How Hunger Could Topple Regimes

[Angel Heart]

I agree that attempting to lower fuel costs by turning food into fuel doesn't seem like the smartest approach. I do think that there are problems associated with more drilling that you are neglecting. Greater fuel efficiency seems like the only obvious answer to me.

My mom owns a ranch. She has a few horses, a cow, some chickens and some goats. The last 2 Novembers I've visited her I noticed a major change in her amounts of hay. I asked her why. She informed me that she was having a hard time finding hay this year and when she did the price was a lot higher than the last year. Problem is that farmers that grew hay decided to grow corn for bio fuel. It's stupid to tie our fuel needs into our food needs.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3168.shtml

The United Sates produced 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006 and expanded its output to 6.5 billion in 2007. This took millions of hectares of land out of food production. In 2007, 54 percent of the world's corn was grown in the USA, and 38 percent of US corn crop ended up in gas tanks instead of stomachs. The amount of corn required to produce a gallon ethanol is enough to feed a human being for two weeks. Corn is mainly used to feed chickens and cattle, so the price of poultry, eggs, beef, and dairy products will continue to rise.

 

[AllieBaba]

But still people refuse to acknowledge that maybe, in the interests of human kind, we could access the resources we have at hand. So much for being concerned about the future of the species.

 

[Shogun]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/wall-street-journal-parod_n_96494.html

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-RcQkqp0EU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-RcQkqp0EU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[ReillyT]

Was that real?

I hate that fucking bastard.

 

[ReillyT]

But still people refuse to acknowledge that maybe, in the interests of human kind, we could access the resources we have at hand. So much for being concerned about the future of the species.

It isn't an all or nothing issue. Food into fuel may not be the right approach (although we can at least grow more food). However, there are also negative consequences to trying to drill our way out of the problem.

 

[AllieBaba]

So you propose what? Standing there, frozen by indecision, unable to make a choice?

I think the choice is pretty apparent. A bad choice is one which increases hunger and causes oil prices to rise before we absolutely have no other solution.

Global warming has not killed anyone. Hunger kills people every single day. Where do your loyalties lie if not with the human race?

 

[ReillyT]

So you propose what? Standing there, frozen by indecision, unable to make a choice?

I think the choice is pretty apparent. A bad choice is one which increases hunger and causes oil prices to rise before we absolutely have no other solution.

Global warming has not killed anyone. Hunger kills people every single day. Where do your loyalties lie if not with the human race?

How do you know that Global Warming hasn't killed anyone? If the theory is right, then it may be partially responsible for hurricanes and the creeping deserts that are marginalizing farmers in the Sahel of Africa, making food insecurity even greater.

Drilling takes time and the resources we will be able to extract won't solve the problem of a limited natural resource in the face of growing demand. That is excluding questions about the environment. I think that decreasing demand is the only reasonable solution. That means raising fuel efficiency standards, investing in public transportation, reconfiguring incentives to promote fuel efficiency, etc.

 

[AllieBaba]

It hasn't been proven, c'mon. And you know people are starving to death, right? I mean, there's no question that people are dying because they don't have food.

You're just proving that you're woefully out of touch with reality. The reality is, people are starving, by the day, by the hour, by the minute. And philosophers such as yourself don't mind allowing them to die while you wring your hands and meditate on alleged "crimes against the planet".

You're denying starving people food and you're facing economic ruin because you think a few starving people just don't matter.

I wonder who will be around to enjoy the planet after y'all have saved it for us?

 

[ReillyT]

It hasn't been proven, c'mon. And you know people are starving to death, right? I mean, there's no question that people are dying because they don't have food.

If we are talking about starvation, then we should also consider the effects of drought in Africa, where thousands die of malnutrition related disease and starvation every year.

You're just proving that you're woefully out of touch with reality. The reality is, people are starving, by the day, by the hour, by the minute. And philosophers such as yourself don't mind allowing them to die while you wring your hands and meditate on alleged "crimes against the planet".

You're denying starving people food and you're facing economic ruin because you think a few starving people just don't matter.

I wonder who will be around to enjoy the planet after y'all have saved it for us?

I mostly don't think that drilling is an answer. By the time we drill, even if we drill just about everywhere, demand will have increased greatly and we will still be suffering from shortages. Russia has a lot more oil than we do, they drill everywhere, and they have already peaked at oil production. The problem is that demand is outstripping supply, and the problem will get worse even if we drill. Demand must be decreased, since supply will always be limited. Also, I am mindful of the negative consequences to the environment. I don't think that makes me out of touch.

 

[AllieBaba]

That whole post was completely out of touch with reality.

Completely. You just refuse to address the issue.

Food prices are soaring because we don't have enough of our own oil. The oil is there, and you continue to think it's a good idea for us to pretend it isn't, and hem and haw and pretend inflation is being caused by something OTHER than the fact that we are denying ourselves the one thing that would solve every problem that is causing it.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Unfortunately, you aren't the one suffering.

 

[ReillyT]

That whole post was completely out of touch with reality.

Completely. You just refuse to address the issue.

