When you listen to Al Gore!!

Biofuels under attack as world food prices soar

Sun Apr 20, 5:36 AM ET

PARIS (AFP) - Hailed until only months ago as a silver bullet in the fight

against global warming, biofuels are now accused of snatching food out of

the mouths of the poor. Billions have been poured into developing sugar- and

grain-based ethanol and biodiesel to help wean rich economies from their

addiction to carbon-belching fossil fuels, the overwhelming source of

man-made global warming.

Heading the rush are the United States, Brazil and Canada, which are eagerly

transforming corn, wheat, soy beans and sugar cane into cleaner-burning

fuel, and the European Union (EU) is to launch its own ambitious programme.

But as soaring prices for staples bring more of the planet's most vulnerable

people face-to-face with starvation, the image of biofuels has suddenly

changed from climate saviour to a horribly misguided experiment.

On Friday, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said biofuels

"posed a real moral problem" and called for a moratorium on using food crops

to power cars, trucks and buses.

The vital problem of global warming "has to be balanced with the fact that

there are people who are going to starve to death," said Dominique

Strauss-Kahn.

"Producing biofuels is a crime against humanity," the UN's special

rapporteur for the right to food, Jean Ziegler of Switzerland, said earlier.

Biofuels may still be in their infancy but they are growing rapidly, with

annual production leaping by double-digit percentages.

In a speech on Wednesday that set down a target for reducing US carbon

emissions, George W. Bush pointed to legislation requiring US producers to

supply at least 36 billion gallons (136 billion litres) of renewable fuel by

2020.

In 2007, 20 percent of grain -- 81 million tonnes -- produced in the United

States was used to make ethanol, according to US think tank the Earth Policy

Institute, which predicts that the percentage will jump to nearly a quarter

this year.

"We are looking at a five-fold increase in renewable fuel," Bush's top

climate change advisor, Jim Connaughton, said in Paris on Thursday at a

meeting of the world's major greenhouse-gas polluters.

But more than half of that legislatively-mandated production would come from

"second-generation" biofuels made from non-food sources such as switchgrass

and wood byproducts, he said.

The EU's and the Brazilian delegates in Paris contested the link between

biofuels and the world food crisis.

"This is highly exaggerated," Sergio Serra, Brazil's ambassador for climate

change, told AFP.

"There is no real relation of cause and effect between the expansion of the

production of biofuels and the raising of food prices. At least it is not

happening in Brazil."

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said experts would report back by

the end of May on how to guarantee that Europe's planned biofuel boost would

not impinge on the environment or the poor.

"There are a lot of concerns about social impacts, rising food prices and

environment issues, and for all those reasons we want to insist on

sustainability criteria in our legislation," he said.

Defenders of biofuels say food shortfalls have multiple causes, including a

growing appetite for meat among the burgeoning middle class in China and

India.

On average, it takes more than four kilos (eight pounds) of grain to produce

one kilo (two pounds) of pork, and two kilos (four pounds) of grain to yield

a kilo (two pounds) of beef.

Climate change may well be a contributing factor.

Some scientists fear rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns may

be worsening water scarcity in key agriculture areas such Australia's wheat

belt, and rice-growing deltas may be hit by saline intrusion from rising

seas.

In addition, the surging cost of oil has had an indirect impact on many poor

people, adding to the pinch caused by rising food prices.

--

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

::: Enviros are at the root of events that brought us high

::: unemployment, inflation, global warming and starvation...

>

"Harry F. Dope" <BitterAmerican@earthlink.com> wrote in message

news:480bbed5$0$9539$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>

Biofuels under attack as world food prices soar:

<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/d31902d391fc2010>

Hailed until only months ago as a silver bullet in the fight

against global warming, biofuels are now accused of

snatching food out of the mouths of the poor.... cuz soaring prices

for staples bring people face-to-face with starvation, and the

image of biofuels has suddenly changed from climate saviour to

a horribly misguided experiment.

The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said biofuels

"posed a real moral problem" and called for a moratorium on using

food crops to power cars, trucks and buses.

"Producing biofuels is a crime against humanity," the UN's special

rapporteur for the right to food, Jean Ziegler of Switzerland, said earlier.

>

hanson wrote:

That's another typical fuck-up instigated and promulgated by

the Green shits.

(1) First the Green bastards declared that everything was polluted,

collected billions in permit charges, user- and recycling fees for

themselves, and then drove all good paying jobs from the US

into India and China.

(2) Then the Enviro turds declared that Nuke energy was

polluting the earth and forced a moratorium on building new

nuke power plants which pressed the energy producers to

switch to fossil fuels which released lots of CO2 into the air.

(3) Then the green cocksuckers in Al Gore's bandwagon cried

that CO2 causes AGW and that "sustainable fuels" must be

produced from corn or other food staples...

.... and now we end up with starving people by the millions...

>

So, the enviros are at the root of events that brought us high

unemployment, inflation, global warning and starvation...

>

Any and all Greenies should be held personally responsible for

the consequences of their green actions with their own personal

liberty and wealth at stake.

