COUNTERTHINK: FUEL VS, FOOD - Comic and Commments

[Guest guest]

The Corn Ethanol Biofuels Sham (comic)

_http://www.naturalnews.com/023092.html_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/023092.html)

(http://www.naturalnews.com/z023092.html)

 

 

 

 

Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) It was one of the dumbest " green " ideas ever proposed: Convert

millions of acres of cropland into fields for growing ethanol from corn,

then burn fossil fuels to harvest the ethanol, expending more energy to extract

the fuel than you get from the fuel itself! Meanwhile, sit back and proclaim

you've achieved a monumental green victory (President Bush, anyone?) all

while unleashing a dangerous spike in global food prices that's causing a

ripple

effect of food shortages and rationing around the world.

 

I think _politicians_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/politicians.html) need to

spend less time bragging about their latest greenwashing schemes and more

time studying The Law of Unintended Consequences. Because while growing fuel on

cropland initially sounds like a great idea, any honest assessment of the

total impact leads you to the inescapable conclusion that _biofuels_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/biofuels.html) are largely a government-sponsored

scam.

With a few exceptions (see below), biofuels produce no net increase in energy

output, and they cause food shortages while creating strong economic

incentives for the destruction of the very rainforests we desperately need to

stabilize the climate!

 

And now we're just starting to see the early signs of the economic and

social insanity that has been unleashed by this foolish pursuit of biofuels

around

the world: Food rationing in Sam's Club stores in the U.S., rapidly-rising

prices on bread, rice and _corn_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/corn.html) , and

price spikes at cafeterias and restaurants that depend on these staple

ingredients. The price of rice has tripled globally, unleashing riots in Haiti

and

Bangladesh, and the United Nations has issued warnings that millions of

people around the world now face starvation because they can't afford to buy

food.

Americans are even starting to hoard food once again, after years of

avoiding basic preparedness measures. (One benefit to all this, however, is

that

_farmers_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/farmers.html) are actually getting paid

decent prices for their _crops_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/crops.html) now,

after years of operating on the verge of bankruptcy...)

 

Most _biofuel_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/biofuel.html) efforts are a sham

Not all of these price spikes are due to the conversion of croplands to

biofuel fields, but much of it is. As a result, it's suddenly becoming obvious

to nearly everyone that the pursuit of biofuels, as currently structured, is a

grand greenwashing hoax. It doesn't produce more fuel than it consumes, and

it drives up food prices to boot!

 

Now, there are biofuels programs that really do work. The growing and

harvesting of _sugar cane_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/sugar_cane.html) in

Brazil, for example, provides an 8-to-1 return on energy investment. But even

that

pursuit is tarnished by claims of unsafe work environments and massive

environmental pollution (the _sugar_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/sugar.html)

cane

fields are burned before being harvested, a process that releases massive

amounts of CO2 into _the environment_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/the_environment.html) ).

 

The only truly promising biofuels technology available today is based on

microalgae. Feed CO2 to a vat of _algae_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/algae.html)

, and you can produce biofuels cheaply and responsibly, without destroying

the environment. But these programs are only in experimental phases. Nobody is

producing biofuels on a large scale from algae farms (not yet, anyway).

 

And that leaves the great American breadbasket: The corn and wheat fields.

It is here that food is now being displaced by crops grown for biofuel

processing. So where a farmer used to grow corn as a food source, he's now

growing

it to sell to a biofuel processing facility which turns the corn into

_ethanol_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/ethanol.html) . Obviously, the laws of

_economics_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/economics.html) come into play here,

meaning

that every bushel of corn used for biofuels production means one less bushel

of corn available for food. Factor in the laws of supply and demand, and you

can see that the more crops we use for biofuels, the higher the prices will

rise for food.

