Skip to comments.Ethanol And Hunger
Posted on 04/11/2008 9:51:22 PM PDT by La Enchiladita
Energy: The world's poor are learning what happens when government subsidizes the burning of food. It's time to end this madness and let the market decide if any biofuels make sense.
For most Americans, the rising prices at the supermarket are definitely an annoyance, but hardly a threat to life and health. It's a different story in countries like Haiti, where food inflation has led to real hunger and, last week, to riots.
News reports say the poorest Haitians are trying to get by on cookies made with dirt, vegetable oil and salt. Food riots also have roiled Egypt and led to a general strike in Burkina Faso in West Africa. The high cost of corn, wheat, soybeans and other basics of the world's diet could soon start bringing down governments.
It already has set back the fight to reduce global poverty. World Bank Chairman Robert Zoellick estimates that "the effect of this food crisis on poverty reduction worldwide is on the order of seven lost years."
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Every time I see video of these huge crowds protesting something in the Mideast, Africa, or wherever I can’t help but wonder “Don’t these people have jobs?”
You know, stuff like plowing fields. Building aqueducts. Processing flour.
That sort of thing.
Seems to me the facts are this:
The worldwide explosion (if you chose to call it that) in population has basically been fed by the vast production of grains and foodstuffs from countries in the temperate climate zones.
When you see some place in the middle of Deserttown, Syria or something and there are only a few million people living there, you can’t help but wonder if it would ever be possible for the natural local ecosystem to support them all.
Hey, I’d eat a scorpion too if it meant the difference between life and death.
But just seems to me some things are out of whack.
Sorta like all the Code Pink fruit cakes.
Considering that every other day is a religious holy day (holiday), one need not wonder to far. ;-)
Interesting way to look at it. Lets burn food in our car so we can go to work to afford to buy....food!
the globalists call burning food “population control”.
I’m gonna start a walkathon.
You get to wear a purple ribbon. All donations go towards paying the wages of people who need to take off work so they don’t miss their naps.
Your rantings and speculation about a future of starvation, and the resulting hysteria you have helped unleash, is contributing substantially to real life, here and now starvation.
The worst part for you is that the place you will hold as one of the most destructive and misguided buffoons in the history of this not-so-hot planet, isn't even close to your biggest problem. That being what a complete and utter dork you are.
The late comedian Sam Kinnesin used to say:
“we keep sending food to people on the desert, every year, the desert is sand, nothing grows there, it’s sand , thee’s no water, but we keep sending food there. Hey people in the desert... move! Move to where the food is .........you are living in a ....desert.”
I am parraphrasing but it still makes sense.
And, since it also diminishes the popcorn supply, what do we munch on while betaking this spectacle?
“Lets burn food in our car so we can go to work to afford to buy....food!”
That’s great. It would be a grerat tagline.
Well, I don’t consider myself to be an envirowhacko.
But whether you are a socialist fanatic like Gore, or an arch conservative, we need to admit one thing.
Earth can only support some number (we don’t know that number yet) of people.
Even if we could grow an unlimited supply of food, soon we would be up to our eyeballs in chit, and that’s not a very exciting proposition.
We’ve been lucky (and intelligent) so far. And I hate social engineering as much as the next guy. But we are getting to the point that we HAVE to answer some serious questions about the future.
And they are hard questions.
The population of the planet is unlikely to ever break 10 billion. The planet could support that easily.
If things continue like it looks they might, they may be pushed into a corner and asked "So then, you think scarce food and starvation are good side effect of the policies you've imposed, because we can slow global warming by killing people?"
It isn't just the warmies that are responsible here though. Farming and ethanol related interests that have pushed for and profited from the belief that subsidizing the burning of food in a hungry world was a good idea are to blame as well.
And what, in your opinion, would those questions be?
I disagree that it is unlikely.
Years ago, before my wife passed, she saw a couple of somewhat feral kittens hanging out.
“They’re so cute!”, she would say, and I know she meant well, she would put out food for them.
About three years later I was fishing some decomposing dead kittens out of a spot near my house. There were feral cats EVERYWHERE. I had to buy a live trap because they were basically tearing things apart at their leisure.
You chose to avoid the question by stating (without any evidence) that the world will never get to ten billion.
My point it that we figure out what to do NOW, because if it gets to the point of no return, it effects us all.
Mathematically, we can expect one of two things. A smooth, linear approach to the point of equilibrium, or going well beyond that, and having a cataclysmic decline.
I exhale plenty. And I understand alot of things. I am offended that you think my post was hysterical.
If that is the case who do we kill off to manage that number? Your answer will tell much about you.
The question is not seriously considered by anyone who’s studied population trends over the last 20 years.
One can object to contraception, as I do, but the consequences of it are increasingly global. The populations which are still expanding at preindustrial rates are too small to undermine a stabilisation around 9.5 billion in 2050.
