Now — in one of the most significant conservation sales in history — The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Land have preserved 320,000 acres of forestlands in western Montana that provide valuable habitat for species in the Crown of the Continent.

Consumers typically have paid a premium for environmentally friendly products. But with soaring energy prices pushing up the price of mainstream goods, green products are becoming just as — or even more — affordable these days.

Because eco friendly companies tend to use fewer fossil fuels in production and tend to focus on energy saving techniques, as the price of oil rises, it impacts green companies less. Eco friendly products made from natural materials, rather than plastic, a petroleum derivative, are impacted less by rising material costs. The same applies for packaging costs. Avoiding the plastic wrapper turns out to have been a smart economic move.

Of course eco friendly companies are still impacted by the rise in shipping costs, but the value added equation for green products is starting to look pretty positive. Consumers faced with a slight up charge rather than a large one for a better or more eco friendly products will tend to bite the bullet and spend the money.

This confluence of factors should drive sustainable business practices into the mainstream and more and more companies see the economic benefits of going green. A positive for the green movement and a benefit for established ecopreneurs.

We try to leverage situations like this to grow into new markets,” says Jeff Mendelsohn, founder and chief executive officer of New Leaf Paper LLC, a maker of recycled paper. “Where there’s instability in prices, buyers tend to be more open to new sourcing, and that’s a general market strategy, not just green.”

Related Posts:

Worried About The High Cost Of Green Products? Inflation Will Help

Times They Are a Changing: Green Marketing Tips for Eco Entrepreneurs in 2008

3 Hidden Costs of High Oil Prices

Photo Credit:Paparutzi at Flickr Under Creative Commons License

Declared a sham, even a mock of an election, by the common voice of the international community and his neighbors in southern Africa alike, that has not stopped Mugabe’s men, or freedom fighters as he calls them, from baying for the blood of whomever Zimbabwean cannot correctly pronounce “Zanu-PF”, his machine to run roughshod over his hapless countrymen.

His perennial rival, Morgan Tsvangirai, having backed out of the presidential run-off, the 84 year old despot kicked a soccer ball high up into the air at a sports stadium this week as a show of virility to those who still doubt his undying resolve to cling on to power no matter what - and “only God can remove me from the presidency of Zimbabwe”.

Now that formally leaves Mugabe only at the mercy of zealous cartoonists who love to caricature him as a gorilla. And for good reasons. If looks alone was the reason for this, one could say they have been overdoing themselves but the man’s intimidating appearance, extreme strength, and chest-beating displays mimic the hairy animal to a great detail, and he loves it that way.

To him, Mugabe as an ape gives him a ferocious look backed up by his unleashing of machete-carrying war veterans on his rivals, which is rather unfortunate because ordinary Zimbabweans have grown increasingly timid about him.

Or it could be that he has sank so low that he has not any human feelings or morals left in him that he cannot see the suffering of his people. Zimbabwe, whose agricultural mainstay is all but collapsed, has one of the highest rates of HIV/Aids infection on the planet, and life expectancy has fallen to just 42.7 in 2006, according to World Bank figures.

In real life, the gorilla is not savage as thought even in the wild and is a very gentle mammal. But Mugabe has already run away with the prize, after an orgy of violence meted on his own people.

Speaking of running, Zimbabwe hyper-inflation figures are roaring too, even The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have lost track and do not have current figures. The economy of Zimbabwe is collapsing under the weight of economic mismanagement, resulting in 85% unemployment and spiraling hyperinflation. Consider this: a single sheet of two-ply toilet paper costs ZN$4000. People can not afford to buy a roll of toilet paper any more.

The economy poorly transitioned after Robert Mugabe’s leadership, deteriorating from one of Africa’s strongest economies to the world’s worst. By the latest count, inflation has surpassed that of all other nations at over 2,000,000%, with the next highest in Burma at 39.5%.

