Today, the US is facing both a food and an energy crisis.

Many scientists and politicians once thought that bio-fuels was the answer
to the ever increasing demand for oil and its rising costs. However,
now that food crops like corn are being diverted to the production of
ethanol, costs for everything from meat to milk to eggs is
skyrocketing. In addition, scientists and environmentalists are now
realizing that the ethanol production process is harmful to the
environmental and actually adding to the problem of global warming.

Now some politicians are ready to limit ethanol production and expand
drilling in protected areas of the environment in order to meet
America's energy needs. However there is already a great deal of
evidence showing this to be an impractical solution. One, because of
the irreparable damage that he will due to the environment. And two,
because, in the case of the Alaska Pipeline, the ground no longer stays
frozen solid enough months of the year, in order to move the oil
tankers in and out of the area.

In some circles voices are demanding that OPEC lower prices. Ironically, this cry is often coming
from those that believe in letting "the market" drive the economy. Many
of these voices are suggesting the Kuwait and Iraq should remember
their "friends"? Are they saying that "it was really all about the
oil"? Meanwhile oil companies like BP & Shell are reporting record
profits.

While addressing Congress today, Senator Chuck Schumer
(D-NY) succinctly pointed out that the money from most American's
stimulus checks will end up in Saudi Arabia. He suggested that the
passage of the Saudi Arms Deal
be blocked if they do not increase oil production. It seems that so
many events over the last seven years have come down to ARMS & OIL.

Some politicians and business interests are trying to sell the idea of clean
coal. Ask the people in Appalachia, whose air and drinking water is
being poisoned by mountaintop mining, if there is anything "clean"
about coal.

And of course there are the proponents of nuclear
energy -- a process for which there is no viable way to dispose of the
waste product.

As bleak as this conundrum of food, energy and
environmental problems sounds, I am sure that the world's scientists
and business community will find the answers. But will they learn the
real lessons?.

Will world leaders finally learn that :

• just because we have the knowledge to do something it might not always be wise to do it
• just because an idea has a short-term benefit that he should also be evaluated for its long term consequences.
• we have always lived in a global community

In an article for the Washington Post, Stephen Mufson painted a very clear
picture of the ties between food and oil. Here's an excerpt from his
article, " Siphoning Off Corn to Fuel Our Cars".

Across
the country, ethanol plants are swallowing more and more of the
nation's corn crop. This year, about a quarter of U.S. corn will go to
feeding ethanol plants instead of poultry or livestock. That has helped
farmers like Johnson, but it has boosted demand -- and prices -- for
corn at the same time global grain demand is growing.

And it has
linked food and fuel prices just as oil is rising to new records,
pulling up the price of anything that can be poured into a gasoline
tank. "The price of grain is now directly tied to the price of oil,"
says Lester Brown, president of Earth Policy Institute, a Washington
research group. "We used to have a grain economy and a fuel economy.
But now they're beginning to fuse."

Not everyone thinks it's
fantastic. People who use corn to feed cattle, hogs and chickens are
being squeezed by high corn prices. On Monday, Tyson Foods reported its
first loss in six quarters and said that its corn and soybean costs
would increase by $600 million this year. Those who are able, such as
egg producers, are passing those high corn costs along to consumers.
The wholesale price of eggs in the first quarter soared 40 percent from
a year earlier, according to the Agriculture Department. Meanwhile,
retail prices of countless food items, from cereal to sodas to salad
dressing, are being nudged upward by more expensive ingredients such as
corn syrup and cornstarch.

Rising food prices have given
Congress and the White House a sudden case of legislative indigestion.
In 2005, the Republican-led Congress and President Bush backed a bill
that required widespread ethanol use in motor fuels. Just four months
ago, the Democratic-led Congress passed and Bush signed energy
legislation that boosted the mandate for minimum corn-based ethanol use
to 15 billion gallons, about 10 percent of motor fuel, by 2015. It was
one of the most popular parts of the bill, appealing to farm-state
lawmakers and to those worried about energy security and eager to
substitute a home-grown energy source for a portion of U.S. petroleum
imports. To help things along, motor-fuel blenders receive a 51 cent
subsidy for every gallon of corn-based ethanol used through the end of
2010; this year, production could reach 8 billion gallons.

Now,
however, the legislation is being criticized for making food more
expensive while gasoline prices continue to climb. Rick Perry, a
Republican who succeeded Bush as Texas governor, has asked the
Environmental Protection Agency to waive half of the "misguided"
ethanol requirements because of rising food costs; every penny increase
in per-bushel corn prices costs his state's livestock industry $6
million a year, he said.

Hopefully, US leadership will get serious about finding longterm sustainable solutions to today's
food, energy and environmental issues and the American public will get
serious and realize and any solution will involve a little sacrifice.