Basic economics (and common sense) tell us that resources are scarce. Take, for example, certain crops that can be used for food or biofuel. When more of these crops are diverted to biofuel use, less remains to eat. Less supply of an item drives up its price.
This NYT article describes a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Report that finally describes what any Econ freshman could have predicted years ago:
"With policies and subsidies to encourage biofuel production in place in much of the developed world, farmers often find it more profitable to plants crops for fuel than for food, a shift that has helped lead to global food shortages."
Better late then never, I guess. A further indictment of the destructive nature of biofuel subsidies was revealed in an OECD report, which concluded:
"…that government support of biofuel production in member countries was hugely expensive and that it “had a limited impact on reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy security.” It did have “a significant impact on world crop prices” by helping to raise them."
"National governments should cease to create new mandates for biofuels and investigate ways to phase them out,”
Someone please present these reports to the politicians in our country (and state) that insist on greatly increasing such subsidies, even calling on a new "green economy."
As politicians pander to environmental groups in order to get votes, people around the world are starving to death because of their policies.