We do have a number of problems here, but the causes seem a little overdetermined.

We have rising food and energy prices, the
falling dollar and stock market values,
falling housing values, and an
unresolved debate over our energy future.

I think that the easiest problems for which to establish accurate causes are probably the falling dollar, stock market values, and housing values. I have to admit that I do not have an exact handle on the supply/demand balance or imbalance in the housing market, but I suspect that all our difficulties with the three are a consequence of perpetual excessive spending, investment financed and leveraged through debt, and an overall “negative” trade imbalance. We buy more than we can afford, credit is cheap, and so we have a surplus of dollars and the value of the dollar drops. When liabilities are called up and cannot be met in the vastly inflated and speculated stock and housing markets, suddenly “paper” wealth vanishes, which is often our retirement savings.

With the fall in the dollar, future commodities prices will rise whether they be food or energy. Furthermore, political uncertainty with Iran and others along with their near-monopoly control through OPEC of the production of oil allows commodities futures speculators to maximize prices and profits.

Finally, what should we do about our energy future and energy stability? We have oil already accessible, but not enough immediately, in America. We also have coal and nuclear resources. Ethanol from corn and other products used in a mix with oil to provide E-85 and E-95 for cars and trucks or ethanol (instead of oil) turbines in power plants for peak demand loads are options. The flex fuel vehicles are already being produced, but except in the Midwest or Plains states, we have no distribution system and for now insufficient crop-to-ethanol production capability. Converting coal to a diesel-type fuel are also being investigated.

Now I am not a farmer and have made only a cursory review of USDA reports of available farmland. I heard an anecdotal comment from a co-worker yesterday in which he said most people around our area of Georgia had stopped planting crops and planted pine trees to get government conservation subsidies. In 2004, the federal government provided roughly $32 billion in farming subsidies, which could be said to have come from deficit spending.

Could we not encourage responsible farming in America and the third world, allow them to provide for their food needs, sell the surplus to us and to their local organizations to meet the energy needs, and reduce our deficit spending? What more do we need to know to make this a viable proposal? Let’s discuss nuclear options later, too.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/usgs-bakken-oil-study-released-365.html

Guess what!! It won’t work!! The only way to drop the prices of the food is to drop the prices of the inputs and that is impossible unless the price of oil is reduced. The only way that will be reduced is by allowing and encouraging our own exploration and development of fossil fuels, which (as mentioned in earlier posts)are the most efficient to refine and deliver to the consumer.

The only biofuels that could be used more efficiently are the oils that have already been processed and could be refined and cleaned then burned to provide heat or power. What we really need to concentrate on is a clean way to process (incinerate) all of our garbage and sewage to produce heat, power, electricity and fertilizer to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. This is called “recycling”. Novel idea!!

Does anybody remember the old cars in the 50’s that were heavier than any of todays SUV’s yet got better mileage than today’s comparable cars by far.

We have helped other countries become more efficient in the industries (especially farming) but these other countries are not required to maintain the same standards of emmissions (and labor) that we are in producing the same product. They are crying that the US needs to go back to the level of emissions of the early 90’s yet they have no standards because they are “developing”. Many are using forced or child labor in the factories and the standard of living is poverty compared to our poverty.

They should be required to use the technology we have developed so their air and environment never gets bad. But then their cost would be more and they couldn’t afford to produce it and still sell it to us for what they are! Never ending cycle. I could go on but I think you get the jist of where this is going.

The other big waste is water. How can we reduce our dependence on “new” water?

Mack to methane digesters for farm use where these little bugs break down animal wastes into methane that is captured for fuel and fertilizer while not polluting the earth like animal waste used to.

This is a triple win and about as good as it gets unless you live in a windy part of North American. It’s tough to beat wind for energy but these new flexible nanotechnology solar cells printed on plastic film are very cool indeed - not to mention very cheap to make, light weight and efficient.

Soon, technnology will finally get alternative energy as cheap as very expensive fossil fuels today. Science to the rescue. Sadly, it took 35 years too long to make it happen due to the low cost of fossil fuels in the past.

Another thing the libs don’t want to think about is nuclear power. We could supply a great deal of electricity without burning any fossil fuel. But the libs would rather lead us back to the stone age to starve in the dark.

#3 Lester — good point about the corn lobby, there’s enough blame to go around I’m sure. Your other remarks were off-point from my post.

I’ve also long been open to alternative energy, but most people don’t consider all the variables. These libs are especially bad since they are driven by idealism rather than real-world arithmetic. They oughta spend some time at the Department of Energy web site and read just exactly how much energy is consumed each year in the world — 15 quads (quadrillion BTUs) Anyone know how much that is? It’s just staggering.