Tag Archives: food
Farm Bill 2013: Is This Big Agriculture’s Last Gasp?
Sean McElwee in Politics Farm Bill 2013: Is This Big Agriculture’s Last Gasp? The farm bill’s original failure to pass Congress ( it has since been approved by the House without food-stamp aid ) has largely been viewed in light of immigration reform and congressional dysfunction, but it also underlies another specter: the weakening farm lobby. Since our nation’s founding, farmers (originally slave-owners) have had an unequal voice. The Senate, for instance, is made up of two representatives from every state, no matter how large or small. The Electoral College was designed to give small states a voice, and with the development of primaries, farm states like Iowa have become more and more important. Even Republicans, the so-called party against government waste, have traditionally been afraid to touch farm subsidies (just food stamps!). Since Reagan, the Republican Party has been the party of wealth. Reagan happily doled out tax cuts along with spending cuts, but suspiciously, the tax cuts only went to rich people and the spending cuts only hurt poor people. Similarly, Bush’s tax cuts for the rich turned a projected $5 trillion surplus to a $5 trillion deficit, which Republicans like Paul Ryan argue should be paid for by, you guessed it: cutting Medicaid. So here’s a quiz. If the farm bill contains huge subsidies for rich farmers (like Bon Jovi) and food stamps to protect poor people, which half will the Republicans cut? Answer: One of the most effective anti-poverty programs in history. Seriously. Now that I’m done trolling the PolicyMic conservatives, let’s address the real meat of the story here — the farm lobby. The failure of the farm bill indicates that the great hydra agriculture lobby may have only a few ugly heads left to rear. What’s the problem with the farm lobby? Don’t farmers need representation too? Don’t farm subsidies help keep the food market stable? Yes and yes. But, American farm policy may be one of the most incoherently developed and rigidly path-dependent systems in the world. P.J. O’Rourke once noted, “Farm policy can be explained. What it can’t be is believed.” Many of us don’t remember when farming was a killer lobby, able to fight off any representative who questioned the billions funnelled to them. In a supposedly “free-market” country, our ag policy is run like Russia during central planning. Huge tariffs protect the American sugar manufactures from Brazilian competition, to the tune of $3.5 billion a year. That also drives up the demand for high-fructose corn syrup, giving us something to do with the corn we massively overproduce . The big story for the farm bill is that the U.S. government is trimming direct payments and replacing them with an expanded crop insurance program. Crop insurance protects farmers from dramatic drops in the price of crops, but the premiums rarely add up to the payouts. Last year, the crop insurance program paid out $17 billion, three-quarters of which was paid for by Uncle Sam. As any economist knows, such programs (private gain with public risk) encourage moral hazard, and the result is that farmers have taken more risk “by farming on flood plains or steep hills.” The crop insurance program overwhelmingly helps wealthier farmers, but that fact that the lobby couldn’t keep direct payments indicates a level of atrophy. There are other indications of the weakening farm lobby. For instance, last year, the U.S. was hit by its worst drought in 50 years, which was likely exacerbated by climate change . Farmers’ groups sought a bill that would provide relief, but while the bill made it out of committee, it was never brought to a vote on the House floor . Of course, the grand narrative of the bill (i.e. that the Republicans in the House are insane) is also accurate. They’re clearly crazy-level congresso-terrorists, something data showed us long ago and that other conservatives have been hammering them for. The chaos surrounding the farm bill is certainly a reminder that this is the most polarized Congress in a long time , and a harbinger of more inaction (immigration, student loans, tax reform). But it’s also a reminder that while we consume more food, few, if any of us remain attached to nature and very few of us farm. It’s an indication that what used to be a broadly bipartisan issue has now become an area for savage political fighting . That will have increasing political implications in the years to come. Picture Credit: ThinkProgress Continue reading
Food or Biofuel Production?