Zimbabwe is rapidly issuing new currency denominations by the day in a frantic but hopeless bid by the Mugabe government to beat prices of basic commodities. According to Wikipedia, attempts to control hyper-inflation have been proven futile as prices continued to rise.

More denominations ranging from ZN$5,000 to ZN$500 million had been issued by May 2008. In addition, in May 2008, special Agro Cheques with parallel functions of a Bearer Check were issued in denominations ZN$5 billion, ZN$25 billion and ZN$50 billion as the currency exchange rate was floated.

India’s Deccan Herald newspaper says: The European Union is said to be considering fresh sanctions against Zimbabwe. But experience shows that sanctions do not work in getting leaders to mend their ways. The only impact that years of sanctions has had on Zimbabwe is to impoverish its people.

But apparently the cries of desperation of the Zimbabwean people have failed to ring in the ears of Mugabe’s friends. Last month a UN resolution on the human rights situation failed because a group of African nations, including South Africa, Sierra Leone, Swaziland and Nigeria put forth a No Action Resolution with heavy backing from Cuba and China, and urged the “opening of real negotiations with Zimbabwe.”.

According to the New Zimbabwe website, the Cubans and the Chinese said the resolution had nothing to do with human rights but the polarization of International Standards. This is how low the world has sank with Mugabe and continues to prop up a despot unto his death. Well, it’s an ape world…

Images courtesy: Wikimedia Commons and Blenderartists.org

Maybe I’m just a little paranoid, but I don’t tend to trust the megalithic corporations that have so much power and wealth today. So while I see many ad campaigns touting green promises and hear of many large corporations changing their ways, as much as I want to believe them, I have my doubts that many of these companies are truly committed to sustainability. The very nature of our economy leads companies to focus solely on profit and their own growth, at the expense of people and the environment.

Like it or not, we are a society dominated by corporate interests. Of the 100 largest economies, 51 are corporations; the other 49 are countries. Industry (and its lobbies) has an enormous sway on politics, public policy, the economy, our lives, and of course, the earth. As powerful forces in the world, companies are going to have to lead the shift to sustainability. Getting companies to do the right thing no matter what its effect on their bottom line is going to take a major paradigm shift. It’s time for change, and we certainly can’t count on the government to do anything very quickly, so we need business to lead the way.

As socially conscious business owners and ecopreneurs, we need to listen to Gandhi’s famous words and “be the change we wish to see in the world.” It’s time to take the reigns, define sustainability for our companies and boldly pursue it. We can set our own standards if we have to, and then go above and beyond them. We can bring ideas like true cost economics and the triple bottom line to the forefront of business thinking and practice. We can share sustainable ideas that have worked for us with other business owners. We can invest in making our businesses more sustainable and ethical, and we can find ways to make a living at the same time. We can support other sustainable businesses we believe in and purchase fair-trade, organic, sustainably made products. We can market our goods and services by telling the truth about being green, instead of greenwashing. We can run our businesses the way that all businesses should be run: with integrity, responsibility, human dignity, and sustainability.

We can change the world if only we believe that we can. And given the influence businesses have, it’s up to us to create this change. I’m not just talking about switching to recycled office paper, although that’s certainly a good start. The stakes are high and we need massive change to steer us on a path towards sustainability. We’ll have to rethink the way we do business, change minds, and transform society’s priorities. If anyone can pioneer this change, it’s those with entrepreneurial spirit and good hearts.

Calling all conscious ecopreneurs: the time for change is now. It starts with us. Let’s be the change.

Read more about sustainable business:

• Nobody’s Really Going Green – Most Companies Just Pay Lip Service on Ecopreneurist
• The Six Sins of Greenwash… and How to Repent on Sustainablog
• Good Eco Entrepreneurs Don’t Greenwash on Ecopreneurist

…many consumers’ purchasing patterns are affected by the phenomenon of trading up: a willingness to pay more for a product that is emotionally satisfying in terms of the perceived quality, performance, brand image, and the stature it provides.

