Global Warming or Global Hunger?

The London Telegraph has an extraordinarily fascinating story it just put up this afternoon entitled "Global warming rage lets global hunger grow." I know. I know. More global warming stuff from me. Well, I have for some time considered it a moral outrage that global warming is looked at as this crucial moral event (for example, as I've pointed out before, now churches like the SBC are weighing in on it as an ethical issue). However, issues like global hunger, the spread of AIDS in underdeveloped nations, and rising illiteracy rates in the developed world continue to receive secondhand attention from the media at large.

Meanwhile, events such as LiveEarth (with no concrete goals even being stated beyond "spreading awareness") have made empty attempts to bring the dangers of rising C02 emissions into the public eye while neglecting the true global catastrophe of global hunger. Which brings me back to the article from the Telegraph.

Currently, most countries have regulations in place requiring that a certain percentage of their gas supplies contain biofuels. Biofuels are basically fuels made from grains such as corn, wheat, rice, and sugar. The belief is that these biofuels are better for the environment (assuming C02 is bad, of course). The problem is - according to this article - that since all this excess grain is being used to fuel cars, the rising global demand for grains and rice in underdeveloped countries is not being met. Of particular interest to me is the last two paragraphs from the story:

Whatever the arguments, politics is intruding. Food export controls have been imposed by Russia, China, India, Vietnam, Argentina, and Serbia. We are disturbingly close to a chain reaction that could shatter our assumptions about food security.

The Philippines - a country with ample foreign reserves of $36bn (Britain has $27bn) - last week had to enlist its embassies to hunt for grain supplies after China withheld shipments. Washington stepped in, pledging "absolutely" to cover Philippine grain needs. A new Cold War is taking shape, around energy and food.

And the author's conclusion:

The world intelligentsia has been asleep at the wheel. While we rage over global warming, global hunger has swept in under the radar screen.

And I will again and again emphasize that as Christians, participating in global warming hysteria is foolish because 1) I am confident that within the next ten years, the concept of man-made global warming will not only fall out of fashion, but be regarded as an antiquated notion with no basis in reality. 2) Adopting policies which fall into line with this environmental agenda will do harm to massive proportions of the human population (economically in numerous ways, but also, as we've seen, through food shortages as well). 3) The cost to benefit ratio, even granting the global warming crowd their basic premise, does not justify the human cost in this attempt to divert the course of earth's climate. It is a far greater sin to let millions go hungry so the gas companies can use corn instead of oil. One of my favorite excerpts from the article:

Brazil has the world's biggest reserves of "potential arable land" with 483m hectares (it currently cultivates 67m), and Colombia has 62m - both offering biannual harvests. The catch is obvious. "The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid," said Professor John Beddington, Britain's chief scientific adviser.

[FYI: 13 gallons of ethanol is enough corn to feed one child for a year. Think about that.]