Email This to a Friend
Let’s Save the Planet — Without Starving People
Turning food into fuel may create more problems than it solves. If we are serious about global warming, here are a few modest steps we should take today -- while letting people eat their corn.
In an era where the word “crisis” is attached to every issue that has an advocate, it becomes so difficult to know what to save first. Do we address the “man-made global warming crisis” by burning off our very food in order to propel ourselves around? Or do we instead anticipate the ever-looming “food shortage/famine” crisis by sending human beings the grain they need to survive, while taking a chance that the earth really isn’t going to end in thirty short years — or sooner if we drill in ANWR — without ethanol?
Hmmmm, let’s think about that. In poorer countries famine routinely occurs and people live and die in hunger; in prosperous countries people now find their grocery bills running over budget. The starving people are going to die without nourishment. The struggling people may see their national economies negatively affected if food prices skyrocket.
But proponents of ethanol, despite growing evidence that food energies are causing some unexpected environmental problems of their own, press on with the idea of using fiber and food to create energy, even though the UN reports that world food supplies are quickly dwindling.
Oddly enough, though you might expect that famine exists in the world today — it has always existed somewhere — if one googles the world “famine” one will find coverage of food shortages dated as recently as 2006, but then there is a sudden drop-off in reportage; one is hard-pressed to find more recent stories about any nation facing famine.
One such nation must be out there. Is it possible that for the first time in human history no nation on earth is dealing with a food shortage? Or is famine simply being ignored because to focus on it would emphasize the moral conundrum of burning food for fuel, particularly when alternative energy sources like nuclear energy are available but discomforting, when wind farms are deemed alright for Texas but not for Cape Cod, and when America’s own rich resources of fossil fuels are going largely untapped.
If the world is in fact facing a warming “crisis” that is not cyclical but “man-made” — and there is some credible doubt on that score, as to both cause and effect — does it make sense to address that “crisis” by creating another, and far more provable, crisis of something as fundamental to humanity as food?
Before we do something as drastic as decreasing the world’s food supply in order to feel better about our summer vacations, perhaps we can effect real and lasting changes in the environment, even “saving the planet” if such a thing is humanly possible to begin with. Perhaps we should consider some short-term measures of self-denial that might just meet the challenge.
For example, we were told in December 2007 that if some of the world’s Jews would simply not light their last Hannukah candle, they could have a serious impact on CO2 emissions and thus on saving Gaia.
It seems to me that if merely “not lighting” candles can save the planet, then we can possibly put “man-made” global warming into a full reversal with a few calculated and temporary moves; if this “crisis” is as real as we are being told, then these steps should be taken immediately:
- Declare a 2 or 3 year moratorium on all rock/pop concerts, in every venue, but especially in stadiums and at night. Gaia could live for several hundred years more just on the absence of match-lighted power ballads, the darkening of stage and stadium lights, the canceled pyrotechnics, the unplugged amplifiers and garaged roadie trucks and buses, the grounded private jets, and the unprinted commemorative posters. I am a fan of U2, but if not lighting a few million Hanukkah candles could do so much, then perhaps canceling their splendidly ironic ZOO-TV tour of 1992-3 could have, all by itself, saved the planet for all time: each one of its 157 shows — just the shows themselves — used one million watts of power.
- Cancel the 2008 Olympics — China is already outpacing the rest of the world in polution and carbon emissions. (By contrast, the United States saw its emissions fall by 1.3% in 2006 and that trend is looking to continue.) The 2008 Olympics will require enormous amounts of energy to transport and house hundreds of thousands of athletes, spectators, and journalists. Consider all the energy wasted in lighting arenas and transmitting images and commentary. Consider the deforestation resulting from all of those programs and paper sports-drink cups. In a “crisis,” we ought not be amusing ourselves with athletics. In fact, let’s cancel baseball and football, hockey and all ice-dancing, too, until the planet can be officially declared “saved.”
