Instead of going after smoking, cable and lotteries why didn't you go after McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Lays? Or after convenience stores? Or taverns? Or sports arenas?
For that matter, why would you go after Indonesia, which though it has 241 million people, ranks 17th in consumption in the world, at 1.063 million barrels, about 1/20th of U.S. consumption and even less than Canada.
Or, for that matter, why go after Rome? Yes, it subsidized food, for otherwise it would have had starvation in the streets. But the decline of Roman agriculture was not subsidized food, it was depopulation due to war and raids and eventual conquest at the hands of the Goths and the Vandals.
Do you drive a car or truck? Why not give it up and lobby the government for public transportation?
Do you live in the country? Why not move into the city and save us all the cost of maintaining roads, infrastructure, police and everything else where it's not needed?
Do you heat with carbon-producing fuels (oil, gas, wood, thermal-electricity)? Why not invest in solar heating?
Do you purchase products made with plastics, products requiring wrapping and packaging? Why not buy only in bulk, eschewing packaging of any kind, save reusable containers you bring yourself?
Rob - I am sympathetic with the points of view and arguments you advance here in this blog. I am very much on your side.
But when you start pointing fingers and picking scapegoats, when you start saying things that suggest that it's ok to let the poor starve, or to go without basic needs, you lose me. We can't afford to go down that road. None of us can.