Is this called 'the law of unintended consequences'.............raising interest rates to counter inflation can cause an over-correction, and leed to a 'depression'...............but as a tangential aside, should the 'non-oil producing' developed world hold the oil producing nations 'to ransom' on the cost of food to these countries?? the cost of crude oil is, however, also being driven by 'paper' investors/speculators.

Inevitably, the rising price of food and oil, regardless of the long=term consequences on global warming/food costs leaves the world in a 'catch 22' economic conundrum!!

How many people eat standing grain crops in the field? It takes energy to produce & distribute these edible food products. It costs less than 15c a loaf for the grain in your loaf of bread; oil on the other hand has gone from $20 a barrel to $140. We have also hit peak supply.

We need sustainable alternate forms of energy to feed the world.

I find the ignorance among those in the anti-biofuels group laughable, first AFLA and now this report.

It does have a nice chronological history though. Firstly, has any group failed to make the link between the current food spike and the previous one ‘decades ago’? Strangely it occurred around the last oil crisis in the '70s. Which was addressed and food and oil crashed to prices which inflicted long term damage on primary producers and only recently have food prices begun to rise.

No mention of Govt policies hoarding grain and restricting its trade impacting on the price or the 25% of the arable land in the Ukraine not under production or Zimbabwe’s failure. The reference to the Life Cycle of corn was only to Cornell University not the author who would be Pimentel, famous for his monarch butterfly failed science and being bought off by oil companies. Why not reference a more recent analysis by Wang 2007 where the difference is only a marginal 3% improvement.

Interestingly as commodity prices increase, there is incentive for third world countries people to return to their land. Vietnam is seeing a reversal of the city shift as people can now survive on the current prices and make a living without the threat of food aid being dumped on them and crushing their livelihood. In addition the increase is spurring investment and innovation into commodities, something which has not occurred for 20 years.

With regards to rainforest destruction, you are right: palm has done this. But be selective instead of trying to lump all biofuels into the same group. Sugar cane expansion in Brazil into the Amazon has slowed and finally their government is looking to locking it up. No mention of the rain forest being destroyed for grazing though?

First generation biofuels is a stop gap to second gen but you need it to help drive research, innovation and establish the market and supply chain. This is part of a long term strategy, which is often lost on the simple minded and according to the International Energy Authority in 2008 biofuels account for 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. Take that out and picture the price of oil.

At last people are waking up to this absolute furfie! Growing biofuels, like food crops, requires significant inputs (fuel, nutrients, agrichemicals etc) and "sustainable agriculture" has been hard enough to achieve on our planet without recent quantum shifts in logic (or lack thereof). Biofuels can be made from almost anything organic. Besides food crops (cane, corn, grain and oilseeds), other classes of biofuel feedstocks - cellulosic waste, oils, grease and other waste products (manure/sewage included) - can be used to produce energy.

However, the less organic matter recycled in food production (manure, trash or cellulosic waste returned after each crop) the more will need to be replaced in the form of fertiliser or manufactured agriproducts - hardly a "sustainable" model by any means.

Baggas is not a new concept and could be a solution to BOTH the waste disposal and energy conundrums of the 21st century. Composting and fermentation of organic household, business and production waste for energy makes more sense than proliferating rubbish dumps and pumping sewerage into the ocean while burning fossil fuels to do so.

"Getting off the grid" is an emerging trend. It involves individuals and corporations producing their own energy so they can be independent of various energy suppliers (electricity, gas and automotive fuels) to reduce costs and possibly sell excess energy back to commercial suppliers. Imagine all your domestic and business waste no longer being a burden but a valuable asset to reduce your total energy costs. Imagine the local tip paying you to dump organic rubbish into their system so they may profit.

Personal and corporate biofuel units (even back yard fuel bowsers) are already available, offering significant source/cost independence which should only improve as the technologies and consumer attitudes/behaviour advance towards more sustainable outcomes.

Self sufficiency may not be ideal, but the more we can control our own energy/waste management the less we will pay others to cause more problems.

Solar, hydro and nuclear alternatives aside, the world needs to be fed and organic matter (food, fibre and waste) much better managed for "sustainability" to be achievable. C02 and carbon credits merely obfuscate an already confused argument.

Personally, I'd rather dump ALL my organic waste into a sewerage system which generates power and uses waste water for irrigation so garbage dumps and ocean outfalls fade into history as a reminder of our myopia.

Exactly who is conning whom???? The Age's 'experts" don't have universal support as the attached article published today shows: BIOFUELS PRODUCTION NOT CAUSING HIGHER FOOD PRICES: EXPERTS MANILA July 15 Biofuels production has limited impact on the food supply and pricing especially in the Philippines, the Asian Institute of Petroleum Studies, Inc. (AIPSI) and the US National Biofuels Board said.

The two institutions issued this statement after the United Kingdom's Gallagher Review of biofuels raised concern that biofuels may raise food prices.