World biodiesel production has some alarming and negative consequences. By Lester R. Brown July 5, 2013 The grain required to fill a 25-gallon fuel tank of a sport utility vehicle with ethanol just once would feed one person for a whole year. A press release from Earth Policy Institute . Earth Policy Institute will be releasing Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity by Lester R. Brown in installments. Look for a new chapter about every other week. Supporting data, videos, and slideshows are available for free download, here . At the time of the Arab oil export embargo in the 1970s, the importing countries were beginning to ask themselves if there were alternatives to oil. In a number of countries, particularly the United States, several in Europe, and Brazil, the idea of growing crops to produce fuel for cars was appealing. The modern biofuels industry was launched. This was the beginning of what would become one of the great tragedies of history. Brazil was able to create a thriving fuel ethanol program based on sugarcane, a tropical plant. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, however, in the United States the feedstock was corn. Between 1980 and 2005, the amount of grain used to produce fuel ethanol in the United States gradually expanded from 1 million to 41 million tons. Then came Hurricane Katrina, which disrupted Gulf-based oil refineries and gasoline supply lines in late August 2005. As gasoline prices in the United States quickly climbed to $3 a gallon, the conversion of a $2 bushel of corn, which can be distilled into 2.8 gallons of ethanol, became highly profitable. The result was a rush to raise capital and build distilleries. From November 2005 through June 2006, ground was broken for a new ethanol plant in the United States every nine days. From July through September, the construction pace accelerated to one every five days. And in October 2006, it was one every three days. Between 2005 and 2011, the grain used to produce fuel for cars climbed from 41 million to 127 million tons, nearly a third of the U.S. grain harvest. The United States is trying to replace oil fields with corn fields to meet part of its automotive fuel needs. The massive diversion of grain to fuel cars has helped drive up food prices, leaving low-income consumers everywhere to suffer some of the most severe food price inflation in history. As of mid-2012, world wheat, corn, and soybean prices were roughly double their historical levels. The appetite for grain to fuel cars is seemingly insatiable. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon fuel tank of a sport utility vehicle with ethanol just once would feed one person for a whole year. The grain turned into ethanol in the United States in 2011 could have fed, at average world consumption levels, some 400 million people. But even if the entire U.S. grain harvest were turned into ethanol, it would only satisfy 18 percent of current gasoline demand. With its enormous growth in distilling capacity, the United States quickly overtook Brazil to become the new world leader in biofuels. In 2011, the United States produced 14 billion gallons of ethanol and Brazil produced under 6 billion gallons; together they accounted for 87 percent of world output. The 14 billion gallons of U.S. grain-based ethanol met roughly 6 percent of U.S. gasoline demand. Other countries producing ethanol from food crops, though in relatively small amounts, include China, Canada, France, and Germany. Most ethanol production growth has been concentrated in the last several years. In 1980, the world produced scarcely 1 billion gallons of fuel ethanol. By 2000, the figure was 4.5 billion gallons. It was still increasing, albeit slowly, expanding to 8.2 billion gallons in 2005. But between then and 2011, production jumped to 23 billion gallons. A number of countries, including the United States, are also producing biodiesel from oil-bearing crops. World biodiesel production grew from a mere 3 million gallons in 1991 to just under 1 billion gallons in 2005. During the next six years it jumped to nearly 6 billion gallons, increasing sixfold. Still, worldwide production of biodiesel is less than one fourth that of ethanol. The production of biodiesel is much more evenly distributed among countries than that of ethanol. The top five producers are the United States, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, and France, with production ranging from 840 million gallons per year in the United States to 420 million gallons in France. A variety of crops can be used to produce biodiesel. In Europe, where sunflower seed oil, palm oil, and rapeseed oil are leading table oils, rapeseed is used most often for biodiesel. Similarly, in the United States the soybean is the leading table oil and biodiesel feedstock. Elsewhere, palm oil is widely used both for food and to produce biodiesel. Although production from oil palms is limited to tropical and subtropical regions, the crop yields much more biodiesel per acre than do temperate-zone