Jed Rothwell wrote:
Some environmental groups reject the focus on ethanol in examining food
prices.
This is sophistry at its finest:
"The contrived food vs. fuel debate has reared its ugly head once
again," the Renewable Fuels Association says on its Web site, adding
that "numerous statistical analyses have demonstrated that the price of
oil -- not corn prices or ethanol production -- has the greatest impact
on consumer food prices
Note well: "oil ... has the *greatest* impact". IOW in a
multifactorial analysis the most significant single factor is the price
of oil.
Well, duh, that's not news, everybody knows that already. It's totally
misleading to try to use that to conclude that some other factor -- such
as use of corn for fuel -- is not *also* causing major trouble. Just
because a particular factor is not the *largest* factor doesn't mean it
is not a significant contributor to the price increase.
* * *
There's also something else missing in this debate: Traditional eastern
culture relied pretty heavily on plant foods. As has been pointed out
elsewhere in this thread, China and India, as they become more
prosperous, are switching to a more Western diet, which means: Heavier
on BEEF.
Meat production is hideously inefficient (post-processing soy beans by
feeding them to cows, instead of turning them into tofu, is economically
insane), and meat production is the largest single contributor to global
warming (or so I have read). A switch from a plant-based diet to a
meat-based diet by a substantial portion of the world population is
guaranteed to push up the price of all foods.
It's impossible, of course, but if we could get the majority of people
in the developed world to switch to vegan diets the result would be a
spectacular decrease in energy use, food prices, and greenhouse gas
emissions.