- Suspend all film and nonessential television production — In a time of genuine “crisis” we cannot in good conscience fire up those klieg lights, blow up those cars, chauffeur those stars, burn that petroleum-based film, or fly over to Cannes — privately, of course — for promotional purposes or dress fittings. “What,” you cry, “no new Die Hards or Rambos?” Well, if this is a “crisis” we’re going to have to act like it’s a crisis. I know it’s hard, but we must be brave — after all, we’re trying to save the world here.
- End the overlong farce that has become the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign. In a time of serious environmental and planetary “crisis,” we have been watching these candidates fly back and forth from battleground state to battleground state ad nausaum. They’ve used planes, trains, automobiles, and helicopters. They’ve debated and interviewed under the hot lights for months, and printed up posters, flyers, and fundraising material — all while suggesting that the greatest crisis facing the nation is economic or racial or military. Somehow the great “crisis” of “man-made” global warming has barely blipped on their radars, and it likely will not, until political expediency demands it.
If the hysteria is to be believed, then it seems imperative to me that the “global community” take these four steps. In temporarily denying ourselves some entertainment and the continuous loops of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama working crowds — which so inspire us all — we must deny ourselves the abundance of such riches. We will be missing art, human drama, and political satire, but Gaia will thank us, and we will not have to burn the food that hungry people need, even if you’re not reading about them just now.
By all means, if it serves both the environment and our economies to research and perfect alternatives to fossil fuels, not just for energy but to replace all petroleum-based products, then let us do so. America should always be on the cutting edge of technology and advancement. But here’s an idea: why not use food for food and fuel for fuel?
Perhaps in attempting to “heal” our planet we should heed Hippocrates’ dictum: first, do no harm.
The Anchoress blogs at the Anchoress Online.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
22 Comments
1. Chris:Couldn’t agree more. Future generations will look back and marvel at the delirium.
Mar 21, 2008 - 8:04 am 2. Mike:That was great. Agree with sentiment and you’re take on the antidotes had me in stitches. Thanks
Mar 21, 2008 - 8:52 am 3. Anonymous:How many ears of corn does it take to run the Internet, I wonder?
Mar 21, 2008 - 8:57 am 4. Jack in Minneapolis:Questions for presidential candidates:
What are you doing to reduce your carbon footprint?
What should I be doing to reduce my carbon footprint?
Would love to hear their answers.
Mar 21, 2008 - 9:57 am 5. Angry African:Mm. You should check those famine facts again. But maybe your Google search is controlled by China. Hint – type famine and hit search news in Google.
Mar 21, 2008 - 12:00 pm 6. J. Ryan:I like your last sentence though – do no harm. So let’s stop pumping oil and start walking people. And drop that steak and put your smoke where I can see them. But we will striggle with Africa – we loooove our meat. http://angryafrican.net/2008/01/24/we-eat-meat-get-used-to-it/
Thank God they can’t use the meat for fuel yet. But that methane gas is another issue all together.
You and Ann are the greatest!
Mar 21, 2008 - 2:29 pm 7. Gordon Gekko:This moral argument for not using our corn to produce fuel is hugely flawed. It would be like telling a farmer he has a duty to grow food. Not for himself but for the benefit of others. Self-interest must always come first and generosity must never be forced by an autocratic government.
Also, did you even consider (as many other news agencies have shown) that rising agricultural prices may help these poor economies whose primary industry is agriculture.
Mar 22, 2008 - 9:08 am 8. Jon:While I agree that the global warming “crisis” is way over the top, the “food not fuel” argument is right there alongside. After all, you know when Hugo Chavez makes the argument, you probably ought to look at the sense behind it.
Prices are up across the board for reasons other than ethanol – poor weather, political issues, bad years, rising population – as well. You can’t blame ethanol alone.
As for the “fuel for food” meme, consider that for millennia, half of agricultural output was indeed for “fuel.” You don’t think oats were just for breakfast? That it stopped being the case less than a century ago doesn’t mean the change will be permanent. Do we need to consider the increased output consumed for fuel? Yes. But the market can decide that, not another rash of global do-gooders on par with the global warming types.