oilseeds such as soybeans and rapeseed. However, one disturbing consequence of rising biofuel production is that new oil palm plantations are coming at the expense of tropical forests. And any land that is devoted to producing biofuel crops is not available to produce food. Not only are biofuels helping raise food prices, and thus increasing the number of hungry people, most make little sense from an energy efficiency perspective. Although ethanol can be produced from any plant, it is much more efficient and much less costly to use sugar- and starch-bearing crops. But even among these crops the efficiency varies widely. The ethanol yield per acre from sugarcane is nearly 600 gallons, a third higher than that from corn. This is partly because sugarcane is grown in tropical and subtropical regions and it grows year-round. Corn, in contrast, has a growing season of 120 days or so. In terms of energy efficiency, grain-based ethanol is a clear loser. For sugarcane, the energy yield that is, the energy embodied in the ethanol can be up to eight times the energy invested in producing the biofuel. In contrast, the energy return on energy invested in producing corn-based ethanol is only roughly 1.5 to 1, a dismal return. For biodiesel, oil palm is far and away the most energy-efficient crop, yielding roughly nine times as much energy as is invested in producing biodiesel from it. The energy return for biodiesel produced from soybeans and rapeseed is about 2.5 to 1. In terms of land productivity, an acre of oil palms can produce over 500 gallons of fuel per year, more than six times that produced from soybeans or rapeseed. Growing even the most productive fuel crops, however, still means either diverting land from other crops or clearing more land. The capacity to convert enormous volumes of grain into fuel means that the price of grain is now more closely tied to the price of oil than ever before. If the price of fuel from grain drops below that from oil, then investment in converting grain into fuel will increase. Thus, if the price of oil were to reach, say, $200 a barrel, there would likely be an enormous additional investment in ethanol distilleries to convert grain into fuel. If the price of corn rises high enough, however, as it may well do, distilling grain to produce fuel may no longer be profitable. One of the consequences of integrating the world food and fuel economies is that the owners of the world’s 1 billion motor vehicles are pitted against the world’s poorest people in competition for grain. The winner of this competition will depend heavily on income levels. Whereas the average motorist has an annual income over $30,000, the incomes of the 2 billion poorest people in the world are well under $2,000. Rising food prices can quickly translate into social unrest. As grain prices were doubling from 2007 to mid-2008, food protests and riots broke out in many countries. Economic stresses in the form of rising food prices are translating into political stresses, putting governments in some countries under unmanageable pressures. The U.S. State Department reports food unrest in some 60 countries between 2007 and 2009. Among these were Afghanistan, Yemen, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Haiti. International food assistance programs are also hit hard by rising grain prices. Since the budgets of food aid agencies are set well in advance, a rise in prices shrinks food assistance precisely when more help is needed. The U.N. World Food Programme, which supplies emergency food aid to more than 60 countries, has to cut shipments as prices soar. Meanwhile, over 7,000 children are dying each day from hunger and related illnesses. When governments subsidize food-based biofuel production, they are in effect spending taxpayers’ money to raise costs at the supermarket checkout counter. In the United States, the production of fuel ethanol was encouraged by a tax credit granted to fuel blenders for each gallon of ethanol they blended with gasoline. This tax credit expired at the end of 2011. Still in place, however, is the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is seen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of a strategy to help recharge the rural American economy. This mandate requires that biofuel use ramp up to 36 billion gallons annually by 2022. Of this total, 16 billion gallons are slated to come from cellulosic feedstocks, such as cornstalks, grass, or wood chips. Yet for the foreseeable future, production of those cellulose-based fuels has little chance of reaching such levels. Producing ethanol from sugars or starches like corn or sugarcane is a one-step process that converts the feedstock to ethanol. But producing ethanol from cellulosic materials is a two-step process: first the material must be broken down into sugar or starch, and then it is converted into ethanol. Furthermore, cellulosic feedstocks like corn stalks are much bulkier than feedstocks like corn kernels, so transporting them from distant fields to a