Curse

Winterclaw · Feb 12, 2008, 01:10 AM // 01:10

Warning, politics.

Wheat Prices over $15 a bushel

From what I'm hearing, this is about a 50% increase since the beginning of the year. What this means is everything you eat that is made with flour, the flour component of the cost is 50% higher. Also, the US wheat supply is nearing a 60 year low.

And why is this happening?

Corn Ethanol. Basically the US government wants to completely use up one food supply as fuel (which is silly) and in order to do that, they are subsudizing the corn growers. Now because corn is gaurnteed money, farmers are starting to switch over from growing wheat to growing corn, which is driving up the prices of that now and hurting the wheat supply. Also the US has only X amount of agricultural land, so it seems like we are now using up a growing portion of our farmland in order to fuel our cars because our gas prices are too high... execpt this expensive and subsubdized fuel is going into our cars so we are still going to pay more because the corn is expensive or the US government is taking money out of our back pockets in order to pay farmers off.

As best I can tell, we are subsudizing the slow process of starving the US (world maybe?) one way or the other and causing rampant inflation in the process. Thank you SUV drivers.

Anyways I think that if a nation thinks feeding cars is more imporant than keeping food prices down to feed people it's pretty screwed up. I hereby propose everyone in congress who decided to mandate ethanol fuel(both parties) and President Bush be given a "I'M STUPID" sign.

BTW, did anyone see that anime Gasaraki? Wasn't one of the subplots revolving around a shrinking food supply? I could just imagine what would happen if China decided to call in the debt.

Splitisoda · Feb 12, 2008, 01:16 AM // 01:16

I agree, but really you can't fix this. Most of the population needs cars, my family ourselves either have a Toyota, or an Minivan. Minivan is for family raids to the grocery store and the Toyota is for off roading, dad and me time

, etc.

The problem with this is, because we have so many (badwording) immigrants coming we now have to keep pumping out industry, or they'll be (badwordin) on how bad America is.

We either need to
A. Stop immagrants, keeping population steady.
B. Get more agriculture.
And C. If all else fails, send 1/2 the population to the military and off to war(why didn't bush think of this

)

quickmonty · Feb 12, 2008, 01:40 AM // 01:40

It's all the idiot tree huggers that started the ethanol is great movement. Anyone with common sense know that ethanol is a stupid idea. If all the corn were converted to ethanol it wouldn't make a dent in the demand for fuel, plus the cost to do so is way too high.

Winterclaw · Feb 12, 2008, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Monty, if both parties get together on something that'll do more harm to the majority of people than good, unless there is a very good reason for it, they deserve some flak for it. It's when governments get too out of touch with the people that troubles occur.

BTW, if all the corn we are growning as of last year's production were converted to ethanol, the US wouldn't even be able to meet the mandate of 20% or whatever it is.

I should say I'm not against a clean earth and that there are good enviromental initives that need doing, however I don't see ethanol as a feasible solution in at least the near future.

lakatz · Feb 12, 2008, 02:21 AM // 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by quickmonty

It's all the idiot tree huggers that started the ethanol is great movement. Anyone with common sense know that ethanol is a stupid idea. If all the corn were converted to ethanol it wouldn't make a dent in the demand for fuel, plus the cost to do so is way too high.

Every tree hugger I know opposes ethanol and is into renewable energy. Bush likes the idea though and, as Winterclaw pointed out, Congress passed his plan.

Here's an article you might find interersting: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGAUNOPVN1.DTL

And... uh... I'd say the Sierra Club exemplifies 'tree hugging'... wouldn't you? The Sierra Club opposes ethanol.

"The Sierra Club opposes ethanol because it takes more energy to create than you get from it," said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of the national environmental advocacy group. "It's really a subsidy for agri-business."

The above quote is from a tree hugger site: http://www.enviroblog.org/2007/01/th...s-have-bee.htm

And this tree hugger *points at myself* has this to say about ethanol as an energy source...
Besides the fact that it's driving up food prices... as the 'tree hugging' Sierra Club warned it would... it gets fewer miles per gallon than gasoline. And it creates smog. Not a viable option.

Trakata · Feb 12, 2008, 03:18 PM // 15:18

Let's just put fusion reactors in our cars and be done with it.

quickmonty · Feb 12, 2008, 03:24 PM // 15:24

You are, of course, referring to the "Mr. Fusion" from Back to the Future?

lyra_song · Feb 12, 2008, 03:39 PM // 15:39

Eating or driving car?

I choose driving?

/fail

I still vote electric cars please.

nebuchanezzar · Feb 12, 2008, 04:17 PM // 16:17

In idea ethanol is decent but in technological terms it falls short. The rise in wheat prices is multifactored and not just from corn subsidies. Shortfalls worldwide and China buying more on the open market. Russia imposed a specific tax on wheat sales leaving Russia for that reason.
America doesn't grow wheat primarily anyways, we do grow more corn. Canada grows more wheat as their climate/soil supports it better.
The ethanol frenzy in congress is a mistake true, but to try to use this as an "America is so Dumb" thing is a little weak imo. Ethanol can help but it should not be pushed faster than the technology can support it. Same reason hydrogen cars aren't running, it takes more fuel/energy to make them then they can produce at this time. Well as far as we the public know of anyways.

Onarik Amrak · Feb 12, 2008, 11:39 PM // 23:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trakata

Let's just put fusion reactors in our cars and be done with it.

