I just read an enlightening post by
Mark Steyn on the unintended consequences of the environmental movement. The gist of the article is that being "green" comes at the expense of the "red and yellow, black and white" (see the children's church song). In employing biofuels to fight the supposedly disastrous effects of a 1 degree temperature increase over the span of the 20th century, enviros risk stopping the reforestation of Europe and North America (a process that has been ongoing much longer than the green movement) and speeding up deforestation in the developing world. In short, while increased prices and demand for crops leads to a greater desire for crop land (ie. stopping the current century+ trend of allowing land to return to a natural forested state), a lessened supply of FOOD crops from the industrialized west will lead the developing world to further clear-cut their own native forest in order to offset shortfalls.
To take government funds and subsidize the use of crops like corn and soy for fuel, as Steyn puts it:
"accomplished at a stroke what the free market could never have done: They turned the food supply into a subsidiary of the energy industry."
If a grower can now make more money (artificially inflated) per ton on fuel crops, why grow food? This isn't an issue for us in the industrial world where we can grow substantially more food than we could possibly consume, but the rest of the world will suffer for our arrogance. I relish the day when the enviro-alarmists will be forced to acknowledge that not only were they wrong but that they did more harm than good with their histrionics.
Posts
This is absolutely true. The risks of turning corn crops in Iowa into biofuel instead of human fuel (read,
ReplyDelete"food") runs the decided risk of exacerbating the food crisis that is already destroying people in developing countries. I am pretty sure people in Haiti would rather have food than know that my car isn't using unleaded gas.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to see corn coming out of anyone's tailpipe on the highway.
ReplyDeleteCorn, Whole: $5 per pound!
Tammi,
ReplyDeleteThat is precisely the arrogance to which I am referring. These are the very people who accuse me of not having a global focus because I drive an 8-cylinder vehicle. Yet where is that same scope of vision when it comes to how their initiatives (however well intentioned) affect the PEOPLE around the world?
The truth is that they don't really think of humans as extraordinary beings. Think of the implication of PETA's "Holocaust on your plate" campaign. KFC extra-crispy is equal to Nazi victims - it's an insult to Jews and Gentiles alike.
If you look into the hardcore leaders of the enviro-movement, they have admitted that to achieve their aims it will require somewhere between 50-90% decrease in the global human population. Survival of the fittest in this case means those with the means for survival; ie. wealthy westerners. And I'm the one being Amero-centric?!?
All of this over an increase in temperature (which, incidentally has been reversing for the past decade or so) that is drastically more effected by slight changes in the enormous, cosmic thermonuclear reaction that is our solar system's sun.
They're lying and they know it...Enviro-pimps....
And Aaron,
That is allsome! I should have linked to that post in this one. It was one of my first.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's a very humanistic, atheistic point of view. For believers, yes, we should take care of God's creation but not at the expense of those created in His own image. And, let's not decieve ourselves that anything we do or don't is somehow going to change God's ultimate plan and control over our world. I know I'm preaching to the choir.
ReplyDelete