Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Rodian, if you'd read my other postings, you'd know that I'm arguing for economically rewarding poorer people for living with less environmental impact.
My issue with alternative fuels is that it has done just the opposite. It punishes poor people by pushing up food costs in order to fuel the cars of the relatively wealthy.
I think the onus is on you, actually, to explain how the poor benefit from these alternative fuels. Or are they just excess rats who should accept their fate?
I think it's time to critically rethink alternative fuels using inclusive economic reasoning. There may be ways that these fuels can be incorporated as part of a reasoned global warming strategy.
But right now some nations with poor populations are reacting by closing off their food markets to protect their food-purchasers. That approach is hurting other, even poorer nations without adequate domestic food production, and is probably not in anyone's best interest in the long run. Politically, the alternative fuels movement has run into a PR disaster that could hurt other efforts to combat global warming.
If biofuels mandates are a 'crime against humanity' than basically any action which doesn't minimize food prices is a crime against humanity.
Well, if the "action" is subsidized by any government, yes.
The real travesty inherent in biofuel production is its subsidy by the U.S. gov't, to the tune of 51c per gallon of E85 produced. This is disgusting and an ab initio perversion of any "market forces" that may be prsent.
If the bio-fuel cult wants to produce their stuff, fine. BUT NO SUBSIDIES! They do it on their own, survive by their own profits in competition with other fuels ....or they perish.
Simple as that. The fact that certain Greens could even have thought this was a good idea is absurd, especially as it actually generates 40% more greenhouse gases. (Not to mention the thousand or so gallons of water needed to produce each gallon of ethanol)
Property is theft in the US ....... the land was stolen from the native americans ....... and the argument should be about the rational use of resources ........ ethanol only has two carbons and is a poor fuel ........ low energy density ....... no one can justify viewing ethanol as an efficient energy source ...... as usual, whenever you see anything going on that does reason, you simply have to follow the money trail ........ and as usual its greedy corporations who value money over everything including reason ...... corporate farming and chemical and seed suppliers are the driving forces behind ethanol as a fuel ........ not scientific opinion .....
We have stacked so many problems on top of problems, like the vender from the children’s book who wears so many hats that he can no longer balance them at top his head.
From Bush to global warming to the huge defense budget to the lobbyists and the slight of hand in Washington. To the.. To the. And oh so many more problems, including the very real problem of Colony Collapse Disorder in the Bee population. A trouble-great, which is already on the brink of wiping out our food supplies of fruits, nuts and alfalfa-thus beef, because there are annualy fewer bees left to pollinate.
If we had tried to screw up the world, and our planet...made it man’s major goal. I doubt if we could have done much better.
For more information on the Bees click on the Deeply Imbedded link and blog.
And then later, Jesus would all the amoral capitalists out of the temple ....
...... would DRIVE all the amoral capitalists from the temple
Well, at least we're not arguing about numbers.
I never said a word about alternative fuels. I agree 100% that corn ethanol is not only wasteful, but harmful. I don't believe for a second that population control is the only thing we need to do. I support conservation efforts wholeheartedly. I ride a bike when I can, drive a small car when I can't, and buy local.
I do, however, think the population of this planet puts everyone in peril, and facing up to that should be our number one priority. If we can deal with that, and do all the other good things we should do, global prosperity is a real option. I want that.
We used to have the agricultural complex whose demand was fairly predictable and so was supply except for unusual weather events which on a global average tended to be well average. We had the energy complex in which demand and supply were fairly predictable except when there were geo political events. However, the spill over from one market to another was limited. With the advent of bio-fuels we have now linked these two markets. Events in the energy market now spill over into the agricultural complex. Thus the threat to bomb Iran not only results in higher crude prices but also results in higher food prices. Rather than just hoard (or inventory if you prefer) crude speculators can hoard grains because the too can be converted into energy.
Last week the USDA announced that farmers were going to plant about a million more acres of corn- about 150Million bushels and corn prices fell 5%. Imagine the fall if over 2billion bushels were not being used. The drop would approximate the 75% quite closely.
We're awash in used fry oil. So after it clogs our hearts and kills us we can pour it in our gas tanks. So we can toodle down the road to get some more killer grease to eat. And so on.
Maybe we should cut out the middle man and fuel our cars with the obese directly.
I get it Rodian. You can use numbers (population), but I can't use numbers (consumption). You can use analogy (humans on earth = rats in a cage), but I can't critique the analogy.
Paul Ehrlich should get some sort of medal for closing so many minds, and allowing the biggest culprits in ecological disaster to shift responsibility to the most vulnerable--and least culpable--members of society.
I guess justifying class ideology beat classifying butterflies. But it's unfortunate that the misapplication of population studies through analogy set back the environmental movement by decades.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