Things could change.

As prices for a wide variety of commodities hit levels not seen before, the cost of everyday items from food to furniture and gasoline to gadgets is rising also. This is, of course, putting a bit of a strain on consumer’s pocketbooks.

As this inflationary pressure pushes up the price of conventional items, it also pushes up the price of premium green and organic products….just not as much. This means, the relative cost of green and natural products will be less. In other words, they’ll be more expensive, just not so MUCH more expensive according to Economist Tyler Cowen who appeared on Marketplace on NPR this week.

The economic logic is this: If all food becomes more expensive, what originally looked expensive suddenly appears cheap in relative terms. Consider a simple example: If food costs nothing to transport, say cheap milk would be $2 and organic milk would be $4. The organic milk costs twice as much. Now add on a $2 transport cost to each item. The price comparison is then $6 to $4. The organic milk seems only a little more expensive. If you are going to buy milk in any case, you might even switch to the organic product.

Ecopreneurs in the locally grown produce sector should fare even better as shipping prices don’t cut into profits anywhere near as much. The differential then should be even less.

As the cost of trading up becomes less more people may opt for it. This is, of course, counterintuitive thinking. Most people cut back during inflationary times as the household food budget gets tight.

It’s possible this time though consumers will shop smarter rather than just cheaper.

Photo Credit: tico24 at Flickr Under Creative Commons License

Related Posts:

Investment Funding for Organic Food Leads Discussion at Investors’ Circle Conference

Recession Proof Your Green Business

Consumers Say They’ll Use More Coupons. How Can Eco-Entrepreneurs Benefit?

It’s pretty clear why people over the last several decades started referring to each other as consumers: wealth and greed. Today, about two thirds of our economy is based on “consumer spending.” If we stop spending, our economy will likely fall into a recession, or worse. While our standard of living (measured in possessions) has never been higher, the quality of our life is not what it once was. Until recently, Americans have enjoyed an economic boom like no other, though it’s hardly shared among all citizens. But now, our spending habits have seemingly caught up with some of us.

We’ve discovered that owning lots of stuff often gets in the way of achieving a satisfying and fulfilling life. As a result, we’re revisiting our values and reorganizing our life around better meeting them. When we do purchase something, it’s as a “conserving customer”. If we own a business, perhaps as an ecopreneur, we offer products or services that seek to make the world a better place. Our enterprise, either for-profit or non-profit, is a means by which to create the changes we seek in the world.

With awareness building about our far-reaching and global impacts, we’re changing how we live, work and play — becoming conserver customers, not consumers. Instead of borrowing from the future or burning through resources, reducing the possibilities for future generations, ecopreneurs are seeking to thrive in a restorative economy that’s life giving. It’s a change in consciousness not merely a change in shopping habits. Ecopreneurial businesses, by how they operate and what products or services they offer, foster this conserver behavior. Ironically, many so-called conservatives are more concerned about conserving their present way of life and the status quo, refusing to pay attention to the changing world around them.

At our small-scale Inn Serendipity, created from a four-square farmhouse on five and half acres, our guests can relax, savor a local breakfast with most of the organic ingredients harvested from a hundred feet from our back door and drive away knowing that their carbon dioxide emissions were carbon off-set through our participation in the non-profit Trees for the Future Trees for Travel program. The revenues we generate from our business enterprises, besides meeting any financial obligations, are devoted to the good work of improving soil quality, producing more renewable energy than we use and contributing in various ways to helping others who wish to launch their own enterprise or live in a more sustainable way. Our profits fund our purpose, rather than the purpose of our business being solely to make profits.

I’m pretty certain that we cannot merely shop our way out of climate change, or any of the other issues facing the planet. But business and the conserving customers they serve can play a pivotal role in transforming our economy into one that respects ecological realities and seeks to prosper through fair trade, not free trade. After all, if half of all Americans had a solar electric or solar thermal system on their roof or grew at least some of their own food in a community garden or backyard, it would fundamentally change our sense of local self-reliance which is one of the hallmarks of sustainability.

