• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The ethanol conspiracy

bonkey said:
...
The point I was - and am - making is that I believe it is hypocritical to argue that land is better used to provide the privileged with one luxury over another based on an argument about the needs of the less privileged, which is effectively what Ben was arguing....that we shouldn't grow biofuel because of the starving millions, but corn-for-beef-for-the-wealthy was ok.
Click to expand...

But range land has no other use. Grazing is all you can do with it to convert it into food. Hence, meat must be part of the solution.
 
BenBurch said:
But range land has no other use. Grazing is all you can do with it to convert it into food.
Click to expand...

And nowhere have I once suggested that we not use it for this use.

Look, BB, when someone suggested that your point is that we stop using corn/soy to feed cattle, you told them to stop putting words in your mouth.

You've since gone on to say that you believe we will stop using corn/soy to feed cattle.

If I misunderstood your point when you complained about someone putting words in your mouth, its because I took your objection to mean you disagreed with the point, rather than what appears to be the case - that you agreed with the point but apparently had some other, unknown objection.

The only other option is that you're saying we should feed corn/soy to cattle, but economics will cause us not to. If thats the case, then my argument applies to what you think should be done.

Where you think I'm questioning the use of range land is, quite frankly, beyond me. I have repeatedly made it clear that I'm referring to land which can be put to other food-production.
 
Last edited:
No, I don't want to prohibit it. I just think we need to stop it. HUGE difference. Meat is OK. Soon it will become obvious that we cannot feed human food to cattle. But at least that is still food at the end. Alcohol fuel from food is just immoral.
 
me said:
when someone suggested that your point is that we stop using corn/soy to feed cattle, you told them to stop putting words in your mouth.
Click to expand...

BenBurch said:
No, I don't want to prohibit it. I just think we need to stop it.
Click to expand...

I think I can see now why you told them to stop putting words in your mouth, and indeed why you seemed to think I was talking about range land when I was clearly talking about choosing to feed crops to animals rather than use the land for other purposes.

But at least that is still food at the end. Alcohol fuel from food is just immoral.
Click to expand...

I refer you back to my earlier argument, which effectively asks how it is immoral to feed X people from an area of land, and produce alcohol fuel it as well, but OK to feed the same number of people from the same area of land, using a different food-source / food-chain, because you're not producing alcohol fuel from it.

In other words, instead of feeding (say) a thousand people grain, its ok to feed 100 meat and let 900 starve, but its immoral to feed 100 grain, allow 900 starve and produce biofuel. From my perspective, if there's something immoral in there, its the 900 starving people common to both, not the biofuel production.

I would also point out that we currently use far more grain/soy to feed cattle than we do to create biofuel....so our meat production is causing far more starvation in the world than our biofuel.
 
Last edited:
No, we were OK with respect to food production until we started diverting to fuel. BUT we were very close. Fuel has moved the crisis from a decade from now to now. So feedlot meat was not taking food out of anybody's mouths and would not be still if we had not fed all of our margin to the SUVs. Prior to now, starvation was entirely political, with extreme poverty and wars preventing distribution to the starving, not due to lack of food you could get on the market if you went to buy it.
 
BenBurch said:
No, we were OK with respect to food production until we started diverting to fuel.
Click to expand...

You're still saying that it is okay to starve people to produce meat for the rich, but its not ok to starve them to produce fuel for the rich.

And incidentally, you're wrong. The figures don't support that conclusion.

So feedlot meat was not taking food out of anybody's mouths and would not be still if we had not fed all of our margin to the SUVs.
Click to expand...
Ben, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but this is fiction.

As Monbiot wrote earlier this year, of the 2.13 billion tons of grain produced in 2007, almost exactly 1 billion went to feeding people. Of the remaining 1.1 billion, 100 million went to producing bio-fuel, whilst in excess of 750 million tons went to feeding cattle. Interesting, the 2007 yield broke all records, being about 100 million tons over 2006. So, one can - for 2007 at least - say that we can offset the gain in production entirely against fuel.

If your argument is correct, then starvation began in 2007, when our denands exceeded previous usage. Did starvation begin in 2007 Ben?

You argue that 750m for cattle is fair use, but 100m is immoral....that its this 100m that's causing starvation, and not the 750m. The 750m is ok to divert, but that 100m on top of it...thats immoral.

I argue that this distinction is farcical. You see it as ok starve people to supply someone with a steak dinner, but immoral to put gas in their tank. I disagree. I think you either accept that the problem is that the developed world simply doesn't care enough to save them (and thus what we do with the grain is not relevant at all), or you accept that we should do something ( in which case, arguing that its ok to starve them for steak but not for gas is, honestly, unfathomable).

If it makes you feel better, you go on believing that corn-to-beef is moral. I side with Monbiot - you're part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
And ethanol is the reason.
Click to expand...

Right. Forget about the other billion tons of grain we could feed to people...the 100 million is the problem.

Take all biofuels out of the equation and we would have about ten more years.
Click to expand...
Take all meat-from-corn out of the equation, and how much would we have? - by Monbiot's figures, half that would buy us through to 2050....so I'm guessing it would get us around 65-70 years.

But thats not immoral...no...thats fine.

People were starving before we started food-to-fuel conversion, even though we had the food to feed them....but you argue that it is only this conversion which is immoral.

The direct implication of your position is that it wasn't immoral that people were starving before we were generating biofuels, even though we had the abillity to feed them.

The direct implication of that is that the decision to allow someone to starve when you have the wherewithal to feed them is not immoral in and of itself.

So please, Ben...what is the root of this immorality? As far as I can see, you're still just saying its okay to starve people so that the rich can have steak dinners, but not so that the rich can drive automobiles. If I'm wrong...please...put me out of my ignorance and make your position clear.
 
BenBurch said:
Meat from corn WILL come out of the equation. By necessity.
Click to expand...

What necessity, Ben? The necessity to feed the starving poor? We're letting plenty of them starve today, so why does it become a necessity to feed them once their numbers grow?

Are you suggesting that there's some critical mass, that once enough of them are dying from starvation, meat-from-corn will become immoral...but its fine today because...well...we can blame their starvation on something else?

Once our shortfall exceeds all the other non-food uses of grain, then grain-to-meat becomes immoral? Is that it, Ben? You've established some hierarchy of "grain use by the rich, for the rich" that defines immorality as "there's enough grain higher on my hierarchy to feed the starving, so this use is ok for now"?


But Meat will still be there. Has to be there. We cannot get by without range-grazed meat.
Click to expand...

Why do I have to point out again that no-one other than you has brought range-grazed meat into this discussion? Its not relevant to the topic. Its not relevant to the points criticising use of grain...but again and again you feel the need to defend it as though it somehow relevant to your argument defending grain-to-meat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom