The dude who helped co-draft China’s national energy strategy, Song Yanqin, participated at Asia Clean Energy Forum 2008 and said that “food security comes first in China, more important than fuel”. He went on to explain that China has no plan to sacrifice food for fuel. Biofuels can find another source, dang it. China is hungry. We want to eat first, then think about energy sources and all that.

The debate is indeed far from over as to the effects of using maize, palm oil, sugarcane and jatropha to produce biofuels or what the effect would be on food prices.

One U.S. designer of high-tech alcohol plants said that “food versus fuel is 99-percent noise. Do your homework and get a noise filter. Time magazine is not your key reference document”. Does that mean that main stream media is not the authority on this topic? What about us bloggers?

In any event, China plans to have dinner, then think about it.

What’s your stance on the biofuel vs food price increase issue?

Image by stelzert

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe free for our updates via RSS feed. Thanks for visiting and please do come back!

Toot toot!

That would be China blowing its own horn.

China’s agricultural minister is claiming that the Middle Kingdom is a major contributor to world food security for the simple reason that the big Panda feeds one-fourth of the global population.

Yeah, right. China takes care of her own.
Whoopdee doo!

What if every country was satisfied that it were able to just take care of itself? Good enough? I don’t think so.

“We are not causing anybody to care about feeding us” does not make a country a contributor. It just makes that country a non-burden. A contributor is an active participant, no?

Blessed are the peacemakers is what the Good Book says. Not the peace keepers.

Blessed are the contributors, not the well fed.

Are we to say, “Thanks, China. For taking care of yourself?”

source