Perhaps the first step is simply calling one another a citizen of planet Earth, then getting to work together to cooperatively make the world a better place, starting in our community.

1. Energy Prices

Fertilizers are a very energy intensive product. Nitrogen fertilizers are commonly made from petroleum or natural gas. The potash and phosphates in the fertilizers are derived from mining, which also requires a lot of energy. Finally, the finished product needs to be transported and we know all about high gas prices.

2. Fertilizer Demand in China and India

China and India have increasingly been depending on fertilizer, causing a spike in demand. The price of fertilizer has climbed to $750 a ton.

3. Bans on U.S. Beef

In December, 2003 the U.S. beef export market saw a steep decline. Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Korea comprise over 90% of the beef export market in the U.S., with all countries significantly reducing beef imports in 2004. Japan was the single largest importer of beef and their ban on U.S. beef continues. This is driving cattle farmers to find other valuable uses for their cows, such as fertilizer.

A decreased reliance on manufactured fertilizers and a return to more traditional farming techniques could have its benefits. Algal blooms caused by chemical fertilizers, like the one in the Mississippi delta can harm fish populations. Fertilizers frequently find their way into ground water, thus contaminating drinking water supplies.

The farming industry has been undergoing significant changes from the rise in biofuels, leases for wind farms, and recent scares over food safety. Now some farmers are returning to more traditional methods, such as the use of manure. It makes me wonder, what is next?

Related Posts on Agriculture:

Cows Aren’t Legos: Sassy Insights From an Organic Dairy Farmer
Composting en Masse Helping Fight the Green Fight
Bye Bye Fertilizer, Let Your Waste Work for You 

The pro side’s argument goes like this: Yes, because people spend less during a recession. That means fewer miles driven and flown, fewer factory items shipped, more items reused and recycled rather than replaced.

Sounds logical, right?

But the con side makes reasonable points, too. No a recession isn’t good for the environment, this argument goes, because less spending means less money for things that benefit the environment: clean technology, green innovations, fair-trade and organic foods, and so on.

Still, while I’m not wishing hard times on anyone, I do see an upside to the current tough economy. Look at all the news stories about moms who now make their own laundry detergent and grow their own vegetables. Or the features about upscale urbanites who are increasingly shopping at second-hand (designer) stores. Or the reports about companies establishing shuttle bus services to get their employees back and forth to reduce individual gas expenses.

From my own perspective, it’s been a little good, a little bad. I don’t always buy organic foods as much as I used to, but I am gardening more. And while I can’t make it out to my favorite co-op as often as I once did (too far a drive when gas is nearing $4 a gallon), I am making more meals from scratch, even baking my own bread and making my own tortilla chips and potato chips.

I have to conclude that, while a recession isn’t in and of itself a good thing for the environment, the awareness it raises of our frivolous spending habits and wasteful ways is a good thing. And if that lasts after the economy revs up again, that’s got to be a plus.

What do you think? I’d be interested to hear how all of you are dealing with tough times and whether you think it’s made you a better, greener person.

In a recent post, my colleague Jennifer Lance asked whether Hillary Clinton can take on big oil. Among other things, Jennifer concluded that despite the good intentions of Senator Clinton,”A gas tax holiday will not solve the problem of peak oil.” And that is exactly the same message the Obama campaign wants to deliver in an ad now running in North Carolina ahead of next Tuesday’s primary.

The commercial denounces the proposed gas-tax cut, a proposal which Senators Clinton and McCain both support, as the type of quick-fix policy solution that is emblematic of Washington politics. Running time: 1 min.

See Also:

“Can Hillary Clinton Take On Big Oil?”