While the Gallagher Review is specific to the United Kingdom's own renewable fuels policies, it is fair to note that the research done by U.S. experts and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has proven that biofuels-related feedstock demand has limited impact on global food supply and pricing, said NBB CEO Joe Jobe. Jobe pointed out that through gas prices soaring to more than a gallon, the addition of biofuels to the US fuel supply is one of the only things keeping prices from going higher. AIPSI managing director Raffy Diaz, on the other hand, said that "to say it [biofuels] has none (no impact) is naive. But to pass on nearly the whole problem of food supply and price as being the result of biofuel to the level of more than 75 percent of feedstock production is outright ridiculous." He explained that the impact of biofuel feedstock eating up on food supply is very much below 10 percent on global basis (mainly pertaining to corn for ethanol and soybean for biodiesel). "A situation in one country cannot be echoed as being true, globally. But we do know that there are anti-biofuel forces (and I believe we know who they are) who will jump and bankroll every opportunity to make mountain out of tiny molehill of issue on biofuel," Diaz said. Furthermore, the country's biodiesel requirement at one percent biodiesel blend is around 60 to 70 million liters annually because demand for diesel is between 6 to 7 billion liters and this is fast declining due to high fuel cost. For B2, biodiesel requirement will be double to around 112 to 114 million liters by 2009. "From coco-oil production of 1.4 billion liters per year more or less, the biodiesel component will translate to just four to five percent for B1 and 8 to 10 percent for B2," Diaz said. He said "the coco methyl ester requirement for B1 and eventually B2 is less than 10 percent of total coconut oil production so it would be obvious that the steep rise in coco oil price cannot be totally attributed to biodiesel. Diaz said the cocobiodiesel initiative which was given serious focus at the turn of the new millenium was meant to raise copra price at farmgate level to alleviate poverty in the coco industry. However, he said, the steep rise in the price level of copra and/or coconut oil today cannot be attributed anymore to the local CME demand. "Coconut oil has many uses as health food, as surfactant detergent, as specialty lubes, as fuel additive component, as ingredient for skin care and cosmetics, and many others," he said. Coconut oil is also one of two plant oil commercially produced that contains Medium Chain Triglyceride, a formula ingredient for infant milk powder. "In my own view, the excellence of coconut as health food ( i.e. virgin coconut oil) and as fuel additive to mitigate global warming and air pollution, and as excellent biodiesel, has created new high volume demand and is seen as threat on supply availability to the traditional users of coconut oil," he said. Diaz said the increase in coconut oil is all driven by the other oils since coconut only takes up three to four percent of vegetable oil volumes traded on the world market. At the same time, food application for vegetable oils traded in the world market is very minimal and it is the technical industrial applications of coconut oil that maintains its presence on the world commodities market. Diaz noted the recent spike in fuel prices has also contributed to copra and coconut oil prices in the local market since it has raised the cost of transporting these commodities. (PNA) July 15, 2008 http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/news/newsfinder.asp?Action=U serDisplayFullDocument&orgId=2414&docId=l:821865093&topicId= 100011229&start=5&topics=single

John, Wheat may be just 15 cents of loaf of bread in the developed countries but in the developing world it is a different matter. In the developing world, if your food costs 70 per cent your income and the price of it doubles, you and your kids starve. I think it immoral that people advocate the conversion of food into fuel when it has been shown that this practice has contributed significantly to the rise in the price of basic food around the world. We do need alternate energy sources but grain ethanol/biodiesel is not one of them.

More to the story, At least 7 percent of the world’s grain is now being converted to biofuels, subsidized and encouraged by Governments. This was not the case ‘decades ago’. I do not see any historical reference point we can go back to.

When the USA Government and grain biofuel advocates suggests that this much grain off the market has only caused a small rise in the price of food is what I call laughable. It is nothing but spin, glibly quoting the grain cost component of food in the developed world.

The CO2 abatement of grain biofuels can be debated but the consensus seems to be that there is little benefit for climate change. Whatever the figure, the cost of subsidies to the taxpayer and higher food prices to the world's poorest far outweigh any perceived benefits of converting grain to biofuels.

You fail to specify which biofuels will act as a stop gap, drive research and so on. Recently a report suggested that a modified E.Coli bacteria can excrete oil which could be refined to petrol and diesel. There may be no need for an ethanol market and supply chain.

Why are grain ethanol advocates lobbying for a continuation of government subsidies and protection when ethanol may not even in the alternate fuel mix? The money they are demanding is money that could be better spent on second generation biofuels.

The only problem with the article is that it is not put in the Australian context. It does not mention that our governments are still subsidising, providing grants and mandating grain biofuels if the face of overwhelming evidence that the industry is uneconomical, unsustainable and immoral.

The NSW Government is even proposing a mandated E10, filled with ethanol converted from grain, grain produced in our drying MDBasin. This is what I would truly call simple minded and laughable.

Another misleading article. Food prices are higher across the board. e.g. rice. However, rice land has not been subsitituted for biofuels.

It is simple. Increased demand from China and other developing nations has increased all commodity costs except sugar which is the crop which should be most sensitive to increased biofuels consumption.

That is the fact.