global food crisis - rant

[missj5]

i just read this article in the Washington Post this morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/26/ST2008042602333.html?hpid=topnews

it talks about the convergence of factors that have gotten us here, to a place where people in many poor and developing countries will have even less to eat.

of course, this is a complicated political issue (although it shouldn't be) that involves food subsidies, trade agreements and other things that i don't fully understand. all i know is it makes me so f*cking angry. :wall:

how did we get here?? how and why has it become so complicated? how has ethanol as "alternative fuel" become such a great idea --- when it takes OIL TO GROW CORN to make the damn ethanol? why do we continue with farm subsidies that hurt us in the long run? why do we decimate developing countries local economies with our food imports (see jamaica)? why are we in iraq??? we have wasted 8 years and trillions of dollars on a war that has done nothing for us while our world is falling apart. and why do i feel so helpless to do anything about it? :cry:

[RoboMonkey]

how has ethanol as "alternative fuel" become such a great idea --- when it takes OIL TO GROW CORN to make the damn ethanol? why do we continue with farm subsidies that hurt us in the long run? why do we decimate developing countries local economies with our food imports (see jamaica)? why are we in iraq???

Money is why. :surprised

[ripvanfish]

Yep, the people in power are just hedonists who are lining their own pockets and figure they'll be dead before they have to suffer the consequences.

[Dieselsmom]

Also I think the big pull with ethanol is that it burns with less pollution and cleaner air and saving the ozone layer is the big issue these days for obviously good reasons of course. And keep in mind that the guys who are developing ethanol are probably the guys running the current oil companies. They see a new cash cow on the horizon here, and they will never have trouble buying their groceries.

[Willowriver]

Also I think the big pull with ethanol is that it burns with less pollution and cleaner air and saving the ozone layer is the big issue these days for obviously good reasons of course. And keep in mind that the guys who are developing ethanol are probably the guys running the current oil companies. They see a new cash cow on the horizon here, and they will never have trouble buying their groceries.

Except the oil it takes to grow the corn to make the ethanol has more energy than the darned ethanol we get out of it. Ethanol in the current method of production is ridiculous, and frankly, immoral.

Now if they would just try making biofuels from something like switchgrass, I might change my tune ...

[Doktormartini]

The world started going downhill once man learned to mass produce food via agriculture and put are first and foremost basic necessity of life under lock and key :(

[froggythefrog]

Two good things about vegetarianism:

1. It contributes less to global warming by reducing the demand for livestock (raising livestock contributes just as much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere as gas-powered vehicles if not more.)

2. Cattle consume 7 pounds of corn for every pound of meat they produce (and a butt-ton of alfalfa along with it). Reducing the demand for meat frees up land being used for growing alfalfa and corn. The discussion becomes pretty complicated at this point, because the reason that petroleum-based fertilizer is used to grow the corn is because that land is not very fertile in the first place. How much more grain would actually be produced for human consumption then if we did not use the petroleum-based fertilizer and the entire world was vegetarian? More grain than we produce now, but not as much as we currently feed to livestock and ethanol mills, and it might be more plausible to stop the clearing of the rainforest (which I doubt can be restored once it's been cleared).

[Willowriver]

Two good things about vegetarianism:

1. It contributes less to global warming by reducing the demand for livestock (raising livestock contributes just as much greenhouse gas to the atmosphere as gas-powered vehicles if not more.)

2. Cattle consume 7 pounds of corn for every pound of meat they produce (and a butt-ton of alfalfa along with it). Reducing the demand for meat frees up land being used for growing alfalfa and corn. The discussion becomes pretty complicated at this point, because the reason that petroleum-based fertilizer is used to grow the corn is because that land is not very fertile in the first place. How much more grain would actually be produced for human consumption then if we did not use the petroleum-based fertilizer and the entire world was vegetarian? More grain than we produce now, but not as much as we currently feed to livestock and ethanol mills, and it might be more plausible to stop the clearing of the rainforest (which I doubt can be restored once it's been cleared).

:yes: One more thing that kills me, though, is that the land was plenty fertile until we mono-cropped the crap out of it. Stupid corn, and for that matter, soybeans aren't much better. And most of those are being fed to animals or turned into unhealthy filler in crap foods. You just have to take care of land if you expect it to give you stuff, and we haven't been doing that at all.

[Doktormartini]

:yes: One more thing that kills me, though, is that the land was plenty fertile until we mono-cropped the crap out of it. Stupid corn, and for that matter, soybeans aren't much better. And most of those are being fed to animals or turned into unhealthy filler in crap foods. You just have to take care of land if you expect it to give you stuff, and we haven't been doing that at all.
Totalitarian agriculture must end :)