 

Politicians, it seems, have no understanding of economics. They need to

study the basics as they are presented in Henry Hazlitt's Book, Economics in

One

Lesson, which is a Libertarian-oriented guide that explains basic economics

to anyone willing to learn. Economics is focused on the study of human

behavior, or more precisely, consumer choice. Now, it seems, consumers are

about to

be faced with a choice they never wanted to have to make: Should I buy fuel,

or food?

 

In other words: Do I want to drive my car, or do I want to eat?

 

That's what this cartoon is all about: That desperate choice between food

and fuel. Even the engine, as depicted in this cartoon, is impoverished,

holding up a sign that reads, " Will work for food! "

 

You can have fuel or food, but not both

Under a biofuels-focused agricultural policy, the same limited resources

(soil, sunlight and _water_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/water.html) ,

essentially) can be used for only one thing at a time. You can't use the corn

twice,

obviously (you can't eat the corn and process it for biofuels at the same

time), so you've got to make a choice: Will you grow the corn for fuel, or for

food?

 

The more you grow for fuel, of course, the less food you have, and that

drives up food prices. But if you swing back the other way and grow more corn

for

food to ease food prices, the fuel prices go up. Trying to solve both

problems at once is a bit like trying to pick up a wet watermelon seed with

your

fingers: It keeps slipping to the side.

 

One thing that has become abundantly clear in all this is that the era of

cheap food and cheap fuel is over. I've written about this on NaturalNews,

where I use the term " food bubble " to describe the most recent era of cheap

food.

As it turns out, cheap food is only made possible by cheap oil, and with oil

now approaching $120 a barrel (a price that virtually no one thought

possible just two years ago), food prices are simultaneously skyrocketing.

(Modern

farming practices use a lot of fossil fuel. So does transporting food across

the country or around the world. Eat local, folks!)

 

Add to this the fact that global climate change is already underway,

altering weather patterns and creating floods, droughts and other agricultural

calamities, and you start to get the picture of just how bad things might get.

That's not even to mention the very serious problem of collapsing honeybee

populations due to a mysterious condition called colony collapse disorder

that's

devastating honeybee populations across North _America_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/America.html) right this minute. Honeybees, in

case you didn't know,

pollinate plants that represent about 30% of all the calories consumed by

Americans. That's about one out of every three bites of your dinner, and it all

depends on the " free " work performed by _honeybees_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/honeybees.html) -- bees who are apparently going on

strike by refusing to

keep working for us.

 

Prepare for mass global starvation

So, to repeat, the food bubble is now starting to implode. What does it all

mean? It means that as these economic and climate realities unfold, our

world is facing massive starvation and food shortages. The first place this

will

be felt is in poor developing nations. It is there that people live on the

edge of economic livelihood, where even a 20% rise in the price of basic food

staples can put desperately-needed calories out of reach of tens of millions

of families. If something is not done to rescue these people from their

plight, they will starve to death.

 

Wealthy nations like America, Canada, the U.K., and others will be able to

absorb the price increases, so you won't see mass starvation in North America

any time soon (unless, of course, all the honeybees die, in which case

prepare to start chewing your shoelaces...), but it will lead to significant

increases in the cost of living, annoying consumers and reducing the amount of

money available for other purchases (like vacations, cars, fuel, etc.). That,

of

course, will put downward pressure on the national _economy_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/economy.html) .

 

But what we're seeing right now, folks, is just a small foreshadowing of

events to come in the next couple of decades. Think about it: If these minor

climate changes and foolish biofuels policies are already unleashing alarming

rises in food prices, just imagine what we'll see when Peak Oil kicks in and

global oil supplies really start to dwindle. When gasoline is $10 a gallon in

the U.S., how expensive will food be around the world? The answer, of course,

is that it will be triple or quadruple the current price. And that means many

more people will starve.

