Bio-fuel lunacy.

"Marcus Houlden" wrote in message
...
The Pope is responsible for most births.

Is that what they call being omnipotent?

B-boom!

Bill

On Apr 17, 6:02*pm, Les Invalides wrote:
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.


Of the above reasons, the only one that is pertinent once scientific
safety has been established is the contamination issue.

I beleive in freedom of choice. While I don't have any objection *in
principle* to buying GM crops, I defend the right of those who want GM-
free or organic crops to have them. Contamination is therefore a
legitimate concern, because it has the potential to infringe market
choice.

Even worse, contamination can lay the basis for actions for breach of
patent and the imposition of crippling damage on those competing with
GM crops. Either through design or carelessness, a GM patent holder
can wipe out the competition and profit directly from it. That hardly
seems just.

And of course, GM producers who gain a monopoly over seed varieties
can extract unlimited royalty income forever from those who have no
alternative but to use them. The right to eat ought not to be made
subject to the profitability of some corporation.

At least some of the GM that is going on is also of dubious value. In
some cases, the modification allows those using the crops to spray
with weedkillers produced by the same company that won't harm the
crops which is a clear attempt at market manipulation and has
implications for human health as well. Does one really want to eat
crops with elevated levels of glyphosates in them? Personally, I'd
rather not.

In short, it seems that there are a number of ethical issues that need
to be addressed before one can nod generally in the direction of GM.

Fran

"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?

No it's about getting you out of you car and into a good pair of wallking
shoes.
No more foreign holidays either.
Work within 3 mile of your home too (walking distance).

It's the future, mark my words.

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?

No it's about getting you out of you car and into a good pair of wallking
shoes.
No more foreign holidays either.
Work within 3 mile of your home too (walking distance).


3 miles, that's not even a warm up! I normally work 12-15 miles from
home and have no trouble getting their under my own steam.


It's the future, mark my words.


I was hoping the future would be work at home. But even when I work at
home I still do 15 miles just for the exercise.

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...
"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
news
"Fran" wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 7:07 am, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:
snip
I'd be interested in the modelling you assume to make the link between
biofuels and world food prices.

Yes its real complicate.
More bio-fuel = less bio-food.

Maybe get a rocket scientist to explain it to you?

What's wrong with that, why would they want to eat all that maze ?
Let the third world eat cake.

Steve Terry

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"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.

Spanish/bird flu much nicer, all that damage caused by Nukes, nasty.
With Flu you just need survivors to bury the 50million dead, like in 1919.

Steve Terry

"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?

No it's about getting you out of you car and into a good pair of wallking
shoes.
No more foreign holidays either.
Work within 3 mile of your home too (walking distance).


3 miles, that's not even a warm up! I normally work 12-15 miles from home
and have no trouble getting their under my own steam.


It's the future, mark my words.


I was hoping the future would be work at home. But even when I work at
home I still do 15 miles just for the exercise.

I'd say 3 miles would be practical for most though, less than a hours walk,
or ten
to 15 minutes on a bike.

People will have to work in there own locality, and holiday in Skeggy, or
whereever
is nearest :O)

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"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?


I doubt anyone will be here in 300 years time.


Bill

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:05:57 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?

No it's about getting you out of you car and into a good pair of wallking
shoes.
No more foreign holidays either.
Work within 3 mile of your home too (walking distance).

It's the future, mark my words.

That's an old philosophy. It comes in several flavours. "The more
bitter the medicine, the more good it will do you." "Anything you
enjoy doing is bad, anything you hate doing is good."

So put on your hair shirt and try to live as miserably as possible -
that's *bound* to do some good.

The good ol' Protestant work ethic, eh?

All it is is propaganda to make poor people believe that they are
somehow better off than the rich people.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:05:57 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?

No it's about getting you out of you car and into a good pair of wallking
shoes.
No more foreign holidays either.
Work within 3 mile of your home too (walking distance).

It's the future, mark my words.

That's an old philosophy. It comes in several flavours. "The more
bitter the medicine, the more good it will do you." "Anything you
enjoy doing is bad, anything you hate doing is good."

So put on your hair shirt and try to live as miserably as possible -
that's *bound* to do some good.

The good ol' Protestant work ethic, eh?

All it is is propaganda to make poor people believe that they are
somehow better off than the rich people.


Don't you guys realise that Gordon Brown has solved the "problem" of global
warming (more accurately called climate change). He's going to make us pay
for supermarket plastic bags. With this one decisive action, he's avoided
the costs of improved drainage systems and coastal defences. (oops - I
forgot he's just "threatened" to do it - he hasn't quite made up his mind
yet.)

Jim