While I agree that the global warming “crisis” is way over the top, the “food not fuel” argument is right there alongside. After all, you know when Hugo Chavez makes the argument, you probably ought to look at the sense behind it.
Prices are up across the board for reasons other than ethanol – poor weather, political issues, bad years, rising population – as well. You can’t blame ethanol alone.
As for the “fuel for food” meme, consider that for millennia, half of agricultural output was indeed for “fuel.” You don’t think oats were just for breakfast? That it stopped being the case less than a century ago doesn’t mean the change will be permanent. Do we need to consider the increased output consumed for fuel? Yes. But the market can decide that, not another rash of global do-gooders on par with the global warming types.
The market *has* decided that. Until now, crops were laughably cheap, and markets made farming unsustainable but for subsidies. Ethanol came along and increased demand. Yes, the plants are also subsidized, and yes, there are more plants than will be sustainable. But the market will decide that, too.
Just because an increase in corn means an increase in milk means our lattes are more expensive, doesn’t mean it’s all ethanol’s fault. In fact, the more we separate the commodity prices and impending economic populism (on both sides of the urban/rural divide) from the global warming myth, the better off we’ll all be to come up with sane and small-l liberal solutions that are better for everyone.
