Advanced biofuels will still take food out of the mouths of the world’s poor

Environmentalists don’t seem to understand that life involves unavoidable trade-offs.  Nathanael Greene, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently wrote a post titled, “Europe catches up to the US on biofuels policy” in which he approves of the EU’s decision to “stick to its 10 percent goal for biofuels but require an increase percentage to be advanced biofuels that don’t compete with food production.”

The problem is that you cannot avoid competition between biofuels and food. The EU may state that new alternatives won’t compete with food production, but wishing something doesn’t make it so.

The first place new biofuel crops will be grown is on land that is already in cultivation. Instead of growing corn, for example, farmers will grow switchgrass. Instead of taking corn and turning it into fuel, these policies are just taking land that would have produced corn and re-purposing it to produce fuel.

There only difference is that advanced biofuel crops should be more efficient. But advanced biofuel conversion technology needs to first make it out of the lab out of the lab and into commercial-scale production. If biofuels could be made from organic waste, then advanced biofuel wouldn’t compete with food, but that’s the only scenario.

The point remains–our biofuel policies are taking food out of the mouths of the world’s poor. That is the unavoidable outcome our mandating the use of food for fuel. As the UN special rapporteur has stated, biofuels are “a crime against humanity.”

If the human toll of increasing food prices wasn’t enough, the environmental costs are significant. Today’s biofuel production releases more greenhouse gases than petroleum production and we are turning miles and miles of jungle into biofuel plantations.

Fivethirtyeight.com–the best place for polling information

Four years ago I paid a lot of attention to Real Clear Politics polling page. Real Clear Politics has great information, but this time around fivethirtyeight.com has the best information about political polls. Fivethirtyeight.com was created by Nate Silver a baseball statistician who is one of the writers of my favorite baseball publication, Baseball Prospectus. Silver uses a sophisticated statistical model to analyze polls.

Who’s Better for Wall Street? Republicans or Democrats?

In today’s WSJ, Donald Luskin argues that divided government is best for the stock market. He is, in part, responding to this fact, “Standard & Poor’s 500 total return (capital gains plus dividends) has averaged 15.6% when a Democrat was in the White House and only 11.1% when a Republican was in the White House.”

This is silly. As Angus writes at Kids Prefer Cheese:

People, no matter how you slice them, these numbers can’t at all be taken as evidence about what market performance would be in the future under different Presidents or about how the market would have faired if George McGovern would have beaten Nixon because they don’t take into account any of the other massively important factors that affect market performance. Give a couple of examples, would there have been no oil shocks in the 70s if Nixon were not President? Would the tech boom not have happened if Clinton were not president?

In other words, the real world is far to messy and stock market returns are caused by a number of factors, not just the party affiliation of the person in the White House or who controls Congress.

Why I like Sarah Palin

My reason for liking Sarah Palin is simple–she brings out the Left’s rampant sexism. Here’s one example–Sam Harris writing in the LA Times:

Is Palin remotely qualified to be president of the United States? No. But that’s precisely what is so interesting. McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television: Don’t look now, but our cousin Sarah just became leader of the free world! Tune in next week and watch her get sassy with Pakistan!

Thanks Sam for showing us how sexist you are. Thanks for not providing one shred of evidence, one tiny example of how Barack Obama might be more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin.

Unlike Obama, Palin has actually been a chief executive. You know Sam, the president is the chief executive of the United States. Being a governor might give someone good experience for that sort of thing.

It’s too bad that Harris can’t get past the fact that Sarah Palin can make babies.