“Video: Obama on Climate and Energy”

“Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy“

This morning on NPR, President Bush tried to blame congress for the nation’s high gas, food, and electricity prices. Apparently, Congress has been thwarting the President’s attempts to fix the economy:

“I’ve repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems,” the president said. “Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them.”

The President proposed dealing with high gas prices by “environmentally safe” drilling the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR.

“It’s been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery, yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries,” Bush said.

Drilling in ANWR makes perfect sense, since it would supply 876,000 barrels of oil per day to a country that consumes 20,687,000 barrels of oil per day. To put that in perspective, 876,000 barrels is about 1 hour worth of oil, or over the course of a year amounts to about 15 days of US oil consumption.

Of course, we wouldn’t reach 876,000 barrels of oil per day until production peaked in 2025, assuming the oil started flowing by 2013. According to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration back in 2004 (that’s where these numbers come from), peak oil production in ANWR “might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel.”

Even if the analysis was spot-on about the price of oil (only $100 dollars off), would 30 to 50 cents make a difference? The analysis went on to say that OPEC (being OPEC) would probably “countermand” any change in price by reducing an equivalent amount of oil exports.

So how is it going to help the average American to drill in ANWR? It probably wouldn’t. With oil at $120 a barrel and rising steadily, the only thing that’s clear is how lucrative the proposal would be for oil companies.

Bush also mentioned lifting federal gas and diesel taxes (18.4 cents and 24.4 cents per gallon, respectively) over the summer, another move that would make a huge difference in long term energy security. I think Barack Obama is right about this one: it’s a “gimmick that won’t provide any significant relief to motorists.”

At a meeting with voters in North Carolina on Monday, Mr. Obama said lifting the gas tax for three months would save the average consumer no more than $30, a figure confirmed by Congressional analysts. Mr. Obama has previously dismissed Mr. McCain’s proposal as a “scheme.”

“Half a tank of gas,” Mr. Obama told his audience. “That’s his big solution.”

How about raising petroleum taxes and investing in renewable energy infrastructure? How about setting up a tax on carbon emissions like British Columbia just did? Anything but continuing to invest so heavily in a resource that’s on its way out.

It’s time to start looking for real solutions, and gracefully acquiescing that it’s the end of an era.

To hear Bush’s speech, listen to the NPR show from this morning. Have a comment on this topic? Share it below.

Wind speeds of 100 mph were recorded across Europe and topped 135 mph at the Czech Republic’s highest mountain, Snezka. The surplus electricity on the grid, produced mostly by German and Danish wind farms pushed prices down by 12% on the spot market.

Traders buying and selling round-the-clock power reported that the ‘day ahead’ price in central Europe’s power market dropped to €49.5 ($76) per megawatt hour compared with €56 at the end of the previous week, according to a piece at Planet Ark. Unfortunately, the article also suggests that sudden drops in electricity prices on the spot market have little effect on end-use rates.

This story points out one of the most persistent ‘problems’ of large-scale wind energy development- how do we address the peaks and valleys on the grid presented by wind power, and how do we reconcile those with power plants which cannot be easily adjusted to deal with those peaks?

Several options of dealing with the storage issue have emerged including compressed air, hydro pump-backs, and more efficient flywheel designs. These are all good steps, and more will undoubtedly emerge. That is why it is important that the ‘problem’ of storing wind energy be framed as an opportunity for technological innovation, and not as a justification for more coal-fired power plants.

As I reported last week, Europe’s EPA advised suspending the EU’s biofuel targets until a comprehensive environmental analysis could be completed. Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, said no way is that going to happen:

“You can’t change a political objective without risking a debate on all the other objectives,” meaning that changing biofuels targets could lead to questioning the entire climate change package.

European Commission agriculture spokesman Michael Mann said the EU isn’t really concerned about using food-based biofuels to meet their targets. Instead, they’re betting on increasing crop yields and the availability of more arable land, both from new member states and a decrease in compulsory “set-aside” (fallow cropland).

