Renewable petroleum…kinda.

“Ten years ago I could never have imagined I’d be doing this,” says , 33, a former software executive, as he squints into the late afternoon Californian sun. “I mean, this is essentially agriculture, right? But the people I talk to — especially the ones coming out of business school — this is the one hot area everyone wants to get into.”

He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs — very, very small ones — so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete .

Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Mr Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls “renewable petroleum”. After that, he grins, “it’s a brave new world”.

It kinda reminds me of Red Planet, a movie that came out in 2000 (if memory serves) — except that in the movie, there were insects that ate the terraforming algae that humanity had sent to and excreted oxygen after doing so.

These petroleum-producing bacteria are, admittedly, both a) somewhat different, and b) real. It’s a fascinating development, though, and certainly something that sounds like it was ripped out of a sci-fi novel.

Now…is it workable in the long term, and in the large scale? If so, the most interesting aspect of the technology might just be the shift of the balance of power. Oil-poor nations with large agricultural industries could potentially become major players in the world oil market, and the idea that any nation which is a net exporter of agricultural product could refine waste from those industries into oil for its people to use would, one can only hope, have the side effect of shattering the power of the ern oil barons.

Although, to be fair, there’s still the issues of a) cost of implementing the program on a wide scale, and b) how much can actually be produced from a given quantity of raw material. If an entire farm’s worth of agricultural waste will only net the farmer a barrel or two of good crude, this development won’t exactly be the miracle cure that it kinda sounds like.

David Warren spotlights a trend that I’d suspected might just be the case after all — that production of “environmentally friendly” s not only results in increased * (since the process of refining various grains into vehicle-ready fuel requires many processing stages, all of which require fossil fuels to be burned in order to drive the various processes — by comparison, refining into is a fairly clean and efficient process), but that it drives up the price of food globally, especially in already impoverished nations.

And while folks like me, living and working in , might be able to absorb a twofold or threefold increase in the cost of food, people living in nations would be crushed by similar increases. And here’s the kicker: such increases aren’t just possible or likely. They are already happening.

Even in the economically advanced West, the rise in prices has become noticeable. My observant reader will find plenty of signs in his local supermarket, where the price of products is leading an advance that must necessarily spread — for wholesale prices are outstripping retail prices in food across the board. The secondary effect of the monetary inflation this re-ignites is in itself beginning to cause economic havoc.

But we, who spend (in ) less than 15 percent of our income on food, can nevertheless survive if that proportion doubles or triples.

It is in the poorest countries of the world, where people often spend more than half their income obtaining food, that a doubling or tripling of prices is fatal. And note, the supply of food does not need to halve, in order to double prices. It only has to fall, consistently, a little behind demand.

Please don’t take my word for this. The United Nations’ and various other collectivist agencies are already becoming eloquent on the subject. In a statement to the an Parliament last week, the executive director of the explained that their own cost of obtaining food for distribution to the world’s hungry had risen by 40 percent since last June. They are not predicting a catastrophe. They are experiencing one.

seems to have become just one more playground for wealthy Westerners, a way we can wring our hands and make ourselves feel good for having “done something,” the same as when we banned . And yet we do not, by our actions, achieve any meaningful positive environmental impact. Indeed, the only impact we manage to achieve is that, in our selfish desire to be “green,” we further impoverish and condemn to a most terrible fate thousands or millions of people living in poorer nations. And in the end, our selfishness backfires on us as well — the same “green” fuels we might desire to use in our cars are, in fact, very difficult to produce, and the production processes far more polluting than those used to refine crude oil into petrol.

But then, that pollution happens elsewhere, and not in our back yards or on the roads upon which we drive. We do not see it, and so can safely pretend it does not exist.

* this seems to be a contemporary analog of the electric lawnmower fad of some years ago. While it was argued that s were more environmentaly friendly since they did not burn fuel of their own, it had to be noted that the electricity to power the mowers had to come from somewhere — which, in , meant (and still does mean) coal-fired power plants. Exactly how increased demand for coal-fired electricity was supposed to be environmentally friendly was lost on all the various neighbours we had during my formative years who swore by the “cleanliness” of their electric mowers.

But then, once again, the increased pollution happens “elsewhere,” rather than in our front yard. We can remain safely and comfortably ignorant of it, and pretend as though it does not exist.