Clinton Warns More Biofuels Could Mean Food Riots

February 25, 2011 03:48 AM
 

Addressing hunger and poverty have been key issues for former President Bill Clinton since he left the White House. And that focus has now found him issuing a warning about producing crops for biofuel production. Specifically, Clinton told those at USDA's Annual Outlook Forum that producing more biofuels could bring food riots around the globe.

"If we produce more biofuels, that means less food and that will bring food riots," Clinton said, even while stressing that the U.S. needs to become more energy independent.

So how to accomplish this? Clinton pointed to Brazil as an example, noting they don't tear down the rain forests to produce ethanol from sugarcane. But he also noted that sugarcane was starting to push soybean and cattle producers from their traditional areas to more marginal areas.

"The best thing to do is to say we have to be more energy independent, but we don't want to do it at the expense of food riots," Clinton stated. "We have to make intelligent decisions."

But with his urging to not grow more crops for biofuels, Clinton assured those in agriculture "there's going to be plenty for American farmers to do." A key question needs to be asked, he added, "is there some way to produce food in traditional way and still get a good price for it?"

"We know that the way we produce and consume energy has to change, yet for farmers there are no simple answers," he said. "There is a way for us to do this and to do it right."

Citing the work of USDA's Extension Service in the U.S., Clinton said, "the world needs a global ag extension service," saying such a program deployed in foreign countries would definitely help bolster agriculture around the globe.

As Clinton began his remarks, he noted he lived on a farm when he was a young boy. He described conditions as being difficult and quipped he went into politics and not farming "as I didn't want to work that hard."

The Renewable Fuels Association certainly took notice of Clinton's remarks, releasing the following statement:

 

"Grain demand from American ethanol production represents just three percent of the world's grain supply. American farmers and ethanol producers are cognizant of developing nations, producing more grain and livestock feed for export than in previous generations. Ethanol production returns one-third of every bushel to the feed markets, resulting in the production of more than 32 million metric tons of feed last year alone. The driver behind rising food prices has been and remains oil. Rising oil prices, even before the unrest in the Middle East and Northern Africa, have made everything we buy from food to clothes to fuel more expensive. President Clinton is right that ethanol is a key to American energy security and we would welcome his support in advocating for the continued advancement and evolution of this industry to include a wide variety of feedstocks and technologies."

 


Back to news


 

Comments

 
Spell Check

Anonymous
2/25/2011 06:10 AM
 

  Spin is apart of everyday life in America. We take “sound bites” of information and twist them into plausible truths. Many times contradicting statements are “whipped” together to make disturbing reality more palatable. Although I am still “troubled” by spin, I understand its place. The 1992 movie, “A Few Good Men” probably captures my thoughts the best when Colonel Jessep (Jack Nicholson) gives his ‘You can’t handle the True’ speech. In our “busyness” to make our lives as complex as we can handle, we prefer not to have outside, unwanted, uncomfortable thoughts. Spin is embraced to manage these “beyond our control” situations. Politicians make careers with spin. Former President Clinton is no exception. In his speech, he expressed concern about high food price, the disparity of wealth and lack of agricultural development in poorer nations. “High” priced food maybe a solution, in part, to these issues for developing counties. Early in a country’s economic development, wealth is derived from its natural resources. Labor is placed “at risk” to drill, mine, fish or farm these resources for the “chance” of profit. Higher commodity prices will motivate more “home grown” food supplies. This provides the opportunity for agricultural development and wealth building. The spin of believing either can occur with unprofitable prices is implausible without subsidies. None of the World’s economies appears to be in a financial position or have the willingness to provide that support. So Clinton’s spin of trying to make us believe low food prices, wealth and agriculture development can coexist in “poorer” nations seems very unlikely. (The full benefit of this argument, as well as the whole Globalization theory, is limited when “outsiders” displace “locals” in resource utilization. The short-term benefit of instant efficiency is displacing the long-term benefits of self-development.) No matter how much ethanol spins their industry, the nearly 5 billion bushels of corn used in ethanol production is a “big deal” when it comes food prices. (Unfavorable worldwide weather is a bigger contributor.) However, as Col. Jessep would say; “The dirty truth, whether we want to hear it or not, is the World needs US ethanol, the World wants US ethanol. . . .” ​

 
 
Anonymous
2/25/2011 08:34 AM
 

  If we as a government are subsidizing the ethanol industry to reduce our dependence on foreign oil then why are the ethanol/ oil companies exporting it?

 
 
Anonymous
2/25/2011 09:50 AM
 

  This sounds like Bill Clinton is starting early with his campaign to get Hillary and himself BACK in the White House.

 
 

Corn College TV Education Series

2014_Team_Shot_with_Logo

Get nearly 8 hours of educational video with Farm Journal's top agronomists. Produced in the field and neatly organized by topic, from spring prep to post-harvest. Order now!

Markets

Market Data provided by QTInfo.com
Brought to you by Beyer
Close