>

Years ago, poster Eric Gisin had a prophetic notion when he said:

<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.org.sierra-club/msg/5bf027613f44f4fa>

"Fucking Greens should be shot for making the world so stupid".

>

Nothing in recent history has been so bad and so corrupt as the

Green movement. --- It is merely a continuation of the planning

type that occurred under the Brown banner and then the Red one.

>

Green Crimes, Green Scams, Green Extortions & Green Lies:

<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/14968cc3ee9939d4>

<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba>

= Enviros use the same great lies of yore. Only the color changed.

= (A) Environmentalism is Communism in Green...

= (B) Environmentalism is Nazism in Green...

= © Environmentalism makes the Poor poorer and the Rich richer.

>

.... Yet all you class 3 enviros, you hordes of little green idiots

you keep on cheering for green causes, oblivious to that fact

that the Green sharpies are fucking you and fucking you over...

until you can't get a job when you come out of school, or lose

your home, or can't fill up your gas tank to get to work...

Serves you right!... you gullible green morons... AHAHAHA...

Thanks for the laughs..... ahahaha... ahahanson

Harry F. Dope wrote:

> Biofuels under attack as world food prices soar

> Sun Apr 20, 5:36 AM ET

> PARIS (AFP) - Hailed until only months ago as a silver bullet in the fight

> against global warming, biofuels are now accused of snatching food out of

> the mouths of the poor.

Another straw man knocked down. Silver bullet, my ass.

Any article that starts off with such a nonsensical premise cannot be

taken seriously. There may have been some blithering idiots who argued

that biofuels would be the answer, but anyone who has paid attention to

this industry knows that there have been doubts about the concept from

the beginning.

V-for-Vendicar wrote:

> "SgtMinor" <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote

>> Any article that starts off with such a nonsensical premise cannot be

>> taken seriously. There may have been some blithering idiots who argued

>> that biofuels would be the answer, but anyone who has paid attention to

>> this industry knows that there have been doubts about the concept from the

>> beginning.

>

> Correct. You should ask yourself who is behind this anti-biofuel

> propaganda campaing?

>

> Who seeks to profit from lying?

>

It's not a Who, it's a What. And that is economics.

OPEC understands economics. Their answer to an alternative energy

threat is to drop the price of oil, making the alternative unprofitable.

That's why some suggest that there should be heavy taxes on oil. That

way OPEC's actions can be blunted and alternative energy sources

developed. But ultimately, the answer to the energy crisis is to reduce

consumption.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:18:16 -0400, SgtMinor wrote:

> V-for-Vendicar wrote:

>> "SgtMinor" <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote

>>> Any article that starts off with such a nonsensical premise cannot be

>>> taken seriously. There may have been some blithering idiots who argued

>>> that biofuels would be the answer, but anyone who has paid attention to

>>> this industry knows that there have been doubts about the concept from

>>> the beginning.

>>

>> Correct. You should ask yourself who is behind this anti-biofuel

>> propaganda campaing?

>>

>> Who seeks to profit from lying?

>>

>>

> It's not a Who, it's a What. And that is economics.

>

> OPEC understands economics. Their answer to an alternative energy threat

> is to drop the price of oil, making the alternative unprofitable.

> That's why some suggest that there should be heavy taxes on oil. That

> way OPEC's actions can be blunted and alternative energy sources

> developed.

Is there any problem about which socialists don't think raising taxes is

the solution?

> But ultimately, the answer to the energy crisis is to reduce

> consumption.

> Is there any problem about which socialists don't think raising taxes is

> the solution?

Racism. Bigotry. Creationism

Bret Cahill

Bill Ward wrote:

> Is there any problem about which socialists don't think raising taxes is

> the solution?

Is there any problem to which republicans don't think that cutting taxes

is the solution?

--

Republicans are about as useless as socialists, no brain action noticeable.

Bret Cahill wrote:

>> Is there any problem about which socialists don't think raising taxes is

>> the solution?

>

> Racism. Bigotry. Creationism

>

Raised taxes to bus kids around to fix racism

Raised taxes to teach political correctness in schools against bigotry

raised taxes once again to fund research into the Big bang and Darwinism

as an alternative to creationism, taxed to put Hubble into space to see

closer to the beginning, yet creationism is still the only explanation

that is understood by most people.

Phil Hays wrote:

> Bill Ward wrote:

>

>> Is there any problem about which socialists don't think raising taxes is

>> the solution?

>

> Is there any problem to which republicans don't think that cutting taxes

> is the solution?

Cutting taxes won't stop Liberals like Obama and Hillary from lying. It

usually makes it worse.

"Harry F. Dope" <BitterAmerican@earthlink.com> wrote

> PARIS (AFP) - Hailed until only months ago as a silver bullet in the fight

> against global warming, biofuels are now accused of snatching food out of

> the mouths of the poor.

Wow, Opec is pulling out the stops on this Propaganda campaign.

"SgtMinor" <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote

> Any article that starts off with such a nonsensical premise cannot be

> taken seriously. There may have been some blithering idiots who argued

> that biofuels would be the answer, but anyone who has paid attention to

> this industry knows that there have been doubts about the concept from the

> beginning.

