Biofuels wasn't that great an idea but it was lobbied for by corn/wheat growers.

This should actually be great for third world countries especially those with more agrarian economies. Mexicans may no longer be able to eat tortillas as regularly but their corn growers will certainly benefit from exports with the obvious flow-on effects. However western governments continue to subsidise their grossly uncompetitive agriculture industries as well as maintain tariffs and barriers to free trade.

Part of the problem is the Left constantly whining about the need for protectionism especially when it comes to places like China, this is of course the ultimate betrayal of the Third World.

"Mexicans may no longer be able to eat tortillas as regularly but their corn growers will certainly benefit from exports with the obvious flow-on effects"

Hmm, i do not really remember why it was.. but in the report they said that mexican corn growers had to switch to broccoli because wasn

Tequila drinkers beware! The plant that is used to make this amazing drink is grown mostly in Mexico, and many farmers are destroying their crops, to plant corn, as corn is now more profitable (due to biofuels, etc.). We could see a 25-35% drop in the supply of it!!

Life just isn't worth living anymore :(:(

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2924142520070529

> DPS wrote:

> > CanadianTire wrote:

> Tequila drinkers beware! The plant that is used to make this amazing drink is grown mostly in Mexico, and many farmers are destroying their crops, to plant corn, as corn is now more profitable (due to biofuels, etc.). We could see a 25-35% drop in the supply of it!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

More on topic though I've always felt the whole idea of government subsidized industry in a capitalist, free trade environment as someone hypocritical.  I understand governments want to protect their people's interests but it throws the system out of gear.  If you can't compete against Mexican farmers guess what Mexican farmers get more profit, try something else.  If you are going to subsidize and still hope to maintain a true free market you need to regulate it as well, kind of a you can only use x % of land for growing crop y.

good thing the US isnt capitalist.

> DPS wrote:

> "good thing the US isnt capitalist."

Well the only economic systems I'm familliar with, though I don't claim to be an expert, are Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism (Yes there is a difference between Socialism and Communism).  Now I know my country is a Socio-Capitalist blend, Capitalistic with a dash of Socialism, and I KNOW the US isn't more Socialist than we are so if the US isn't Capitalist what is it?

Note: Just noticed an error in my previous post it should read "somewhat hypocritical" not "someone hypocritical".

its socialist

captalism = the state controls no means of production
socialism = the state controls some means of production
communism = the state controls all means of production

many european countries have much more controlled by the state then Canada or the US, so they'll call us capitalist, but we're socialist.

Hmmm......

Tough choice...  $4.00 Gas,  or  $8.50 for Ethenol.

paul valter pihlo:
But it need a lot of energy to make biofuels. Is it really profitable? Some studies I red show a huge energy input, sometimes even higher as the output.

LOL @ USA is socialist

@LP

Don't take our debate into another topic:).

You and I both know that I believe in free trade.

I'm not saying biofuels are the answer for cars(Hydrogen is). But better than petrol. Brazil says that if there was an oil crisis there cars could keep running on the fuel they make and petrol they drill.

@pvp,
don't worry, it was only a joke.

I'd like to make the distinction between 1st generation and 2nd generation biofuels. 1st generation biofuels are as mentioned here; they take foodstuffs such as corn and wheat to make ethanol. After you take the edible parts away, what do you have left? Leaves and stalk. This is where 2nd generation biofuels come into play. You convert this massive amounts of highly available left over plant material into ethanol. Research is very active in this area, with demo plants and pilots plants popping up and around showing the commercializability of 2nd generation biofuels. Soon the trimmed trees in your neighborhood will become part of the car you drive.

In short, keep supporting biofuels.

... Or you use the ACTUAL sugar glut rather than the corn shortage?  Sugar from cane would yield ~ 8X the energy for probably the same price.  The problem isn't biofuels to say but the source.  Corn at best gives twice the energy it takes to MAKE the enanol with ratios of 1.2 or even 0.8 being more common while there was and is a sugar surplus on the global market and so using that plus the actual energy output benefit would have been a much smarter choice and inflation would have been way less.