Starvation is not a theory.

"Energy independence has emerged as a popular rallying cry in this U.S. election year", and Peter Kiernan says "energy independence is in fact not possible to secure in the United States in the foreseeable future, and is of doubtful utility in any country that might be in a position to achieve it."

Myths about oil:

The United States is dependent on Middle Eastern oil;

The U.S. is actually less dependent on Middle East producers for imported oil than the major oil-consuming economies of Europe and Japan. Among the major suppliers of imported oil to the U.S. are the Western Hemisphere producers of Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Nigeria and Angola are also major suppliers. In 2007, the Persian Gulf supplied about 21 percent of total U.S. oil imports, of which about three-quarters came from Saudi Arabia, while some came from Iraq and a small amount from Kuwait. [snip]

The United States can eliminate the need to import oil soon.

The U.S. is the world's largest oil market. It consumes 20.7 million barrels per day (b/d), or nearly one in four barrels of oil consumed in the world every day. Politicians and pundits have been calling for American energy independence for more than 30 years, but in that time imports have increased their share of the U.S. oil market from 28 percent in the early 1970s to about 60 percent today. [snip]

The activities of terrorist groups in the Middle East, such as al-Qaida, would be curtailed if oil revenue in the region dried up.

Terrorism, unfortunately, is cheap. [snip] Terrorists can incubate in unstable political conditions, regardless of what the price of oil is at any given time.

Petro-states such as Iran, Russia, Venezuela and others would be unable to defy the United States if their oil revenue were curtailed by the loss of the U.S. as purchaser of their oil exports.

... the United States does not import any oil from Iran because of sanctions, and it imports little oil from Russia. Russia is also a significant natural gas exporter, and the bulk of these exports go to Europe. (continue reading the myths at World Politics Review)

Bottom line? " ... the most important energy issue is global dependence on oil, not American dependence on oil per se, and that the world is only dependent on oil as a transport fuel because there is no ready substitute for it that would soon eliminate the need to use crude oil products.

TRUTH: Food-to-Fuel Leaves Less to Eat; Biofuels contributing to food crisis

Lumberjack provides a revised version of Google's Earth Day graphic:

Not to play the starving children card or anything, just to note, again, that the grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. And you hybrid drivers, well I suppose you can feel good that you only starve a half a person per fill-up. Let them eat oil, huh?

So, OK, right now most states don't go above 10% ethanol - let's just leave it at that for now. Let's not have Al Gore's theory take food out of the mouths of the poor. Because starvation happens, that's not a theory.

Costco and Sam's Club warehouses are limiting the amount of certain items customers can purchase. Sam's limited customers to four bags at a time of imported jasmine, basmati and long grain white rice.

The warehouse chain caters heavily to small businesses, including restaurants. Sam's Club spokeswoman Kristy Reed said she could not comment on whether the problem was caused by short supplies or by customers stocking up in anticipation of higher prices.

USA Rice Federation spokesman David Coia said there is no rice shortage in the United States. (continue reading at AP)

.

I would add to Mr. Coia's statement "YET", because there are certainly shortages of certain grain-food in other parts of the world and it is probably only a matter of time before we experience those shortages here in the United States IF we continue on this fantasy that we can use food for fuel and eliminate oil usage.

On the possible terrorist threat to the food supply. While contaminating US food supplies would be very difficult on a large scale (contaminating one truckload of grain would require a large amount of toxin. Producing that much toxin would require a substantial infrastructure –- one that would require a great deal of time and money to build. Not to mention the difficulty inherent in transporting and delivering the toxin.) On terrorists creating famine, considering 'the sheer size of the U.S. agricultural sector, conducting a productive assault proves difficult the most probable attack against the food supply is unlikely to create a significant death toll, but the panic such an attack may evoke can cause repercussions that are far greater than the death toll itself.' (Strategic Forecast)

Having stated the above -- the terrorists don't have to worry about causing food shortages in the US or anywhere else -- the Looney Left under the direction of Al Gore, are doing that for them.

Comments

[Debbie]

PJenk: You say, "We need long-term solutions based on reason, wisdom, cooperation, and science", I happen to agree with you.

Unfortunately using grains and food products, to the detriment of hungry humans around the world, is not using reason, wisdom, cooperation or science.

[PJenk]

Another comment: there are a variety of reasons that the cost of food commodities are rising. The contribution of diversion of grain products to the making ethenal is quite likely minimal and is not even mentioned by most commentators on the subject. This begs the question of why you would focus on it to the exclusion of other, more primary factors, in your blog? Again, your comments appear to be motivated by political ideology, rather than reason or facts.

[PJenk]

Another fact-not theory is that fossil fuels are a finite resource. The planet is not making more as fast as we are using it. That means that we can debate the wisest ways to move away from our dependence on it, but the supply/demand situation can only get worse over time if we don't. There used to be a common saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I think that is true in this case. Do we really want to ignore the future reality of dwindling supplies and skyrocketing costs? Calling people loony and setting up straw-man arguments does nothing to further the discussion. We need long-term solutions based on reason, wisdom, cooperation, and science...not ideologically driven name-calling.