It's just amazing to me that no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room: there are too goddamn many people.

Incorrect.

The elephant is total consumption. If somehow the total population was reduced by half tomorrow, but that half all consumed like the wealthiest today, we'd be in even worse shape.

It is a common dodge among the privileged to point at excessive population as the problem. The problem is not how many humans there are, but how many resources those humans use in total. The numerous poor use far less per capita.

Note that China, which has drastically reduced its population growth, is an environmental basket case primarily because its resource consumption has risen so dramatically--and far faster then the slowing increase in its population.

You criticise the Bush administration in your short blurb but you fail to highlight Barack Obama's strong and unrepentant support for corn-based ethanol.

Corn-based ethanol - bad for America, bad for humanity, and bad for planet Earth...

but good for our lord and saviour's election campaigns so what of it?

I cannot believe how many people fell for the greatest fraud of the twenty-first century, and how many still want to give him the wholly unearned benefit of the doubt.

A fool and his democracy are soon parted.

Never would have pegged you for a supply sider, Andrew. What about demand? Maybe we simply happen to have at least several billion more people than the planet will support. It's just amazing to me that no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room: there are too goddamn many people. No, instead everyone keeps trying to rationalize supporting denser and denser populations with less and less - and they call it "conservation". Or they simply stick their heads in the sand, pretend fundamentals are really just fine, and blame the damn "speculators". Both positions are sadly misguided.

The only thing I've ever heard consistently correlated with diminishing birth rates is education. Human population is the world's number one problem, for humans and every other species. Instead of throwing a trillion dollars into baseless human destruction in far away places, we should be waging war on ignorance; because education is the only way out of this mess. That, or face catastrophic annihilation - bombs, plagues, starvation - take your pick.

Slavery has been around since the time of Jesus as well. Doesn't mean it worked to benefit humankind, or was morally correct. The idea that futures speculation smooths out markets is fine... until a crash or a depression brought about by that speculation. When nobody has a job or income, things are very smooth indeed. Ever been to a horse race track? Willing to base the world's economy on the model of off track betting?

If we put our existence in the hands of a system, then the system will control our lives. It is no different than placing your fate in the hands of a religious institution, or a authoritarian government. When a humane doesn't have input, the results are inhumane. Darwinian techno meme of "free" markets is devoid of morality and humanity. That was Jesus' point then, his point is valid now.

And the number of thoughtful environmentalists who support corporate corn production for ethanol fuel is around zero (although there are probably a few outliers).

I don't think there are any environmentalists in the Midwest who believe in ethanol. It's definitely seen as big agribiz hokum. On the West Coast though, it's sometimes seen, rather simplistically, as the grain counterpart to bio-diesel. I can name names. ;)

There is no doubt, though, that bio-diesel has been a hobby horse of the lefty-enviro crowd (of which I am a member). What made me a skeptic was 1. anticipating that bio-diesel demand could not be met by food grease waste and would require diversion from food crops and 2. knowing that cooking oil is one of the most expensive and scarce food resources for the worlds poor, and one of the most necessary calorie-dense resources for them. I also think cooking with oil reduces their need for scarce cooking fuel because it is generally faster.

Folks there is no ONE answer, and certainly no one technological answer to these problems. It's weird to watch people chase one idea after another. Similarly, there is no answer that is completely wrong. Bio-diesel makes sense up to the limit of grease waste, for example. There might be some small role for ethanol, though certainly not if its production is subsidized.

What bothers me most, though, is that the two best, and related, answers are the most overlooked--total reduction of resource consumption, and economically rewarding actors who reduce their consumption.

Well, since fructose is also a corn derivative, maybe we could stage a national snacks & soda strike.

If we refused to eat all this toxic junkfood, it would depress the corn market signifcantly and lower the price of corn.

Seriously. Do you have any idea how much clout the snacks and drinks portion of our economy wields with lobbyists?

Fast food chains will be seeing such huge hits by winter that their surplus will go into depressing food prices since even a Big Mac is going into unattainable territory for the Working Broke in freezing houses.

And there were until recently all sorts of correlations between fructose intakes and obesity.

Although this may happen anyway in a de facto sort of way since snacks and soda are going to be the first out the door as we go on a national budget.

If I had the money I'd buy popcorn futures. Making it at home from scratch is so cheap that there will be a run on it from the snack-deprived. Hint keep it in the freezer.

Maybe the two thirds of this overweight country can now consider that girth hibernation storage.

If the majority of the country got into diet mode and forsook all the munchie junk, it would add greatly to the food stores available and start to lower the prices.

I've been reading some budget tips on chatboards and the number of formerly middle-class older people going into belt tightening mode in some very scary ways (like only eating once a day and watering kids' milk) is starting to get quite sobering.

By August the GOP will realize what a goldmine with these same voters they have in that footage of Obama pondering the cost of arugula.

And by this winter the price of fuel oil will mean true hardship in the North.

Just in time for the elections.

It'll be the first time the October Surprise will end up being about nationalizing oil.

It's inevitable at this rate. It's no longer IF, it's WHEN.

First candidate to go for it will win.

-gala1