What? Ethanol?

More subsidies, More resource consumption, more poverty?

In what world does this make sense?

I'm going with Texas on this one.

Just to be clear on this: I'm all for reassessing the RFS requirements for corn-based ethanol. There are much better candidates for liquid biofuels in the world.

However, I don't think that reassessing them so that the cattle and meat industry can give us cheaper meat is the reason for doing so. Instead of cultivating so much land to feed animals, to then feed humans— so much of the average American diet comes from meat, the rest of the world manages with much less animal protein per person, even in areas with meat-heavy cuisines such as Europe—seems ludicrous to me.

While I personally think a vegetarian diet is the spiritually and environmentally ethical thing to do, simply cutting back on meat consumption, if you do choose to eat meat, can go a long way in reducing hunger in the world and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

@ Tyler: In doing this I'm actually advocating less resource consumption and hopefully less poverty as well by freeing up land which is currently used to raise grain for cattle to raise crops for people.

Amen!

Reduction of meat consumption is, indeed, the environmentally ethical thing to do. Elimination of farm subsidies during times of record prices, which impoverish third-world farmers, would also be the responsible thing to do.
I recently decided to eat meat at no more than 2 meals per week. Those usually end up being the meals when my food is ordered and prepared by someone else.
And ultimately, it is a painless transition. There is so much good produce out there, so maby great recipes, that I don't miss it at all. I used to eat meat at least once a day. Now I have better nutrition, more vitamins and minerals in my diet than ever before. Plus, by being more creative with what I eat, I am enjoying my food even more than before, and overall it tastes better.
I still use eggs, cheese, and milk, and I have less information about the environmental cost of these animal food sources.

I agree with the first poster and I realize that your argument is in favor of reassessing the corn ethanol issue. Why all the sour grapes, though? It seems like sometimes all I see on this blog is negative attitudes that things aren't good enough. Sure, they're not, but incremental steps and small victories are the only ways that the goals (assuming they exist) of this blog/movement will be achieved.

Basically what I'm saying is a more positive attitude would be helpful as even a green-concious guy like myself feels turned off by this blog sometimes. It's almost like the viewpoint here is 100% super green with no room for people/politicians taking steps in the right direction.

On a side note - I do agree with much of your analysis but I believe the tone here needs to change a little.

I think the real problem here is that he wants to use that corn to feed cows....And cows shouldnt be eating corn! Grass is what nature designed them to eat

Matthew
Me not eating meat will not put money in the pocket of someone in Hati to purchase food. If that were the case it would be nice but sadly it isn't.

@ Jon: In a linear fashion, you are correct. You limiting or eliminating meat from your diet will not put money in anyone's pocket in Haiti.

What it will do however is, by eating lower on the food chain, require less natural resources and less fossil fuel energy to produce your food, thereby (in the broad stroke) allow more people to live off the finite amount of resources which exist on this planet.

It will also lower your carbon footprint, which hopefully will reduce the effects of global warming on a county like Haiti, which will be particularly succeptible to temperature rise, sea level rise and changed precipitation patterns--all of which will simply exacerabate poverty there.

what about the fact that the cows have to be adjusted to even eat corn which they are ill suited to consume in the first place?

cows are meant to eat grass, bring back the family farm and retake control of our food chain.

@Matthew

I would agree that both Ethanol and corn-fed beef are terrible for the environment and contribute to poverty.

However, I think that while corn-fed beef at least puts protein-rich meat within reach of America's poor, ethanol subsidies simply take oil out of the ground, put it into a field of corn, THEN put it in a gas tank, with no reduction in fossil fuel use.

There's no good being done there, except to pay everyone involved out of the taxpayer's pocket.

@ Tyler: Agree entirely with you about ethanol subsidies.

Disagree about the need to rely on corn-fed beef to feed people, poor, rich or otherwise. The entire system needs to be reassessed. I don't believe the amount of meat eaten in America (200lbs per person a year, on average) is sustainable in the slightest bit. Meat should go back to being a once in a while thing, or used as traditional in China and parts of SE Asia, as "garnish".

The point of the post for me was really to call attention to the fact that Gov. Perry's motivations in this have nothing to do with creating a sustainable economic, environmental, social system and everything to do with business as usual thinking.

As a Birkenstock wearing vegetarian, I agree entirely with that sentiment, and that the governor of Texas wasn't exactly moving the ball forward in terms of social/environmental justice.

I do think he was right to point out that using corn for Ethanol appreicably impoverishes Americans, while using corn for beef appreciably enriches Americans, by making their food cheaper. While taking the point of big Agribusiness, he was also taking a Populist stance.

That being said, I entirely agree that corn-fed beef is horrible both for the environment and for my overweight cousin.