The Issue of Ethanol

[jdobbin]

Reported by States News Service on August 3, 1994

It was the environmentalists that put ethenol on the agenda and it is grossly hypocritical to claim that they bear no responsibility for the mess.

I said all political parties were involved but the Tories have upped the ante federally even as more evidence comes out from credible sources and research that ethanol supports do no favours to the environment and hurt the world's food supply. I have said repeatedly that all political parties need to act on this as. However, much of the right wing here has taken the position that ethanol is an essential farm support.

[blueblood]

Marginal farmland and swamps have been drained and used since the thirties. Blaming ethanol on that is ridiculous. I've been doing so for twenty years. An enviro group offered me 100 bucks an acre one time to not have the trees in my ravine logged, if that was 100 bucks an acre every year I'd go for it.

I and other farmers support biofuels because I am now getting paid. Taking your position would be like me saying I don't like money and I like being broke. Having a cheap food policy is subsidizing consumers for not growing their own food. I mean if some people are so adamant having a cheap food policy, by all means buy land and sign a contract to a miller for a reduced price.

We are still prolonging our oil reserves with this. This is the same argument concerning high fuel prices.

You cannot have a cheap food policy which subsidizes urban people's lifestyle choice without ripping off the producer, it can't happen. With a cheap food policy you must subsidize the producer because he is operating at a loss. If someone wants food without growing it themselves, they have to pay.

There are job opportunities created by ethanol plants too, should those people not be allowed to have jobs?

With prices high and excess grain being used up, farmers in other parts of the world now have a chance to make money at it and not have to compete with subsidized grain being dumped into their countries. Canada is doing it's part in not dumping, and we can with modest amounts of grain going to biofuels, we are not starving, we are prolonging the oil supply, and the market is finally balanced.

Saying that Canada is in a food crisis, is scare tactics, you will never see a breadline in Canada even when the biofuel mandate is met. If other countries would improve their farming practices, then they wouldn't have to worry about starving.

[White Doors]

I don't agree. i think the adjustments may be difficult, but I think higher priced foods are really a win win.

Food should be more expensive. Think about it. The markets are going to do by themselves what endless rounds of WTO trade discussions couldn't - make 3rd world food producers competitive. This will in fact lift alot of people out of poverty.

What do the poorest of the poor do in the world? They try to produce food to eat. If the produce that they are making become more valuable? Guess what? They aren't so poor anymore.

The adjustments will be painful perhaps (this in large part is more to do with the fact the Europe subsidizes their farmers a way too much more than anything). The adjustments will invariably lead to Europe, the USA and then Canada reducing subsidies to domestic operations. Why? Because they won't need them anymore and the voting public will start to demand lower food prices. Why in that order? Because Europe subsidizes their farmers the most followed by the US and followed again by Canada.

This is a good news story, chicken littles, notwithstanding.

Edited April 24, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

WhiteDoors, while I respect your opinion overall your argument seems to lack in credibility.

The more exoensive food is the less aid we or any country will be bale to send. The less those developing countries will be able to afford to buy and the less seeding the same countries will be bale t buy. It hurts everyone.

I understand your point and it is well intentioned doesn't seem to reflect reality...

Good. I'm glad we won't send as much aid (assuming you are correct). The west assuaging their guilt and sending handouts has done more to keep the 3rd world poor than anything else. We may feel better about it, but it hasn't changed anything.

My line of thinking not only reflects reality, it IS reality. That reality is the market forces at work. When poor people are given the tools to take themselves out of poverty, it works.

ie: micro credit loans, see nobel prizes.

When governments and large agencies give it away for nothing it encourages corruption and inefficiencies and does not provide an incentive or a means for the poor to better themselves, they merely become dependant and their handlers corrupt.

Giving 'aid' to poor countries is what we do to make ourselves feel good, but THAT is what doesn't reflect reality.

I think you need to spend some more time thinking about this subject before you tell someone that their views don't reflect reality.

ps: neither is my point well intentioned, just verbalizing the facts and explaining how the results may be the exact opposite of 'the sky is falling' that so often makes the front page but has little to do with the reality you speak of.

Edited April 24, 2008 by White Doors

[blueblood]

I don't agree. i think the adjustments may be difficult, but I think higher priced foods are really a win win.

Food should be more expensive. Think about it. The markets are going to do by themselves what endless rounds of WTO trade discussions couldn't - make 3rd world food producers competitive. This will in fact lift alot of people out of poverty.

What do the poorest of the poor do in the world? They try to produce food to eat. If the produce that they are making become more valuable? Guess what? They aren't so poor anymore.

