Green liberals have committed crimes against humanity

The Wall Street Journal reports that high prices of food are causing food rights around the world. (Can’t read the article? Click here to subscribe!)

Surging commodity prices have pushed up global food prices 83% in the past three years, according to the World Bank -- putting huge stress on some of the world's poorest nations. Even as the ministers met, Haiti's Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis was resigning after a week in which that tiny country's capital was racked by rioting over higher prices for staples like rice and beans.

The reason for the food shortage? U.S. policies pushing corn-based ethanol and other biofuels. Policies pushed by liberals.

"When millions of people are going hungry, it's a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels," said India's finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, in an interview. Turkey's finance minister, Mehmet Simsek, said the use of food for biofuels is "appalling."

There you have it, these liberals have committed crimes against humanity. I hope people come to their senses and vote them out of office.

Comments

[Shnugi]

Stop blame us for ethanol. What about all the neo-cons clamoring for 'energy independence' and farm subsidies.

[SFG]

Yah, this is another example of how the Senate and the disproportionate power of small states is a problem. ;)

[Gil]

Zzzzz. Why should righties jump on the bandwagon with this one? Whose subsidies are right and whose are wrong? At least the Libertarian would be consistent and say no one should get any subsidies and duke it out on the free market. Yeah yeah so people left and right are now realising biofuels aren't the answer but is it too late? Too many who have funded it are going to suffer from Sunken Cost Fallacy and too many bio-farmers aren't going to tip the gravy train and are the ones who are going to keep plugging the wonderfully 'clean biofuels'.

But even to use the ol' Libertarian term 'postive right' why do Liberals have a duty to everyone? Actually us evil lefties are just like evil righties - we prefer some groups at the expense of othesr (}>:P). No righty would complain about workers getting downsized - it's not the duty of the company to subsidise the lifestyles of the workers, nor complain about pollution - it's a positive externality because it means there's economic growth somewhere, etc. A similar argument could be said for greenie who convince a South American government to spare their section of the Amazon rainforest - it prevents honest would-be farmers from clearing the land and feeding their families just so a handful of hippies can feel good about themselves - the American greenie has now imperilled the lives and future of South American working poor - now that's not very Socialist!. Yet free market greenies might do the same - buy a section of rainforest from the respective government and prevent development via private property rights against trespassing and once again screw the luckless poor farmers who still can't feed his family just so rich hippy Liberals can appease Mother Gaia. It's all relative . . .

[The Engineer]

I don't worry too much about the politics of ethanol. It is waaaaaaaaaaaay too embeded in our culture to fight (an axis that includes enviros, farmers, big corps, etc. is not one that you can fight as an individual).

I'm lucky to have an E85 pump right around the corner from home. I've been experimenting with topping off the tank of my non-flex fuel vehicle with E85. You can essentially make your own premium fuel (E85 has about 100 octane). Saves upwards of 5 dollars a tank.

I've got a blog about it here.

[Drew]

food riots, HS. And Shnugi is right. Environmentalist liberals support green technology, which biofuels very much are not. They only exist as a modern farm subsidy, and corn based ethanol is actually more polluting and less efficient than traditional petroleum. But this makes no matter to MCcain-Bush, where profit to private enterprise trumps any legitmate reason for a logical government subsidy to an industry that serves the public interest.

Maybe liberals could ask themselves why these wonderful, vibrant 3rd world countries are unable to feed themselves and reliant on food aid. But that could cause some discomfort. Can't have that. Better to blame YT and America. Driving a Prius is taking food out of the mouths of Haitian babies! Maybe Mugabe could invite back those horrid white farmers too.

[The Engineer]

There is no denying that ethanol was originally driven by environmentalists. The EPA requirement for oxygenated fuels is what started the movement for ethanol in fuel.

There are two possible oxygenates, ethanol and MTBE. MTBE pollutes water supplies if the underground tanks leak, so MTBE has been banned (also pushed for by enviros).

The fact that farmers and ADM are now the driving force behind ethanol does not excuse the fact that environmentalists were the force behind the mandate that forced ethanol on the general public in the first place.

[Peter]

Terrific way to reduce America's dependence on imported oil without having to increase ethanol production:

Drive less.
Problem solved, end of discussion.

That grumpy fellow in California, Dennis Mangan, has a post as well:

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2008/04/global-bureaucrats-blame-us-for-food.html

He has data that shows that while the US exports much of the food it produces, the fucking PRC consumes it all for their greedy selves! The bastards! Eating food they grew! And people think how Tibet is treated is bad.

