Well, here’s a prime example of “moralized” decision-making where the perceived importance of global warming/climate change made it seemingly every intelligent person’s duty to support all initiatives aimed at limiting future warming. Al Gore, among others, pimped the ethanol hard — which makes sense, since it has a ready-made farming lobby that loves subsidies — and now biofuels are making it harder for poor people to eat.
Now, I’ll be forthright, I am not convinced that man has had, or can have a significant impact on the atmosphere, though clearly he has a direct impact on the Earth’s ecological systems (hence, methinks the environmental lobby might be a little lost…). Still, given the potential catastrophe if I am wrong, I am open to efforts to curb our atmospheric impact. Of course, if you think it’s the US that’s holding back environmental progress, you’re kidding yourself. Sure, Europe makes a lot of noise, but they still love dirty energy just as much as the next American. Of course, all this is dwarfed by the two big-boned elephants in the room — China and India. The US makes a convenient focal point for environmental, anti-corporate ire, but with weakened prestige and limited influence, I’m not quite sure what the US can do besides parrot the party line and flap its wings obnoxiously.
Yet many still think we should be trying every lame-brained environmental strategy lobbyists dream up, wasting precious political capital, and in this case, the meager amount of food of the poorest people in the world.
Also, if you’d like a summary that shows why I am still straddling the skeptic line, click here.