A Vote To Watch

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is readying a bill for Senate consideration that would freeze US biofuel mandates at their current level, ending the mandated increases in biofuel production through 2030.

The reason for Hutchinson's bill -- a bold one, given the amount of grain production in Texas -- is simple: Artificial, government-set mandates for biofuels are a key component of food staple price increases that have driven people to hunger around the world. Writes Hutchinson in IBD,

Nearly all our domestic corn and grain supply is needed to meet this [biofuel] mandate, robbing the world of one of its most important sources of food.

We are already seeing the ill effects of this measure. Last year, 25% of America's corn crop was diverted to produce ethanol. In 2008, that number will grow to 30%-35%, and it will soar even higher in the years to come.

Furthermore, the trend of farmers supplanting other grains with corn is decreasing the supply of numerous agricultural products. When the supply of those products goes down, the price inevitably goes up.

Subsequently, the cost of feeding farm and ranch animals increases and the cost is passed to consumers of beef, poultry and pork products.

Since February 2006, the price of corn, wheat and soybeans has increased by more than 240%. Rising food prices are hitting the pockets of lower-income Americans and people who live on fixed incomes.

The UN has called the current situation a global food crisis, and this time they just might be right.

So let's see what happens to Hutchinson's bill. Two predictions:

First, despite the extremely negative fall-out of yet another poorly conceived government mandate, the farm lobby can be expected to fight it.

And second, the obvious companion piece to this legislation, opening up North Slope lands for production, will go nowhere.

Hutchinson begins her piece with a quote that's a good wrap-up for this post:

"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." -- Milton Friedman

hat-tip: RCP

Let Them Eat (Low-Carbon) Cake!

In yesterday's UN press briefing, the word "food" appeared twelve times, in keeping with the launch of a UN initiative against a growing "food crisis" -- real? made up? who knows? It's the UN, after all.

Marie Okabe, Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, mentioned food crisis issuesin her comments , including specific references to Haiti and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, others in the UN press office cranked out a news release on Ban Ki-moon's big food initiative.

4 April 2008 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today called for both immediate and long-term measures to tackle the growing global food crisis, warning that it could not only push millions of people deeper into poverty but also have larger political and security implications.

“The rapidly escalating crisis of food availability around the world has reached emergency proportions,” he told a joint meeting in New York of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The release provides no statistical verification of the crisis, nor, for that matter, does it include any proof that all the billions we've spent on prior UN food crisis appeals have resulted in anything but short-term benefits.

("Short-term benefits" translates in part as "lives saved," so I'm all for them. But I'm also for the UN getting out of its "give us money for this crisis, and get ready to give us money for that crisis" mode of operating. If it would come out firmly and decisively for democracy and free markets, it would do more to increase food production than anything else it could do ... but as long as despots rule the General Assembly, that's not going to happen.)

But let's say there is a big new food crisis. If that's true, then it's undeniable that the push for less energy-efficient biofuels over good ol' petro-fuels is a big part of the problem. And it's equally true that the elitist snobs of the EU could care less if their feel-good Warmie attitudes result in hungry people in locales less fortunate than Europe.

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The EU Commission on Monday rejected claims that producing biofuels is a "crime against humanity" that threatens food supplies, and vowed to stick to its goals as part of a climate change package.

"There is no question for now of suspending the target fixed for biofuels," said Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.

"You can't change a political objective without risking a debate on all the other objectives," which could see the EU landmark climate change and energy package disintegrate, an EU official said.

Their comments came amid growing unease over the planting of biofuel crops as food prices rocket and riots against poverty and hunger multiply worldwide.

You've got that right. On balance, the EU would rather have non-Europeans go hungry than have to open the debate on Europe's global warming package. Having to figure out whether to keep their goal of 10% biofuel reliance by 2020 is just too big a headache; let the Haitians, Africans and Afghans eat cake.

It's not like the EU bureau-czars made their decision in a vacuum:

The European Environment Agency, advisors to the European Commission, on Friday recommended that the EU suspend its 10 percent biofuels target.