[Gil]

If we Liberals weren't meant to eat human babies then they wouldn't taste so good would they? }>8P

[bbartlog]

This price spike is not *just* an effect of biofuel subsidies (though they have played a part) - it's also a result of the surge in petroleum prices, which has increased various agricultural costs.
Anyway, most of these ministers are just happy to have a big foreign bad guy in the form of the US to blame their troubles on. Let them jabber.

[SteveBrooklineMA]

Who didn't see this coming? In order to satisfy some Green fantasy about cutting global warming by 1/2 a degree, Congress pushed for effectively burning food in our SUVs instead of oil. Farm state politicos pushed too, of course. Now the world will love us for cutting down on fossil fuels! Won't they?

"Terrific way to reduce America's dependence on imported oil without having to increase ethanol production:

Drive less.
Problem solved, end of discussion."

Why doesn't anyone talk about bringing back the 55mph speed limit?

[slwerner]

Anon- "Why doesn't anyone talk about bringing back the 55mph speed limit?"

Hum??

Just a guess here...

Because the vast majority of drivers hated it soooo much!

Anyway, fuel-efficiency, computerized fuel system controls, and aerodynamic design have done much to achieve the same ends without having to drive ridiculously slow on wide-open highways.

Even though it would be just as stupid an idea, not allowing people to drive big SUV’s for their individual daily commutes would do even more to reduce net fuel consumptions.

[DF]

I feel duty bound to profit from the suffering of the poor. The Agricultural ETFs in my portfolio have performed phenomenally since added last year. Thank you very much.

[Half Sigma]

ADM stock has soared, I sure wish I had the foresight to have bought it.

[David Alexander]

ADM stock has soared, I sure wish I had the foresight to have bought it.

I wish I bought Bear Sterns on its speculator fueled rebound from $2 to $10. It was cheap enough for somebody as poor and low IQ as myself to have made some profit...

Why doesn't anyone talk about bringing back the 55mph speed limit?

As a roadgeek, I've always found it highly absurd, especially since my little Saturn gets 30-34mpg when I drive at speeds between 65-80mph. I've also found it equally absurd how Europeans have higher speed limits than most American states. France and Austria have a speed limit set at 130 km/h (80mph), and their roads aren't massive death traps. There's no need for a road like the New Jersey Turnpike, particularly in its southern most stretches to have an artificially low speed limit of 65 mph. It's pandering to the safety lobbying groups, insurance companies, and the state's need for revenue enhancement via the state gendarmerie.

Haiti's Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis was resigning after a week in which that tiny country's capital was racked by rioting over higher prices for staples like rice and beans.

Allegedly, Haiti imports roughly 2/3rds of its food supply, and it's especially prevalent when noting that Haitians are importing plantains from the Dominican Republic. Haitian agriculture has become a non-factor in the food supply primarily due to massive mismanagement of soil and other natural resources (deforestation + flooding) and the flight of the farm workers to the capital and in some cases, eventually, the US or Canada. My dad has noted that Haiti's universities in the 1970s turned out agriculturalists galore, but most have either fled to the US, or they're in Haiti working for the government on salaries ravaged by inflation...

BTW, the dirt cookies have been around for ages...

[Reverend Wright]

White folks' greed runs a world in need.

[Turambar]

The best part from the article:
"But beyond taking shots at the U.S., there was little agreement this weekend on what should be done. "

And indeed it makes little sense that the US using corn bio-fuel would decrease the amount of rice available in Bangladesh.

The scenario doesnt make sense so a little googling turned up:

WILL THE CORN CROP GET BIGGER?
Exports of U.S. corn during the current marketing year are now projected at 2.25 billion bushels, 130 million larger than exports during the 2006-07 marketing year and the largest in 18 years. The expectation of large U.S. corn exports is driven by prospects for tightening world grain supplies; robust world feed grain consumption; and less export competition from Brazil and China.

So the use of bio-fuels hasnt decreased the export of corn at all, and in fact it has increased. Brazil and China are exporting less but some how this is the US's fault?

[slwerner]

Turambar - "So the use of bio-fuels hasnt decreased the export of corn at all, and in fact it has increased. Brazil and China are exporting less but some how this is the US's fault?"

Good catch!

Nice to have some meaningful statistics interjected for consideration regarding the latest hysteria.

