Save the Earth and feed the hungry!

Clean energy seems to be one of the hottest topic for the upcoming years. As countries start to unite to save the Earth, scientists research on new ways to be more eco-friendly. And now, the in thing is CLEAN ENERGY.

Michael Grunwald had splendidly question on why we are paying money for something with is putting ourselves and the Earth at a disadvantage. Currently, many countries are investing in ethanol to replace gasoline. These countries thought they were contributing some effort in saving the environment. Too bad, they were wrong.

Like Grunwald mentioned, "The Clean Energy Scam. Hyped as an eco-friendly increases global warming, destroys forests and inflates food prices. So why are we subsidizing it?"

It seems so a question that political leaders of various countries should have known beforehand of the effects of having corn ethanol as a replacement of gasoline. They should have been informed of the disadvantages of corn ethanol. Political leaders, although some are not into the sciences, they should have some background and sense to know that they must check and re-check before implementing a project or a investment.

Now, the question is on biofuel. Is using biofuels advantageous for the environment? Are they able to reduce the carbon emissions by a large percentage? Should biofuels be used, can they provide the same amount of energy compared to the burning of gasoline? All these questions can provide the answer to whether we should subsidize the investment of biofuel.

Using biofuels is advantageous for the environment only if deforestation is not taken into account. Look at it, there is a need to destroy the forests before they can grow sugarcane or soy biodiesel. "When this deforestation effect is taken into account, sugarcane ethanol and soy biodiesel produce twice the emissions of gasoline." Looking at this statement only, having sugarcane ethanol or soy biodiesel as replacements for gasoline can just harm the environment more than ever. The environment is already deteriorating rapidly as there is the increase in emissions from industries and vehicles and yet, there is this problem which is going to further deteriorate it and I feel that the Earth in the future might just be too hot to stay in.

If land is going to be expanded for agriculture of sugarcane or soy or maybe corn, it should not be expanded into the space of precious forests. Although the forests might have been the only "free land" left, they should still think of other ways to grow the sugarcane etc, maybe at terraces on mountains or inactive volcanoes. The scientists should have thought more into it rather than to just see the government allowing companies to cut down the forests and see the Earth slowly die in front of they eyes. Scientists have found out about the "miracle rice" for subsistence wet-rice farming, why not find something similar for the sugarcane, corn and soy. Or maybe genetically modify it such that instead of needing so many corns, they only need a smaller amount of corn to provide the same amount of energy.

Next, I feel that they should set their priorities right. Which is more important, the survival of the people or the economic growth of the country? The growth of sugarcane etc will cause an inflate in prices. If it is already difficult for some people in the third world countries to make ends meet, how are they going to survive if the prices are going to shoot into the sky? They would just give up their life and not bother about the inflation of prices anymore. It will make lives of people more difficult and the vicious cycle of poverty to be seen once more. The rich are just getting richer as the economic booms with the increase in number of industries, more investments and so on. The poor are just going to get poorer as they have to pay more when they can't even pay the original price. How is it going to help in the development of the country is this keeps going on and on? Is there going to be segregation among the rich and the poor by the imaginary line which divides the condominiums and the slums? I thought there will always be a talk about "unity" in the country. Then again, talk does not mean action. Economic growth might be important but if economic growth is only going to help a certain sector of the country and not as a whole, I suggest that the governments should prioritise the survival of even the poorest before they think about their economy.

They are hungry for food and clean water, the basic needs to survive. Why can't the governments give in to them for once?