Shell calls food crop biofuels 'morally inappropriate'

[V00DOO]

Royal Dutch Shell, the world's top marketer of biofuels, considers using food crops to make biofuels "morally inappropriate" as long as there are people in the world who are starving, an executive said Thursday.

Link to article.

 

[waggy]

of course they don't want it used. they stand to lose a bunch of money if biofuels get better.

 

[So]

haha. Economically foolish? Quite possibly. Technically a bad choice? Arguably.

Morally inappropriate? No way.

 

[erikistired]

it's morally wrong to impose on their profits. duh.

 

[nageov3t]

I buy it.

why should we waste food on fuel, since it essentially would be a waste, when we could give it to starving counties?

biofuels = good politics for drumming up votes in the heartland, but not a realistic replacement for oil.

 

[senseamp]

It's not as if farmers are going to grow corn to give it to starving people in Africa if it's not going to be used for ethanol. They'll just grow something else.

 

[neutralizer]

Big surprise. Of course, Shell would say something liek taht about biofuels. That's just the same as Apple saying they're cooler than PCs.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: V00DOO

Royal Dutch Shell, the world's top marketer of biofuels, considers using food crops to make biofuels "morally inappropriate" as long as there are people in the world who are starving, an executive said Thursday.

Link to article.

I'm glad they feel better about depleting the earth of its natural resources.

 

[bignateyk]

biofuels are probably the dumbest option we have for alternative fuels. To simply grow corn for the sole purpose of turning it into a biofuel is retarded. It would take more land than we are currently using for our food sources just to come close to replacing our fossil fuel intake. Then where does that leave us for food? Yeah, in theory biofuels might sound good, but in reality, it will never work.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I buy it.

why should we waste food on fuel, since it essentially would be a waste, when we could give it to starving counties?

biofuels = good politics for drumming up votes in the heartland, but not a realistic replacement for oil.

Silly argument. It's not a zero sum game, we're well within our production curve of the maximum amount of food we can make, and we're still throwing tons away.

IMO we should be turning food waste into biofuel using waste conversion plants, but the fact is, that we are wasting food anyway, so why not put it to good use?

 

[AbAbber2k]

No, what's morally inappropriate is the rediculous amount of food that either goes bad before it can be purchased or goes in the trash because we take more than we need, whether it be at home or at a restaurant.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
biofuels are probably the dumbest option we have for alternative fuels. To simply grow corn for the sole purpose of turning it into a biofuel is retarded. It would take more land than we are currently using for our food sources just to come close to replacing our fossil fuel intake. Then where does that leave us for food? Yeah, in theory biofuels might sound good, but in reality, it will never work.

There is always sugar. Brazil makes plenty of fuel with sugar.

Also, consider the farm subsidies that would no longer have to be paid to farmers to NOT grow corn, etc.

 

[PepePeru]

so is feeding livestock w/ corn and grain morally irresponsible when people are starving?

 

[Babbles]

I understand their point and in a sense agree with them.

I personally disagree with many bio-fuel proposals because it is pandering to the agricultural subsidiaries, and also to produce EtOH from said agriculture products is a negative energy production deal. It takes more resources to grow and convert corn into a usable fuel than the energy you actually get from burning it.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: bignateyk
biofuels are probably the dumbest option we have for alternative fuels. To simply grow corn for the sole purpose of turning it into a biofuel is retarded. It would take more land than we are currently using for our food sources just to come close to replacing our fossil fuel intake. Then where does that leave us for food? Yeah, in theory biofuels might sound good, but in reality, it will never work.

There is always sugar. Brazil makes plenty of fuel with sugar.

Also, consider the farm subsidies that would no longer have to be paid to farmers to NOT grow corn, etc.

Agreed. The problem with biofuel is the question of energy return (i.e. do we get more energy back than we put into making it) and the opportunity cost when compated to other options like nuclear power, clean coal, shale oil, etc...

 

[bignateyk]

I agree that we should be turning our leftovers and waste into biofuels.. I think this is the pefect use. But to grow crops for the SOLE purpose of making biofuels is pretty stupid.

 

[91TTZ]

I agree with them here. Imagine tha bad publicity they'd get if they turned food (that starving people need) into fuel for some gas-guzzling SUV. That's almost as bad as a fat person stealing Starvin Marvin's lunch and eating it.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: loki8481
I buy it.

why should we waste food on fuel, since it essentially would be a waste, when we could give it to starving counties?

biofuels = good politics for drumming up votes in the heartland, but not a realistic replacement for oil.

Silly argument. It's not a zero sum game, we're well within our production curve of the maximum amount of food we can make, and we're still throwing tons away.

IMO we should be turning food waste into biofuel using waste conversion plants, but the fact is, that we are wasting food anyway, so why not put it to good use?

Doesn't the USDA still pay certain farmers to burn some of their crops to keep them in business? The idea being that the crops wouldn't sell, and the farms would lose money, go out of business. I know it happened at one point- does it still?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: TitanDiddly

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: loki8481
I buy it.

why should we waste food on fuel, since it essentially would be a waste, when we could give it to starving counties?

biofuels = good politics for drumming up votes in the heartland, but not a realistic replacement for oil.

Silly argument. It's not a zero sum game, we're well within our production curve of the maximum amount of food we can make, and we're still throwing tons away.

IMO we should be turning food waste into biofuel using waste conversion plants, but the fact is, that we are wasting food anyway, so why not put it to good use?

Doesn't the USDA still pay certain farmers to burn some of their crops to keep them in business? The idea being that the crops wouldn't sell, and the farms would lose money, go out of business. I know it happened at one point- does it still?

Yes, AFAIK, it does.

 

[Powermoloch]

why not give the food crops to nations that needed food?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Powermoloch
why not give the food crops to nations that needed food?

It'd depress prices both here and there, hurting american farmers and ensuring that they never get on their feet in terms of food production -- since how could local farmers compete with free american grain?

We give some of it away in food aid, but not much compared to what we theoretically could; the caveat is, we're doing them a favor in the long run by not giving as much as we could.

At least, that's the idea...

 

[arcas]

While on the subject of morality...what about those damned eating contests? A few days ago, a guy won a contest where he ate 53 hotdogs in 12 minutes. I'm sure there are hungry families in America who'd love to have had a few of those hotdogs for dinner...