 

Fossil fuels, of course, aren't the only limiting factor threatening future

food supplies on our planet: There's also fossil water. That's water from

underground aquifers that's being pumped up to the surface to water crops, then

it's lost to evaporation. Countries like India and China are depending

heavily on fossil water to irrigate their crops, and not surprisingly, the

water

levels in those aquifers is dropping steadily. In a few more years (as little

as five years in some cases), that water will simply run dry, and the crops

that were once irrigated to feed a nation will dry up and turn to dust. Mass

starvation will only take a few months to kick in. Think North Korea after a

season of floods. Perhaps 95% of humanity is just one crop season away from

mass starvation.

 

The carrying capacity of _planet Earth_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/planet_Earth.html) has reached its apex

The truth about all this, folks, is that the resources on our planet can

only support a limited population, and I think we've over-populated the planet

to a point where we're wiping out non-renewable resources at an alarming

rate. This means a population correction is due. When there are too many people

consuming too much food, using up too much water and burning too much oil, you

can get away with a rapid expansion for a little while (a few decades,

perhaps), but eventually reality kicks in and there's a global population

correction that brings the population size back down to levels that can be

sustained

on the planet.

 

It's not a pretty picture. We're talking about the loss of a billion human

lives, perhaps more. This is what's coming. It's as predictable as the laws of

gravity. When you over-populate a planet and use up all the resources, the

population eventually finds itself in a resource panic, and mass death

ensues. You can observe the same thing with colonies of _bacteria_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/bacteria.html) on a nutrient-rich petri dish: They

will expand at

an accelerating rate, multiplying their numbers until there's no more food

left in the petri dish, and then they will experience a massive die-off. You

might say that _human beings_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/human_beings.html)

are smarter than bacteria, and that's true, but as current events are

clearly demonstrating, they're not much wiser! They still doom themselves to

the

same stupid fate by refusing to look at the long-term implications of their

actions.

 

Humans are really good at making babies and eating food, but they're

terrible at thinking even ten years ahead about the implications of their

present-day decisions. That's why the global population control masterminds

call people

" feeders and breeders, " by the way. Those are the two things human beings do

extremely well: Fornicate and clean their plate. (Not necessarily in that

order, though...)

 

The economies of our world have, sadly, been based on economic models that

strongly encourage this kind of consumption and growth. We live in a

" throwaway economy, " where people are encouraged to consume and expend as much

as

possible. No corporation makes money teaching people how to use less. And so

we've pushed for aggressive expansion since about the 1950's: Build more, eat

more, consume more. We've turned farm lands into housing tracts, and

rainforests

into biofuel fields. We've over-fished _the oceans_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/the_oceans.html) , over-farmed the soils and

over-extended ourselves to

the point where a population correction is inevitable. We, the human race,

have painted ourselves into a desperate corner, and the simple fact of the

matter is that unless we quickly discover some new energy technology that

provides

the world with cheap, plentiful energy, we are headed straight towards a

global population implosion that will leave a billion or more people dead.

 

And biofuels, of course, are no answer for this problem. You cannot grow

enough corn to solve the problems of an expansionist, imperialistic race of

beings (that's us humans) who have taken over the planet like a cancer tumor,

wiped out countless species, destroyed huge swaths of natural rainforests,

poisoned the _oceans_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/oceans.html) and rivers,

polluted the skies and, at every opportunity, betrayed the very Earth that has

given us a home in the first place. Humans can betray Mother Nature for a

while,

but in the end, we will pay a dear price for our own arrogance, greed and

lack of vision. The human race is being sent back to kindergarten, where it

needs to learn some basic lessons about living in harmony with the planet.

Lessons like: Don't use up all the resources in a few generations. Don't think

you're smarter than _nature_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/nature.html) . And

never

forget how much Mother Nature does for us all for free! (Like pollinating the

crops, producing oxygen, cleaning the air, water, etc. Read the book

Mycelium Running to learn more...)

 

In time, we will either learn these lessons, or we will perish. It's really

as simple as that. And all these suddenly-popular " save the planet " efforts

we've seen by corporations recently are just a joke. We can't save the

planet. The planet will be fine after we're gone, folks. What we're trying to

save

here is human civilization. The very idea that we think we can " save the

planet " is arrogant all by itself. All we can do is respect the planet and find

ways to live with it as polite guests living on a generous host.