Actually, having our cars running off batteries charged by fusion reactors would be more efficient.

We should move away from looking at our cars as mobile power plants.

That's my 2c from an Industrial Designer.

MMSDome · Feb 13, 2008, 12:05 AM // 00:05

You want efficient power, use Nuclear Energy and prices for all thsi shit will go down! Hell your ethenal isnt even worth it anymore now that is just about the same price as regular fuel.

I say we cut the global warming bs and get on with life, there is no threat to the environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Eating or driving car?

I choose driving?

/fail

I still vote electric cars please.

Your electric cars are only good for the environment if they are running on NUCLEAR POWER. The majority of the power you are getting is produced by FOSSIL FUELS. So if you are a loon and believe you are ruining the environment by using gasoline you are being just as bad by using that extra electricity to power your environment safe car. See you think your electric car is doing the environment good when it is just as bad as gasoline and possibly even worse.

placebo overdose · Feb 13, 2008, 12:29 AM // 00:29

^ i agree with lakatz
also to the person going on about immigrants maybe its the fact that we are having more children every year(which is a good thing to an extent) that just might be leading to population growth i mean im all for a thriving country but you see the key to living in such large numbers is sustainability which we can not do well at all.

Rexion · Feb 13, 2008, 12:29 AM // 00:29

The US isn't screwed up. George Bush is screwed up.
George Bush screwed up the US Government and Economy. That isn't the "US".

The US is a lot more than that...

just thought I would add that into the convo :]

on thing that sucks about the US is no gay-marriage. If the UK can have it, and it is working, why won't it work in the US?
HUH HUh????

WarKaster · Feb 13, 2008, 01:00 AM // 01:00

meh...democrats, republicans....same difference.

the problem with all this is that every time there is a viable idea to reduce consumption of oil or energy there is always some lobbiest for the energy companies ready to shoot down the idea by throwing as much money at it as it takes.

Ethanol is a very very viable fuel source....just not Corn Ethanol....Sugar Cane ethanol is more efficient and easier to produce..not to mention sugar cane grows year round with little to no maintenance required.

You ask then why corn? The government doesn't subsidize the sugar cane farmers. hence the massive push to use corn instead of sugar cane.

The hybrid car is another one of my favorites. A true hybrid car runs on electricity and only uses the gas engine when a charge for the battery is needed.

What did we get? a car that still primarily depends on gas while minimally using the electric part of the system.

So what I'm saying is there is to much bureaucracy and red tape and like most things the government won't try to fix things until its already to late.

MMSDome · Feb 13, 2008, 01:02 AM // 01:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarKaster

meh...democrats, republicans....same difference.

the problem with all this is that every time there is a viable idea to reduce consumption of oil or energy there is always some lobbiest for the energy companies ready to shoot down the idea by throwing as much money at it as it takes.

Ethanol is a very very viable fuel source....just not Corn Ethanol....Sugar Cane ethanol is more efficient and easier to produce..not to mention sugar cane grows year round with little to no maintenance required.

You ask then why corn? The government doesn't subsidize the sugar cane crop.

The hybrid car is another one of my favorites. A true hybrid car runs on electricity and only uses the gas engine when a charge for the battery is needed.

What did we get? a car that still primarily depends on gas while minimally using the electric part of the system.

So what I'm saying is there is to much bureaucracy and red tape and like most things the government won't try to fix things until its already to late.

The electric car makes no sense at all to me though. You are using electricity that comes from BURNING FOSSIL FUELS, its not like you should feel proud for being the driver of a electric car since you are still burning fossil fuels.

R A C · Feb 13, 2008, 01:27 AM // 01:27

Electric cars are the way of the future, and we won't need fossil fuels at all, once we replace all fossil fuel power plants with nuke/wind/hydro/etc. plants.
Also, most electric cars I've read about in magazines, etc have a range of around 200miles so far with a charge time of atleast 4 hours. It's perfect for driving around town. and plug it in at home/office. But the tech isn't quite ready for road trips unless a standardized swappable battery is developed.

Hydrogen fuel cells are cool too, but I hardly know much about those.

Slaine · Feb 13, 2008, 01:42 AM // 01:42

hydrogen cars are waaay expensive

druggedchimp · Feb 13, 2008, 01:58 AM // 01:58

Hopefully the movement for wind power will pick up enough steam. Right now, a decent sized wind turbine can power 200 homes.

If not wind, I'd say nuclear power. At least it's cheap.

Solar power is a decent route, but it's far from efficient when compared to wind or nuclear power.

freaky naughty · Feb 13, 2008, 02:19 AM // 02:19

Well, the only logical way of meeting energy needs is nuclear power. Fossil fuels cause pollution, solar and wind have too many small faults to power a whole country. Nuclear power's only fault is the waste, but ofcourse we can just dump it into some desert in Arizona, until Al Gore starts complaining that causes global warming. I'm for putting more money into Hydrogen-powered cars.

Btw how come there are no "I hate Britain" threads, only "The U.S sucks" threads? Gamers are the most liberal people I know.....

Some countries are failing waaaaay more than America, but if America breaks its finger nails people act as if the world is going to end.... So much for America isn't the center of the world. Btw I'm a right-wing conservative.

jamal · Feb 13, 2008, 02:25 AM // 02:25

on the matter of nuclear waste, i've always thought, why not just send it into space? Would it be too much cost-effective, or the possibility of the waste slingshotting back to earth? maybe someone can explain it to me.