Correct. You should ask yourself who is behind this anti-biofuel

propaganda campaing?

Who seeks to profit from lying?

"SgtMinor" <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote

> OPEC understands economics. Their answer to an alternative energy threat

> is to drop the price of oil, making the alternative unprofitable. That's

> why some suggest that there should be heavy taxes on oil. That way OPEC's

> actions can be blunted and alternative energy sources developed. But

> ultimately, the answer to the energy crisis is to reduce consumption.

Correct on all counts.

Bill Ward wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:18:16 -0400, SgtMinor wrote:

>

> > V-for-Vendicar wrote:

> >> "SgtMinor" <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote

> >>> Any article that starts off with such a nonsensical premise cannot be

> >>> taken seriously. There may have been some blithering idiots who argued

> >>> that biofuels would be the answer, but anyone who has paid attention to

> >>> this industry knows that there have been doubts about the concept from

> >>> the beginning.

> >>

> >> Correct. You should ask yourself who is behind this anti-biofuel

> >> propaganda campaing?

> >>

> >> Who seeks to profit from lying?

> >>

> >>

> > It's not a Who, it's a What. And that is economics.

> >

> > OPEC understands economics. Their answer to an alternative energy threat

> > is to drop the price of oil, making the alternative unprofitable.

> > That's why some suggest that there should be heavy taxes on oil. That

> > way OPEC's actions can be blunted and alternative energy sources

> > developed.

>

> Is there any problem about which socialists don't think raising taxes is

> the solution?

>

> > But ultimately, the answer to the energy crisis is to reduce

> > consumption.

Democrats use taxes to pay for things, Republicans have always gotten

a free ride by accusing the Democrats of.

being the big tax spenders, while they sit back doing nothing very

useful while demanding massive amounts our tax money to be pissed away

in Iraq so they can feel like patriots.

> Any article that starts off with such a nonsensical premise cannot be

> taken seriously. There may have been some blithering idiots who argued

> that biofuels would be the answer, but anyone who has paid attention to

> this industry knows that there have been doubts about the concept from

> the beginning.

"Bitter Buttock Obomber's terrorist friend William Ayers"

<Johnnyj11@gmail.com> wrote

> Yet you post nothing of substance to base your idea on.

Nothing but well known recent history.

What's your excuse?

MMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:13:18 +0000, Phil Hays wrote:

> Bill Ward wrote:

>

>> Is there any problem about which socialists don't think raising taxes is

>> the solution?

>

> Is there any problem to which republicans don't think that cutting taxes

> is the solution?

I only wish... I lean libertarian.

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

> Is there any problem about which socialists don't think raising taxes is

> the solution?

Is there any problem which RepubliKKKans don't think that borrowing more

money or

reducing government income through tax reductions is the solution?

None of the socialist states are being bankrupted by Debt as the

KKKonservative AmeriKKKans state is.

Thanks to 30 years of Borrow and Spend RepubliKKKan misrule.

So long Suckers... China now owns your lazy ass.

"Phil Hays" <invalid@dont.spam> wrote

> Is there any problem to which republicans don't think that cutting taxes

> is the solution?

11 trillion dollars of Borrow and Spend RepubliKKKanism.

AmeriKKKa is bankrupt morally, intellectually, and economically.

"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote

> Raised taxes to bus kids around to fix racism

Yup. AmeriKKKa is still a racist state, but before Bussing no black man

could even come close to

running for the presidency let alone occupy the All White House.

Times have changed thanks to bussing.

"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote

> Raised taxes to teach political correctness in schools against bigotry

Money well spent.

"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote

> raised taxes once again to fund research into the Big bang and Darwinism

It's called science.

"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote

> taxed to put Hubble into space to see closer to the beginning

Congratulations to NASA the only thing in AmeriKKKa worth keeping.

"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote

> yet creationism is still the only explanation that is understood by most

> people.

Kahse AmeriKKKans is soe Smardt.

"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote

> Cutting taxes won't stop Liberals like Obama and Hillary from lying.

Impossible. You KKKonservative wankers sell it as a cure all for every

problem?

Can't fund a war? Cut taxes?

Need to torture some prisoners? Cut taxes.

Budget deficits? No Problem... Cut taxes.

<monkey_cartman1@yahoo.com> wrote

> Democrats use taxes to pay for things, Republicans have always gotten

> a free ride by accusing the Democrats of.

> being the big tax spenders, while they sit back doing nothing very

> useful while demanding massive amounts our tax money to be pissed away

> in Iraq so they can feel like patriots.

How many Billion in AmeriKKKan dollars did Bush fly secretly to Iraq on

crates, only to have the money disappear on him? 20 billion? 30 billion.

Ahahahahahaha... Complete incompetence.

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

> I only wish... I lean libertarian.

So you wanna fuck some kids ay? Like your Pedo Libertarian friends....

On Apr 21, 9:23 am, HarryNadds <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Kids graduating from high school that can't read

Nor write, apparently.

Your illucidity index is off the scale. Did you even go to high school?