It argued that the target would require large amounts of additional imports of biofuels leading to the accelerated destruction of rain forests. The agency also questioned the environmental benefits of biofuels.

Also in a recent report the World Bank said bluntly "biofuel production has pushed up feedstock prices".

Meanhwile Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, head of Nestle, the world's biggest food and beverage company, last month argued that "to grant enormous subsidies for biofuel production is morally unacceptable and irresponsible".

"There will be nothing left to eat," he added.

Why listen to your advisors, leading financiers or captains of the food industry? The EU is predicated on the belief that bureaucrats are better suited to run the world than real people, and the bureaucrats have determined that they don't want to re-open the EU's global warming program for debate.

So be it. They can offset their stupidity by giving money to a number of stupid UN food programs, thereby making everything all better.

Remember, remember, remember: Clinton and Obama want America to be more like Europe.

Sunday Scan

Foreign Aid

A lot of my friends oppose foreign aid, and there are plenty of reasons to feel that way. Not resonate with me, however, is the complaint that we should spend it here instead of there; God knows we spend too much here on swollen entitlement programs as it is, and we have so much plenty that we can afford to give some there.

So I just want to register my sense of pride as President Bush tours Africa to create political support for his President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief funding request of $30 billion. The Dems don't like the requirement that a third be spent on abstinence education and are threatening to hold up the funds.

Why? What harm would a bit more abstinence to for Africa? What complaints are there that there aren't enough condoms and medications in the $30 billion? And in this aid there is a lesson in Democracy and good governance that Africa desperately needs. As Bush told a crowd in Tanzania:

"I'll just put it bluntly, America doesn't want to spend money on people who steal the money from the people. We like dealing with honest people, and compassionate people. We want our money to go to help human condition and to lift human lives as well as fighting corruption in marketplace economies." (AP)

China is spending billions to woo Africa, but they're not showing compassion at this fundamental level that turns human hearts. Bush's proposal is for money that would be well spent, strategically and compassionately.

Friends Of Barack

The new FOB's -- socialists? Steve Bartin at Newsalert conjures up this passage, from pages 100-101 of Obama's Dreams of My Father:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.At night,in the dorms,we discussed neocolonialism,Franz Fanon,Eurocentrism,and patriarchy.When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints.We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure.We were alienated.

Funny, I don't hear "bourgeois" very often in his speeches nowadays.

San Diego Tax Dollars At Work

If you saw city fire fighters on a city fire truck in a gay pride parade, would it ever cross your mind that they were straight, on-duty and required by the city to ride in the parade to represent the city's position, not theirs?

It's true. In San Diego, a group of straight fire fighters is suing the city under sexual harassment laws for requiring them to ride in a Gay Pride parade. San Diego Union Trib columnist Gerry Braun writes,

I've read a few sexual-harassment suits in my time, and I find this one credible. The remarks directed at the firefighters – “You're making me hot!” “You can put out my fire!” “Show me your fire hose!” “I can't breathe, give me mouth to mouth!” “Pull out your hose!” – have been confirmed even by their critics.

How is the gay community, concerned as they are that we all be tolerant, responding to the lawsuit? If you guessed intolerantly, you'd be right. Braun:

An editorial in the Gay & Lesbian Times called the firefighters “sissies” and “wimps” before laying it on thick: “As far as we can tell, you are weak-wristed, unstable, unsuited, incapable little mama's boys.”

Caution: If you think that makes it OK to call a gay a sissy, wimp, weak-wristed or a mama's boy ... prepare to be sued.

Movie Break

Just watched a movie with Incredible Wife ... Saving Sarah Cain. It was a bit Lifetime-ish, but still a nice turn on the Amish in the city story, made by Michael Landon Jr. and other people with deep faith.

Red Hot And Green

Myself, I don't even want to know, but in case you're losing ... er, sleep ... over whether your sexual activity is appropriately green, you'll find ways to green-up your red hot sessions here. Here's an excerpt:

Sure, you love that hot-pink plastic [sex toy], but have you ever thought about what is in it? That item you’re hiding in the nightstand might contain phthalates, a chemical used to soften rigid plastics. Though nobody knows for certain if phthalates are harmful to human health, studies have linked ... blah, blah blah.