The adjustments will be painful perhaps (this in large part is more to do with the fact the Europe subsidizes their farmers a way too much more than anything). The adjustments will invariably lead to Europe, the USA and then Canada reducing subsidies to domestic operations. Why? Because they won't need them anymore and the voting public will start to demand lower food prices. Why in that order? Because Europe subsidizes their farmers the most followed by the US and followed again by Canada.

This is a good news story, chicken littles, notwithstanding.

All makes sense except for the taking away of subsidies resulting in lower food prices. The only way to reduce food prices is to produce more. It's like gasoline, the voting public can demand lower prices, but the gov't can't lower gas prices unless it wants to bring in an NEP type of deal, screwing over the oil companies.

Having the third world producers get online with valuable grain will result in more production and will cool prices off. And if they get cold, they can pop up ethanol plants of their own to soak up the "waste". By the time they are able to afford their own plants, their food supply will be secure enough to do so because of the impending lower prices.

[jdobbin]

We are still prolonging our oil reserves with this. This is the same argument concerning high fuel prices.

Where is the evidence that oil reserves are extended by turning food into fuel?

Here is the math on corn and ethanol:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ea...539.html?page=2

Let’s start with the math. Corn doesn’t grow like a weed. Modern corn farming involves heavy inputs of nitrogen fertilizer (made with natural gas), applications of herbicides and other chemicals (made mostly from oil), heavy machinery (which runs on diesel) and transportation (diesel again). Converting the corn into fuel requires still more energy. The ratio of how much energy is used to make ethanol versus how much it delivers is known as the energy balance, and calculating it is surprisingly complex.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that, “Today, 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.” Even that modest payback may be overstated. Skeptics cite the research of Cornell Uni¬versity professor David Pimentel, who estimates that it takes approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.

If the benefits are in doubt, the costs are not. It would take 450 pounds of corn to yield enough ethanol to fill the tank of an SUV. Producing enough ethanol to replace America’s imported oil alone would require putting nearly 900 million acres under cultivation—or roughly 95 percent of the active farmland in the country. Once we’ve turned our farms into filling stations, where will the food come from?

There’s a simple reason that ethanol is popular with politicians: money. Substituting corn ethanol for a large fraction of the gasoline we burn will mean sluicing gushers of cash from more populated states to politically powerful farm states. And a lot of that cash will wind up in the pockets of the big agribusinesses, like Archer Daniels Midland, that dominate ethanol processing—and whose fat checkbooks wield enormous influence in Washington.

It uses more energy that it produces and even if we use all our arable land for fuel, we still only cover a fraction of gas needs.

You cannot have a cheap food policy which subsidizes urban people's lifestyle choice without ripping off the producer, it can't happen. With a cheap food policy you must subsidize the producer because he is operating at a loss. If someone wants food without growing it themselves, they have to pay.

Ethanol is the wrong policy to use if farmer want higher prices to last.

There are job opportunities created by ethanol plants too, should those people not be allowed to have jobs?

More jobs would be created with a tax cut than a subsidy to the ethanol industry.

With prices high and excess grain being used up, farmers in other parts of the world now have a chance to make money at it and not have to compete with subsidized grain being dumped into their countries. Canada is doing it's part in not dumping, and we can with modest amounts of grain going to biofuels, we are not starving, we are prolonging the oil supply, and the market is finally balanced.

Totally bogus on extending oil supply when it requires more energy to produce bio-fuels.

Saying that Canada is in a food crisis, is scare tactics, you will never see a breadline in Canada even when the biofuel mandate is met. If other countries would improve their farming practices, then they wouldn't have to worry about starving.

Saying that rationing has not begun in North America is denial. The bandwagon for ethanol is seeing more and more of the country converting food to fuel.

Edited April 24, 2008 by jdobbin

[JB Globe]

The best way to reduce emissions from people getting from A to B is still public transit, walking and biking. The problems with ethanol just prove this.

It saves the most money in terms of total cost, it drastically reduces emissions, it reduces travel time if it's part of a regional transport strategy (and not ad-hoc), and it save individual users money.

The feds should get in the transport game the way European governments are. That way even smaller cities could at least afford basic transit. We also need to do away with suburban development and redevelop suburbs so they're more transit-friendly. It's a reasonable goal - Mississauga's plans for it's main drag, Hurontario made me change my mind about the whole thing.

[Alta4ever]

The best way to reduce emissions from people getting from A to B is still public transit, walking and biking. The problems with ethanol just prove this.

It saves the most money in terms of total cost, it drastically reduces emissions, it reduces travel time if it's part of a regional transport strategy (and not ad-hoc), and it save individual users money.