Mann even went so far as to say the US is primarily at fault for increasing food prices.

Whoever or whatever is at fault (see “Perfect Storm” Inflating Food Prices Worldwide), the increasing cost of food has already sparked violent protests in Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mauritania, the Philippines and other countries. Troops have even been deployed in Pakistan and Thailand to guard against food seizure from fields and warehouses.

In the midst of a food crises, it doesn’t take a skeptic to doubt the EU’s ability to meet their biofuel targets without further impacting food prices.

For more information on the role biofuels are playing in increasing food costs, see the following posts:

“Perfect Storm” Inflating Food Prices Worldwide
Biodiesel Myth (Or Fact?) #23: Biodiesel is Raising Food Prices
Europe’s EPA Advises Suspending Biofuel Targets
2015: 30% of US Corn Harvest Will Be Gasoline
Which is Worse: Exporting $1 Billion Per Week or Growing Fuel?

Photo Credit

Zoellick called it a “perfect storm of things coming together…” and listed 7 different issues contributing to the increasing cost of food, which led to rioting in Haiti and Egypt last week, along with a general strike in Burkina Faso:

1. High energy prices (which affects production and shipping costs).
2. Increase in demand from developing countries: “going from 1 meal a day to 2 meals a day” leads to an increase in the amount of food needed.
3. More meat in diets in developing countries.
4. Increased production of biofuels.
5. Droughts in important growing regions, including Australia and Europe.
6. Reduced food stocks.
7. Commodities trading/futures trading: food being used as a financial instrument.

Zoellick underscored that none of these issues was solely responsible for increasing food prices, but NPR’s host Steve Inskeep pressed Zoellick on how much biofuels were contributing.

He noted that a recent report released by the World Bank seemed to indicate that biofuels were the primary issue, but Zoellick maintained that it wasn’t that simple. Rather, the “combinations of events have led to an emergency situation.” But he also said:

“Biofuels is [sic] no doubt a significant contributor. It is clearly the case that programs in Europe and the United States that have increased biofuel production have contributed to the added demand for food.”

Listen to the Morning Addition radio broadcast (only 5 minutes): World Bank Chief: Biofuels Boosting Food Prices, or see last week’s post, Biodiesel Myth (Or Fact?) #23: Biodiesel is Raising Food Prices.

Related Posts:

Europe’s EPA Advises Suspending Biofuel Targets
Biodiesel Mythbuster 2.0: Twenty-Two Biodiesel Myths Dispelled
2015: 30% of US Corn Harvest Will Be Gasoline
Which is Worse: Exporting $1 Billion Per Week or Growing Fuel?

Photo Credit

Increased world demand for grains and vegetable oils due to population growth (esp. in China and India), the weak dollar, agricultural production problems around the world, and $100/barrel oil are some of the driving factors accounting for increasing food prices.

After covering 22 of the most popular myths about biodiesel, I realized I’d only given lip service to a major issue: increasing food prices. In Myth #2, I mentioned that the goal of biodiesel production is to move away from food-based feedstocks.

But until that happens, the question remains: if I use biodiesel made from soybeans right now, am I contributing to the larger problem of increasing commodity prices and starving poor people?

Quick Facts:

• The United States is the world’s largest producer and exporter of soybeans.
• Soybean prices approached a 33-year high last fall, while overall food prices had their biggest jump in 16 years (according to economists). Food inflation rose about 4% in 2007 compared to an annual average of 2.5%.
• World soybean consumption this year is expected to be up 13.2% over two years ago.
• Biodiesel production in the US accounted for 2.8 billion lbs. of soybean oil last year, which amounts to an estimated 20% of the total domestic consumption of soybean oil.
• Soybeans directly compete with corn for agricultural land. Soybean acreage is expected to decline over the next few years due to high demand for corn, which directly increases the price of soybeans.
• Biodiesel production in 2007 was estimated at 450 million gallons. Corn-based ethanol production is expected to exceed 10 billion gallons by 2009.

