for the market to seek equilibrium between the two. It then follows that the price of food crops chases the price of oil AND whoever has control of the oil supply (OPEC) now has greater control over the price of food.

It's nice to know Congress thought this thing through!

exactly why there should be no mandates. The free market works quite well when left to "breath."

Had clarified market, but I'd forgotten to post in comments. Market was clarified with this : "Market regards, the main presidential candidates, so that can be defined as the candidates from the two major parties."

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub US Politics Content Editor

Is McCain a likely 'mentioner' of this relationship? He was hit pretty hard in the Iowa primary because he's not a fan of ethanol.

I'm unsure of McCains Post mortem status.

Not only does the US government subsidize domestic corn growers who provide their crops to ethanol refiners, there is also a tariff on $0.54 a gallon on cheaper (and more efficiently produced) Brazilian sugar-cane based ethanol. So basically we're imposing a punitive tariff on the most efficient ethanol producers and simultaneously lining the pockets of the domestic farm lobby. And who pays? Never forget that the government's money should be your money, and when they waste it just so they can be re-elected, they are stealing it from _YOU_!

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-25-voa33.cfm

Well, seeing that this question states before May 15th...and George W is assuring all of us that the tax rebate checks will help Americans "cope with rising gasoline and food prices" (not to mention the entire economy), I'm sure we have nothing to worry about! Let's see..$600 (which is supposed to be on the way May 1st) should just about cover my gas and food bills until....well...umm...about May 15th! lol

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080426/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_economy

"...."The money is going to help Americans offset the high prices we're seeing at the gas pump, the grocery store, and also give our economy a boost to help us pull out of this economic slowdown," Bush said......Bush has suggested the rebates could trigger a spending spree. "When the money reaches the American people, we expect they will use it to boost consumer spending," he said last month."

....um, yeah...spending spree on gas and fuel! ughhhhh
You gotta love the guy.
Just for fun...(I know...irrelevant, but couldn't resist..)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvsS0d41DLE

Chavez calls ethanol production 'crime'
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/26/1455127-chavez-calls-ethanol-production-crime

Will any presidential candidate mention Chavez?-)
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-08-ethanol-study_N.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II&feature=related

WASHINGTON, April 29: The World Bank chief warned on Tuesday that 100 million people have already been pushed into poverty due to a man-made food crisis while as many as two billion are on the verge of disaster.

http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/30/top9.htm

What we spend our money on: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/05/03/business/20080403_SPENDING_GRAPHIC.html

"To supplement ironman288's comment: The only redeeming aspect of using the current biofuels in lieu of oil is that it MAY slightly reduce dependence on foreign oil. It has been said that planting and harvesting corn crops requires a substantial amount of oil derived petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides in addition to the oil/gas consumed by the planting, fertilizing, pest control, and harvesting machinery before the corn even arrives at the alcohol conversion plants, which themselves consume certain quantities of oil and oil based derivatives. The sum of oil consumed in these processes may actually equal or exceed the potential energy harvested from the corn. The use of food crops as energy serves little or no purpose from an energy standpoint and is likely more detrimental than the status quo. "

That's very interesting Markov, I never considered that. Never the less, my point remains valid as most voters also don't know that and see Ethanol as the quickest way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and equate lessening our dependence on foreign oil with lowering the price of gas. None of the three major candidates have mentioned it yet for this reason and I have no reason to expect them to do otherwise.

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/democrats_ethanol/2008/05/04/93270.html

OMG

Another Question to be settled both YES and NO

Is this going to happen even more often?