Warning: Declaration of MyAuthPlugin::initUser(&$user) should be compatible with AuthPlugin::initUser(&$user, $autocreate = false) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php on line 37

Warning: session_name(): Cannot change session name when session is active in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/Setup.php on line 222

Warning: session_set_cookie_params(): Cannot change session cookie parameters when session is active in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/GlobalFunctions.php on line 2446

Warning: session_cache_limiter(): Cannot change cache limiter when session is active in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/GlobalFunctions.php on line 2451

Warning: Parameter 1 to MediaWiki_TIGAutoAuthenticate() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/Hooks.php on line 117

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/Feed.php on line 125

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10
http://www.aalf.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:CameronHarlan280&action=history Revision history for this page on the wiki en MediaWiki 1.13.3 Tue, 03 Nov 2026 23:32:36 GMT http://www.aalf.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:CameronHarlan280&diff=24154&oldid=prev <p>New page: Ethanol Policy Consequences - Unintended Starvation or Genocide? Genocide is certainly a strong word. Genocide could be the willful extermination of any national, tribal, ethnic, racial o...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>Ethanol Policy Consequences - Unintended Starvation or Genocide?<br /> <br /> Genocide is certainly a strong word. Genocide could be the willful extermination of any national, tribal, ethnic, racial or religious group. The concept of a has become applied (correctly) on the Crusades in the Holy Land, Hitler in Europe, ethnic cleansing while in the Balkans, the Hutu rampage in Rwanda, and the majority recently, the long Darfur carnage in Sudan or South Sudan. A broader meaning of &quot;genocide&quot; includes any willful policy that involves the death of a giant amount of innocent people. The means matter not-swords, gas chambers, bullets, machetes, or starvation. All things considered many helpless individuals are dead.<br /> <br /> The intended reaction of U.S. Ethanol Policy was energy independence. While there was warnings how the demand for corn from ethanol plants would increase food prices, there it was no willful decision by Congress to improve global starvation rates. However, the dramatic rise in the asking price of cereal grains causes starvation. There is no question the brand new huge interest on corn from ethanol plants caused corn prices to spiral upward, At what point is &quot;genocide&quot; the right descriptor in the policy that set these global events in motion?<br /> <br /> The unintended consequences of broad scale corn ethanol production have turned out to be more life-threatening versus warnings predicted. The ethanol industry has exploded faster than anticipated and corn prices doubled, then tripled, then rose extra. In 2000, before serious ethanol production began, the cost of corn was 1.90/bushel. The buying price of corn was 2.04/bushel in 2005 at the start of the phased-in government mandate that ethanol be blended with gasoline. As the mandate increased, the cost of corn rose. In the year 2011, the 52-week high was 7.75 dollars/bushel.<br /> <br /> Corn derivatives are widespread in U.S. foodstuffs. Caused by the top tariff of corn, American consumers have noticed an increase in food prices-especially meat. However, U.S. households spend directly about 15 percent of these income on food. Thus, increasing corn prices just have modestly impacted the budgets of American families.<br /> <br /> On the flip side, poor families spend almost all of their meager cash for food. They're buying cereal grains for direct consumption. The buying price of US corn features a dominant impact on the buying price of cereal grains worldwide. When corn prices elevate, the poorest of your poor-- living on under a 1.25 a day-eat less, this is at all.<br /> <br /> The President as well as the Congress should now be aware of the implications with their decisions. They should be asking: Is U.S. Ethanol Policy causing starvation. For the reason that relation to Developing Countries is currently recognized, starvation is not an &quot;unintended consequence.&quot; Does that awareness now suggest that U.S. Ethanol Policy could be characterized as &quot;genocide?&quot;<br /> <br /> U.N. agencies are already begging for any policy change for some time. International humanitarian aid organizations have documented the effects. Liberal think-tanks have questioned the morality of burning food in automobiles. Conservative think-tanks have criticized the policy as a possible affront to free market capitalism. Leading newspapers have editorialized contrary to the policy. Environmental groups have lamented the injury to soil and water resources from expanding corn acreage onto land unsuited for tillage.<br /> <br /> Meanwhile, the intended response to ethanol policy on energy independence has long been insignificant because the process is inefficient. The tractor fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, transportation back and forth ethanol plants along with the processing of your corn into ethanol consumes fossil fuel uses nearly as much (70-100 percent) as is produced in ethanol BTUs. Reflection on the cost of distillers grain, a cattle feed by-product, improves that ratio but does not do much to reduce the ethical issue because cattle convert only 5-20 percent with the nutrition in their feed into milk and meat. (The reduced conversion version ration of corn-fed beef is definitely an ethical issue I realize with a personal level; We've operated a beef farm for 32 years.) [http://www.braziliansugarmanufacturers.com sugar manufacturers] cane is around 5x more cost-effective in producing ethanol than corn.<br /> <br /> Professor Pimentel (2011) at Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences has calculated that Total of the US corn crop would only produce enough ethanol in order to reach 4 percent of the country's needs for oil. Jim Lane (2011), editor of Biofuels Digest, countered using an assertion that it gives you 8 percent. No matter that is right. The existing make use of nearly 40 percent with the corn crop has severely disrupted world food supplies--for just 2-3 percent folks petroleum needs.<br /> <br /> Before Congress established the ethanol mandate, a subsidy, as well as a tariff to prevent competition from efficient [http://www.braziliansugarmanufacturers.com Brazilian sugar] cane ethanol, many US corn crop was exported and provided significant relief to get a negative US balance of payments--even at less expensive prices per bushel. Frequently, corn was donated for disaster relief with big USA painted about the bags. Corn earned the U.S. much good will around the world. US ethanol policy is already doing the reverse.<br /> <br /> The 0.45 per gallon taxpayer subsidy was capable to expire on December 31, 2011, deficit hawks had the annual 6B earmark with their cross-hairs. Brazil is considering a lawsuit with the 0.54/gal tariff that violates NAFTA. However, the ethanol mandate continually enjoy bipartisan support. That mandate, the core people ethanol policy, requires oil companies to add increasing sums of ethanol (36 billion gallons by 2022)) to gasoline. The mandate violates basic free-market principles. Considering that the unintended consequences on food are know, it can be clear that the mandate also violates basic humanitarian principles.<br /> <br /> U.S. decision makers now understand, or should understand, view of extreme corn prices, a realistic look at low world food supplies as well as reality that many more poor families can't afford food. Considering that knowledge by policy makers, how can historians evaluate US ethanol policy? Are they going to excuse the widespread, but uncounted, starvation deaths for &quot;unintended consequence&quot; of the reasoned national insurance policy for energy independence? Or quit indict U.S. Ethanol Policy, specially the mandate to blend ethanol with gasoline, in early many years of the Modern day to be a subtle and long lasting form of &quot;genocide&quot;?<br /> <br /> Reference [http://www.braziliansugarmanufacturers.com sugar wholesalers].</div> Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:02:26 GMT CameronHarlan280 http://www.aalf.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:CameronHarlan280