The feds should get in the transport game the way European governments are. That way even smaller cities could at least afford basic transit. We also need to do away with suburban development and redevelop suburbs so they're more transit-friendly. It's a reasonable goal - Mississauga's plans for it's main drag, Hurontario made me change my mind about the whole thing.

Maybe it works for the densly populated areas around toronto, but it will not work here. There is not the population base to be able to pay for it, or to make it worth while. I can tell you that I will not be biking 3 hours to work everyday. The situtation really changes once you get outside of urbanized Ontario

[Alta4ever]

The bandwagon for ethanol is seeing more and more of the country converting food to fuel.be created with a tax cut than a subsidy to the ethanol industry.

Totally bogus on extending oil supply when it requires more energy to produce bio-fuels.

Total bunk, this was explained to you once already, it is not food grade grain fed into the bio industry, it is the very low grade stuff not fit for human consumption. The remander of the seed left over from the process can still be used for animal feed.

[blueblood]

Where is the evidence that oil reserves are extended by turning food into fuel?

Here is the math on corn and ethanol:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ea...539.html?page=2

It uses more energy that it produces and even if we use all our arable land for fuel, we still only cover a fraction of gas needs.

Ethanol is the wrong policy to use if farmer want higher prices to last.

More jobs would be created with a tax cut than a subsidy to the ethanol industry.

Totally bogus on extending oil supply when it requires more energy to produce bio-fuels.

Saying that rationing has not begun in North America is denial. The bandwagon for ethanol is seeing more and more of the country converting food to fuel.

Does that guy from popular mechanics think that before ethanol farmers used horses and oxen and spread seed with their hands? I've burned tens of thousands of dollars in fuel every year for the past 20 years.

Cheap food policy without a direct subsidy is the wrong policy if I want to see high prices in the first place.

Oil industry in Alberta was "subsidized" look at all the jobs there. The subsidy pays for itself in revenue generated through higher income, sales, and higher property taxes. More food would be grown in urban areas if I didn't "subsidize" their "food lifestyle".

Hmm. I went to the grocery store and bought a large bag of flour, no rationing there. Saying that the average Canadian is going to starve with this policy is flat out fear mongering.

So let me get this straight you want farmers to grow a pile of food, but not use marginal land (which cuts production). At the same time with this alleged pile of food made, which results in a low price you somehow magically expect farmers to get a fair price out of this. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

This is the Liberal cheap food policy; have other countries subsidize their farmers and flood the market, then with prices in the tank encourage Canadian farmers to maximize their production without magically harming the environment in order to try and pay the bills. It's win win for the LPC, they deliver cheap food and nobody pays. And Liberals wonder why farmers hate them? And you say the ethanol industry is unsustainable. The tories and republicans finally threw that policy under the bus and rural north america is finally prosperous again and nobody is starving.

With the tory biofuel plan, the waste grain is used up which boosts prices and returns, jobs are created, oil reserves are prolonged, and there is still enough grain produced in Canada for food and fuel. Canadians are coming out of this much better off. I'm not saying we should ethanol should replace oil, but ethanol has a role to play in improving our economy. Also with biofuels the farmers from rich countries are not putting the farmers from poor countries out of business.

[Wild Bill]

Maybe it works for the densly populated areas around toronto, but it will not work here. There is not the population base to be able to pay for it, or to make it worth while. I can tell you that I will not be biking 3 hours to work everyday. The situtation really changes once you get outside of urbanized Ontario

Actually, I'm not sure it works anywhere outside of Toronto and even that city has some problems!

Here in Hamilton it always seems that to get ANYWHERE you have to walk from transfer points a greater distance than you actually ride! To be fair, I'm not sure that no matter how much money you throw at public transit if it ever could be a viable option for all but a fraction of the population.

Public transit doesn't work well if you have to carry much of anything. How do you bring home a week's worth of groceries for the family on a bus? What do you do if it's bad weather? Do we expect 50 year olds to stand at a bus stop for hours with armloads of goods? How do they carry it from the bus stop to their home?

I've lived here pretty well my whole life and I have never lived and worked in a situation where it matched up to the bus routes. A 15 minute car ride would have become a 90 minute bus trip. That's 3 hours of commuting a day versus 30 minutes in my car. After 8 hours plus the expected office overtime of an hour or two that means a total day of 12-13 hours if I use public transit.

Screw it! Maybe when I was 19 going to university but today I would like at least a few minutes a day with my family before I fall asleep.

[jdobbin]

Total bunk, this was explained to you once already, it is not food grade grain fed into the bio industry, it is the very low grade stuff not fit for human consumption. The remander of the seed left over from the process can still be used for animal feed.

Low grade grain is used for feed which ends up in the food supply. There isn't getting around that. We are not talking about waste products being the only grains used for ethanol.

