One thing that rarely gets discussed when it comes to global food supplies, as far as I have seen, is population stasis.  The underlying problems with climate change and overcrowding are a direct result of the dramatically increasing human population on Earth.  Ideas like population control can touch off highly charged moral debate, but at what point do we accept that this is an issue that may need to be addressed before we can solve other problems?  

Sustainability seems like a much more difficult proposition when we are forced to choose between food and something as crucial to our long-term survival as the Amazon rain forest. I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but it might be time to start encouraging, if not enforcing, responsible population growth.  

Someone very simply and very succinctly mentioned to me the other day: "why dont we just eat less?"

I can relate to the last quote in this article. I was discussing the food shortage and biofuel issues and then a large hipped women joined the conversation and said (I paraphrase): "I didn't know there was a food shortage... bring it on, I might loose some weight"  arghh

So he is contending there is no way to feed everyone except to burn more forest and plow it under.

by doing this he is admitting that biofuel farming is the culprit in the current food shortage.  How so?  His admission makes it a stark dilemna.  Put the acreage now devoted to fuel, back to food or starvation and riots will continue.

Growing fuel doubles the GHG per mile of gas guzzling over oil.  And it starves people. Forests remove excess GHG from the atmosphere.

Thanks, you proved our point mr big shot "farmer".  When was the last time you rode a  tractor?  hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Actually, that is the question that motivates me more than anything else, from a moral point of view - WILL the planet be fine, if we are gone? The way we are changing the atmosphere and the amount of poisons we are putting in the system makes me wonder if we might permanently damage the planet. How can we know it will be quickly restored to a vibrant, pristine state, full of life and abundance, after all the changes we have made to it?

Therer's hidden assumptions in Maggi's arguments;  1) first world nations don't cut back their consumptions; 2) present world economic arrangemets such as Cargil's & Archer Midlands working with Maggi stay the same.  Both can change and then his argument falls apart.

As for me, the more I see ethanol for fuel, the more horrible it looks. I decided I'd never put ethanol, which is worse for global warming than oil and helps drive up fuel prices--in my car.

 What if millions and millions of people decided not to use ethanol and the whole ethanol industry collapsed. Around 2000 many people around the world protested genetically modified seeds, so profits went down and multi-nationals pulled out their investments. It really happened. So if we don't use ethanol, that industry will collapse too. We don't have to buy into the false propaganda and lies about ethanol.

  By the end of World War II 40% of American produce was raised in victory gardens--what if people in 1st world nations cut consumption by growing 40%  our produce? There would be plenty of food for people in 3rd world nations. Further, what if we demanded buses and bike lanes, cutting our consumption of oil. We could change the whole economic system, and knock the Maggis of the world flat on their behinds.

Human population absolutly factors into the equation. Geometric doubling rate since 1950 has had a negitive effect on the earth ability to feed and provide energy to the population.

High prices may curb demand and we do need to stop using food sorces to make ethanol from. Their are so many viable options out there, food should never have been considered.

The reduction in the populations of the earth either by war, disease, starvation all the solution of the four horsemen. I know that is only three but religious fervor in the place in the world most of our energy comes from will have its place in time.

When it becomes obvious a country that can feed itself can't influence the decision making process of third world coutries when it comes to population reduction reducing exports in order to sustain one self becomes more tolerable.

Food for oil, possible but I don't like carbon fuels so I hope we can become energy independent with out oil, coal or food ethanol.

Long term solutions are possible, the time for intermediate and short term solutions is fleeting. You just have about a 20 year window once you hit peak oil, I feel we have squandered the oportunity and now will have to rely on market forces and Malthus Theory to put the energy and food crisis back in balance.

I would hope if it has to happen it would happen before we lose the rain forest, the so called lungs of the planet. I would also hope we could save Appalachia, I know our forest are decidious and only help the planet breath from spring until fall but I am kind of partial to them.

I would love to have a mountain and a valley left to sustain a forest on but we are also a back burner issue right now.

When it comes to quick decisions for the food or energy solution all the poor choices will be made first. Coal, drilling for oil anwhere it may be found, nuclear, food ethanol and trying to rely on a portion of the world where neither oil production nor transportation can be guaranteed.

Not to worry, old Malthus will step in and replace Bush as the great decider, the great stabilizer and equalizer. He will get your population down to sustainable levels for you, give you some time to make more intelligent choices in your food and energy choices.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

"Growing fuel doubles the GHG per mile of gas guzzling over oil."
Just like it tripled food prices in Mexico, right? LOL When are you going to quit w/ this tripe?

could you possibly elaborate?

that article mentions land-use-change as the bogeyman...a far cry from "growing fuel doubles GHG"

It's really clear at this point that biofuels are as bad as, if not worse than, petroleum.  They do nothing to alleviate global warming and their consumption causes destruction of natural ecosystems and food scarcity and higher prices.

So, for everyone who doesn't want to greatly reduce or eliminate use of private motor vehicles, what do you suggest as a solution to the ecological and environmental problems caused by driving?

Your arguement still rests on land-use-change. One more time: Where current cropland is used, corn and sugar ethanol, with all inputs considered, have been shown to emit less GHG's than gasoline.

I could certainly comment on sustainable farming practices that would minimize: 1) the loss of carbon stored in the soil, as well as 2) the amount of N inputs. I'd rather not blow this post out though. For the sake of preventing further erroneous blanket statements, I'm just reiterating that under normal circumstances, ethanol emits less GHG than gasoline.

Except that your "normal circumstances" basically don't exist in the current real world.

Wind for power generation and natural gas for transportation.

The wind belt from Texas to Canada will supply most of your electrical needs. Boone Pickins an oil man is already investing here. Run your transmission lines east and west and get off coal.

The new natural gas car, Honda has one good example is far cleaner than the traditional gasoline engine. I am not talking about conversions. A sister company is producing Natural Gas Charge stations you hook to your home natural gas supply. Fleet Nat Gas has been around for years.

Mass transit is picking back up, all the pork money spent on corn should go into mass transit. Amtrak passenger service is up 11% already and more high speed rail is needed between major cities.

Buses need to all be natural gas and more bus lines established. Inter city and Interstate. We used to have more bus lines but big oil and the auto industry destroyed them.

Natural gas is competitive with oil and cost effective. The new NGC is so low in pollution that the old pollution testing devices don't register.

This could be a transition or short term fix because nat gas is also a finite resource. It is available short term and a better solution than spending the next 50 years in energy wars.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.