Community | August 25, 2011 | 19 comments

Progressives Contributing to World Starvation and Poverty or "Cornholing the Future"

Image
congoboy
There’s lot of gloom and doom being pushed, trying to link food prices to climate change by the usual howlers. As shown above, food prices surged to record levels in February despite February wheat and rice prices being essentially flat. Yet, February corn prices are up significantly even with 2010 being the 3rd largest U.S. corn crop ever. Why? Well part of the reason is that our cars now have a mandated, growing and voracious appetite for corn based ethanol.

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. writes:

When certain information proves challenging to entrenched political or ideological commitments it can be easy for policy makers to ignore, downplay or even dismiss that information. It is a common dynamic and knows no political boundaries. Global Dashboard catches the Obama Administration selectively explaining the causes for increasing world food prices:

“The increase in February mostly reflected further gains in international maize prices, driven by strong demand amid tightening supplies, while prices rose marginally in the case of wheat and fell slightly in the case of rice.”

“In other words, this is mainly about corn. And who’s the biggest corn exporter in the world? The United States…And where is 40% of US corn production going this year? Ethanol, for use in US car engines.”

So here we having wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects over global food prices, and they are using this as an example of the supposed “climate change drive food prices” link. Of course there isn’t any link in this case. It’s the corn stupid.

The simple solution: stop burning food for fuel, drill for more oil, work on alternate energy system that actually might work, like thorium based nuclear power. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/05/the-reverse-of-uns-disasterous-oil-for-foo...
  1. groups:
    Community
  2. tags:
    Ethanol,  world starvation
  3.     
    |

19 comments // Progressives Contributing to World Starvation and Poverty or "Cornholing the Future"

  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  

    • @congoboy why the truth is it hurts because my brothers and sisters worldwide have been taking it up the cornhole for decades by regressives that spout the same nonsense as you.

    • 9 months ago
  • congoboy
  • jubal
  • congoboy
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • congoboy:

      Heterosexuals relish this activity just as much as homosexuals. By no means do homos have a monopoly on anal sex.

      My do you live a sheltered life. Anal intercourse is a hot subject on HBO and Showtime movies and series as a featured acitivity that Heteros get into. Not to mention its been a form of birth control for millenia.

    • 9 months ago
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • jubal:

      my life is far from sheltered and i am also aware that there are plenty of heteros who practice the act. i just find it unappealing regardless to who's on the receiving end. now oral sex, thats my preferred way of birth control! look i dont care what consenting adults of any persuasion do to or with themselves in the privacy of their own homes as long as no one gets hurt and no children are involved. i have my opinions but they dont cross into legislating the behavior of responsible adults personal and private lives

    • 9 months ago
  • jubal
  • congoboy
  • DavidYates
    • 0
      DavidYates  

    • Public transit, regardless of the fuel we use (though preferably electric), is ultimately an important part of the solution. Taking millions of vehicles with single occupants off the road can only improve the situation. Of course, there is a deeply entrenched opposition, as shown by the refusal of some state governors to accept funding for these projects. Check out the history of the Red Car rail/streetcar service in Los Angeles that was bought and dismantled--much to the chagrin of the public--by an oil company and a rubber company and replaced with buses. The attempt to replace it is incredibly expensive, but thankfully, it is being attempted.

    • 9 months ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  

    • NO!!! WRONG!!

      Progressives don't give a shit about biofuel. Most recognize (consistently with their belief systems) that it's a stupid idea and another corn subsidy.

      What we want is electric car infrastructure. Electric cars as an option and more expenditure on mass transit.

      Just Janforgore, you will find that your assumptions about us are off.

    • 9 months ago
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • CreditFigaro:

      progressives don't care about the "Earth". Controlling energy gives them total control of the means of production. Which translates as total control over food, shelter, goods and services. It's the perfect, undercover communist/fascist coup...as they wrap themselves in virtue for "saving the planet." Hitler was an "environmentalist" too.
      Progressives divide the world into victims and exploiters, and see themselves as saviors of the underdogs who are incapable of fending for themselves. And that requires greater government power in their hands, to vanquish the exploiters. This perspective explains much of what President Obama is doing with the vast powers at his disposal.

      This administration has big business in its sights. While there are a couple of corporations like G.E. who are court favorites because they do the Progressives' bidding...the current government's attitude toward commerce is that they exploit the masses as labor or consumer, are run by fat-cats who don't pay their "fair share", and should be regulated by the government which is working in "the best interests of the People.
      There is one goal, and one goal only for Progressives...Government growth and its intrusion into every aspect of our lives. When you understand that, all their apparently idiotic policies make perfect sense. Growing government is the real reason Progressives are pushing socialized medicine. They know perfectly well it doesn't work. They are neither blind nor stupid. They don't care about your health, or what healthcare costs you now, or about rationing or low quality care. No arguments about the inadequacy of government-run healthcare will move them. Socialized Medicine grows government, and gives it total power over our bodies. They will literally, with the stroke of a pen, have life and death power over every single person in the country. It doesn't get more totalitarian than that.

    • 9 months ago
  • Vic_Romano
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • Vic_Romano:

      good point, another draw back of bush. he was part progressive. but even though bush had a hand in the movement it has really been progressives who have driven the push to world starvation and poverty. kinda makes conservatives the kinder gentler party. thanks for the funny video vickie

    • 9 months ago
  • hammywill
    • +1
      hammywill  
    • congoboy:

      As a progressive myself...this idea of burning FOOD as FUEL is about as stupid as it gets. There is no doubt in my mind that using food as fuel, as well as rampant commodities speculation is the reason food prices have risen. On this issue we agree Congoboy..:-)

    • 9 months ago
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • hammywill:

      i wish more people did. there are other non edible plant materials that can also be used. im all for weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels but it has to be gradual and done with thought not emotion. peace

    • 9 months ago
  • nashkildare
    • 0
      nashkildare  

    • Iowa politics, "Hey, lets drum up the fact that ethanol burns cleaner. Nevermind that it takes a whole bunch of energy to make and thusly puts more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We gotta sell some corn. Fuck solar or wind."

    • 9 months ago
  • congoboy
  • nashkildare
    • 0
      nashkildare  
    • congoboy:

      Actually to make ethanol would produce green house gases. Using regular gasoline is about the same as using ethanol when it comes to green house gases and ethanol doesn't burn quite as good as gasoline and thusly will get you less mpg. About 33%.

    • 9 months ago
  • congoboy
more from Community:
from the community

top videos