Egypt calls for end of biofuels - causing food crisis!

NEWS - "Egyptian government urges end to biofuel subsidies"

"The U.S. and Europe should stop encouraging the growth of maize and

other crops for the production of biofuels, a practice that is pushing

up food prices and hitting the world's poorest people, Egyptian

Minister of Investment Mahmoud Mohieldin said Wednesday."

http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?infoId=17306

----

Parallels - Biofuels and Mao's "Great Leap Forward"

An essential economic point that political leaders and the media have

missed about the world food crisis is that rising oil prices have not

shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has! Higher oil

prices naturally raise the cost of everything that takes energy to

produce, but in addition to that United States and European Union

policies have actually shrunk the human food supply by artificially

mandating a shift of agricultural resources to biofuel production.

President Bush's 2007 "Energy Independence and Security Act" turns our

food into fuel, and is reminiscent of Chairman Mao Tse Tung's 1958

Five Year Plan, known as "The Great Leap Forward," in which China's

agricultural based economy was forcefully shifted to greater

industrial output.

The higher food prices of 2008 cannot easily lead to increased food

production, as would normally be the case, because of Bush's

government mandated shift of land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment,

and manpower resources to biofuel production. With biofuels out of

the equation, farmers could have easily passed higher energy costs on

to consumers without shrinking food production, and they could have

increased food output to meet the greater demands of an expanding

world population. Higher prices normally give producers a strong

incentive signal to make more of a product so they can make more

money. Now those incentive signals are confused and ineffective

because of forced government biofuel mandates. Farmers must now

produce for the automotive biofuel market as well as for the human

food market.

Chairman Mao Tse Tung banned private farms in 1958 in his shift to

communes and greater industrial output at the expense of agriculture.

This led to a 15% drop in grain production in 1959 and another 10%

reduction in 1960. Biofuel production has consumed an estimated 33%

to 38% of America's corn crop, depending of whose statistics you

believe, and has caused many farmers to grow corn to make ethanol

instead of wheat to make bread. Bush's 2007 biofuel mandates have

called for even more of our food to be turned into fuel in the name of

"energy independence," but at the tragic cost of global food supply

security. Mao's top-down meddling in agricultural production was

compounded by droughts and storms, just as Bush's top-down meddling in

agriculture has been compounded by a drought in Australia which

reduced wheat production, and a winter storm in China which caused

major crop failures. A convergence of forces turned Mao's well

meaning 1958 plan into the greatest famine in history, and resulted in

the death by starvation of tens of millions of Chinese people. Bush's

well meaning 2007 "Energy Independence and Security Act" may

eventually take even more lives worldwide.

MORE FACTS ABOUT BIOFUELS - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

On Mar 21, 1:33 pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> NEWS - "Egyptian government urges end to biofuel subsidies"

>

> "The U.S. and Europe should stop encouraging the growth of maize and

> other crops for the production of biofuels, a practice that is pushing

> up food prices and hitting the world's poorest people, Egyptian

> Minister of Investment Mahmoud Mohieldin said Wednesday."

>

> http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?infoId=17306

>

So this is why we need to reduce our energy/resource consumption,

get rid of all that wasteful CONSUMPTION... then we won't need much

fuel and it won't be a big problem to use renewable sources to provide

that smaller amount. But wait a minute... we're AMERICA, Consumption

is

the "American Dream"... NOT!!!! Since when is it written in the US

Constitution

that there is a fundamental right to relentless consumption? I didn't

see it.

HAH!

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:50d5e73b-66ab-44fc-9f69-ae268c785967@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 21, 1:33 pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:

>> NEWS - "Egyptian government urges end to biofuel subsidies"

>>

>> "The U.S. and Europe should stop encouraging the growth of maize and

>> other crops for the production of biofuels, a practice that is pushing

>> up food prices and hitting the world's poorest people, Egyptian

>> Minister of Investment Mahmoud Mohieldin said Wednesday."

>>

>> http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?infoId=17306

>>

>

> So this is why we need to reduce our energy/resource consumption,

> get rid of all that wasteful CONSUMPTION... then we won't need much

> fuel and it won't be a big problem to use renewable sources to provide

> that smaller amount. But wait a minute... we're AMERICA, Consumption

> is

> the "American Dream"... NOT!!!! Since when is it written in the US

> Constitution

> that there is a fundamental right to relentless consumption? I didn't

> see it.