Edited April 25, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

This is the Liberal cheap food policy; have other countries subsidize their farmers and flood the market, then with prices in the tank encourage Canadian farmers to maximize their production without magically harming the environment in order to try and pay the bills. It's win win for the LPC, they deliver cheap food and nobody pays. And Liberals wonder why farmers hate them? And you say the ethanol industry is unsustainable. The tories and republicans finally threw that policy under the bus and rural north america is finally prosperous again and nobody is starving.

Rationing is now starting in North America. Food banks are finding it harder to get food. Starvation around the world is a real possibility this year as more food goes into the gas tank. Costs continue to skyrocket.

Farmers would hate Liberals no matter what. Is it isn't just about the farm.

With the tory biofuel plan, the waste grain is used up which boosts prices and returns, jobs are created, oil reserves are prolonged, and there is still enough grain produced in Canada for food and fuel. Canadians are coming out of this much better off. I'm not saying we should ethanol should replace oil, but ethanol has a role to play in improving our economy. Also with biofuels the farmers from rich countries are not putting the farmers from poor countries out of business.

There is presently no limit on ethanol in Canada. If fuel costs continue to go up, the pay for farmers to switch all their farmland to producing fuel will rise astronomically.

Ethanol should not be subsidized where it damages the environment and creates the conditions for food shortages. The Liberals will win the next election if Harper and the Tories stick with the farmers on this.

[Wilber]

The solution if there is one will take many forms. Much more efficient vehicles running on different fuels, using a variety of power plants, much greater use of public transit where it is feasible, greater use of nuclear, wind and solar power among other things, plus the continued use of fossil fuels where there are no other alternatives.

Bio fuels can only replace a small percentage of fossil fuels, hydrogen presently requires a lot of energy to produce and presents real transportation and storage problems. Fossil fuels are here to stay for the foreseeable future and the chances of finding one silver bullet to replace them is pretty damn slim. We certainly aren't going to grow enough to replace what took millions of years of vegetation to produce in the first place.

I'm an optimist about finding solutions but one must also consider the possibility that because of fossil fuels, mankind may have created a civilization and a population density that is not sustainable without them no matter what we do.

[jdobbin]

The solution if there is one will take many forms. Much more efficient vehicles running on different fuels, using a variety of power plants, much greater use of public transit where it is feasible, greater use of nuclear, wind and solar power among other things, plus the continued use of fossil fuels where there are no other alternatives.

Bio fuels can only replace a small percentage of fossil fuels, hydrogen presently requires a lot of energy to produce and presents real transportation and storage problems. Fossil fuels are here to stay for the foreseeable future and the chances of finding one silver bullet to replace them is pretty damn slim. We certainly aren't going to grow enough to replace what took millions of years of vegetation to produce in the first place.

I'm an optimist about finding solutions but one must also consider the possibility that because of fossil fuels, mankind may have created a civilization and a population density that is not sustainable without them no matter what we do.

I have to agree with everything you say here. Oil remains the most efficient primary fuel source and even if every hectare of arable land was used to grow fuel, it would still represent a fraction of energy needs. Moreover, the environmental damage and problems of food pricing and availability make ethanol and ever more frightening choice.

Ever greater fuel efficiency and other alternative energy sources along with public transit will assist in helping alleviate some of the situation.

I tend to agree that the low density neighborhoods where everyone has two or three cars and over 2000 square feet of housing might be unrealistic when gas is forecast to reach $200 or more a barrel by CIBC economists. Ethanol isn't going to change that and in fact might make it worse if it leads to food shortages.

More and more attention is being drawn to the issue. Tonight on CTV News.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

A world-wide food crisis is bringing some unwanted attention to the production of biofuels.

Critics say using food staples such as corn to produce energy supplies like ethanol just doesn't make sense.

Some critics charge that grain needed to make just one full tank of ethanol for an SUV is enough to feed a person for one year. Such charges have some concerned in the U.S., where nearly a third of the entire corn crop is going into the gas tank.

"I just don't believe we should be moving in the direction of producing biofuels that are made with food," says Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, a member of the U.S. House Hunger Caucus.

The demand for corn use in biofuels is raising food costs in general. The price of corn has roughly tripled in the past two years. Adding to the criticism, even ethanol producers acknowledge that producing ethanol from corn is not providing a more secure energy source for countries such as the U.S.

Edited April 25, 2008 by jdobbin

[White Doors]

All makes sense except for the taking away of subsidies resulting in lower food prices. The only way to reduce food prices is to produce more. It's like gasoline, the voting public can demand lower prices, but the gov't can't lower gas prices unless it wants to bring in an NEP type of deal, screwing over the oil companies.

