COLA just got very expensive April 24, 2008Posted by Administrator in Environmentalism, Global Warming, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing.
Actually, Pepsi might be the only thing whose price is NOT rising right now. But in these times of skyrocketing fuel prices coupled with rising food prices, the Cost of Living Adjustments are not going to keep up. . .leaving many of us on the margin with some difficult choices to make.
But, as usual, the Anchoress raises an interesting point re: biofuels. Like so many of the current fad beliefs -reality TV is quality programming, American Idol showcases real talent, Obama is the Messiah, all political candidates are really different this time around, the world is warming due us Bad Humans- this one struck me as more than a little unlikely to “solve all of our problems.”
Consider: Biolfuels have the following, immediate effects on the world that we have generally come to believe are undesirable:
- They really do nothing to encourage conservation in consumers
- There is no real conservation of fuel at all, in fact, it is likely that more fuel is consumed in producing biofuels. Harvest and fertilizations processes consume much petroleum. Granted, there is a “free” exchange that occurs through photosynthesis, but much of this is then offset by the planting and harvest petroleum uses.
- Significant increases in fertilizers add to the river run-offs that are purportedly damaging sea-life off of river mouths, most notably the Mississippi.
- Most damning, the food supply becomes limited, driving up prices and limiting access.
We are hearing about food riots in developing countries, and the press is making hay about Sam’s Club limiting bulk purchases of rice. Like anything reported by todays Yellow Journalists, the context of these reports needs to be taken with a large block of salt.
Yet. This hearkens back to the Anchoress’ point: Is the use of food for energy consumption -rather than for human consumption- morally acceptable?
Yeah, it’s bad policy. But I’m wondering if it is also immoral?
I’m sure that sounds extreme, and I don’t mean to. It also sounds very Roman Catholic, but I can’t help that; it seems to me that there is a morality question here – is it ever right to burn food for energy when people are hungry?
Taking a line through the idea of things being used for the purposes intended, one might call burning for food both “disordered” and (when doing so threatens humanity) “intrinsically evil.”
I just know it makes me uncomfortable as hell to consider burning fuel to zip down to Walt Disney World, if it means people somewhere else are struggling to get fed.
Well, from my perch, she should not be questioning herself. She’s dead right. It is morally indefensible to be burning food for our own comfort while others are starving.
Welcome to 21st Century Liberalism. Where We Burn Our Own Food While Third World Indigents Starve.*
*(And don’t forget, we’re the party of the Little Guy!!!)