Taking this into account, it looks like both soy-based biodiesel and corn-based ethanol (even more so) are at least partly to blame for increasing food prices. But that’s not the whole story. Even corn-based ethanol, which is produced in volumes greatly exceeding biodiesel, may only be responsible for 0.2% - 0.3% of the total 4% increase in food prices over the last year.

According to Brent Searle, Special Assistant to the Director at the Oregon Department of Agriculture, food inflation as a whole can’t be pinned to a single source. Responding via email, Brent said that no single study has sorted out all the issues, but several studies have documented how much petroleum prices are affecting things. The 4-5% food price increase in 2007 has been attributed to:

• 0.2% - 0.3% due to ethanol use of corn
• 0.8% - 1% due to gasoline/fuel price increases
• 3.5 - 4 % due to other causes

Here’s an even more thorough list list of the factors affecting food prices (also received via email):

1. A growing middle class in Latin America and Asia that can afford more meat and milk, which has driven up demand for grain to feed cattle and hogs.
2. A drought in Australia in 2006 and 2007 reduced the supply of milk and wheat available for export.
3. Low worldwide wheat prices the past several years have led growers to plant less wheat; additionally, grain traders store less wheat today with “just in time” deliveries, and there are no current government incentives for farmers to store wheat on farm. All this has led to record low wheat stocks, causing wheat prices to soar.
4. Regional pests, diseases, freezes, droughts, floods and other natural disasters all impacted fresh fruits, vegetables, and other produce availability and price.
5. Increases in labor costs, as state and federal minimum wages ratchet up, from farm to processing and the restaurant, affect food prices. 40% of the retail food price is related to labor costs after food leaves the farm.
6. Rising fuel costs, over $100 per barrel, making it more expensive to grow, process, refrigerate, and transport food from the producers to stores and restaurants — impacts all aspects of the food chain.
7. Personal choices – for example, organic milk costs nearly double conventional milk; consumers are choosing to pay higher prices based on preferences.
8. Dollar decline — makes food imports more expensive at the store and creates greater demand for US ag exports. Approximately 30% of fruits and vegetables consumed in the US are imported. They are now more expensive.
9. Corporate profits — an excuse to hike prices. Kroger, 4th quarter 2007 sales up 10% and profits up 18%. Kroger stated it paid 3% more for products. “In our view, periods of moderate inflation is a positive for our business because inflation tends to improve sales.”– VP Rodney McMullen, Jan. 2008. Safeway, sales up 3%, profits up 12%.
10. Marginal impacts from Ethanol demand for corn (US) and sugarcane (Brazil).

So where does that leave us? This topic is worth more serious conversation and analysis than can be summed up in a single blog post. My gut is telling me that the most important factors affecting food prices are the price of oil and increasing worldwide food demand, but all of the factors above may play a role.

I would also wager that corn-based ethanol, which will require about 30% of the US corn harvest by 2015, is a much bigger culprit than soy-based biodiesel if either one is significantly contributing to rising food costs. If you’re worried about using retail biodiesel, talk to your supplier about the source of their oil, and do more research with the links below.

I’m sure you have an opinion about this. What do you think? (Let me just repeat that I am all in favor of non-food based biofuels, some of which were listed in the rest of the biodiesel mythbuster).

Posts Related to Increasing Food Costs:

• European Union Defends Biofuel Targets As Food Prices Soar
• “Perfect Storm” Inflating Food Prices Worldwide
• 2015: 30% of US Corn Harvest Will Be Gasoline

Sources:
USDA Economic Research Service: Soybean and Oil Crops Briefing Room, and
Ethanol Expansion in the United States How Will the Agricultural Sector Adjust?
Reuters (Aug. 8, 07): Cooking Oil to Further Fuel Global Food Inflation
ThePoultrySite.com (Mar. 18, 08): Weekly Outlook: Focus On Soybean Oil

Photo Credit

Special thanks to Brent Searle for providing this information.