Having the third world producers get online with valuable grain will result in more production and will cool prices off. And if they get cold, they can pop up ethanol plants of their own to soak up the "waste". By the time they are able to afford their own plants, their food supply will be secure enough to do so because of the impending lower prices.

The farming subsidizes that farmers get from governments now will be come unnecessary when the produce they make becomes sufficiently profitable on it's own. They are unlikely to continue on inn their current form as we continue down this road of pricing food as a more valuable commodity, as it should be.

Look at the oilsands in Alberta for an example, they increased the royalty rates when the commodity became more lucrative.

[GostHacked]

I don't agree. i think the adjustments may be difficult, but I think higher priced foods are really a win win.

Food should be more expensive. Think about it. The markets are going to do by themselves what endless rounds of WTO trade discussions couldn't - make 3rd world food producers competitive. This will in fact lift alot of people out of poverty.

What do the poorest of the poor do in the world? They try to produce food to eat. If the produce that they are making become more valuable? Guess what? They aren't so poor anymore.

The adjustments will be painful perhaps (this in large part is more to do with the fact the Europe subsidizes their farmers a way too much more than anything). The adjustments will invariably lead to Europe, the USA and then Canada reducing subsidies to domestic operations. Why? Because they won't need them anymore and the voting public will start to demand lower food prices. Why in that order? Because Europe subsidizes their farmers the most followed by the US and followed again by Canada.

This is a good news story, chicken littles, notwithstanding.

This makes about as much sense to me as outsourcing your workforce to another cheaper country. I own company A, I emply 10,000 people. To cut costs, I am cutting half my workforce localy and moving it to Asia where I can pay 50 people for the salary of one local employee. I am saving lots of money. I am also only contributing half of what I used to (in terms of taxes and fees) to my local government. Money is not staying here. 5000 people are out of work, and cannot afford much anymore. They are no longer contributing as much back to the local government. Huge losses.

Cut your farms localy, and make it in a third world then use all that oil in order to ship the stuff to your plate does not make sense to me either.

Even with the subsidies it seems like farmers still are not making much of a profit and most are getting tired of being poor and looking to sell the farm....

What I suggest is you grow your own food. It is not hard, but it does take some long term work. Then you won't have to worry about food prices.

Also lower food prices (here and abroad) could reflect the quality of the food. China is a prime example of cheap food gone wrong. Baby food, gluten in other products, who knows what else was effected.

Cheaper does not make better, but there comes a point where paying for food is becoming a serious investment. So you don't buy as much. So Higher prices do not make it better either. Less people will be able to afford the food, because it is being grown elsewhere are shipped to you. With the fast rising cost of fuel prices, that food traveling longer distances will see an increase in the cost. That may force things to keep farming local. Also because of the rising fuel costs, the profit margin will go down. So along with the food price increase to cover the increase in fuel costs, I fail to see how this makes things better. If we forget and leave behind local farming, then we are going to depend on that cheap food comming from elsewhere. The chances of that food not getting to you have increased dramatically. Then we open up a whole other can of worms.

This world does not have a food shortage. I can tell you my warehouse now is filled to the brim with groceries. The world does, however, have a food distrobution problem. Western societies have grocery stores that are packed with food. And we have countries in Africa that are struggling to find food. You have no idea the amount of produce that ends up going bad for whatever reason, and what we don't send off to the Food Bank, goes in the garbage.

I have been involved with food distrobution much of my life. I have eaten all my life. I have been involved with inventory aspect of the business. I have worked in a grocery store for a few years, ordering products to maintain our stock levels. Now I am in a distrobution center where we deliver orders to those stores. Logisticly it is mind boggling how it is all done.

We can give up half these idiotic food products (most are filled with things I cannot pronounce, so that kind of scares me of what it can do to me long term), and concentrate making good healthy food available to all.

The reason I say give up half the products is people can hardley notice a difference between same but different branded items. Most colas to me taste the same. Coke, pepsi, ect all taste the same to me. Actually the best cola I had came from Cott (generica soda manufacurer) under the Loeb brand of Equality. Cost half the price. Made locally. Eventhough we also have a Pepsi and a Coke center in the city.

We are so 'branded' that we poo poo anything that is a no name of house brand. When in many cases that food is cheaper and tastes better, and comes from the same farmer we still go for the branded more expensive items.

As a food customer/consumer myself, I am always looking for the deals and the cheap brands. Mind you there are some brand name items that are worth the price and will be better than the generic brands. That will always be the case, cannot escape from it.