> HAH!

while you're in the constitution looking, why dont you look for the right to

receive welfare checks, subsidized housing, federal control of your

schools,..... just cuz I cant find them doesn't mean they arent there....

..

On Mar 22, 7:51 am, "OneTwoThree" <you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:

> "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>

> news:50d5e73b-66ab-44fc-9f69-ae268c785967@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > On Mar 21, 1:33 pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>

> > wrote:

> >> NEWS - "Egyptian government urges end to biofuel subsidies"

>

> >> "The U.S. and Europe should stop encouraging the growth of maize and

> >> other crops for the production of biofuels, a practice that is pushing

> >> up food prices and hitting the world's poorest people, Egyptian

> >> Minister of Investment Mahmoud Mohieldin said Wednesday."

>

> >>http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?infoId=17306

>

> > So this is why we need to reduce our energy/resource consumption,

> > get rid of all that wasteful CONSUMPTION... then we won't need much

> > fuel and it won't be a big problem to use renewable sources to provide

> > that smaller amount. But wait a minute... we're AMERICA, Consumption

> > is

> > the "American Dream"... NOT!!!! Since when is it written in the US

> > Constitution

> > that there is a fundamental right to relentless consumption? I didn't

> > see it.

> > HAH!

>

> while you're in the constitution looking, why dont you look for the right to

> receive welfare checks, subsidized housing, federal control of your

> schools,..... just cuz I cant find them doesn't mean they arent there....

>

> .

Government imposes upon the people who right seek redress

and compensation. Welfare Checks are payment for not rushing

into the local wilderness and killing wild life for food. Subsidized

housing is a health and social issue, we need the people we

meet in the streets to be healthy, not smell and hopefully not

out but in their subsidized housing. Business need workers

that aren't dumb down by religious schooling that ignores

the science and technological basis of American power.

However the right to be happy doesn't mean the right to

be unhappy later, credit card debt or environmental destruction.

Thats short termism and requires the over thrown of the

government clause to be enacted

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:50d5e73b-66ab-44fc-9f69-ae268c785967@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

> So this is why we need to reduce our energy/resource consumption,

> get rid of all that wasteful CONSUMPTION... then we won't need much

> fuel and it won't be a big problem to use renewable sources to provide

> that smaller amount. But wait a minute... we're AMERICA, Consumption

> is

> the "American Dream"... NOT!!!! Since when is it written in the US

> Constitution

> that there is a fundamental right to relentless consumption? I didn't

> see it.

> HAH!

I'll guess you hate nuclear power with a passion, it would eliminate your

complaining.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:46:07 -0700, mike3 wrote:

> On Mar 21, 1:33 pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> NEWS - "Egyptian government urges end to biofuel subsidies"

>>

>> "The U.S. and Europe should stop encouraging the growth of maize and

>> other crops for the production of biofuels, a practice that is pushing

>> up food prices and hitting the world's poorest people, Egyptian Minister

>> of Investment Mahmoud Mohieldin said Wednesday."

>>

>> http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?infoId=17306

>>

>>

> So this is why we need to reduce our energy/resource consumption, get rid

> of all that wasteful CONSUMPTION... then we won't need much fuel and it

> won't be a big problem to use renewable sources to provide that smaller

> amount. But wait a minute... we're AMERICA, Consumption is

> the "American Dream"... NOT!!!! Since when is it written in the US

> Constitution

> that there is a fundamental right to relentless consumption? I didn't see

> it.

> HAH!

The limit to consumption is what you earn. As long as you produce more

than you consume, there's plenty to go around. It's those that consume

more than they produce that cause problems. They're generally politically

connected.

"Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> wrote

> I'll guess you hate nuclear power with a passion, it would eliminate your

> complaining.

Iran, Iraq and North Korea need to build about 300 nuclear reactors each

in order to provide for their growing energy needs.

I commend them on their efforts.

"OneTwoThree" <youare@notverysmart.ru> wrote

> while you're in the constitution looking, why dont you look for the right

> to receive welfare checks, subsidized housing, federal control of your

> schools,..... just cuz I cant find them doesn't mean they arent there....

