Coloradostoneman

Coloradostoneman t1_j8dh8t2 wrote

Reply to comment by 40for60 in [OC] Sugarcane was first introduced to Brazil in 1532. Half a millennium later, the country produces over 700M tonnes yearly (roughly the same amount as all of Asia, and 7x the amount produced by Africa) by latinometrics

I know that. Having a stable farm sector is a pretty good hedge against famine. Much better than trying to store an infinite amount of corn.

Look, I don't like corn ethanol as a fuel. But the idea that it is causing people to starve is just absurd.

It can probably be stated accurately that a smaller percentage of humanity is calorie deprived today than at any point in history.

2

Coloradostoneman t1_j84wno1 wrote

Reply to comment by markpreston54 in [OC] Sugarcane was first introduced to Brazil in 1532. Half a millennium later, the country produces over 700M tonnes yearly (roughly the same amount as all of Asia, and 7x the amount produced by Africa) by latinometrics

PgYes, it is better to be fat than to starve, but nobody is starving because Midwest corn is made into ethanol. People are hungry because of distribution problems.

Midwest corn also doesn't change the cost of healthy food anywhere.

1

Coloradostoneman t1_j84w7bt wrote

Reply to comment by Roadkill_Bingo in [OC] Sugarcane was first introduced to Brazil in 1532. Half a millennium later, the country produces over 700M tonnes yearly (roughly the same amount as all of Asia, and 7x the amount produced by Africa) by latinometrics

That is a much more nuanced response then just "we are wasting food". The world is not short on food. It might be short on sustainably produced food. It might be short on food in the places it is most needed. but it is not short on food.

Ethanol, as a fuel, is not carbon negative. Corn based ethanol is not even particularly better than say natural gas given the fertilizer input.

1

Coloradostoneman t1_j84ibnp wrote

Reply to comment by Roadkill_Bingo in [OC] Sugarcane was first introduced to Brazil in 1532. Half a millennium later, the country produces over 700M tonnes yearly (roughly the same amount as all of Asia, and 7x the amount produced by Africa) by latinometrics

My degree is in cellular and molecular biology. I do understand fermentation and related fields pretty well. Do you understand global economics? If we stop using corn for ethanol and ship it to places that might be willing to eat it, it will be so cheep that it will harm their local farmers tremendously ultimately making those places less food secure.

What else should we do with the corn?

1

Coloradostoneman t1_j84hkoy wrote

Reply to comment by markpreston54 in [OC] Sugarcane was first introduced to Brazil in 1532. Half a millennium later, the country produces over 700M tonnes yearly (roughly the same amount as all of Asia, and 7x the amount produced by Africa) by latinometrics

Not sure if you have noticed, but we have a much bigger problem with obesity than hunger right now. We don't have enough storage capacity to reduce the consumption of corn by ethanol massively.

0

Coloradostoneman t1_j82rsn1 wrote

Reply to comment by doubledippedchipp in [OC] Sugarcane was first introduced to Brazil in 1532. Half a millennium later, the country produces over 700M tonnes yearly (roughly the same amount as all of Asia, and 7x the amount produced by Africa) by latinometrics

Corn is actually an amazing plant in terms of calories per acre and per gallon of water. It is a C4 plant and Midwest corn burst is the most intense bit of photosynthesis anywhere on the planet per day.

8

Coloradostoneman t1_iy76y79 wrote

Reply to comment by TakeBeerBenchinHilux in On April 2, 1941, a Japanese foreign minister asked Pope Pius XII to speak to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, so as to avert "a war of mutual destruction” by marketrent

Notice I said "they did not FEEL that they had a choice" not that they didn't.

All I said they had no real choice on was attacking pearl harbor. And given that the other option was packing it all in because they had no oil, which was culturally and politically untenable, no, they did not really have a choice in their mind.

Were there technically other options? Yes, there usually are. Was there any chance they would be taken? No. In the Japan of the time ending the war was literally death for the commanders.