80% of my boxed/canned items are house brands (no-name, equality, ect ect)

[blueblood]

This makes about as much sense to me as outsourcing your workforce to another cheaper country. I own company A, I emply 10,000 people. To cut costs, I am cutting half my workforce localy and moving it to Asia where I can pay 50 people for the salary of one local employee. I am saving lots of money. I am also only contributing half of what I used to (in terms of taxes and fees) to my local government. Money is not staying here. 5000 people are out of work, and cannot afford much anymore. They are no longer contributing as much back to the local government. Huge losses.

Cut your farms localy, and make it in a third world then use all that oil in order to ship the stuff to your plate does not make sense to me either.

Even with the subsidies it seems like farmers still are not making much of a profit and most are getting tired of being poor and looking to sell the farm....

What I suggest is you grow your own food. It is not hard, but it does take some long term work. Then you won't have to worry about food prices.

Also lower food prices (here and abroad) could reflect the quality of the food. China is a prime example of cheap food gone wrong. Baby food, gluten in other products, who knows what else was effected.

Cheaper does not make better, but there comes a point where paying for food is becoming a serious investment. So you don't buy as much. So Higher prices do not make it better either. Less people will be able to afford the food, because it is being grown elsewhere are shipped to you. With the fast rising cost of fuel prices, that food traveling longer distances will see an increase in the cost. That may force things to keep farming local. Also because of the rising fuel costs, the profit margin will go down. So along with the food price increase to cover the increase in fuel costs, I fail to see how this makes things better. If we forget and leave behind local farming, then we are going to depend on that cheap food comming from elsewhere. The chances of that food not getting to you have increased dramatically. Then we open up a whole other can of worms.

This world does not have a food shortage. I can tell you my warehouse now is filled to the brim with groceries. The world does, however, have a food distrobution problem. Western societies have grocery stores that are packed with food. And we have countries in Africa that are struggling to find food. You have no idea the amount of produce that ends up going bad for whatever reason, and what we don't send off to the Food Bank, goes in the garbage.

I have been involved with food distrobution much of my life. I have eaten all my life. I have been involved with inventory aspect of the business. I have worked in a grocery store for a few years, ordering products to maintain our stock levels. Now I am in a distrobution center where we deliver orders to those stores. Logisticly it is mind boggling how it is all done.

We can give up half these idiotic food products (most are filled with things I cannot pronounce, so that kind of scares me of what it can do to me long term), and concentrate making good healthy food available to all.

The reason I say give up half the products is people can hardley notice a difference between same but different branded items. Most colas to me taste the same. Coke, pepsi, ect all taste the same to me. Actually the best cola I had came from Cott (generica soda manufacurer) under the Loeb brand of Equality. Cost half the price. Made locally. Eventhough we also have a Pepsi and a Coke center in the city.

We are so 'branded' that we poo poo anything that is a no name of house brand. When in many cases that food is cheaper and tastes better, and comes from the same farmer we still go for the branded more expensive items.

As a food customer/consumer myself, I am always looking for the deals and the cheap brands. Mind you there are some brand name items that are worth the price and will be better than the generic brands. That will always be the case, cannot escape from it.

80% of my boxed/canned items are house brands (no-name, equality, ect ect)

We aren't talking about outsourcing, not at all, quite the opposite, which is expansion. By making grain more valuable, farmers who own their own farms can now make a go at agriculture without cheap subsidized grain being dumped on them. It's hardly outsourcing at all. Shouldn't third world countries be allowed to work? Canadians aren't cutting production, we're just cutting the waste.

The only thing being "cut" is the mountain of unused grain that sits there, rots, and is given away to third world countries. Using up that mountain of grain raises prices, and uses up the excess grain otherwise dumped.

Edited April 25, 2008 by blueblood

[jdobbin]

We aren't talking about outsourcing, not at all, quite the opposite, which is expansion. By making grain more valuable, farmers who own their own farms can now make a go at agriculture without cheap subsidized grain being dumped on them. It's hardly outsourcing at all. Shouldn't third world countries be allowed to work? Canadians aren't cutting production, we're just cutting the waste.

The only thing being "cut" is the mountain of unused grain that sits there, rots, and is given away to third world countries. Using up that mountain of grain raises prices, and uses up the excess grain otherwise dumped.

If, for example, a year's supply of corn for one person goes into filling one SUV tank, how is that benefiting the general population? One third of the U.S. corn crop goes to ethanol and that number is rising fast. Your solution is for people to grow their own food as farmers chase the food for fuel market.

How about we just drop the ethanol subsidy and come up with another solution that does less damage to the food supply and to the environment.

[jbg]

If, for example, a year's supply of corn for one person goes into filling one SUV tank, how is that benefiting the general population? One third of the U.S. corn crop goes to ethanol and that number is rising fast. Your solution is for people to grow their own food as farmers chase the food for fuel market.

