Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Biofuels Causing Death And Mayhem?
Filed under unintended consequences:
The Green Monster's guilt driven solutions to Global Warming (now called Climate Change) may cause starvation, wars and mass slaughter...
We drive, they starve. The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.
"The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). "Naturally people won't be sitting dying of starvation, they will react," he said. The UN says it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol. That is enough to feed a child for a year. Last week, the UN predicted "massacres" unless the biofuel policy is halted. "The world food situation is very serious: we have seen riots in Egypt, Cameroon, Haiti and Burkina Faso," said Mr Diouf. "There is a risk that this unrest will spread in countries where 50pc to 60pc of income goes to food," he said.
Perhaps Ted Turner's dire prediction will come true, but not for the reasons he recently stated. Even uber-liberal economist Paul Krugman thinks biofuels are demonic...
Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels. The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a “scam.”
...and can even accelerate Global Warming (now called Climate Change)...
This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly “good” biofuel policies, like Brazil’s use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.
...no matter what we do the Climate will Change and has done so for billions of years, but I digest...
More here:
The idea of turning farms into fuel plants seemed, for a time, like one of the answers to high global oil prices and supply worries. That strategy seemed to reach a high point last year when Congress mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.
But now a reaction is building against policies in the United States and Europe to promote ethanol and similar fuels, with political leaders from poor countries contending that these fuels are driving up food prices and starving poor people. Biofuels are fast becoming a new flash point in global diplomacy, putting pressure on Western politicians to reconsider their policies, even as they argue that biofuels are only one factor in the seemingly inexorable rise in food prices.
In some countries, the higher prices are leading to riots, political instability and growing worries about feeding the poorest people. Food riots contributed to the dismissal of Haiti’s prime minister last week, and leaders in some other countries are nervously trying to calm anxious consumers.
At a weekend conference in Washington, finance ministers and central bankers of seven leading industrial nations called for urgent action to deal with the price spikes, and several of them demanded a reconsideration of biofuel policies adopted recently in the West.
Thanks Al.
"Eat recycled food. It's good for the planet and ok for you."
As the Greens constantly tell us: "Everything you do has an impact on the planet." The next time you do something because some celebrity or overblown former politician masquerading as a climate "expert" says "Green is good," take it with a grain of salt, or at least look into it a little before you leap...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I don’t think having a few million people die so that Mother Earth will have cleaner air is such a big deal. I don’t mean to sound harsh but tradeoffs must be made. Personally I’d rather see more polar bears and trees and natural beauty than people.
As long as it's not you that's doing the dying, right? I'm going to assume you're joking...
I’m not joking at all. Die-offs are natural phenomena. Biological populations reach a critical level and then crash, and human populations are no different. The air, water, and soil pollution we see all around us are symptoms of too many people. If our population crashes everyone will be much better off including the Earth herself. And we won’t have to worry about climate change anymore.
Millions of people have lost their lives in political or religious wars. In the war to save the planet millions will die also. It’s just the cost of having a clean and healthful environment.
That's quite the final solution you've dialed up there little Miss Adolf. Do you want to be the one to decide who lives or dies? Perhaps you should follow the advice of a bumpersticker from one of your ilk:
Save The Planet, Kill Yourself
...be part of the solution.
I still think you're joking.
What is your solution, Mr. Smarty Pants? Oh, let me guess. You will wait until Antarctica thaws out and then move all the people you are trying to keep alive to the “new” continent. Or how about pumping babies up with helium and letting them float to the moon?
No doubt you will have something oh-so funny and glib to say about saving Mother Earth or about me, but you really have nothing to say about the situation we are in. You have no clue, just wisecracks.
We may not need to do anything. Indeed, the amount of warming your ilk is caterwauling about amounts to roughly 7/10ths of 1 degree Celsius since the 1850s, there is evidence in the fossil record of far more drastic warming than that having taken place long before we were ever around. Your Mother has plenty of self correcting mechanisms up her sleeve. For instance, according to NASA, North America, Siberia and China have received more snowfall this winter than at any time in the last 50 years so relax and stop advocating killing people by mass starvation. Unless of course your willing to be the first to lead by example...
Okay. I accept your argument about a self-regulating climate. Now will you go on the record and say that if you are wrong, and the climate gets worse, you will do nothing to stop millions of people from dying? Will you let your self-regulating climate decimate the human population?
You see, if we take affirmative action to reverse climate change, millions will die (or be reduced to abject poverty) as a result of those actions. That’s my position. I am willing to fix the environment even if it costs lives.
You are not willing to do anything because you believe the climate is self-regulating. But are you willing to take responsibility for the death of millions if you are wrong? I doubt it. You will likely claim that human populations, like the climate, are self-regulating, which is what I told you at the beginning of this discussion.
And lose the “ilk” crap, will you? It’s a dumb word to start with and is even dumber when overused.
Why does the climate changing mean the climate is getting worse? The Climate has been changing (rising and falling) since the Earth has had an atomsphere, it is neither bad nor good. It merely is. There are advantages and disadvantages to a warmer climate as well as advantages and disadvantages to a cooler climate. For a moment I will accept your premise that we can change the climate at will. Suppose we overcorrect and plunge into an Ice Age? Ice Ages have proved to be far more swift, final and deadly for the species that happened to be alive at the time than warmer periods. For instance around 1100 a.d. Greenland had agriculture, it was warmer, that was good for the people practicing the agriculture there at that time. And that warmer period may have caused problems for people and animals in other parts of the world during that era. Let's say for a moment the climate gets "worse," you seem content to let people die, whereas I would do everything possible to help as many of them as possible. Animal species don't just lie down and die when the climate changes, they have survival instincts as well, they migrate or adapt in other ways or as a last resort yes, they die, but not willingly. We can and have adapted to a changing climate as well. The climate is what it is, there is nothing to fix. By the way I like the word "ilk", I don't use it enough. :) Don't forget, many of the same voices clamoring about global warming today, were warning of a coming Ice Age in the 1970s.
You think like it was 1100 AD. You know, like there are 150 million people living in scattered habitations around the globe who can migrate at will if the climate changes too much one way or the other. They just throw everything in a wooden cart and start flogging the oxen.
Now you’re joking, right?
There are over 6 billion people on the planet and the only adaptive means they have are technological means. They’re not going any place. They will just have to turn the thermostat up or down in the old mud hut.
At least you admit you would do everything you could to save human lives if you guessed wrong on climate change. But by then, of course, you will just throw your hands up in exasperation because it will be way too late to save anybody. And what would have been a few million lives lost by taking affirmative action on climate change will have turned into hundreds of millions lost by doing nothing.
And that's the difference between us. I'm willing to roll the dice on a few million, and you want to bet the ranch.
I was refering to animals migrating, not people. You're the one being draconian here, I've never blithely advocated the death of millions, not once. You have on at least 3 posts. Go have a barbeque, it's Friday.
Post a Comment