On The Titanic.
As the UK Daily Telegraph and the New York Times, among others, have been reporting, it's getting a lot more expensive to eat! Also, more expensive to drive. The people with money, of course, have options. Choices. The people who live on, or below, the margin, the ones who never had to worry about the cost of gasoline, because they had no gas tank to put it in, the people who mostly just worried about where the next meal was coming from; they have no choice to make.
After a remarkably short period of blind denial, some among us are seeing that the idea of replacing one source of hydrocarbons (petroleum) with another (grain crops) is, as Professor John Beddington, Britain's chief science adviser, says:
"Deeply Stupid".
Just a guess here, but given the desire of people to have the world work the way they want it to, the professor is likely soon to be the Former Chief Science Adviser. Consider, for instance the opinion of Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, called the recent criticism of ethanol by foreign officials “a big joke.” The Senator from Corn pretends to believe that we should place the blame for the increasing cost of food squarely where it belongs: on God (drought in Australia), or the Chinese (eating too much meat!). I think the original pronouncement of Professor Beddington probably applies here. It seems quite obvious to me that the reasonable thing to do, just as in the case of Global Warming, is to change the things that are within your power to change. Blaming God is not generally an effective measure. But, as the first President Bush put it years ago now, "We Want People To Conserve Energy, But We Don't Want Them To Change Their Lifestyle." Well. Yes. Of course. That's sure to work.
In sum; changing the source of your hydrocarbon supply is about as effective as changing deck chairs on the Titanic. It won't change the outcome of the Iceberg-Titanic Interaction.
As the UK Daily Telegraph and the New York Times, among others, have been reporting, it's getting a lot more expensive to eat! Also, more expensive to drive. The people with money, of course, have options. Choices. The people who live on, or below, the margin, the ones who never had to worry about the cost of gasoline, because they had no gas tank to put it in, the people who mostly just worried about where the next meal was coming from; they have no choice to make.
After a remarkably short period of blind denial, some among us are seeing that the idea of replacing one source of hydrocarbons (petroleum) with another (grain crops) is, as Professor John Beddington, Britain's chief science adviser, says:
"Deeply Stupid".
Just a guess here, but given the desire of people to have the world work the way they want it to, the professor is likely soon to be the Former Chief Science Adviser. Consider, for instance the opinion of Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, called the recent criticism of ethanol by foreign officials “a big joke.” The Senator from Corn pretends to believe that we should place the blame for the increasing cost of food squarely where it belongs: on God (drought in Australia), or the Chinese (eating too much meat!). I think the original pronouncement of Professor Beddington probably applies here. It seems quite obvious to me that the reasonable thing to do, just as in the case of Global Warming, is to change the things that are within your power to change. Blaming God is not generally an effective measure. But, as the first President Bush put it years ago now, "We Want People To Conserve Energy, But We Don't Want Them To Change Their Lifestyle." Well. Yes. Of course. That's sure to work.
In sum; changing the source of your hydrocarbon supply is about as effective as changing deck chairs on the Titanic. It won't change the outcome of the Iceberg-Titanic Interaction.
No comments:
Post a Comment