Bio-fuel lunacy.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Yes, it's another own goal for the greenies. When will the world wake up
and
realise that we are all going to be impoverished by this madness? nd
don't
forget that if the west gets poorer so does the Third World.

If we don't educate a lot more scientists and engineers for the future and
get
them into positions of power and influence, then *we* will be the Third
World.

This country is a democracy, which means that we are ruled by the ignorant
superstitions and half-truths of the majority.

Most people in this country believe to some extent in astrology!

Bill

"Nick" wrote in message
...
Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?

That's why it's a waste of time to take environmental measures. It's like
bailing out a boat when there's a hole in the bottom.

Bill

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.

--
Les Invalides

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.

Rod.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Apr 16, 7:07*am, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "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.

It had to happen one day - you actually appear to be completely
correct on this one :-(

No, he's completely trolling, and also completely mistaken.


that is most certainly his normal state of affairs (except that I
usually think he really believes the rubbish he comes out with, so is
it really trolling then?)


I'd be interested in the modelling you assume to make the link between
biofuels and world food prices.

What link might that be then?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I have enough trouble single-tasking!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

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.

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?

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

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.


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.

Yes, it's a bugger really. The only aspect of human life that brings forth
new developments is technology, and they are opposed to it on principle. But
they need new things to make the green revolution possible. At least the
more reasonable ones do. A lot of them have romantic visions of us all
living in the greenwood like Robin ****ing Hood, robbing the 'rich' (people
who work for a living and pay taxes) to give to the 'poor' (people who have
pretend jobs with long titles). Of course a lot of them would like us to go
back to the Stone Age.

Of course there were tree huggers before there were greenies. It's just that
they weren't as well focused or easily defined. There were varous types of
lefty scumbag, ranging from the urban commie to the urban hippy. Now they're
all under the same umbrella. They all have one thing in common -- a nice big
'cause' that has a lot of media attention. Luckily the media are feckless
and restless. Once it was the hoola hoop. Now it's the environment. Soon
they'll be on to the next thing and we'll gradually get back to normal.

Bill

"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.

Bill

"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.

Bill

On Apr 16, 3:12*am, judith wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:





On Apr 16, 7:07*am, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "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.

It had to happen one day - you actually appear to be completely
correct on this one :-(

No, he's completely trolling, and also completely mistaken.

I'd be interested in the modelling you assume to make the link between
biofuels and world food prices.

Fran

*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! 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.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...fuel/artic...- Hide quoted text -


Nothing in the model above models the link between biofuel production
and world food prices. How much diversion *has already* taken place,
or will take place within the window in which maize must be purchased?
How much does US-produced maize affect world prices for food? How are
other producers of maize likely to respond to perceived upward
pressure on maize prices as a food staple? Have maize prices
increased by amounts reflective in some measurable way of US
agricultural policies associated with biofuels? What other factors
underpin maize prices? How much has the tripling of crude oil prices
in the last few years affect maize and agruicultural produce prices?

This is not a defence of corn-to-ethanol or biodiesel by the way.
Passing over the use of corn *waste*, I think such policies are ill-
advised. Your assumption though that there is a strong causal link
between biofuels (or even maize to biofuel) and food prices is not
supported by the above text.

A great many things have contributed to upward pressure on food prices
-- including variations in currency values, increasing demands for
meat, which of course places extra demands on agricultural lands,
desertification, drought, blight, agricultural protectionism and so
forth. It's also true that substantial lands are used not to produce
food staples for humans, but the feedstock for convenience foods and
in this respect US maize is an excellent example. So is sugar. If corn-
to-ethanol is a poor trade, then what is corn-to-pop tarts?

Fran