- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Rodian, if you'd read my other postings, you'd know that I'm arguing for economically rewarding poorer people for living with less environmental impact.
My issue with alternative fuels is that it has done just the opposite. It punishes poor people by pushing up food costs in order to fuel the cars of the relatively wealthy.
I think the onus is on you, actually, to explain how the poor benefit from these alternative fuels. Or are they just excess rats who should accept their fate?
I think it's time to critically rethink alternative fuels using inclusive economic reasoning. There may be ways that these fuels can be incorporated as part of a reasoned global warming strategy.
But right now some nations with poor populations are reacting by closing off their food markets to protect their food-purchasers. That approach is hurting other, even poorer nations without adequate domestic food production, and is probably not in anyone's best interest in the long run. Politically, the alternative fuels movement has run into a PR disaster that could hurt other efforts to combat global warming.
