“The problem with blaming biofuels for world hunger is that it is wrong. There are four major causes of high food prices:

1. High energy and fertilizer costs
2. Skyrocketing demand by China on worldmarkets
3. Speculators fleeing dollars for commodities
4. Cold weather hurting crops, shortening growing seasons.”

+ + + + + + +

Cold weather..? Shorter growing seasons..?

Where does…………

Global warming fit into that [equation]..?

Goodness gracious, but you all now have me totally tonfused.. )

Just goes to show that well meaning individual people just don’t know and only agree on compromises that have unintended consequences.

The free market solves all of this. People vote with their feet and the dollars go to the best ideas. Bad ideas fail. Ineffecient companies fail. Good ideas and companies succeed. Everyone is better off.

When harm is done in the free market, public opinion, then the courts, then legislatures will step in to first stop it and then dole out justice. Those risks will keep the free markets behavior in check in almost all cases. (yes I know, Enron, housing mess, overpaid CEOs etc are all good counter arguements but those do get fixed in the majority of cases)

As seen here, when government fails there never seems to be a fix.

It is just that two years ago the chattering class was stuck in the middle of the Iowa Caucuses…(shouldn’t that be Iowa Caucui?), so all logic, reason, economic knowledge and forethought was tossed to the winds in a mad quest to create policies that the chatterers (sp?) thought would cater to the wishes of the Iowa caucus-goers. The twenty-something political wonks were all advocating mandates that would increase the demand for (and cost of) corn, as way of buying Iowa votes. Ethanol was perfect way to do this; it was “green”, it made the farmers (and ADM) happy, it helped replace the formerly mandated MTBE (see above), and it played into pipe dreams of “energy independence”. Of course if you actually examined the economics behind these proposals, and did some math, it all fell apart.

That however didn’t matter to the political wonks. Their “singular focus” (aka “tunnel vision”) was on getting their employer elected, the idea of their actions or policies having real world consequences does not appear to have been examined. The idea that the press might actually do their job and examine these proposals, (instead of simply doing a “cut and paste” from press kits put together by the above mentioned wonks)… well that would have required a level of understanding and effort that is apparently beyond the average reporter.

I remember going to a conference in September of last year where a Bio-diesel producer was whining that 80 bio-diesel plants had shut down in the US so far that year, and that his bio-diesel plant was no longer profitable after the price for soybean oil went from 24 cents to 40 cents on increased demand, (and the State stopped subsidizing him). Apparently ideas like using the futures market to hedge against a sudden increase in your feedstocks, making a product that could compete on an even playing field, (by his own admission his bio-diesel cost between 11 and 22 cents more a gallon to produce than real diesel), or simply not investing in a very risky business with thin margins were beyond him.

Biofules have always been a bad idea, and this was obviouis to anyone who did a serious investigation of the subject. The reason that this bad idea got so much attention and investment was that people decided to forgo serious research and make political and investment decisions based upon a “conventional wisdom”, rather than due diligence; even though the “conventional wisdom” was driven by obviously bad political policies, which were in in turn being driven by blatant political pandering. It’s Francisco d’Anconia’s San Sebastian Mines, all over again.

No one is saying that bed nets are the only solution, but they are effective:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12749479

“Randomized controlled trials in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that permethrin-treated bed nets and curtains reduce all-cause child mortality by 15-33% in areas with low or high but seasonal malaria transmission.”

Instead of making snide comments based on little more than a guess, why not consult the scientific literature and pony up a donation?

DDT was not withdrawn from use in Africa, but the agricultural use was discouraged because of ecological concerns AND, perhaps more importantly, because resistance had developed in mosquitoes. Agricultural use of DDT is devastating to DDT’s effectiveness as a vector control because mosquitoes come into contact with more diffuse amounts of DDT and resistance is gained more easily and rapidly.

DDT was never banned for insect vector control, though it was highly restricted because of its abuse in agriculture.

To blame the deaths of African children on environmentalism is a typical smear tactic not borne out by the facts. DDT should be used in appropriate ways, but there are many other pesticides that can be used at about the same cost. Many environmental groups support the phase out of DDT, but not if it is needed for disease control.

I encourage those who still believe environmentalists are evil to put their money where their distrust is and donate some money to purchase bed nets for malaria control. One good place is:

https://give.malarianomore.org/NETCOMMUNITY/SSLPage.aspx?pid=184&srcid=184

Malaria No More is a venture that was organized at the 2006 White House summit on Malaria.

Let’s stop the myths about environmentalists and Rachel Carson and let’s start actually helping. If you sincerely believe the environmentalists won’t do it, then I guess it’s up to you.

However, what you may not know or perhaps don’t want to know is that oil fields deplete, thus one has to keep looking for new oil.

Concerned Citizen also says:
“…fire up oil shale”
Well, if by “fire” you mean burn it in a furnace then yes, that is pretty much all it is good for (e.g., kerogen shale is burned in some European countries as a replacement for coal.) For decades people have looked at the kerogen shales to try and figure out how to produce a liquid (which is what we want for transportation) from the shale, but so far all have failed. If anybody actually does accomplish it be assured that it would only be possible for that company *because* oil is so pricey and they will be able to charge much money for their product.

While you ably note that in fact insects were developing tolerance to DDT you fail to mention the high success rates that were seen when using DDT initially and that those countries with developed health care systems were able to maintain a successful eradication. You also fail to mention that in the few countries and localities that still use DDT it remains an effective preventative measure for Malaria. Of course it’s not the only answer and of course overuse of the chemical as was seen in the 1950’s and 60’s will lead to a stronger more resistant strain of mosquito’s; but controlled and limited applications of the chemical have proven for to be incredibly effective and consistent. You also fail to mention the proportional relationship between countries that abandoned ongoing DDT use and the subsequent rise in Malaria cases.

As for your theory that fire suppression is causing wild fires is both inaccurate and disturbing. While a fire suppression policy can intensify fires when they do finally occur, the idea that what we need to prevent fires is more fires is nonsensical. It’s particularly bizarre when we are talking about a process of allowing loggers to benefit from cleaning up the undergrowth that you advocate burning instead.

Also the fact that you use Mexican forests as your shining example of proper forest management is interesting since Mexico has very limited fire resources as well as a terrible record for wholesale deforestation, which would more than significantly make up for what you seem is a policy of non-suppression.