I Didn't Exactly Predict It, But Posted by David Shorr

Almost exactly a year ago, I objected to Tom Friedman's idea that the key to recovering America's standing is for us to go green. The current global food crisis highlights the contrast I drew between greenhouse gas reductions as a feel-good cause for the industrialized world and the more immediate concerns over in the developing world about low living standards.

As recent coverage in the Times indicates, there is even a direct trade-off between the two as we divert corn (much of it grown here in Iowa) from the dinner table to the gas tank, in the form of subsidized ethanol. Obviously American ethanol isn't the cause of the food shortage, but it's a distinct factor. I'm not making an argument against action on global warming, and I understand that emerging dramatic weather patterns associated with climate change are a cause of the food shortage. But my point stands about the important distinction between saving the planet for our kids and grandkids and the need to improve daily life right now to avoid mass suffering and political mayhem on a much shorter timescale. See Sameer Lalwani over at Washington Note for a more strategic and substantive post on the same subject.

Comments

[opit]

It's another case of oversimplification being disastrous. I do carry links to energy information sites,but one place gave me cause to think very few were giving the interrelated problems the systemic analysis they deserve
http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/

[Don Bacon]

There are other plants that are much better suited for biofuels than corn -- but grass doesn't vote and corn does (in effect). So we could've gone green without using corn.

If more people went Vegetarian we would really score. There would be plenty of food if we all ate lower on the food chain and didn't process grains through animals, which also require water and space, plus animal agriculture contributes more to global warming than transportation does.

[Dan Kervick]

I didn't think switching to ethanol had much to do with "going green" or combating global warming. The ethanol push is more connected to the drive for energy independence - an entirely different issue which is often mistakenly run together with the environmental concerns.

[Darius Sivin]

When corn is made into ethanol, the amount of energy that results exceeds the energy put into the corn by petrochemical fertilizer by only a small amount. Environmentalists DO NOT favor the use of corn ethanol. Archer Daniels Midland Company does. Corn ethanol is a federal corporate welfare program for which you incorrectly hold 'the greens' responsible.

[David Shorr]

Already knew that switchgrass is better, but production isn't as far along in development. Energy that goes into ethanol production is also a well known debate, but there's a positive trend line on that. Strongest point here is the distinction between reducing carbon emissions and energy independence. Doesn't ethanol blended gasoline burn cleaner? All of which to say I see the problem with ethanol, though have been skeptical that it is a pure boondoggle.

[David Billington]

The food shortages around the world have mainly to do with rice and wheat, not corn. More corn is diverted to feed animals so as to satisfy the demand for meat. If there is a shortage of corn as a food source, a better solution would be greater protein substitution in the developed world.

Alcohols burn cleaner than gasoline and biofuels from grass could make a contribution to US energy independence. But I think the short-term need is for more fuel efficiency coupled with conservation. The answer to industrial carbon emissions is better land management, ie. adding to the planetary plant cover to increase carbon dioxide absorption, until the level of industrial emissions can be stabilized or reduced.