[slwerner]

From the NY Times:

On Monday, President Bush ordered that $200 million in emergency food aid be made available to “meet unanticipated food aid needs in Africa and elsewhere,” a White House statement said.

His spokeswoman, Dana M. Perino, said the president had urged officials to look for additional ways to help poor nations combat food insecurity and to come up with a long-term plan “that helps take care of the world’s poor and hungry.”

WTF!?!?

Why does the US have any responsibility to commit our time and resources to “cover” for the waste, corruption and overall inefficiency of other countries.

If the inhabitants of these poor nations are not “Man Enough” to provide for their own, they just need to stop having kids. A permanent and expanding non-contributing entitlement-class has absolutely “zero” value to this world.

Sorry if that seem a bit too harsh for some. I’m having to write a rather large check today…

So the use of bio-fuels hasnt decreased the export of corn at all, and in fact it has increased. Brazil and China are exporting less but some how this is the US's fault?

It always is and always will be the fault of the US and/or white people, no matter what the issue, whether it it world hunger, pollution, global wa or having it rain on the weekend thus ruining some guy's plans in Brazzaville for a picnic of roast pygmy. It doesn't have to be coherent criticism, nor be based on fact. It usually never is anyway. You can never do enough for these parasites either. It is always more, more, more. Nothing will ever be enough.
I feverently hope hungry 3rd worlders riot and kill some of these assholes like Palaniappan Chidambaram and Mehmet Simsek(and many, many others including that Swedish prick who said America was "stingy" with aid after the tsunami a few years ago) before starving to death.

[Reverend Wright]

Sorry if that seem a bit too harsh for some. I’m having to write a rather large check today…

Great, and not soon enough! I'm sure that money will be put to good use in righteous nations that are usually exploited by white devils like Haiti, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. Maybe even right in your own backyard for programs like After School Basketball or more money for oppressed blacks(I could use a little "walking around money" myself, just got a new home you know). You owe us anyway. Now get back to work, millions on welfare depend on you. PS: God Damn America!

[slwerner]

Reverend Wright - "PS: God Damn America!"

Gee, Rev,

I see your swanky new digs haven't put you in any better mood.

[Poseur]

Biofuels aren't a bad thing, the problem is corn is one of the worst crops to grow in terms of energy yield and soil efficiency for these biofuels.

[Poseur]

The problem is people aren't focusing on sustainable policies. In 2006 the World Food Programme recieved 2.9 billion dollars total for food aid. The cost of a vertical farm that feeds 72,000 people is presently 176 million dollars. For the amount of food aid the world gave in 2006 18 vertical farms could have been built. Now there is currently a vertical farm being built in Las Vegas of this magnitude and it is projected to make 15 million dollars a year in food sales. Now consider that 90 million people are currently fed by the global food aid. The 72,000 estimate is based on first world eating habits. So we are talking about some insane 2000 calorie diets here and I am damn sure that the third world doesn't get that luxury. 1500 calories is probably the overestimated target since humans can subsist on 700 calories for a long time. That and the 72,000 estimate also assumes a lot of poultry and fish are consumed which is valuable farm space for vegetables. Now extrapolate this over 15 - 30 years and the world hunger problem is non existent and we all get to keep our rain forests.

[Me]

"White folks' greed runs a world in need."

I think you mean a WhitePeople's creed breeds a world in need.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/

[Tony]

David,

I think I know the answer, but I should ask you because you are in a better position to detect and obviously false answer.

The CIA Factbook says that most Hatians make their living as farmers. Shouldn't higher food prices be a good thing to a farmer? Are the food riots mostly an urban thing?

[David Alexander]

Shouldn't higher food prices be a good thing to a farmer?

Not when you're a subsistance farmer who doesn't sell much of his crops...

If you fly over the island of Hispanola, one will note that the Haitian side appears to be deforested when compared to the Dominican side. Years of mismanagement has lead to poor rural residents cutting down trees for cooking and heating*, which leads to soil erosion and the loss of resource rich soils. Thus, poor crop yields and low returns on growing have lead most Haitians to move to the capital and regional towns in order to find some income. Most of the farms are small plots and were simply subsistance farms with only a small surplus sold in the markets which leads one to conclude that most of Haiti's food is imported.