Food prices are soaring because we don't have enough of our own oil. The oil is there, and you continue to think it's a good idea for us to pretend it isn't, and hem and haw and pretend inflation is being caused by something OTHER than the fact that we are denying ourselves the one thing that would solve every problem that is causing our problems.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Unfortunately, you aren't the one suffering.

Perhaps you misunderstand me (I know, how?). I don't deny that the problem lies in the differential between supply and demand. I just don't think that in the short or long-term, supply can be increased such to make a meaningful difference to the differential. If increasing supply is inadequate to solve the problem, I am wary of incurring greater environmental degradation when the only solution is decreasing demand.

 

[AllieBaba]

More vapid nothingness.

If you agree there's an issue with supply and demand, then you must acknowledge the soundness of reducing the cost of SUPPLYING and GROWING food by reducing the cost of oil, and you must acknowledge the complete frivolity of using existing food stores to create fuel, and subsidizing farmers to grow fuel fodder instead of growing food for human consumption. Reduce cost, increase the commodity.

It isn't rocket science.

 

[ReillyT]

More vapid nothingness.

If you agree there's an issue with supply and demand, then you must acknowledge the soundness of reducing the cost of SUPPLYING and GROWING food by reducing the cost of oil, and you must acknowledge the complete frivolity of using existing food stores to create fuel, and subsidizing farmers to grow fuel fodder instead of growing food for human consumption. Reduce cost, increase the commodity.

It isn't rocket science.

I agree that increasing supply would help, and that this could be done by drilling for more oil I just don't think it will make a meaninful difference.

Growing more food would also be good, although, since as you pointed out, turning food into fuel increases the supply of fuel, then it is a double edged sword. I am guessing that you think that the additional fuel gained from biofuels won't compensate for either a) the shortage of fuel, and/or b) the cost of reducing food supplies.

I am just making the same argument with respect to drilling for oil. Additional amounts of oil from drilling will be inadequate to compensate for a) the shortage of fuel, and/or b) the environmental degradation that drilling causes.

It is essentially the same argument.

 

[AllieBaba]

There is no way to know whether it would have a meaningful impact or not if you never access it. It's just as much guesswork as global warming. Though at least with the oil, we do know it exists. It really is there.

Turning food into fuel is not the answer, if the problem is exorbitant food prices and food shortages. Surely you can see that? It makes no sense. Fuel is of no use if there is no food to ship, or if it's made INSTEAD of food.

 

[ReillyT]

There is no way to know whether it would have a meaningful impact or not if you never access it. It's just as much guesswork as global warming. Though at least with the oil, we do know it exists. It really is there.

Actually, there is a way to know. We have a decent idea how much oil is in Anwar and how long it would take to get it. Global demand is rising very fast. No amount of oil in Anwar will make a meaningful difference.

Turning food into fuel is not the answer, if the problem is exorbitant food prices and food shortages. Surely you can see that? It makes no sense. Fuel is of no use if there is no food to ship, or if it's made INSTEAD of food.

As I noted earlier, I agree that this is probably not the answer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We can increase food stocks by having our farmers grow more. It will offset fuel costs if supply of food does in fact grow.

The problem is we have to rotate crops even if we use all field space and I do not belief anyone is managing a system to maximize food grown if we increase the fields.

Lets assume fuel is not going to be improved, that Reilly is correct, then let us increase FOOD production. Even if Reilly is wrong increased food production that is deliverable around the world WILL help. And we KNOW we can do that.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not without affordable fuel. You've got to address the fuel problem, without depleting our food supplies, and there are only two ways to do it. Build refineries, and access oil, wherever it is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The fuel is not missing, it just is costing a bit more. In fact most of our fuel costs are our own doing, it is called TAXES.

There is absolutely NO reason Diesel should cost more then premium gas. That is crazy.

There is more than enough fuel to move stuff around and WE cause the price to be so high by our taxing the shit out of it. Lower the damn taxes on diesel fuel.

 

[Annie]

Or we could just stop paying farmers not to grow.

They are growing it, they just are selling it to the best market and that isn't for food. On the other hand, I agree subsidies are not necessary.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

It wouldn't be a bad thing for a lot of regimes to fail, because that is the reason for wretched poverty in other countries.

Ethanol subsidies need to be 100% eliminated. There is only so much solar flux which hits arable land in the US, and even using the most optimistic assumptions, we'd have to devote just about all our current farmland to growing fuel. And we'd still have periodic shortages due to droughts, plant diseases, swarms of locusts, etc. The only biofuels that make any sense whatsoever are ocean-grown algae and desert-grown algae, raised in platic bag systems. Why? Because they don't displace existing food farming.

It would also be really swell if all levels of government weren't doing their damndest to encourage/mandate/subsidize suburban sprawl. We can talk about mass transit all we want, but it's basically impossible when everything is spread out. Only a return to classical town planning/zoning like we had before WWII will make it possible. Unfortunately our leaders are in the pockets of sprawl developers, and will be dragged into abolishing bad laws kicking and screaming. (Prediction: baby boomers will push this along in coming years. Oldsters are the most politically active, and they will be much more receptive to old style town layouts once they are too old to drive anymore.)