What is the food vs. fuel debate?

The origin of the debate of food versus fuel (to the best of my knowledge) was based on a miscalculation in a World Bank report from several years ago which they have since refuted and the report was withdrawn. The assumption also was based on the idea that food production would not increase over the coming decades as the world population expands, which, based on the nearly miraculous advances of the last 70 years seems an excessively pessimistic perspective. For example, hydroponics has been shown to produce increased yields and reduced pest problems on almost every crop that has ever been seriously attempted as a hydroponic instead of soil based crop. Granted Redwood trees may not be suitable, but you can never please everyone.

Furthermore, the 4% of the worlds grains used in corn-based ethanol production actually represent the SAME grains that are going to feed cattle as an IMPROVED feed supplement (as compared to grains not previously used in the alcohol production process). Opponents of biofuels seem to have imagined that all biofuel advocates live this cartoonish life imitating Henry VIII who (in the cartoons) takes one bite of a turkey drumstick and tosses the rest over his shoulder. Do you imagine that soy beans are squeezed for every last drop of oil, and while that is made into biodiesel the rest of the bean is being buried in a landfill?

The "there's only so much land" is a good argument to raise the price of a Malibu house with an ocean view, but algae, which is grown in water can be cultivated with no land at all, or using brackish deposits of water, unsuitable for other plants, that is available even in the middle of the New Mexico and Arizona deserts. Fuel from algae has recently been tested by the USAF, and methods are now available to turn it directly into jet fuel. In fact, there was even an experiment that dried it to a fine powder and burned the dry powder to power a (stationary mounted) jet turbine engine. And it all of that isn't enough to set your mind at rest, algae is already used as a food in some parts of the world, including where I grew up in Eastern Canada. A breed of macro-scale algae (usually called "seaweed") named "Dulse" is dried and packaged as a specialty food that us kids treated like candy. In Africa a high protein supplement is added to children's foods in a malnutrition prevention project.

Oh, yes, there are areas that are ILLEGALLY being deforested in the world, even a few legal ones when the politicians bribes get large enough, but the whole "indirect land use cost" argument is equivalent to calling for restrictions on turkey farmers in North Dakota based on how many Blue MacCaws are projected to be smuggled out of Brazil in March of the year 2067. There is not a rational basis for claiming a causal connection, short of corruption or eco-thuggery.

Sometimes I stand amazed that I have not developed some kind of nick name like "Bulldog" because I really don't like to leave things half finished. So although I may have satisfied some curiosity about Food v Fuel, I think I gave a better explanation in this passage I wrote a few days ago, so I'll repeat it here, in case anybody really wants a fuller answer:

Let’s put this argument to REST for ONCE and FOR ALL

The origin of the debate of food versus fuel (to the best of my knowledge) was based on a miscalculation in a World Bank report from several years ago which they have since refuted and the report was withdrawn. The assumption also was based on the idea that food production would not increase over the coming decades as the world population expands, which, based on the nearly miraculous advances of the last 70 years seems an excessively pessimistic perspective. For example, hydroponics has been shown to produce increased yields and reduced pest problems on almost every crop that has ever been seriously attempted as a hydroponic instead of soil based crop. Granted Redwood trees may not be suitable, but you can never please everyone.

Furthermore, the 4% of the worlds grains used in corn-based ethanol production actually represent the SAME grains that are going to feed cattle as an IMPROVED feed supplement (as compared to grains not previously used in the alcohol production process). Opponents of biofuels seem to have imagined that all biofuel advocates live this cartoonish life imitating Henry VIII who (in the cartoons) takes one bite of a turkey drumstick and tosses the rest over his shoulder. Do you imagine that soy beans are squeezed for every last drop of oil, and while that is made into biodiesel the rest of the bean is being buried in a landfill?

The “there’s only so much land” is a good argument to raise the price of a Malibu house with an ocean view, but algae, which is grown in water can be cultivated with no land at all, or using brackish deposits of water, unsuitable for other plants, that is available even in the middle of the New Mexico and Arizona deserts. Fuel from algae has recently been tested by the USAF, and methods are now available to turn it directly into jet fuel. In fact, there was even an experiment that dried it to a fine powder and burned the dry powder to power a (stationary mounted) jet turbine engine. And if all of that isn’t enough to set your mind at rest, algae is already used as a food in some parts of the world, including where I grew up in Eastern Canada. A breed of macro-scale algae (usually called “seaweed”) named “Dulse” is dried and packaged as a specialty food that us kids treated like candy. In Africa a high protein supplement is added to children’s foods in a malnutrition prevention project.

Oh, yes, there are areas that are ILLEGALLY being deforested in the world, even a few legal ones when the politicians bribes get large enough, but the whole “indirect land use cost” argument is equivalent to calling for restrictions on turkey farmers in North Dakota based on how many Blue Macaws are projected to be smuggled out of Brazil in March of the year 2067. There is not a rational basis for claiming a causal connection, short of corruption or eco-thuggery.
Sincerely,

Thank you Stafford for all of this information. It is a lot to "digest" and I am sure that most people are unaware of what the government is doing to control food supplies.