distillery is much more costly. Removing agricultural residues such as corn stalks or wheat straw from the field to produce ethanol deprives the soil of needed organic matter. The unfortunate reality is that the road to this ambitious cellulosic biofuel goal is littered with bankrupt firms that tried and failed to develop a process that would produce an economically viable fuel. Despite having the advantage of not being directly part of the food supply, cellulosic ethanol has strong intrinsic characteristics that put it at a basic disadvantage compared with grain ethanol, so it may never become economically viable. The mandate from the European Union (EU) requiring that 10 percent of its transportation energy come from renewable sources, principally biofuels, by 2020 is similarly ambitious. Among international agribusiness firms, this is seen as a reason to acquire land, mostly in Africa, on which to produce fuel for export to Europe. Since Europe relies primarily on diesel fuel for its cars, the investors are looking at crops such as the oil palm and jatropha, a relatively low-yielding oil-bearing shrub, as a source of diesel fuel. There is growing opposition to this EU goal from environmental groups, the European Environment Agency, and many other stakeholders. They object to the deforestation and the displacement of the poor that often results from such land grabbing. They are also concerned that, by and large, biofuels do not deliver the promised climate benefits. The biofuel industry and its proponents have argued that greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels are lower than those from gasoline, but this has been challenged by a number of scientific studies. Indeed, there is growing evidence that biofuel production may contribute to global warming rather than ameliorate it. A study led by Nobel prize winning chemist Paul Crutzen at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany reports that the nitrogen fertilizers used to produce biofuel crops release nitrous oxide emissions large enough to cause climate warming instead of cooling. A report from Rice University that carefully examined the greenhouse gas emissions question concluded that it is uncertain whether existing biofuels production provides any beneficial improvement over traditional gasoline, after taking into account land use changes and emissions of nitrous oxide. Legislation giving biofuels preferences on the basis of greenhouse gas benefits should be avoided. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences also voiced concern about biofuel production’s negative effects on soils, water, and the climate. There is some good news on the issue of food or fuel. An April 2012 industry report notes that the world ethanol engine continues to sputter. U.S. ethanol production likely peaked in 2011 and is projected to drop 2 percent in 2012. An even greater decline in U.S. ethanol production is likely in 2013 as oil prices weaken and as heat and drought in the U.S. Midwest drive corn prices upward. For many distillers, the profit margin disappeared in 2012. In early July 2012, Valero Energy Corporation, an oil company and major ethanol producer, reported it was idling the second of its 10 ethanol distilleries. Numerous other distilleries are on the verge of shutting down. If the ethanol mandate were phased out, U.S. distillers would have even less confidence in the future marketability of ethanol. In a world of widely fluctuating oil and grain prices, ethanol production would not always be profitable. Beyond this, the use of automotive fuel in the United States, which peaked in 2007, fell 11 percent by 2012. Young people living in cities are simply not as car-oriented as their parents were. They are not part of the car culture. This helps explain why the size of the U.S. motor vehicle fleet, after climbing for a century, peaked at 250 million in 2008. It now appears that the fleet size will continue to shrink through this decade. In addition, the introduction of more stringent U.S. auto fuel-efficiency standards means that gasoline use by new cars sold in 2025 will be half that of new cars sold in 2010. As older, less efficient cars are retired and fuel use declines, the demand for grain-based ethanol for blending will also decline. Within the automobile sector, a major move to plug-in hybrids and all-electric cars will further reduce the use of gasoline. If this shift is accompanied by investment in thousands of wind farms to feed cheap electricity into the grid, then cars could run largely on electricity for the equivalent cost of 80¢ per gallon of gasoline. There is also a growing public preference for walking, biking, and using public transportation wherever possible. This reduces not only the demand for cars and gasoline but also the paving of land for roads and parking lots. Whether viewed from an environmental or an economic vantage point, we would all benefit by shifting from liquid fuels to electrically driven vehicles. Using electricity from wind farms, solar cells, or geothermal power plants to power cars will dramatically reduce carbon emissions. We now have both the electricity-generating technologies and the automotive technologies to create a clean, carbon-free transportation system, one that does not rely on either the use of oil or the conversion of food crops into fuel. Read more: http://www.motherear…2#ixzz2Yk9vmPkF Continue reading
