Driving v. Starvation

This is an interesting dilemma; given that biofuels reduce our reliance on traditional fuel but at the same time spurs hunger worldwide by inflating the cost of food, what will we decide is more important to address? (Perhaps the answer is both.)

It reminds me of a Walrus feature about how our obsession with outlawing trans fats means that we're killing elephants in other parts of the world...or something like that. Wookiee'll know. (update 01.05.08 - here is the Walrus article I referred to; we are killing wild elephants in Borneo.)

Anyway, the part of the article that I need to comment on is this:

"Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, said: "World agriculture can both feed and fuel the globe.""

Obviously this guy is motivated by his job to say this, so I have to ask; when did we have enough agriculture to "feed and fuel the globe"? For as long as I can remember there have been pleas for help to feed impoverished people around the world. Hasn't Hartwig ever seen those television ads showing the emaciated families covered in flies? This is not a new problem and to say that today, with less grain, corn, or soybeans available than a few years ago that there is plenty to go around? It's just not credible, and I can't let it pass.