The market *has* decided that. Until now, crops were laughably cheap, and markets made farming unsustainable but for subsidies. Ethanol came along and increased demand. Yes, the plants are also subsidized, and yes, there are more plants than will be sustainable. But the market will decide that, too.
Just because an increase in corn means an increase in milk means our lattes are more expensive, doesn’t mean it’s all ethanol’s fault. In fact, the more we separate the commodity prices and impending economic populism (on both sides of the urban/rural divide) from the global warming myth, the better off we’ll all be to come up with sane and small-l liberal solutions that are better for everyone.
Mar 22, 2008 - 10:14 am 9. Engineer-Poet:They can; it just isn’t competitive.
Mar 22, 2008 - 4:42 pm 10. Engineer-Poet:Quoth Jon:
It is pure Congressional fiat; the market has nothing to do with it. Congress has applied a 51¢/gallon “blender’s credit” (subsidy) and mandated gallon quantities of ethanol to be used; the taxpayer is to be screwed twice, once in lower mileage and again at tax time. If we had a free market in biofuels, very few people would be buying E-85 or even E-10.
The scandal is that we could use ethanol to cut gasoline consumption by 30% in properly designed engines. Used that way, ethanol — even “wet” ethanol at 190 or even 160 proof — would be worth upwards of $5/gallon in saved gasoline. But Congress has decided that we can only buy it in a form we can’t use that way, and enforced waste in a time of scarcity.
Mar 22, 2008 - 4:54 pm 11. NotYourDaddy:Nobody is more reactionary than liberals. Just as the hysteria over global warming is reactionary, so is the rush to ethanol production. Liberals see something that frightens them, and they start running around screaaming that we have to do something about it. They’re so caught up in their panic that they don’t have time to think; they only have time to react. What could be more “reactionary” than that?
Here’s how the liberal mind works. Fossil fuels and nukes are icky. Wind, water, sunshine, and plants are clean and friendly. So all we have to do is stop using icky fuels and use friendly fuels instead, and Gaia will love and nurture us and global warming will go away. So they harangue the government into providing incentives to switch from icky fuels to friendly fuels. (Of course it costs the taxpayers lots of money, but that’s OK. That’s what taxpayers are for.)
Only then it turns out the hydro-electirc dams disturb the fishies, so they demand the dams be removed (also at great expense to the taxpayers). Then they figuure out the windmills are slicing and dicing birdies, so they protest to have the windfarms shut down. They love the idea of getting fuel from plants (that’s so green), only it turns out ethanol production isn’t very energy efficient after all and, besides that, it’s threatening the environment and starving children! It won’t be long before the liberals demand that the government step in and stop this evil ethanol production… Just wait and see.
I posted a blog entry on this called Alternative Energy and the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Mar 22, 2008 - 11:30 pm 12. Engineer-Poet:Why do people blame “liberals” for everything? Just asking.
Corn ethanol isn’t a creation of the ecology lobby, it’s a creature of Big Agriculture. The major beneficiaries are corn farmers and Archer Daniels Midland, which is why candidates for president have to swear to support ethanol to get anywhere in the Iowa caucuses.
(Now that corn prices have doubled, there is the backlash from livestock farmers that I predicted.)
Mar 23, 2008 - 12:43 am 13. Jennifer:If clear-thinking individuals didn’t use their eyes to read great blogs like this, just imagine how much less corn their bodies would require.
It seems logical to me that for each of us to really save the planet, we should all just close our eyes and lean to the Left.
Mar 25, 2008 - 2:30 am 14. Jakester:Engineer-Poet,
Mar 26, 2008 - 9:28 am 15. Engineer-Poet:you’re 100 % correct. Ethanol only made sense when there were huge surpluses that would rot away anyways. The people here have to blame liberals cause it’s the easiest thing to do, they are simple minded right wing hacks who think in one dimension. The best way to fight global warming is to fight the spread of deserts and destruction of the rain forests: green things convert solar energy to sugar and fiber and eat CO2. Meanwhile, be a good neo-con and drive your Hummer h2 everywhere cause you can always find a liberal hypocrite to make you feel good.