The food riots are mostly urban dwellers complaining about the high cost of food*, and I suspect much of the increase in cost is from the high price of transport fuel needed to bring the food into the country, combined with the weakening US dollar which floods the country thanks to remittances from the diaspora. In addition, some of the rioters are using the food riot as a political tool to bring back former President Aristide who was overthrown nearly four years ago after the Bicentennial, or their particular political leader. Others are simply fostering instability to aid in the distracting police and the UN from drug dealing or dealing with the increasing kidnapping problem.

*Sample price: Locally made Haitian pasta costs USD $4 for a small box. The foodstuffs used to make the pasta are imported.

[PA]

Slap a massive luxurty tax on privately-owned SUVs with exemptions where appropriate.

[Turambar]

Slap a massive luxurty tax on privately-owned SUVs with exemptions where appropriate.

To what end? Firstly, there is no demonstrated correlation between fuel usage and the rice crop in the far east.

Secondly, you could note that there already is a massive tax in the form of higher gas prices. Since the purpose of this meeting was to whine to get donations, the mismanaged countries should be redirected to plead their case to the oil producers sitting on stacks of cash.

Thirdly, owning a SUV is not immoral so you really dont need to censure it. It would make as much sense to slap a massive tax on people living in the North East and Florida since they use more energy than the norm in heating and cooling.

[SFG]

Thirdly, owning a SUV is not immoral so you really dont need to censure it. It would make as much sense to slap a massive tax on people living in the North East and Florida since they use more energy than the norm in heating and cooling.
Or Arizona. It really is hotter and colder in those places. The SUV, however, serves no purpose other than to stroke the egos of alpha males.

[Half Sigma]

SFG, lots os SUV/Minivan drivers are women.

[SFG]

OK, alpha females too.

Seriously, due to the rollover increase there's no advantage in safety. It's just an ego-stroker. Don't tell me you own one...why do you even own a car in Manhattan?

[slwerner]

SFG - ” It's (owning an SUV) just an ego-stroker.”

Well, while this is often the case, there are some people (women especially) who feel more confident in them (and even if they aren’t really, safer as well).

If you ever notice just how much more aggressive women are when driving a big SUV, I think that you’ll see this as well.

SUV’s make good sense for some people. People who live in rural areas, especially those areas with frequent snowfall; people with larger families to haul around; and outdoors-people, who have lots of gear to take with them, would be examples of such people.

But, as for daily-driver commuter cars, they are generally a poor choice. And, as you point out, a lot of people have them as status symbols. Where I live, there sure are a lot of Escalades, Navigators, and H2’s that look like they’ve never been off a paved road.

[Not to mention that many of these excessive vehicles are being driven by people who can ill afford them – and are probably going to be expecting my tax money to help bail them out for their over-extended house and car buying. Grumble, grumble, grumble]

[Armed & Dangerous]

Some people own SUVs as an ego stroker just as some people who own a Prius or a Porsche. Some just like the styling. Others like the 4 wheel drive, the cargo space or the extra height off the road. Lots of times, throwing stuff in the back is easier than putting it in a trunk. Some have trailer hitches too. And who knows, maybe they got a great deal on it. And no, I don't have one.

[David Alexander]

slwner,

I actually drove a Toyota Rav4 for about six months, and I'll openly admit to driving more aggressively because it was a bigger car. While it may have been smaller than a Ford Explorer or Chevy Tahoe, it was still bigger than my current Saturn, and I was regularly flashing my hi-beams into small cars that refused to move. I was even tempted to drive on the unpaved shoulders to get around traffic on the parkways. I also loved the cargo room, especially since it made moving stuff to my grandmother's new home much easier than using the limited trunk space of my Saturn.

Mind you, despite being a four cylinder model with only 124hp and front wheel drive, it barely achieved 24mpg, and pushing the car over 55mph was a Herculean feat. The particularly bothersome part was it's poor cornering ability. Turns that I could take at speed required me to slow down in the Rav. Let's just say I was relatively pleased when I bought my replacement car, a Saturn SL2 that easily accelerated to 80mph, handled corners rather decently, and gave me 30mpg on average. The only benefit the RAV was that it was "quiet" and "refined", and that my mother, grandmother, and aunts had less problems getting into an SUV than a small car.

people with larger families to haul around

Even my 12 year old nephew at the New York International Auto Show figured that the third row seats in most SUVs are useless for anything bigger than a 8 year old. The minivan may be dowdy, but it does a better job of moving people around.

especially those areas with frequent snowfall

Subaru Legacy & Impreza :)

Not to mention that many of these excessive vehicles are being driven by people who can ill afford them

In my old Caribbean neighbourhood, people would routinely go into debt in order to purchase large Range Rovers and Toyota Land Cruisers because they were signs of success and privilege back home in the Caribbean. The native-born blacks squandered their money on Escalades and Navigators.