1

Coloradostoneman t1_iy2doj9 wrote

Reply to comment by Doberman7290 in On April 2, 1941, a Japanese foreign minister asked Pope Pius XII to speak to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, so as to avert "a war of mutual destruction” by marketrent

How could Japan avoid a war with the US. Their supply of oil was cut off and they had no way to get more without a war with the US. They couldn't just stop the war in China. They were committed and the political and cultural situation made stopping impossible. The Oil embargo was a masterpiece. There were no bad outcomes from Roosevelt's perspective. It allows the US to get into the war with a motivated population. In November 1941 the US population did not want to be a part of the war. Without the US, Britian falls. Without Britian, the are no distractions for a Germany invading russia (North Africa) without those distractions and US lend lease to the USSR and Germany probably wins there.

Every leader knew the US people had to be convinced to join. That meant a brutal but impotent attack on US soil. Thus pearl harbor with all the carriers elsewhere.

0

Coloradostoneman t1_iy2cufs wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in On April 2, 1941, a Japanese foreign minister asked Pope Pius XII to speak to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, so as to avert "a war of mutual destruction” by marketrent

Roosevelt did not allow Japan to continue the genocide. That is the point. Stopping the war in China was not really an option for Japan. Technically, they could have, but everyone knew they would not. The actions of Roosevelt resulted in the Pearl harbor attack. That is exactly why it was done, and that is a good thing. Roosevelt wanted in to the war, but the US public was not interested. By forcing Japan to attack Roosevelt could make the US population interested.

The only way to get the US into the war with a motivated population was to make someone punch the US. The only one that would and could hit the US was Japan and their hand could be forced.

0

Coloradostoneman t1_iy2bcub wrote

Reply to comment by Raspberries2 in On April 2, 1941, a Japanese foreign minister asked Pope Pius XII to speak to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, so as to avert "a war of mutual destruction” by marketrent

I think they would have gone to some pretty extreme efforts to not go to war with us.

When you look at most of the basic industries for war, the US had a HUGE lead over the rest of the world. And the US industrial heartland was essentially untouchable. Nobody wanted to go to war with the US.

−2

Coloradostoneman t1_iy1t0v1 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in On April 2, 1941, a Japanese foreign minister asked Pope Pius XII to speak to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, so as to avert "a war of mutual destruction” by marketrent

Roosevelt was not the bad guy, but he definitely forced Japan's hand.

Edit:

Roosevelt did not allow Japan to continue the genocide. That is the point. Stopping the war in China was not really an option for Japan. Technically, they could have, but everyone knew they would not. The actions of Roosevelt resulted in the Pearl harbor attack. That is exactly why it was done, and that is a good thing. Roosevelt wanted in to the war, but the US public was not interested. By forcing Japan to attack Roosevelt could make the US population interested.

The only way to get the US into the war with a motivated population was to make someone punch the US. The only one that would and could hit the US was Japan and their hand could be forced.

−8

Coloradostoneman t1_iy1rvr6 wrote

Reply to comment by TakeBeerBenchinHilux in On April 2, 1941, a Japanese foreign minister asked Pope Pius XII to speak to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, so as to avert "a war of mutual destruction” by marketrent

The attack on Hawaii makes perfect sense if you think a war with the US in the Pacific is inevitable. They did because of 3 factors: US declared that European Colonies in the area were off limits and those were the places that had oil. The US was essentially the sole supplier of oil to Japan before the war and had just declared an embargo. The US territory of the Philippines was between Japan and all of the critical resources in south east Asia and Australia.

Basically, the US put Japan in a corner with a short time line by cutting off the oil supply. Japan had to find more oil and to do so they had to invade the colonies which the US had said would mean war and shipping that oil would be impossibly vulnerable without attacking the Philippines which would mean war with the US.

If you are going to fight a war with the US you have to hit Hawaii first and with a huge and successfull strike. Projecting power across the Pacific without Hawaii is essentially impossible.

4