How about we just drop the ethanol subsidy and come up with another solution that does less damage to the food supply and to the environment.

I heartily agree.

[blueblood]

If, for example, a year's supply of corn for one person goes into filling one SUV tank, how is that benefiting the general population? One third of the U.S. corn crop goes to ethanol and that number is rising fast. Your solution is for people to grow their own food as farmers chase the food for fuel market.

How about we just drop the ethanol subsidy and come up with another solution that does less damage to the food supply and to the environment.

If you want a cheap food supply you are going to have to cough up a subsidy because what happened in the 90's to 06 was a completely unsustainable agriculture policy.

It's much cheaper to pop up ethanol plants than to subsidize every farmer in Canada 300 dollars an acre so you can enjoy food at rock bottom prices and the convenience of not growing it.

It's also better policy to have smaller, more efficient farms which produce every year. Because if farms get large enough, they can afford to shut down when the prices are in the tank; which would also disrupt your food supply. This is what was happening.

Saying ethanol is harming the Canadian food supply is like saying the sky is falling. They don't need much grain to meet the biofuel mandate.

The LPC solution during the Chretien-Martin mandate was completely unsustainable and devestating to the rural economy. I'd like to hear what your solution would be.

[jdobbin]

If you want a cheap food supply you are going to have to cough up a subsidy because what happened in the 90's to 06 was a completely unsustainable agriculture policy.

It's much cheaper to pop up ethanol plants than to subsidize every farmer in Canada 300 dollars an acre so you can enjoy food at rock bottom prices and the convenience of not growing it.

Ethanol was never set up to create an expensive food system. It was set up as means to help the environment and offer an alternative energy source.

Farmers have embraced it as as expensive food system and not interested in hearing anything about the growing body of research that says it is not helping the environment and is a poor alternative energy source if it involves turning food into fuel.

It's also better policy to have smaller, more efficient farms which produce every year. Because if farms get large enough, they can afford to shut down when the prices are in the tank; which would also disrupt your food supply. This is what was happening.

It is farmers that haven been driving the consolidation. And now as their land grow in value due to higher commodity prices, they will probably want protection from conglomerates who might come to regard their fields as potential fuel sources.

Farmers can't keep switching between capitalism and socialism and not lose credibility with the majority of Canadians who happen to live in cities.

Saying ethanol is harming the Canadian food supply is like saying the sky is falling. They don't need much grain to meet the biofuel mandate.

The demand for grain for ethanol is skyrocketing. It will grow and grow under the present system. The U.S. just put in a new farm bill today reduces the tax credit for ethanol or the danger there is that more than half of corn production will be going to fuel. Even the biggest supporters in the farm industry for ethanol have got to realize that this is unsustainable.

The LPC solution during the Chretien-Martin mandate was completely unsustainable and devestating to the rural economy. I'd like to hear what your solution would be.

Large set-asides would be one of my solutions. It is better for the environment, better for pricing for the farmer and less inflationary for food prices.

If farmers decide this is the issue to go to war with the cities, they will lose. And they will lose big. The UN and IMF have said that the food crisis will overwhelm the world this year. There are many causes of this crisis but to say that ethanol doesn't have a role is disingenuous.

[blueblood]

Ethanol was never set up to create an expensive food system. It was set up as means to help the environment and offer an alternative energy source.

Farmers have embraced it as as expensive food system and not interested in hearing anything about the growing body of research that says it is not helping the environment and is a poor alternative energy source if it involves turning food into fuel.

It is farmers that haven been driving the consolidation. And now as their land grow in value due to higher commodity prices, they will probably want protection from conglomerates who might come to regard their fields as potential fuel sources.

Farmers can't keep switching between capitalism and socialism and not lose credibility with the majority of Canadians who happen to live in cities.

The demand for grain for ethanol is skyrocketing. It will grow and grow under the present system. The U.S. just put in a new farm bill today reduces the tax credit for ethanol or the danger there is that more than half of corn production will be going to fuel. Even the biggest supporters in the farm industry for ethanol have got to realize that this is unsustainable.

Large set-asides would be one of my solutions. It is better for the environment, better for pricing for the farmer and less inflationary for food prices.

If farmers decide this is the issue to go to war with the cities, they will lose. And they will lose big. The UN and IMF have said that the food crisis will overwhelm the world this year. There are many causes of this crisis but to say that ethanol doesn't have a role is disingenuous.

There is a body of research that says it is a viable energy source and helps the environment.

City people can't also keep switching between capitalism and socialism as saying farming is a business, yet not want to pay for our product.