[PA]

Owning an SUV is immoral because SUVs are lethal in collisions with smaller cars.

I agree PA. SUV's are simply unsafe at any speed, whether it is to the driver, others on the road, the environment or people's egos. They should be banned before any more harm can be done!

[Anon]

So the use of bio-fuels hasnt decreased the export of corn at all, and in fact it has increased. Brazil and China are exporting less but some how this is the US's fault?

It may not have decreased U.S. exports but that doesn't say anything about how much biofuels have increased crop prices.

From:
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080047053

Taking the example of maize, all over the world, the production of maize went up by 40 million tonnes last year.

Of this, 30 million tonnes were used to produce ethanol. As a result, global maize prices almost doubled.

[Turambar]

So even with bio fuel there was a net increase of 10M tons of corn.

This naturally caused a shortage of rice in Bangladesh.

[slwerner]

Turambar point out - "So even with bio fuel there was a net increase of 10M tons of corn.

This naturally caused a shortage of rice in Bangladesh."

When the price of a commodity rises, there is usually an increase in the production of that commidty (to the extent possible) in order to take advantage of the increased cost to make more profit.

It's only natural that a new market opening up for corn in the US would spur not only higher prices, but increased production as well.

The real question is, given the great potential for a higher return on thei investment of growing larger crops, why the hell can't other countries get their collective acts together and take advantage of the great oppurtunity present to them.

Well, at least in the case of Zimbabwe, we know that it's because an evil racist dictator expelled the competent farmers in order to give the land over to his lazy, do-nothing friends.

I'd bet that on a world-wide scale, it is mostly laziness, corruption, and general incompetence that hold back the development of modern farming (and so many other modern attributes).

rather than give so many people so much food every year, the dollar resource should go into teaching them how to get off their asses and do the work to feed themselves.

Somehow, in drought conditions worse than those reported in some other countries, American farmers still manage to bring in a crop. If the leaders of these starving countries cannot find the will from within to farm, then it would be in the best interest of their people to bring in some competent farmers who could make the Zimbabwe's of the world back into Rhodesia's.

[Anon]

So even with bio fuel there was a net increase of 10M tons of corn.

This naturally caused a shortage of rice in Bangladesh.

Food staples are interconnected because when one is high people will switch to another. Part of the problem now is that corn, wheat, rice and soy are all high which is causing problems for poor countries.

I would agree with the previous poster that world incompentence is a bigger problem. Most news outlets though would rather blame the west for the world's problems then talk about Mugabe and what he has done to Zimbabwe.

[Turambar]

The tone of the article is even more indefensible when you look into it.

There is definitely is a trade off between the Politically Correct and productivity. If Ian Smith was still in power (ok, maybe a problem because he is now dead) instead of the world forcing in Mugabe into power, Zim/Rhod would be a food exporter instead of having failing farms.

If Euro-weenie werent running scare campaigns against hybrid crop strains as "frankenfood" then Africa would be on the way to food sufficiency.

If you look at the tone of these articles the US is the one to blame, even if we have nothing to do with the problems, because the US is a convenient scapegoat. Take a look at this article on rice inflation from the Asian Sentiental Bad Biofuel Policy Boosts Asian Inflation
The US decision to divert food crops for motor-fuel is proving a costly mistake – especially for Asia. What has long been predicted – that the US decision to push the use of corn to make biofuel would be a costly mistake – is starting to come true, especially for Asia, where inflation is spiking with an ugly force.

What is lost in this:
-rice is not a bio fuel
-Western Europe also has a biofuel mandate, so why single out the US
- US corn exports actually increased
-China's corn exports have fallen because they make extensive industrial use of corn. In fact only 7% of their corn production goes to human consumption- including Chinese bio-fuel
-China's production techniques are poor and their yield per acre is only 50% of the US.

So instead of the implicit assumption that the US should be paying unlimited amount for foreign oil instead of domestic biofuel and that US farmers should take less money for their farms production the real criticism should be directed to Chinese agricultural policy and Arab oil prices. When Palaniappan Chidambaram deplores the use of food for industrially uses, he ignores that that is what his neighbor is doing with most of their corn crop.

There is no reason for the US to apologize for exporting more food and for a small fraction of the country's energy expenditures to stay in the country.