atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#989: Let's continue to burn food!

"Silent famine" as food crops are increasingly used to generate biofuel. It's been demonstrated that biofuel doesn't fix anything. It's a net consumer of petroleum. Food prices have increased 65% since 2002, and people are beginning to starve, yet we persist in thinking that we're somehow saving the environment or "reducing our dependence on foreign oil" or some horseshit like that.

About 25% of the corn grown in the US last year went into making ethanol. Any wonder that food is more expensive now? When farmers were specifically switching to growing corn because the government subsidy made it especially attractive?

When you have a record high price for corn in a year like last year, when crop yields were at an all-time high, it is indicative of record high demand: even with a bumper crop of the stuff the price for corn is higher than it has ever been.

Now, because corn is expensive--because we are burning it--you can expect meat to reach an all-time high price later this year. (Hay is also at a record high price due to drought. It's going to catch up with us.)

Meanwhile, ethanol has been shown not to do any of the things it was supposed to do, such as reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce our need for petroleum, etc, etc. A gallon of ethanol requires more than a gallon of oil to produce, and for your trouble you get a fuel with a lower energy content to boot. It doesn't work. But because biofuels are the big fad, a lot of poor people in third world countries are going to starve--when they wouldn't have to if we'd get our heads out of our asses.

And, by the way, ethanol hasn't reduced the price of oil one whit, which is the only way to measure how effective it is an an alternative. In fact, I could make a case demonstrating that ethanol and biofuel production has increased the cost of oil and energy...but I don't really need to, right? Y'all are smart enough to connect the dots, right?

Meanwhile, the Demokrat-controlled congress is taking oil executives to task for the high price of energy.

The Democrats, eco-nuts, and NIMBY folks won't let us exploit our domestic oil resources, even though the "record high prices" are due entirely to the fact that oil prices are dependent on a boatload of dictators who don't like the US. We could drop the price of oil drastically just by bringing our own resources into play and building a few more refineries. Pass a law stating that domestic US oil cannot be sold outside the US--while continuing to allow whatever imports--and believe me, the price of oil in the United States will drop. (Particularly if we get some new freaking refineries.)

On the plus side, with oil profits hovering near the all-time highs of the late 1970s, we can expect an '80s-style oil glut to come into play soon as oil production ramps up to take advantage of the high prices of crude. But that won't happen before 2010 at the earliest, IMHO, and if there's a Democrat in the White House you know he'll take credit for it even while he's demonizing the oil companies. (I say "he"--despite the nonzero probability that we may have a woman President next year--because I have a preference for standard English. It's called "grammar". The feminists who want me to say "they" or "s/he" or WTF-ever could suck it if I was willing to risk the Big Unit in their ore grinders...but I'm not, so they can imagine sucking it.)

* * *

Dumbass. Woman wants to ban BB guns because they "look real" and might hurt someone.

This is why some hardcore conservative women get annoyed with their own sex. This is why some other folks say that women gave us the nanny state.

* * *

Free speech=hate crime. What's interesting about this story--other than the fact that the Chippewa Cree tribal council apparently wanted to be able to prosecute people who said bad things about them--is the offhand way it mentions that California is well on its way to criminalizing opinion:
California's legislature in recent months approved its own plan, SB 777, which disallows comments reflecting negatively on alternative sexual lifestyles such as homosexuality and bisexuality in any school class, event, book, resource or program.
In other words, if you mention in school that practicing the homosexual lifestyle gives you a greatly increased chance of acquiring a sexually-transmitted disease, you can go to jail for it.

Even though it's a fact.

Since it's an offhand remark in the middle of an article about something else, there's no explanation of whether or not it applies to all schools, or just the government indoctrination centers schools. But I'd wager it was "all"--and if you're not even allowed to present the facts about something (because the facts make it look bad) you are out of the arena of "education" and into "indoctrination".

Education involves presenting all the facts, not just the ones you agree with. Indoctrination attempts to instill a certain mindset, and therefore omits facts which are inconvenient.

I expect this is one reason California is attempting to eliminate homeschooling. Government wants to be in charge of what your children learn and when, and is doing its best to make it impossible (or at least illegal) for you to have any input in the process.

Well, it was a nice country while it lasted, I guess.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.