With higher commodity prices it will keep most conglomerates at bay because a smaller guy can make money and doesn't need a buyout in order to start over. If a conglomerate came to me now with high prices, I'd tell him to piss up a rope. I don't need to get bought out, I have a better cash flow. There is much less land for sale now than there was 5 years ago.

Large set asides don't provide spin off jobs. It would be much more expensive than ethanol, due to the fact they have to convince x amt. of farmers to take land out of production. Also, the same thing happens with ethanol, there is much less grain to go around. The ratio is better for setting up plants resulting in higher prices than taking land out of production resulting in higher prices. People would still complain about that too.

In argentina, everyone lost with the farmers and city people clashing. their city people demanded cheap food and put a huge export tariff on agriculture products, their farmers went on strike and argentina had to import food driving prices even higher. The farmers lost in that they don't get paid.

You keep refering to the U.S. biofuel plan, I'm referring to the Canadian one, and there is nothing wrong with that one, no one in Canada is rationing anything. We as a country are benefitting from this. Poor countries in time will also benefit form this by finally having a productive ag industry. That having been said, there isn't much more ethanol plants springing up and the ones that do will be doing the cellulose technology, the city of Winnipeg would be very very wise in investing in one of these due to the stubble burning controversy. This will also save the forestry industry.

The only thing I see which would drop prices would be a market meltdown in Asia and I hope that does not happen.

[jdobbin]

There is a body of research that says it is a viable energy source and helps the environment.)

That says food for fuel is good? I think not. Farmers can't seriously think that 1/3 of the corn crop going to fuel tanks is a good thing. The pressure to go that route in Canada is increasing.

City people can't also keep switching between capitalism and socialism as saying farming is a business, yet not want to pay for our product.

Who says consumers don't want to pay? It is farmers that keep asking for help. Help with insurance, help with cheap water, help with exports.

With higher commodity prices it will keep most conglomerates at bay because a smaller guy can make money and doesn't need a buyout in order to start over. If a conglomerate came to me now with high prices, I'd tell him to piss up a rope. I don't need to get bought out, I have a better cash flow. There is much less land for sale now than there was 5 years ago.

Farmers remain protected from buy outs by various laws. That hasn't changed. I still believe there are sellers for the right price but that farm lobbies would prevent it.

Large set asides don't provide spin off jobs. It would be much more expensive than ethanol, due to the fact they have to convince x amt. of farmers to take land out of production. Also, the same thing happens with ethanol, there is much less grain to go around. The ratio is better for setting up plants resulting in higher prices than taking land out of production resulting in higher prices. People would still complain about that too.

Ethanol jobs come at too high a price. You would get far more jobs from a tax cut.

In argentina, everyone lost with the farmers and city people clashing. their city people demanded cheap food and put a huge export tariff on agriculture products, their farmers went on strike and argentina had to import food driving prices even higher. The farmers lost in that they don't get paid.

You keep refering to the U.S. biofuel plan, I'm referring to the Canadian one, and there is nothing wrong with that one, no one in Canada is rationing anything. We as a country are benefitting from this. Poor countries in time will also benefit form this by finally having a productive ag industry. That having been said, there isn't much more ethanol plants springing up and the ones that do will be doing the cellulose technology, the city of Winnipeg would be very very wise in investing in one of these due to the stubble burning controversy. This will also save the forestry industry.

The only thing I see which would drop prices would be a market meltdown in Asia and I hope that does not happen.

If prices are going up regardless, we can get rid of the ethanol subsidy.

[GostHacked]

We aren't talking about outsourcing, not at all, quite the opposite, which is expansion. By making grain more valuable, farmers who own their own farms can now make a go at agriculture without cheap subsidized grain being dumped on them. It's hardly outsourcing at all. Shouldn't third world countries be allowed to work? Canadians aren't cutting production, we're just cutting the waste.

The only thing being "cut" is the mountain of unused grain that sits there, rots, and is given away to third world countries. Using up that mountain of grain raises prices, and uses up the excess grain otherwise dumped.

Correct.

However what I was saying is that it makes about as much sense as outsourcing does. It does not help the local economy. And if we have an exess of grain, should'nt some foods be cheaper because of it? Outsourcing is not expansion. If it was, then after the outsourcing, the company would not need to layoff people. This is happening with two companies that came here to Ottawa. Dell and Convergys. Congvergys is an outsoursing comany. Recently the contract they had (Time Warner and Road Runner) that got moved to another cheaper country. It was fortunate that they got a contract with Bell and will be able to keep their doors open. Dell is laying off over a thousand people here. They just built the new call center about 3-4 years ago. Moving it off to another cheaper country.

I really don't get eccnomics. I know this is not much of a comparison.