Bio-fuel lunacy.

On Apr 16, 1:06*pm, Les Invalides wrote:
Bill Wright posted



"judith" wrote in message
news
Developed nations like the US must review their current policy of
diverting over 20% of their maize crop for making biofuels. The volume
of grains used for biofuel equivalent to a full tank of a SUV could
easily be the food supply for a person for a whole year!

So what? It's been the case for donkeys' years that Westerners consume
hundreds of times more natural resources than people in impoverished
Third World countries. Biofuels don't change any of that. There are
arguments against them, but they are much more mathematically
sophisticated than "Waaah! It's not fair!".

Some optimal
balance must be struck between food and biofuels. Otherwise the world
just might witness an epic battle between 800 million automobile users
in the developed world and the 1.5 billion plus poor in the developing
world living on less than $2 a day.

Yes, it's another own goal for the greenies.

The funny part is that biofuels almost certainly *can* be made to work
well, they might even solve a decent chunk of the nonrenewable fuels
replacement problem. But *only* if we can develop genetically engineered
varieties with very high sugar yields. And, of course, the Greenies are
implacably agin genetic engineering, just as they are implacably agin
nuclear power, which might also have solved a part of the fossil fuel
problem. So they can't support that.


I'm not 'implacably agin genetic engineering'. Given reasonable
scientific inquiry and assessment of impacts, I'd support it. My real
problem however is the question of the equity question. At the moment,
companies like Monsanto can effectively place themselves in the
position of monopoly traders and cripple their competition by
assertion of breach of patent. It has already happened in Canada, the
US and Australia.

Fran

That's the trouble with being a Greenie. If you are agin everything
that's new, then there are no solutions at all, and we're all doomed to
a slow hypothermic death in a cold dark freezing world (or a quick
drowning in a very warm and sunny world, depending on your preferred
doomsday scenario). *So we might as well make merrie and burn the oil
while it lasts.

--
Les Invalides

"Nick" wrote in message
...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.
Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?#


What by starting world war III?

Famine is another tried and tested method for dealing with resource
shortage/over population.

However a nuclear holocaust is a permanant solution, you don't
have to **** about waiting for famine to trim the numbers you can get rid
of all the ****er in one foul swoop.
Efficiency - gotta love it.


GLobal warming is not a problem the earth is too cold as it is.
We waste billion of gallons of fossil fuels trying to heat
it.
Two of its ends are great frozen blocks of ice.

Global warmning is the messiah and we are spending billions
trying to kill the messiah.


Ignoring your disputable comments about global warming. Fossil fuels are
running out so what would you use instead?

We should not use anything instead, we should drasticaly reduce our energy
consumption.
And yes that means no car and no holidays and no central heating either.
Tough ****. Do it or die.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
...
Ignoring your disputable comments about global warming. Fossil fuels are
running out so what would you use instead?
No it isn't. There's 300 years' worth of coal under Yorkshire alone.

Bring back Arthur Scargill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


Bill

"Les Invalides" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright posted

"judith" wrote in message
news
Developed nations like the US must review their current policy of
diverting over 20% of their maize crop for making biofuels. The volume
of grains used for biofuel equivalent to a full tank of a SUV could
easily be the food supply for a person for a whole year!

So what? It's been the case for donkeys' years that Westerners consume
hundreds of times more natural resources than people in impoverished Third
World countries. Biofuels don't change any of that. There are arguments
against them, but they are much more mathematically sophisticated than
"Waaah! It's not fair!".

Some optimal
balance must be struck between food and biofuels. Otherwise the world
just might witness an epic battle between 800 million automobile users
in the developed world and the 1.5 billion plus poor in the developing
world living on less than $2 a day.

Yes, it's another own goal for the greenies.

The funny part is that biofuels almost certainly *can* be made to work
well, they might even solve a decent chunk of the nonrenewable fuels
replacement problem. But *only* if we can develop genetically engineered
varieties with very high sugar yields. And, of course, the Greenies are
implacably agin genetic engineering, just as they are implacably agin
nuclear power, which might also have solved a part of the fossil fuel
problem. So they can't support that.

That's the trouble with being a Greenie. If you are agin everything that's
new, then there are no solutions at all, and we're all doomed to a slow
hypothermic death in a cold dark freezing world (or a quick drowning in a
very warm and sunny world, depending on your preferred doomsday scenario).
So we might as well make merrie and burn the oil while it lasts.