Blue Sphere Striving to Become Leader in U.S. Organics to Energy Sector
SOURCE: EquityBrief July 09, 2013 07:01 ET Blue Sphere Striving to Become Leader in U.S. Organics to Energy Sector LOS ANGELES, CA–(Marketwired – Jul 9, 2013) – Sometimes exciting developments come in small packages. That looks to be the case of Blue Sphere Corp. (OTCQB: BLSP ). Blue Sphere is positioning itself at the forefront of the developing organics to energy market in the United States. Blue Sphere currently is working on the implementation of two anaerobic digestion (organics to energy) projects scheduled to break ground in the second half of 2013. These two projects are slated to produce enough gas to power 8.4 MW of electricity generation capacity annually, with generation scheduled to begin in the second half of 2014. According to the EPA, there were over 202 anaerobic digestion facilities operating in the U.S. as of May 2013. In contrast Germany has over 4,000 of these plants in operation. The available market for this type of electricity production in the U. S. is enormous and Blue Sphere is now implementing its plans to develop, what it believes, are the best projects available. Anaerobic digestion power generation plants are facilities that generate electricity from organic material. Organic materials used to power these plants include food waste, animal manure, farm waste and certain municipal waste. Food waste is the second largest category of waste sent to landfills in the U.S. This is over 35 million tons of food waste equaling over 18% of the total landfill waste stream in the U.S. This food waste is a potential supply of power that can be developed into a viable alternative supply of electricity. The political environment in the U.S. is ripe for the growth of the organics to energy market. 31 states have passed laws mandating “renewable portfolio standards” requiring local utilities to purchase or generate a certain portion of their electricity from renewable sources. New York and California have implemented mandates that will require up to 30% of the power used in the states to be generated by renewable sources. Blue Sphere’s systems not only generate power, but they have the ability to reduce the amount of waste being added to landfills, turning it into useful products, specifically energy and fertilizer. Blue Sphere is developing and acquiring two anaerobic digestion plants in the advanced planning stages. Blue Sphere, acting as project manager, has brought on world-class partners to develop and build these power generation facilities. Biogas Nord, AG, out of Germany, specializes in designing and building organics to energy plants. Biogas Nord has built over 400 plants in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Biogas has partnered with Blue Sphere to build the U.S. plants through Bino Sphere, a joint venture between the two companies with Blue Sphere owning 75% and Biogas Nord owning 25%. The U.S. plants will be individual companies that are owned equally by investment partners and Bino Sphere. Blue Sphere’s first project is located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Charlotte facility will have 5.2 mega watts (Mw) of generating capacity when completed. The project has long-term agreements for organic feedstock supply, a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Duke Energy, the largest power holding company in the United States, to buy the electricity generated by the facility and an agreement with McGill Environmental Systems to purchase the compost. Blue Sphere is currently putting in place the financing and expects to have the ground breaking in the third quarter 2013. Blue Sphere’s second project, located in Johnston, Rhode Island, is a 3.2 Mw bio-waste to energy facility. Once again, the preliminary organic feedstock supply agreements are in place, as is the PPA with National Grid, one of the largest investor owned energy companies in the world based in London, England and the compost off-take agreement with McGill Environmental Systems. Blue Sphere expects to break ground on this project by the end of this year. Both facilities will generate multiple streams of revenues. The largest revenue stream will come from selling the generated electricity to the PPA partners, Duke Energy and National Grid. The second revenue generator is the “Tipping Fee,” which is a fee for accepting the waste streams and operating what can the company refers to as an “endless landfill.” After the organic waste is processed and the gas produced from this process is turned into heat and energy, what is left is compost, which the company will sell to fertilizer companies as a product