DARLING CALLS FOR URGENT REVIEW OF BIOFUEL POLICIES
Alistair Darling has demanded an urgent review of international biofuel programmes as part of a plan to tackle the world's mounting food crisis. The Chancellor said he had asked the World Bank to produce an analysis - for June's G7 meeting of global leaders - on the impact of green policies, including America and Europe's biofuel programmes, on global food shortages.
Not before time Leo. All biofuel production does is 'tie up' the land so it can't be used for food agriculture and gives a 'false sense of security' about CO2 reduction. That is unless they are into a population reduction strategy (sorry, can't help being cynical about this).
Biofuel production is only a 'good idea' for a nation that has no geological oil extraction prospect and wants to be energy 'self sufficient'. Even then, a long hard look should be taken to decide whether the national agriculture infrastructure can accommodate the 'burden' of land use laid over to biofuel crops against 'feeding their population'.
There does seem to be a bit of panic about though! But how much of this is due to the banking and housing crisis in the UK? Do I see a 'scapegoat' on the horizon?
Surely all this has been factored into the "Climate Models" and has been written off as being acceptable in the long run to save the few that survive it[VERY LITTLE FOOD], the sheer hell of a few feet of seawater and a couple of degrees increase in global temp(All the variables were weighed up weren't they?)
Surely all this has been factored into the "Climate Models" and has been written off as being acceptable in the long run to save the few that survive it
I'm still a bit out of touch at the moment after my holiday (they don't allow internet access on Cornish tofu farms), but my understanding is that 2.5% of fuel has to be biofuel now. How about an alternative option, that 2.5% of fuel should be saved by designing more efficient cars, driving slower and driving less.
Let's remember that one of the big drivers of the biofuels market is the US and George W. not the "greens".
b) you take the view we are not producing enough food.
A combination of both is a copout and is essentially a).
If a) then you take steps to reduce world population; and to avoid criticism of mass slaughter you support economic measures that cause increased mortality through hunger and disease and call it something respectable like reaction to the credit crunch or response to say global warming (ie response to an economic construct which you say can't be controlled, or a much hyped greater global threat) and/or you have a world war, and/or you remove people's right to more than one child per family.... and of course you can learn lessons from intended unintended consequences since being wrong isn't in the vocabulary anymore.
If b) then you can actively manage production of food through economic levers to meet basic needs and encourage self sustainability for all by increasing education and making technology innovations available for those not yet positioned to be self sustainable or able to adapt. This I view as what has for most been business as usual in the developed world for the past 50 years.
I'd suggest that all world governments understand the above positions and that their actions define their position. But so what? It's hard not to be cynical.
The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels.
Mature under a heap of well-rotted manure for six months. Soak in a cattle trough to soften gently. Fry with turnip toppings, and serve on a bed of fresh hay.
err....thanks! I'll stick with my quinoa experiment for the time being. Although I have just knitted myself a scarf made out of soyabean fibre - smooth as silk!
Your page doesn't say much, but what it does say is quite interesting in relation to this thread:
"while a number of governments have leapt on the idea that biofuels could solve the problem of global warming, while creating new sources of income, many environmentalists are issuing warnings. Biofuels, they say, will threaten food supplies for the poor, and are not a panacea for the world's environmental ills. Instead of going down this track, we should be looking for ways to cut down our dependence on fuels."
So why is it the greens get the blame for the rush to biofuels and the food crisis when it sounds like many of them were warning governments against going down this route?
Originally posted by mufcdiver: Thanks for the link RP nice to see someone isn't making light of folk starving to Death!
No problema mcd.
No pun intended but I'm deadly serious. What's happens to Bangladesh, etc is (No offence intended) the canary in the coalmine. As if we can be immune to the travails of the rest of the world. What goes around comes around especially this global warming.
Oh well at the risk of being tiresome here it is again. Check it out on Wiki - it's kosher.
"But the facts get in the way: the UN Food and Agriculture Organization reported in response that grain consumption went up in the last year by just over four million tonnes in India and slightly less than seven million tonnes in China, while in the U.S. it climbed more than 33 million tonnes. And the bulk of that increase has gone into the subsidized biofuel crop - a demand that has driven corn prices in the U.S. from $2 per bushel when President George Bush began his ethanol push to $5 per bushel today."
So at least the farmers in the "flyover" part of the USA will be OK. Still a mad M M M world. Is ethanol the drinkable one or is that methanol?
Both ethanol and methanol are drinkable RP, but methanol will send you blind.
Don't hold your hopes up though, industry calls this stuff 'IMS' (industrial methylated spirit) with good reason. There is usually something added to it that makes it undrinkable (gets around the 'tax laws' problem), but not always. When the 'pure' substance is needed for an industrial process H M Customs and Excise make regular visits to check on usage. Well, they did a few years back in the UK anyhow (I understand HMC&E was recently 'decimated' to save money).
It seems that not only can you 'not eat' 'the grain', you 'can't drink' 'the potion' either!
