Are biofuels a 'crime against humanity'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm Biofuels 'crime against humanity'
The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger. The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels. Mr Ziegler's remarks, made at the UN headquarters in New York, are clearly designed to grab attention. He complained of an ill-conceived dash to convert foodstuffs such as maize and sugar into fuel, which created a recipe for disaster.

I have very mixed feelings on this outcry. I accept that biofuels are not sustainable, but I also accept that all modern agriculture is not sustainable.

I accept that the international trade values of grains have increased greatly in recent years. On the other side, I sort of think farmers complain about the LOW value for their crops, requiring government subsidies, so high prices ought to be good, right? It'll encourage farmers to stay in farming and pay more attention to their farming methods and perhaps become better farmers. It'll also help make all localized farming to be more competitive, and help consumers have their food produced closer to home where they can make a difference.

All that said in support for farmers, I accept "industrial farming" can take advantage of subsidies for biofuel production, and encourage expansion of agriculture, causing a greater destruction stress on the environment, AND not being properly accounted for in cost, ALTHOUGH same issue can be true for food production.

So ultimately I'm against biofuels AND food PRIMARILY for the CONTROL of land by large agriculture for exports, without consideration for local needs. I don't know how to face this issue, where a minority controls resources that fail to meet the needs of a local population.

I do think control of food can be used as a weapon, as a means of controlling a population AND it is hard to see this in a land of apparent plenty, where we have supermarkets full of more choices that we could otherwise imagine without seeing it.

Mostly I think we ALL need to consume defensively, and respect those who have less, helping them meet their own needs before exports.

A right to consume?

I wonder WHEN it is acceptable for a government to ration a resource?

Our "Capitalistic model" says that everything has a price: "If you can pay, you're ok."

It's a good working solution, but there are limitations.

One limitation is on the side of the seller. If the seller stolen the good being sold, or in some way harmed someone else in the process of bringing something to market, then the good have an unseen cost. Ideally the seller is still responsible for that cost but power in the world isn't necessarily held honestly so the seller may never be held accountable. Because of this limitation, it is reasonable for the buyer to be held responsible as well. If you buy something stolen, and it can be proved, your purchase can be lawfully taken away from you, or perhaps a fine could be given to you. Not that this makes it any easier for the buyer to detect honest trade, but it gives an incentive to pay attention and ask questions.

The second limitation is on inequality of buyers. It is possible to judge that some uses for a resource or produce are more important than others, and upon such a collective judgement, some sort of limitation may be required on some buyers - either to pay a higher tax or to be limited in quantity of consumption.

Clear examples may be difficult in times of surplus when sellers will be trying to widen their market, and it doesn't matter how wasteful consumption is, since it'll be wasted anyway.

Surplus can have a funny quality in that there may be times where supply far exceeds demand and so sellers will feel forced to sell a product much more cheaply than times when supply was limited. Specifically, when a product is LIMITED, its value is generally equal to the next best alternative. When a produce is in EXCESS, its value is limited by the ability of the seller to hold back inventory.

Back to consumers, in a blind system with a short memory, price is everything, and so consumption can continue and expand as long as price allows it.

Well, given this blindness, I see it is right for a government to make judgements upon consumption of resources and make decisions that raise the cost of products that are limited, or threaten to be limited in the future. It's always risky business, to "prejudge" value and future scarcity, or future costs, but even if its hard it ought to be done.

Fossil fuels stand as the greatest example of this. We don't know the future, but we know there's costs now (pollution), risks now (unfriendly sellers), that the costs and risks are increasing in the future, even if any specific crisis can't be predicted.

Well, all of that is in justification on why we NEED higher fuel prices NOW, to raise the costs of fossil fuels until more sustainable alternatives are competitive. In the process we need to reduce our over all demand, and we need to do it in a way that allows prices to change slow enough that people cand adjust and make decisions.

We should have started 30 years ago, and perhaps its too late. Maybe we're all on our own. But I hope the government can challenge the market a little more, to reduce our consumption.

If we don't it can't end well. We've got too much debt, and no combination of alternatives can replace the lifestyles we know, supported by cheap fossil fuels.

We can talk of "Carbon taxes" and I don't mind that. We can increase gas taxes, and I don't mind that. But the "most fair" approach is to simply ration consumption. Let the low consumers hold on a while longer, and let the high consumers be the engines of change, or pay enough into the system so the government can lead the changes that reduce consumption.

Probably too late, yes, but just thought I'd try my late defense for the obvious.

$100 oil response?

On the cusp of oil selling for a record $100/bbl, some people are calling for ACTION, but what can we do?
http://oilawareness.meetup.com/21/calendar/6648640/ Event Description: How should the Twin Cities respond to $100+ barrel oil?

Heck if I know. I don't own a car. I commute by bike mostly, and bus as a backup under poor weather.

I think expensive oil is WHAT WE NEED to change directions. There is quite a lot of TALK about change, but nothing to me looks realistic. The future isn't likely to be filled with liquid fuel transportation, at least not at a price that allows us the consumption we know now!

It is still laughably ironic to me to have politicians past and present still calling for reducing fuel taxes to help people, while cheaper prices merely delay the hard decisions. And the government wouldn't have as much debt if we had a nice $5/gallon gasoline excise tax!

I admit I'm so frustrated that all "public outreach" seems fruitless. People are Freakin' sheep, or so I exclaim, or better yet Lemmings marching happily towards the cliffs, blissfully unaware their their blessed leaders could be as clueless as they are! But I'm a sheep or lemming too, just a well paid one, earning more money than I need at present.

Yes, plug-in hybrids - rah rah! Let's do it! And some FULLY electric cars as well - much lighter and efficient for city driving. YES - let's go!

But mostly my only public message is "We're freakin' screwed. Don't blame anyone you can't see in the mirror. You wanted your cake and now you can lay in it, six feet under." Or something more sensical than that.

Anger isn't a very productive tool beyond immediate response to a threat.

No, worse than KNOWING our fate, I don't have any solutions but "powerdown", scaling back our expectations, scaling back our consumption. I don't see capitalism as being able to help people when energy costs more than people can afford. I don't see government as being able to help people for the sheer scale of need that will come. AND the reality is those who BEST prepare now, or are fortunate enough to have something, will likely have to surrender it to the needs of the many. So HOARDERS beware - your gold and your land won't protect you.

No, what I'm missing is actual willingness to take economic risk - to invest money in solutions rather than just paying down debt, to invest time in SKILLS that will be needed in a future I can't see clearly, and still seems "far away" even if it might come in 5 years or less!

Sure, we need the capitalists to revision the world under less energy, and take risks to get rich on the rest of us poor slobs waiting for someone to save them. AND we need the social workers and do-gooders to handle the soup lines for those who failed to prepare.

We need lots of good ideas on how to change our expectations, to restore community as the proper center of life over consumerism. LOTS of change needed.

And I feel powerless in 90% of it, and will continue.

And worse, some "American First" organization is going to rise in the next 5 years to national power on the claim to restore the greatness of America when the rest of the world stops paying for our debts and all the smart capitalists have fled to Argentina. Hitlers can rise in a future lacking clear direction for self-esteem. We're all sheep afterall, and the wolf is scariest when you can't see him coming!

A $100 oil response?

Get out of debt, and "dig in" where ever you can, since you might be there for a while.