additive. This is the beauty of the organics to energy facilities; waste goes in and energy, in the form of electricity, and fertilizer come out and both outputs are sold. This is a true clean energy production process that can be replicated many times in cities, towns, farms and ranches around the country. When the projects are complete, Blue Sphere will own 37.5% of both facilities and will be entitled to that percentage of the cash flow, as well as a management fee for managing each facility. Blue Sphere will also be entitled to receive its project development costs back at the time of the funding close. Blue Sphere expects to start receiving revenue in 2014 from the operations of these projects. Blue Sphere’s management is in the planning stage of additional facilities. They believe they can replicate the process over and over in a similar fashion, with the same partners, contractors, financiers and processes. With this approach Blue Sphere can become a leader in the growing organics to energy market over the next several years. Blue Sphere went public through a reverse merger in 2010 to participate in the carbon credit trading markets and to develop clean energy projects globally. The management quickly realized that the carbon credit market would not develop as expected and management shifted focus to renewable energy and organics. Management did not do much marketing of the company or its stock while they were refocusing their company on the clean energy project business. Blue Sphere’s primary focus is now on developing organics to energy facilities in the U.S. with their partners, although they do have some clean energy interests in West Africa with partners, as well. Due to the nature of the changing business focus, investors have not focused on the potential value that Blue Sphere is generating for shareholders and investors. These first two projects will generate substantial revenue for Blue Sphere, possibly over $1.5 million/year with large operating margins. As Blue Sphere adds additional projects the cash flow will give management the potential for higher project ownership levels, and allow management to pursue larger facilities. With this type of revenue, and strong profitability, Blue Sphere will not have a market cap of only $2.7 million for long. If Blue Sphere can get both of these facilities up and running on schedule next year it is feasible that investors could see a significant increase in the valuation of the company. Using the assumption that these two facilities could generate $1.5 million/year for 20 years the net-present value of Blue Sphere’s revenue, upon completion of just these two facilities, could be over $10 to 15 million. We will have to wait to see actual projections to conduct proper valuation analysis, but the basis for a strong company and a good investment are in place. Currently, Blue Sphere trades at about $0.003/share and has approximately 800 million shares outstanding, but management is committed to adjusting the capital structure to make it more conducive to investing. An example of adjusting the capital structure would be if management conducted a 1 for 100 reverse split, the stock price would be $0.30/share with 7.7 million shares outstanding, a structure that would benefit all shareholders. The investor risks to Blue Sphere are mostly project related. These projects are not small undertakings. Issues could arise in the financing, permitting, construction, organic feedstock collection and operations of these organics to energy facilities, potentially delaying progress. Investors should be aware of these risks to protect themselves and their investments. Management has worked on these transactions for several years and has been meticulous about the details, but things can go wrong in any large construction project. From where the company stands now, if it is able to launch the two current projects, and announce the upcoming projects, it is easy to believe that Blue Sphere could quickly have a valuation of $10 to 15 million. This would equate approximately $0.015 to $0.02/share, which is an increase of around 400 to 700% from current levels. The milestones investors should expect in the near-term are the announcements of a strong financing partner for the Charlotte project, the delivery of the funding for the Charlotte project, the ground breaking for the Charlotte project all in the next 3 months. The next round of milestones would be the same ones, but for the Johnston project in the 4 th quarter 2013. Blue Sphere expects to generate value for its shareholders quickly between now and the end of the year. Investors would be smart to conduct due diligence into Blue Sphere quickly as the company expects it will reach the first set of these milestones by the end of the current quarter. Once Blue Sphere begins performing on these expectations investor interest will rise in this potential market leader, and it will be time for interested investors to take their initial investment positions in Blue Sphere. Continue reading