I have to give credit to the Left for finally finding a way to market their ideology besides simply spending more or involving more government in our lives through this new junk science called global cooling nee climate change nee global warming. In the process, they have found a way of recapturing their deceptive tactics of the mid-20th century of framing their cause in a way that no one disagrees with on the surface, but hides lethal devils in the details; no one is against improving the environment, or social justice, or human rights, after all!
But, like almost all things that liberalism gets behind, the devil is very much in the details. A series of articles went largely unnoticed back in mid-February when we were concerned with John Tory’s fate, the Alberta election or the federal government’s lifespan. In them comes news that bread, particularly the stuff its made of (grain) has tripled in price in just a matter of months. Two factors are being blamed:
a)the rapid emergence of a middle class in the combined 2 billion-large areas of China and India (serious question: would it be improper to refer to this as Chindia from now on?)
and b) the increasing demand for ethanol as an energy source
We have no right or basis to blame the first point on anyone (in fact, kudos to the Asians who are beginning to enjoy a better standard of living!), however we should look into that latter one. Ethanol is a fairly plentiful chemical in our ecosystem, and the hippies love it because it’s a fairly clean, albeit highly inefficient source of energy (although don’t tell them that its mass is composed of over 50% carbon!). Don’t get me wrong either: if nothing else, I’m pro-moving away from oil just so we can stick it to the Saudis and eliminate the threat they pose to western civilization, however not only is the ethanol energy craze the philosopher’s stone of the modern era, it’s also the next best way of socialism causing a famine in the land.
Demonstrating that they really don’t understand economic forces, the greenies of the world praised ethanol as a cheap and renewable source of energy. Yes, it’s definately renewable but cheap is only a temporal trait as the market is always changing. If you need 1000 pounds of wheat to feed your population per day, and request another 500 pounds for energy purposes, demand goes up, and the price with it. Things could eventually stabilize with either continued breakthroughs in agricultural chemistry to improve grain yield, or us just planting more fields with grains, however I remain skeptical as energy demands have steadily increased over the past 100 years and will continue to as our population and technology increases. In the meantime, we really need to ask ourselves if forcing a child to do without an extra meal is worth the dubious effort to remove carbon from our atmosphere.
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
Are the hippies using milk as an alternative fuel source as well?
http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....new-highs/
More of teh crazies.
Posted on 05-Mar-08 at 8:42 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Scott, are you suggesting that if Shell, Petro Canada and other companies start competing with Dempster’s and Little Caesar’s for a farmer’s crop of wheat, that said farmer isn’t going to charge a higher price? I explained that this isn’t just about the ethanol fuel craze quite clearly, however that force is certainly going to put an unnecessary crunch on our food supply. Maybe instead of smugly ridiculing every opinion you Lefties don’t agree with, one of you might experiment with offering a refute or evidence to the contrary…
Posted on 05-Mar-08 at 10:26 am | Permalink
Ryan wrote:
“Demonstrating that they really don’t understand economic forces, the greenies of the world praised ethanol as a cheap and renewable source of energy.”
You’ve got that right. George W. Bush is a big supporter of ethanol as well, which strengthens your point here; or does it?
Quoting Mr Bush - “Like biodiesel, ethanol helps communities to meet clean air standards, farmers to find new markets for their products, and America to replace foreign crude oil with a renewable source grown right here in the nation’s heartland. (Applause.) Together, ethanol and biodiesel present a tremendous opportunity to diversify our supply of fuel for cars and buses and trucks and heavy-duty vehicles.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....50516.html
“In the meantime, we really need to ask ourselves if forcing a child to do without an extra meal is worth the dubious effort to remove carbon from our atmosphere.”
Which children are you discussing here and how do you see a meal being taken away from them? You are going to have to do better than a simple supply and demand argument to support this hypothesis in my opinion. As a percentage of an average household’s expenditures, food accounts for a small portion of those costs (in fact, it is an historical low). Unless you see food pricing vastly outpacing inflation, there does not seem to be a threat that meals will be taken off of tables (at least in first world countries). Third world countries are more of a concern, but their food supply and security problems are vastly more complex and will not likely be made noticebly worse by the ermergence of Ethanol as a fuel source. Sure, adjustments will happen (i.e. the price of corn in Mexico), but as you said yourself, the market will stabilize.
Posted on 05-Mar-08 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
Ryan wrote:
Also, let’s not forget that crops like switchgrass show great promise in being a truly viable source of ethanol for fuel. Not many folks each switchgrass either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass
Posted on 05-Mar-08 at 12:04 pm | Permalink
Ryan wrote:
I meant “eat” rather than “each” above.
Posted on 05-Mar-08 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
Matthew, Your malnourished (ha!) articles leave little room for anything else but a little fun-poking.
Greens or lefties (or is it greens and lefties), or lefties who are hippies? I can’t keep it straight…. anyway, THEY’RE behind bio-fuel?
Splendid! Somebody needs to tell the Earth Policy Institute. And here some of us thought it was the huge industrialized agriculture lobby. http://www.informaecon.com/
I gather you read the article you linked to, right?
“The commonly held belief that farmers switching to corn from wheat for bio-fuel production is not a factor in the shortage, Fitzhenry said. Wheat yields are down among the world’s five top producing nations, which have been hit hard by recent drought or bad weather, she said.”
Actually, given the precedent you’ve set here, that’s probably not a good assumption to make.
I won’t even ask how your thoughts here square with your position on the wheat board. I’m not sure my sides could take it.
You’ve either got more moxie or more density that anyone I’ve ever met to come back with something like this after your last two epic blunders. Kudos to you if it’s the former; my condolences if it’s the later.
Posted on 05-Mar-08 at 6:30 pm | Permalink