 

Whether humans survive the next hundred years or not, planet Earth certainly

will. And frankly, the planet will do much better without us. With humans

gone, the Earth would quickly be restored to a vibrant, pristine state, full of

life and abundance. The Earth doesn't need us, folks. But we, of course,

certainly need the Earth. The real question is this: Can we learn to play nice

and treat the Earth with respect? If not, we won't be around much longer to

worry about it.

 

Nature needs to be granted legal standing

One final thought: I am an advocate of the idea that Mother Nature needs to

be granted legal standing. I believe that humans do not automatically " own "

nature, and that we cannot simply cut down _forests_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/forests.html) , bulldoze mountainsides, fish the

oceans, build dams and

engage in other highly disruptive activities without first getting permission

and paying royalties to a global Mother Nature Authority that stands up for

the rights of the planet. Nature is not ours to own or destroy. We, as the

guests on this planet, have no right to simply assume ownership over other

living systems on this planet and exploit them for our own financial gain. The

" destroy and consume " model of free market enterprise is simply not

sustainable,

folks. It does not lead us to a happy future; it leads to our own

destruction.

 

Or, put another way, over the last hundred years or so, mankind has

committed countless acts of _violence_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/violence.html)

against nature. It has pursued a policy of committing atrocities against Mother

Nature -- a kind of genocide against anything non-human (animals, plants,

fish, etc.). Humans have proven themselves to be, by far, the most violent and

destructive life forms to ever exist on this planet. And yet paired with that

violence, humans are an infant species, with little or no foresight, with

virtually no ability to see the future implications of their own actions. We

are, in a sense, the dumbest intelligent creatures ever to walk the face of

this Earth.

 

We can land a man on the moon, but we can't even prevent our own rainforests

from being clear-cut by soybean farmers and cattle ranchers. We can develop

high-tech medicines, but we can't even openly recognize the more powerful

medicines found in a simple dandelion plant. We can create amazing computers

and

televisions and internet technologies the beam information across the globe

at the speed of light, but we pollute those information pathways with

corporate ads for useless stuff and dangerous medicines that only make our

fellow

humans beings less enlightened. We are capable of so much, and yet we have

accomplished so little. We are, by any honest assessment, a race of little

children, running around the planet with far too much power and not nearly

enough

maturity. We're like a band of infants with flamethrowers.

 

Frankly, we don't deserve this planet, and Mother Nature is about to take it

away from us. It's time for us to either grow up, or perish. And all these

people who say " we have to protect the economy, not the environment " should

probably just be rounded up and shipped off to Mars where they can play with

the Martian dust all they want until they finally get the picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mr. Adams,

I agree with the great majority of what you say except for one thing -

you totally disregard hemp as a viable oil source. There is no

burning of 'fossil fuel' involved. The hemp seeds are cold pressed to

extract the oil. Not only is it high in oil content, the fibers in

the rest of the plant are useful for any number of products. Even

after being pressed the meat of the seeds is an excellent food

source. Unfortunately, even though the best hemp for industrial

applications contains minute amounts of the psychoactive drug THC,

marijuana laws prevent the growing of any type of hemp. In your

position that is an oversight which I felt needed addressing.

Just a thought! Great article though. I'm not looking for a pissing

match so if I may have offended in some way please feel free to let

me know off-group.

 

 

 

, surpriseshan2

wrote:

> Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

> (NaturalNews) It was one of the dumbest " green " ideas ever

proposed: Convert millions of acres of cropland into fields for

growing ethanol from corn, then burn fossil fuels to harvest the

ethanol, expending more energy to extract the fuel than you get from

the fuel itself! Meanwhile, sit back and proclaim you've achieved a

monumental green victory (President Bush, anyone?) all while

unleashing a dangerous spike in global food prices that's causing a

ripple effect of food shortages and rationing around the world.