Full tanks, empty stomachs
It has been often noted that, sooner or later, global climate warming change will start killing people. According to the U.N., it might already be happening. But it isn’t caused by the warmening, but rather our fruitless efforts to “halt” it:
We drive, they starve. The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.
“The reality is that people are dying already,” said Jacques Diouf, of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
The subject of ethanol’s strain on food stores is not new to Upsider readers. Nor is the fact that ethanol is actually dirtier than the dreaded fossil fuels. And, with the rash of politically expedient state level energy plans like Governor Pawlenty’s (none of which will accomplish anything but cost untold fortunes), the demand for ethanol is growing as we speak. All to combat a problem that hasn’t apparently been a problem since 1998.
It’s time to end the subsidies, and put farmers back to work growing food. Should people really have to die so we can pat ourselves on the back because we’re “doing something?” It is the epitome of western arrogance.
Take a look at new ECM blogger Liz Cook (Welcome!). She has determined things that she can do in her own life to better the environment. The things she mentions will help reduce trash and not create any significant negative impact on others’ lives. It’s not environmentalism at all, really. It’s common sense. Of course, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, the act of running a marathon technically contributes to global warming, but all that really shows is how silly this whole thing has become.
It’s when politicians and governments start mandating things that we get into trouble. And now, like DDT bans contribute to malaria, and energy restrictions in France contributed to heat wave deaths, ethanol is leading to starvation. And where will the “environmental” lobby come down on this one? Will they see the error of the ethanol scam and retreat? Or is “saving the planet” more important than a few starving people?
Why does environmentalism, or even humanitarianism, seem like a fad? As you point out, the two go hand in hand.
In order to make my commute from St. Cloud to Little Falls for work everyday a bit more eco-friendly, I recently purchased a Chevy HHR which is getting me an average of 29 mpg between city and highway driving. That’s a dramatic difference from my Ford Explorer which was chugging along at 15-16 mpg. However, I’m the first person to admit that the transition was for personal, not environmental, benefit. I’m saving money! Yet, it does make one feel like somewhat of an environmentalist, as I’m sure it does for those purchasing flex-fuel vehicles.
The need to eliminate OUR dependence on oil is certainly going to be selfish, and probably be detrimental in other areas of the world. But that’s the point, we aren’t looking at this as a “save the planet” issue, it’s a “save the U.S.” issue. I’m certainly not saying one way of thinking is better than the other, but voters in 2008 won’t be making their choice based on the world’s economic stability, they’ll be thinking about personal and U.S. interests.
And by the way, ethanol is only a scam if corn continues to be the culprit.
In the Environmentalist viewpoint “People” are detrimental to the Earth, and the Earth must be protected. i.e. the Earth is more valuable than humans. That’s why I am a Conservationist, not an environmentalist.
We SHOULD be good stewards of the Earth. Not because the Earth deserves it, but because all of Humanity deserves it. People are more important than the Earth, but People need a reasonably clean and healthy Earth to live well. And, no, that does not mean we should be forced to reside in “sustainable Communities” and drive a prius….
From your commentary, it would seem that you think we should abandon using ethanol in fuel altogether. I agree that the food consequence is alarming and should have been foreseen. But the real problem is that we should have alternative fuels from a cellulosic base or better yet, electric cars that were abandoned a few years ago because the car companies would not support it. When the marketplace determines everything, greed becomes the predominant product. In Brazil, they are turning more rain forest into agricultural land to take advantage of commodity prices, which is doing even more harm and allowing more carbon release. I think the increasing price of gasoline, another product of greed, will actually help people find better alternatives. To paraphrase one of your commenters, good stewardship is good business. You can deny global warming and ridicule the use of ethanol as a solution; but this problem is a real one. We slowed down the ozone depletion with the banning of CFC’s — we can fix this too.