Silicon Solar Panels

Silicon panels are the most recognizable form of solar, in part because they’ve been around the longest. Unfortunately, until the end of 2007, they’ve always had some issues with cost. Popular Mechanic summarizes this much better than I could:

“Traditional solar cells require silicon, and silicon is an expensive commodity (exacerbated currently by a global silicon shortage). What’s more, says Peter Harrop, chairman of electronics consulting firm IDTechEx, “it has to be put on glass, so it’s heavy, dangerous, expensive to ship and expensive to install because it has to be mounted.” And up to 70 percent of the silicon gets wasted in the manufacturing process. That means even the cheapest solar panels cost about $3 per watt of energy they go on to produce. To compete with coal, that figure has to shrink to just $1 per watt.” - courtesy of Popular Science’s Michael Moyer

To clarify on that statement, the global silicon shortage has eased slightly, but supplies are still tight so the price of silicon is still relatively high. The bonus behind silicon solar panels is efficiency and lifespan. Silicon panels tend to be about 20%-27% efficient, reliable, and they last for over twenty years. That means with silicon panels you earn the cost of your investment back in the long term. Depending on where you live and what kinds of panels you buy, “long term” can mean 10-40 years. With cheaper solar panels, obviously, you would regain your investment sooner.

B.P. Solar offers a calculator to estimate your solar panel investment based on location, solar system, and home energy use. Just keep in mind that their calculator can’t adjust for fluctuating variables like energy costs, public policy, or B.P.’s competition; it’s a ball-park estimate at best. Divide the total cost by annual energy savings to calculate your return-investment time frame. (Mine was 35 years in an inefficient house)

In order to approach the magic $1/Watt goal, solar producers have tried new manufacturing techniques to reduce waste, boost efficiency, and lower prices. 1366 Technologies aims to come close to the $1/watt mark. They want to innovate manufacturing processes to reduce cost without sacrificing efficiency. With some investment money in their pocket, they’ll be working hard to bring their silicon panels to market in the future. Until then, or until more government support crops up, traditional solar panels are still best reserved for commercial (buy in bulk) and long-term investment.

Thin-film Solar Panels

These days thin-film technologies are all the rage in the solar industry. The benefit of thin-film solar technology is cost. By cutting the silicon out of the equation, companies remove a huge price barrier. One of the issues with thin-film technology is that it tends to be less efficient with a shorter lifespan. A new thin-film record was recently set at 19.9% efficient, which matches silicon panels. But unlike silicon solar, in this field the $1/Watt barrier has been successfully breached. Two companies can boast the achievement:

Nanosolar has already begun production of their famed solar product, which uses an innovative printing technology. They literally print the solar panels onto sheets of metal, like ink on paper. This technique allows for mass-production at an 80% reduction of manufacturing cost. They didn’t just reach the $1/watt mark, they surpassed it. Even the Department of Energy agrees: they compete with coal. For now, Nanosolar is sold out into the foreseeable future. In time we’ll no-doubt see their products become increasingly common as they diffuse through the solar market. So what’s the catch? Critics point out that the technology relies on indium, which has a finite supply. You can read some interviews, or watch a video for more information.

AVA Solar Inc. is another forerunner as they prepare to mass-produce their stream-lined solar panels. Their technique requires fewer raw materials, causes less waste, and maintains high efficiency–11%-13%. At under $1/watt, AVA Solar has nearly completed a production facility to mass-produce their technology. They promise “efficiency and stability performance comparable to the leading CdTe-based modules currently on the market” –CdTe is cadmium telluride, a popular thin-film composition. Kudos go out to Professor W.S. Sampath at Colorado State for helping to bring this technology to market.

The demand for either type of technology is high - and likely to