On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:28:50 -0700, Gunner
wrote:



http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...rpc=23&sp=true
============

This ppears to be yet another case of getting 9 women pregnant so
you can get a baby in one month.

It appears to be correct that if no additional crops are grown,
then hunger will result from the diversion of food stuffs to fuel
production, given that there was no great surplus, and indeed
chronic malnutrition/famine in many areas. However, note that
one of the steepest run-ups has been wheat, which is not used to
any extent in bio-fuels, to the extend of a pasta strike in
Italy. click on
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...03/2022981.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wpasta131.xml

No solution is ever so good that the fast buck scam artists can't
screw it up.

The whole idea was to use alternative, non-food plants on
marginal and/or unutilized land, not divert food crops/production
to fuel use. And what happened to all the crop surpluses that
the governments pay billions for????

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.