Actually, the best way to get rid of surpluses is not to grow them in the first place. The USA used to have a program that did that, and reserves sufficient to deal with a bad harvest. Then we had some folks deciding that they could do things on the cheap and let someone else hold the reserves, a bad harvest caused prices to skyrocket, and we got a “grow everything we can” farm program.
Huge surpluses led to ethanol as a farm-price support program. Ethanol led to skyrocketing prices. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Mar 26, 2008 - 8:33 pm 16. Teenage America says “yeah, whatever.” | The Anchoress:[...] to foreign oil (rather than independently supplied by her own resources) and is content to starve the world to burn dubiously “clean” bio fuels. I am at a loss to understand – and a little worried by – America’s willingness to be led [...]
Apr 9, 2008 - 11:16 pm 17. Neo-Con Cory:I love the name calling. I guess that I would be a neo-con. We don’t all drive Hummer h3s or fly around the world in our private jets (Al Gore) I think the main reason that farmers are switching from food crops to fuel crops is that it is subsidized by the government. This has brought us to the point of importing wheat for the first time because farmers are switching to corn to put in our fuel tanks. Oil has a huge supply and is way more efficient than ethanol, and as it is now coming out, does less to pollute the environment. I agree that we will eventually need to switch away from petrol base energy, but the free market will do it better and without squashing as many people as the government can. The government is NENER the answer. Ever.
Apr 16, 2008 - 8:34 am 18. LMstuff:We need to tap our the ANWR and respect the environment as best we can. It’s unfortunate but I think it’s the best we can do for now to get out of this mess. This will hold us off while we work on alternative technologies other than ethanol that would not effect our food supply. We could then wean off the ethanol in the process. There are 100’s of promising technologies that are being suppressed by big oil! If we only spent 1/2 of the Iraq war dollars on them we would be sitting pretty right now.
We need to make a commitment to be 100% off oil by a certain time. Similar to CA emissions laws. We have the capability to do this. WE NEED TO GET RID OF OUR OIL DEPENDENCE & THE GREED that goes with it. (Dubai is looking real nice now thanks to all our $$$) The Government needs to step up and get the ball rolling!
Also so why is it that I can buy a diesel car in Europe that gets more than twice the MPG (not liters) than their American versions? I personally contacted Mini about why they will not sell me the diesel version and they said they do not have any plans to sell a diesel model here in the USA when the bulk of their European sales are diesel. Chrysler an American company does the same thing. Same US cars diesel model available in Europe and not in the US????? Go figure! Diesel Technology these days is really efficient and just as clean as gas or cleaner in most cases. Sorry to get off topic.
Apr 23, 2008 - 2:12 pm 19. Is Ethanol crossing and Ethical line? | The Anchoress:[...] last month I wrote at Pajamas Media: …proponents of ethanol, despite growing evidence that food energies are causing some [...]
Apr 23, 2008 - 4:20 pm 20. Questions in the Blogosphere III | The Anchoress:[...] “manmade” is hoo-hah. Mark Steyn is looking at ethanol ethics, as I did last week and last month. IBD wonders if we can undo the ethanol mistake. There’s all kinds of inconvenient [...]
Apr 28, 2008 - 9:47 am 21. CSPAN: Don’t blame us! | The Anchoress:[...] alternative fuels are expensive and not yet abundant, we’re burning food for fuel (which is morally questionable) she and her party don’t care if the gas prices go to $10.00 a gallon (see video). Obama [...]
Aug 1, 2008 - 2:36 pm 22. CSPAN: Don’t blame us! | The Anchoress:[...] alternative fuels are expensive and not yet abundant, we’re burning food for fuel (which is morally questionable) she and her party don’t care if the gas prices go to $10.00 a gallon (see video). Obama [...]
Aug 1, 2008 - 2:36 pm