Here is another misleading report, this time from Fortune:

We are facing an epic competition between the 800 million motorists who want to protect their mobility and the two billion poorest people in the world who simply want to survive. In effect, supermarkets and service stations are now competing for the same resources.

Sensationalist point, really, since it completely overlooks the simple fact that biofuel production can come from recycling waste instead or or in addition to grain stocks. Even more relevant to the bold claims by Fortune is that production has and can still significantly outpace consumption needs. The problem is not quantity of grain stocks as much as economic and policy decisions that have resulted in waste and graft rather than generosity. I have studied the impact of trade on international stability and security for many years and will never forget the US position twenty years ago. Here is some analysis from 1985 that perfectly describes the unusual economics and politics of US agriculture and foreign aid:

This is a strange and painful year to talk about grain. Our televisions bring us pictures of starving African children, but world grain stocks exceed 190 million tons; a record surplus.

[…]

Worldwide production of wheat and feed grains has grown 20 percent since 1974, 100 percent since 1964. Between 1960 and 1980, food production grew slightly faster than population, yielding a net increase in food supplies per person …

Although this production boom slowed down significantly after 2000, and by 2002 people were warning that climate change (i.e. global warming) could spoil the parade, it is not hard to find agriculture references that still show surplus that could be made into fuel in addition to food:

Compared to the wheat and corn markets, the soybean market has been relatively tame for the last several months. Record large world stocks, increased soybean acreage in the U.S., and prospects for at least a trend yield in the U.S. suggest that surpluses will continue for another year. Soybean oil prices have been supported by speculative demand in light of prospects for increased bio-fuel demand, even though domestic soybean oil stocks have grown to the highest level in four years. Soybean meal prices remain at a low level, reflecting the large supply situation.

[…]

Stocks of U.S. soybeans on June 1, 2006 were estimated at 990.1 million bushels, 290.8 million more than on the same date last year and the largest ever June 1 inventory.

many things are missing in this thread, such as the fact that biodiesel can be made from recycling *extant* oils as well as made from new crops.

that means you are significantly reducing landfill and other hazards while simultaneously reducing petroleum dependence. fish and meat packing plants, tanneries, orchards, farms, fast-food chains, etc. all have waste that can be used for fuel.

moreover, cross-overs are possible too. for example, ethanol can be used to create biodiesel.

and finally, the “complete switch” argument is dangerously misleading. since when does a giant landmass with hundreds of millions of people perform a complete switch for anything?

how long did it take *vast majority* of people to stop smoking? you don’t need to produce 100% biofuel to make a huge boost in emissions quality while significantly reducing the amount of petroleum used. 10% of 150 billion gallons is 15 billion gallons!

even if you can only make 10% of all the fuel you need today by recyling waste, you have just reduced dependence 10% and created new economic incentives to drive innovation and growth. some european countries have mandated just 5%, for example. they’re not sitting on the fence and wondering about dreamy 100% planned solutions that will never come to fruition. diversification an localization of energy sources is clearly more secure than centralized distribution.

you have to take the first step to understand what it means to be headed in the right direction.