Mike forgot to include the right to purchase special pleasures from children

using candy as cash.

It's the Libertarian way.

"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote

> So this is why we need to reduce our energy/resource consumption,

> get rid of all that wasteful CONSUMPTION... then we won't need much

> fuel and it won't be a big problem to use renewable sources to provide

> that smaller amount.

The U.S. economy is based on the unnecessary breaking of windows and their

subsequent replacement.

Not breaking your neighbours windows will result in an economic collapse -

or so the KKKonservative Economists tell us.

On Mar 22, 1:30 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

> The limit to consumption is what you earn. As long as you produce more

> than you consume, there's plenty to go around. It's those that consume

> more than they produce that cause problems. They're generally politically

> connected.

Like disabled Vets?

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:09:40 -0700, Day Brown wrote:

> On Mar 22, 1:30 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> The limit to consumption is what you earn. As long as you produce more

>> than you consume, there's plenty to go around. It's those that consume

>> more than they produce that cause problems. They're generally

>> politically connected.

> Like disabled Vets?

No. Their job was to produce and maintain our security. We owe them a

debt we can never fully repay.

Bureaucrats are more what I have in mind as consuming more than they

produce. Is "disabled vets" the first thing that came to your mind?

"Bill Ward" <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote

> The limit to consumption is what you earn. As long as you produce more

> than you consume, there's plenty to go around. It's those that consume

> more than they produce that cause problems. They're generally politically

> connected.

How much does a hospital janitor produce? Shit Stick.

On Mar 22, 2:51 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:09:40 -0700, Day Brown wrote:

> > On Mar 22, 1:30 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >> The limit to consumption is what you earn. As long as you produce more

> >> than you consume, there's plenty to go around. It's those that consume

> >> more than they produce that cause problems. They're generally

> >> politically connected.

> > Like disabled Vets?

>

> No. Their job was to produce and maintain our security. We owe them a

> debt we can never fully repay.

>

> Bureaucrats are more what I have in mind as consuming more than they

> produce. Is "disabled vets" the first thing that came to your mind?

My point is, who getsta decide who is worthy of access to the public

trough.

V-for-Vendicar wrote:

> "Bill Ward" <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote

>> No. Their job was to produce and maintain our security. We owe them a

>> debt we can never fully repay.

>

> Which is why VA hospitals under the Bush Administration are overrun by

> rats.

>

> MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN

>

>

Which is why you Liberals want government health care for America...

Because government works so well and we need to get rats to all the

hospitals for equality in America.

\\\MMMMMMMMMMMMMMoooooooooooooorrrrrrrOOOOOOOOOOOOOnnnnnnnnnnnnnn///

--

http://Talk-n-Dog.org

Koom-Bay-Ya

I'll check the "Consensus Reference Guide" to see if it's a listed

consensus.

On Mar 22, 6:56 pm, watch-dog <watch-...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:

> Which is why you Liberals want government health care for America...

Its not upta me. Crunch the numbers. All the other industrial

competitors of the US economy have socialized medicine. However, for

instance, Detroit must tack on the cost of their corporate healthcare

to the price of every car, and have thereby been driven out of the

global market.

If the government took over the corporate healthcare plans, yes your

taxes would go up. But then the investors in American business would

make more money because American products would be cheaper on the

global market.

Does that still look like socialism, or is it just meeting the global

competition?

On Mar 23, 12:46 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"

<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:

> "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote

>

> > My point is, who getsta decide who is worthy of access to the public

> > trough.

>

> Your point is a question?

>

> Before you ponder such questions, you really should learn to think

> logically first.

>

> Who decides is a question most frequently asked by whiners. The solution

> in this case is the realization that only scientists are sufficiently

> qualified to decide which research warrants funding.

>

> So to keep the whiners happy use two funding mechanisms. Discressionary

> and non-Discressionary.

>

> You set a budget for both, and in the second case the scientists decide,

> and in the first, the people - through their elected governments decide.

>

> I would propose a valid ND/D ratio would be around 0.8

When I was in school, "plate tectonics" was a crank theory. I dont

have the faith in "scientists" that you do. On this question, and

indeed many others, there is a lot of ambiguity. I dont worry about

it, the Almighty Dollar will decide which cultures manage to raise the

next generation that is more competitive in the global economy.