I don't know if all greenies are against GE.
After all we have genetically 'engineered' our food supply for thousands
of years, by selective breeding.
We could certaintly GE our crops to produce more biofuel by natural methods.
Slower than unatural methods but it has an inbuilt safety valve - less prone
to
sudden dramatic failure because a bio chemist had not 'thought it through'.



--
Les Invalides

Fran posted

I'm not 'implacably agin genetic engineering'. Given reasonable
scientific inquiry and assessment of impacts, I'd support it. My real
problem however is the question of the equity question. At the moment,
companies like Monsanto can effectively place themselves in the
position of monopoly traders and cripple their competition by
assertion of breach of patent. It has already happened in Canada, the
US and Australia.

Then you aren't a typical greenie. Most environmentalists are against GM
for a whole raft of reasons, including contamination of non-GM
cultivars, the deadly poisonous nature of GM-produced protein, and vague
Earthie ideas about Faustian bargains and man playing God.

--
Les Invalides

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Ignoring your disputable comments about global warming. Fossil fuels are*
running out so what would you use instead?
No it isn't. There's 300 years' worth of coal under Yorkshire alone.

Yes it is! If there's 300 years worth, then it will run out in 300 years! We
won't be there to see it happen but that doesn't mean it won't.

Rod.

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
There isn't a problem. There's loads of oil left. They've just found more in*
the Arctic than there is in the Middle East. And then there's coal, which*
can be turned into engine power by various means. Then there's nuclear, with*
modern batteries in the vehicles. And then because the demand is there the*
great capitalist engine will force the development of new systems. So we*
aren't going to run out of energy. Actually the very idea is absurd. We are*
bathed in energy by the sun.

If we go on using fossil fuels, we certainly *will* run out of them. That's a
certainty. The only uncertainty is how long it will take. It may take a bit
longer than we had previously thought, possibly not even within our lifetimes
(so we're all right, Jack), but it will still happen. The Earth's resources are
big, but finite. The sun is indeed bathing us in energy, but the rate at which
it is turning dead biomass into subterranean hydrocarbons is microscopic
compared with the rate at which we are burning them up.

Rod.

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:13:15 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote the following to uk.misc:


"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Nick wrote:
Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?

Of course it is. We need to tackle the problem, not its symptoms.

The likelihood of tackling this particular problem could be summarised
by saying that nobody gives a ****, but in a sense the cause of it
could be said to be that too many people do.

The Pope is responsible for most births.

Is that what they call being omnipotent?

mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

In article , says...
Fran posted

I'm not 'implacably agin genetic engineering'. Given reasonable
scientific inquiry and assessment of impacts, I'd support it. My real
problem however is the question of the equity question. At the moment,
companies like Monsanto can effectively place themselves in the
position of monopoly traders and cripple their competition by
assertion of breach of patent. It has already happened in Canada, the
US and Australia.

Then you aren't a typical greenie. Most environmentalists are against GM
for a whole raft of reasons, including contamination of non-GM
cultivars, the deadly poisonous nature of GM-produced protein, and vague
Earthie ideas about Faustian bargains and man playing God.


Anyone with any sense is against anyone describing all GM products as it
they are identical in implication with identical concerns. For instance
the implications of the tomatoes developed by Nottingham University are
totally different to those of the maize strains developed by Monsanto.

The real argument isn't between "greenies" and "conservatives", the real
argument isn't between "environmentalism" and "capitalism". The real
argument is between the people who insist on lumping together everything
that can conceivably fit a label and then demonising the lot of it
regardless, and the people who prefer to deal with Planet Earth.

Sadly the former have pretty much established monopolies in politics and
the media.

--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Ignoring your disputable comments about global warming. Fossil fuels
are
running out so what would you use instead?
No it isn't. There's 300 years' worth of coal under Yorkshire alone.

Yes it is! If there's 300 years worth, then it will run out in 300 years!
We
won't be there to see it happen but that doesn't mean it won't.

It's absurd for us to worry about what will happen in 300 years. The world
will have changed so much by then that we cannot conceive of what it will be
like. Can you imagine how anything could have been done in the reign of
Queen Anne with the intention of benefitting the people of 2008?

Bill