Greenies ... they can take the fun out of anything.

Extreme Bad Taste Case OK'd

Close to home, some good news: A judge is allowing the family of Nikki Catsouras to move forward with their lawsuit against a California Highway Patrol dispatcher who made gory photos from Nikki's fatal car crash public.

Attorneys for CHP dispatch supervisor Thomas O'Donnell, accused of releasing the photos, argued that it was his first amendment right to release the photos. As if.

What happened to the Catsouras family is a case of the worst sort of bad taste that grows out of the anonymity of the Internet, as photos of their beloved daughter's and sister's decapitated body appeared on numerous Web sites with insulting comments.

The Catsouras family has been able to shame many of the sites into removing the photos, but their only possible legal action is against O'Donnell for his scummy (alleged) action of releasing the photos.

One Web site I won't link to that includes links to the photos also includes a reader poll with these results:

Do the parents deserve to win their lawsuit? Yes, 57%, no 43%.

Should Web sites be allowed to show the graphic photos of Nikki Catsouras? Yes, 33%, no 32%

Obviously, people who visit these sites are a schitzy bunch: Rooting for the parents, while a significant amount of them root against them, too.

A Big 'Heh!' On Biofuels

What's wrong with me? Why do I get such glee from environmentalism gone bad? Especially when environmentalism and Congressional eagerness to score greenie points -- and get votes -- coincide?

With corn and soy prices both at or near record highs, the article tries to handicap which crop farmers will plant more of in the coming growing season. Impossible to tell, it concludes. Nevertheless:

Fertilizer producers benefit either way. Corn demands more fertilizer than soy or wheat. But price competition among the grains, stoked largely by federal supports for ethanol production, has bled generously into fertilizer markets.

That's boilerplate. Anyone who's checked out the stock chart of Mosaic -- the fertilizer giant, two-thirds owned by agribiz behemoth Cargill, recently profiled here -- knows that the fertilizer industry has been essentially printing money. (source)

Fertilizer, of course, is hated by the greens ... it's a chemical, for cryin' out loud, and its production produces gasp! greenhouse gases!

And every gallon of biofuels produced drives up fertilizer sales.

If anyone who says there are easy solutions to global warming that won't wreck our economy and negatively impact our health and well-being, their heads are full of greenhouse gases.

EU Admits Failure Of Biofuel Program

The European Union is doing a better job of admitting to the unforeseen consequences of a government push for biofuels than the US government is. Washington should pay careful attention to this BBC story:

Europe's environment chief has admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems raised by its policy to get 10% of Europe's road fuels from plants.

Recent reports have warned of rising food prices and rainforest destruction from increased biofuel production. [As shown in this photo of new palms from Indonesia.]

The EU has promised new guidelines to ensure that its target is not damaging.

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said it would be better to miss the target than achieve it by harming the poor or damaging the environment.

The EU approach to the "get out of jail free" card biofuels supposedly offered was to set targets, which EU nations than set out to meet by buying palm oil, causing rain forests to be cut and replanted with palms, and various ag-based fuel sources, causing food prices to rise.

Now, as is its wont, the EU will simply change their mandates, piling on more pages of regulations in an effort to correct the errors in their initial policy. Scratch an EU bureaucrat, find a former Soviet 5-year planner.

The US approach has less Soviet influence, with targets and incentives more than mandates, but it has produced similar results, creating a new market for corn -- fine with midwesterners, but as competition for crops drove up food prices, not so nice for the rest of us. And now with higher corn prices, biofuel manufacturers are struggling to find customers.

All this for a fuel that does nothing much at all to enhance the environment.

Here's an alternative idea on alternative fuels: Stop mandating, goal-setting and incentivising and let the market sort it all out. After all, note a commenter to the BBC post,

This is what happens when soundbite-politicians quote 'bad science' in their knee-jerk reactions to events.