In a recent interview with the Weekly Standard, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley weighed-in on the food-for-fuel debate. "If part of our problem is that the Chinese are going to eat meat and you've got to have corn and soybeans to feed the Chinese their meat, then why isn't it just as legitimate for the Chinese to go back and eat rice as it is for us to change our policy on corn to ethanol?" Despite the growing consensus (so to speak) that ethanol is not an environmentally-friendly fuel, drives up food prices and contributes to world starvation, Grassley isn't willing to surrender the $4.5b of federal ethanol subsidies and the farm lobby support that goes with it. The Weekly Standard condemns Grassley's position. "As this 'let them eat rice' soundbite made clear, the debate over the food versus fuel issue is about as undignified as a full out real food fight at a summer camp cafeteria."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Regardless of how you feel about ethanol production, there is really no way to suggest that diverting food stocks for other uses, such as fattening the pockets of US agribusiness, when there are starving people in the world makes sense or is in any way responsible and humane.
That being said, I find it rather troubling when anyone suggests it is somehow our responsibility to feed the world’s hungry. We are not the only nation with surplus food supplies or a powerful farm lobby.
Furthermore, it may be a more productive enterprise to relocate those starving people to regions capable of supporting sustained agriculture and human life rather than throwing food at those who will still be hungry next year, and the year after that.
Why should Grassley be condemned when so many other nations around the world have policies in place that are just as openly self serving.
I don’t see very many of these E85 pumps in my area. I assume that the gasoline I buy has about 10% Ethanol in it, but I would prefer to be given a choice at the pump.
There is so much Agribusiness lobbying money behind this. They get paid a subsidy to turn corn into ethanol and I can’t even set up a still out back to make white lightning. I’ll bet that cattle ranchers, hog and poultry farmers are not big fans of Sen. Grasley.
Why should Grassley be condemned when so many other nations around the world have policies in place that are just as openly self serving.
I think when a government fashions itself to be the protector of the world, its people might start to believe it. I don’t think the Chinese have that issue, but I don’t live there and only read the propaganda on -this- side of the world.
If a business needs to be subsidized to survive, the business model doesn’t work.
The sooner McCain or Obama starts addressing this issue, the better. Although, to McCain’s credit, he let Iowa know exactly where he stands on this.
What would you rather be:
1. a vegetarian driving a car, or
2. a pork chop chewer on a bicyle?
Just asking, because the way they put it the choice is between feeding corn to cars or pigs.
(maybe the choice is not that stark in reality?)
gamper:
That being said, I find it rather troubling when anyone suggests it is somehow our responsibility to feed the world’s hungry. We are not the only nation with surplus food supplies or a powerful farm lobby.
The point is price and market stability, which corn ethanol distorts. People make long term commitments based on a certain price range.
Why should Grassley be condemned when so many other nations around the world have policies in place that are just as openly self serving.
Because it is right to condemn an amoral, selfish POS regardless of location.
ihatetrees :
gamper:
That being said, I find it rather troubling when anyone suggests it is somehow our responsibility to feed the world’s hungry. We are not the only nation with surplus food supplies or a powerful farm lobby.
The point is price and market stability, which corn ethanol distorts. People make long term commitments based on a certain price range.
Why should Grassley be condemned when so many other nations around the world have policies in place that are just as openly self serving.
Because it is right to condemn an amoral, selfish POS regardless of location.
1) Get involved in the futures markets if you are worried stable prices.
2) Selfishness and morality are relative terms….which was my point. It is easy to curse the selfishness and lack of morality of others, it is quite another thing to get out your wallet when someone comes to your door asking for a donation.
gamper:
1) Get involved in the futures markets if you are worried stable prices.
Futures work well for weather and other natural uncertainties. Futures based on legislative or political acts don’t work because they are illegal. Don’t get me wrong – food futures contracts based on market distorting legislation pending in congress would be a plus.
2) Selfishness and morality are relative terms….which was my point
Given that statement, there’s no point in continuing this discussion.
Kudos to the Weekly Standard (from a liberal)
EJ_San_Fran :
August 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
What would you rather be:
1. a vegetarian driving a car, or
2. a pork chop chewer on a bicyle?
How about eating a vegetarian while driving an SUV? :D