Bump for later reading.
As I said, we don’t know the number yet.
But what if the numbers said your local community/county could only support 75% of who are there now?
Who do you kill?
I’m just asking questions.
If we agree that the Earth cannot support an infinite number of humans, how do we address the issue?
My point is that if we chose to not think about it, there is only one end, an end predicted by chaos theory, a cataclysmic decline in the population.
It certainly is true that the rates in the industrial countries are much closer to ZPG rates.
NO it is caused by the millions of suckers this moron has bamboozled.
No support and Gore is relegated to the scrap heap of history.
That was the question I asked you but I didn't get an answer to it.
But do you get the feeling that these apparent mathematical analyzes have a pretty poor record of pinpointing that elusive tipping point is, andhave a pretty poor record of predicting anything or providing enlightenment when you look back on them?
Maybe, just maybe, the organism/ecosystem model we apply to rats just doesn't fit right when talking about populations of people. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before! "Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store. "Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"
Maybe some variables are missing. Maybe lots of variables are missing. Maybe people sitting around with computers predicting cataclysm as soon as certain data points they've identified are met, aren't much different than the guy that gives away his stuff and goes up on a hill to wait for the end.
No. You immediately jumped to the “who are you gonna kill” idea.
And the fact that I’m just asking questions, (in fact the questions I’m asking are “What questions do we need to ask”), while you seem to act as though if you or your family were threatened with starvation or freezing or whatever then you would just lay back and die, that seems to me a little dishonest.
See what I’m saying? There are NO WAYS you can even ASK THE QUESTIONS without it becoming so emotional and self righteous that we end up just ignoring them.
I’m gonna withdraw from this thread.
Did someone piss on your dinner. Grow a set or shut up.
djf (post 15),
Global warming is the question to the liberal answer of higher fuel costs, expensive alternative energy schemes, etc.
It’s such a good question that they cannot let it go. Their answer(s) have been prepared for at least a generation, and Al Gore supplied the Global Warming BS. It’s too perfect to allow rational thought to intervene. Flashback 20,000 years ago when half-mile high glaciers were receding (melting) from New York in the east, to Washington in the west. Was that anthropogenic global warming? Man discovered fire, and maybe that’s what brought about the end of the Ice Age. Earth has continued to warm ever since. This whole Global Warming bruhaha is a disgusting stain on the state of science in the beginning of the 21st century. Future generations will judge us harshly on our sciencio-politico-religio-liberalio-fascio-BS.
Amen. B/c the higher the standard of living the fewer children people have. No, not out of greed but simply b/c there's no need to have child after child after child after child in the hope that at least a few of them will survive to support you in your old age...which in some of these countries is about 46.
McRINO was ahead of the curve. Scrap subsidies. Who’da thunk it? /s
why should the US...
sell corn to our enemies,
for less than its burn value?
the corn is not eaten by humans, btw
A shocking percentage of Americans are ignorant of the distinction between dent corn and sweet corn.
Having said that, dent corn does have some human food uses—corn meal, for instance, so Mexican kvetching about tortilla prices does have some basis in fact.
Perhaps we should start hoarding popcorn?
Oh, that’s the very best kind! When we were kids we used to use bacon grease. It tastes wonderful, but is to cholesterol ridden for old folks like hubby and I.
Egypt an Arab nation having food riots over our needs to lessen our dependence on Arab oil is kind of funny.
What will the muzzies eat as we we devote ever more acreage to produce crops that we can use to lessen our exposure to OPEC?
But would life be worth living in that enviroment-with that many people. I have seen the population of the United States double in my lifetime from 150 million to 300 Million. Some say by 2030 we will be at 400 million. What advantage is this? Are we going to destroy all of our wilderness and wildlife areas? What kind of a place would we have? All of the major cities in the Unites States are sewers-at least in the core areas. And you want to add 100 million?
“For most Americans, the rising prices at the supermarket are definitely an annoyance, but hardly a threat to life and health.”
It’s not a threat to our life and health YET, but who knows what the future will bring.
I’m gradually stockpiling some extra food, just in case.
Everyone in the entire world could fit in the State of Texas, so I wouldn’t worry just yet. :)
The Iowa caucus is long past.It is time for the US Senate to scuttle the anti-American,economy-wrecking,envirowacko butt-kissing,multibillion dollar maize subsidies they shoved down our tax-paying throats in order to get the corn hustling Hawkeyes to pick two of their own egomaniacs for president.
Sure the bribe worked,but it can at least be suspended until the next presidential season approaches.
You know,for the good of the country you ignoble one hundred?
LIKE WHAT WE PAY YOU FOR!!!
Bingo.... I loves showing libs that. Their minds can’t take the math.
Eco-fascists have murdered more people than Hitler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.