Whatever Veterans, or whoever deserve, if the unfunded entitlements

crash the economy, then the trough will run dry, and those who are not

fit and rational enuf to take care of themselves starve. I am not a

Christian, so I dont have a mandate to feed the hungry.

I am an apostle of Aristotle, and a supporter of Stoicsm. He suggested

to resist the temptation to do charity lest you create what we now

call a "dependency syndrome". Rather, he said to manage your resources

so that when the day came that you could enable another to become a

rational and independent being, you had enuf to do that.

"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message

news:r1YEj.30850$612.18781@read1.cgocable.net...

>

> "Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> wrote

>> I'll guess you hate nuclear power with a passion, it would eliminate

>> your complaining.

>

> Iran, Iraq and North Korea need to build about 300 nuclear reactors each

> in order to provide for their growing energy needs.

>

> I commend them on their efforts.

>

>

We should do that too.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:57:03 -0700, Day Brown wrote:

> On Mar 22, 2:51 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:09:40 -0700, Day Brown wrote:

>> > On Mar 22, 1:30 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> >> The limit to consumption is what you earn. As long as you produce

>> >> more than you consume, there's plenty to go around. It's those that

>> >> consume more than they produce that cause problems. They're

>> >> generally politically connected.

>> > Like disabled Vets?

>>

>> No. Their job was to produce and maintain our security. We owe them a

>> debt we can never fully repay.

>>

>> Bureaucrats are more what I have in mind as consuming more than they

>> produce. Is "disabled vets" the first thing that came to your mind?

> My point is, who getsta decide who is worthy of access to the public

> trough.

Then say so, don't attempt to insult the armed services.

My point is, whoever putsinta the public trough should be determining

who takesoutta the public trough. Those on the take should be

disqualified because of their obvious conflict of interest.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:09:55 -0700, Day Brown wrote:

> On Mar 22, 6:56 pm, watch-dog <watch-...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:

>> Which is why you Liberals want government health care for America...

> Its not upta me. Crunch the numbers. All the other industrial competitors

> of the US economy have socialized medicine. However, for instance, Detroit

> must tack on the cost of their corporate healthcare to the price of every

> car, and have thereby been driven out of the global market.

>

> If the government took over the corporate healthcare plans, yes your taxes

> would go up. But then the investors in American business would make more

> money because American products would be cheaper on the global market.

>

> Does that still look like socialism, or is it just meeting the global

> competition?

It looks like socialism.

Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> The limit to consumption is what you earn. As long as you produce more

>> than you consume, there's plenty to go around. It's those that consume

>> more than they produce that cause problems. They're generally

>> politically

>> connected.

"Day Brown" <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote

> Like disabled Vets?

Or Children.

Are there no work camps?

"Bill Ward" <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote

> No. Their job was to produce and maintain our security. We owe them a

> debt we can never fully repay.

Which is why VA hospitals under the Bush Administration are overrun by

rats.

MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN

:

TIME CORRECTION POST

V-for-Vendicar wrote:

>>> Which is why VA hospitals under the Bush Administration are overrun by

>>> rats.

>

>

> "watch-dog" <watch-dog@talk-n-dog.com> wrote

>> Which is why you Liberals want government health care for America...

>

> The sad fact of the matter is that when KKKonservatives turn the

> AmeriKKKan Vetrans health care system into a rat infested hole, it is STILL

> BETTER than their plan to provide ZERO health care for AmeriKKKans.

>

You completely miss that your ideology will simply distribute rats to

all medical facilities.

> And that is why Vetrans sill go to rat infested, underfunded VA hostpitals

> that are run into the ground by KKKonservative Political operatives.

>

People in the VA are mostly Conservatives who love America, so you

Liberals don't need to get too excited about it.

> Death is the only cure for KKKonservativism.

Your solution is to kill the Conservatives and leave the rats?

"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message

news:VElFj.40052$dA2.35215@read2.cgocable.net...

>

>>> Iran, Iraq and North Korea need to build about 300 nuclear reactors

>>> each

>>> in order to provide for their growing energy needs.

>>>

>>> I commend them on their efforts.

>

>

> "James" <kingkongg@iglou.com> wrote

>> We should do that too.

>

> Why doesn't Israel Agree with you?

>

Not relevant to discussion.