Stop biofuel lunacy

Hurkyl

So, you've given up entirely on being rational? Good to know.

esbo

No I am just replying to your irrational view of the issue.
When people are staving your arhuement that they are not really starving is not going to go down too well.

It must be obvious to even the least intelligent of people that burning food in your fuel
take will push up food prices.
If you cannot accept that then this is utterly pointless.
It must also be obvious that by putting biodiesel in your tank you are effictively making
youself a murderer.
More biofuel= more deaths.
That is what is boils down to.

wolram

If they could afford guns and bullets they could afford to feed them self's, may be you think it is right to support people that just live and rely almost totally on food aid, that is your right, i think it is an ever increasing problem, and without some sort of population control there will be mass deaths from starvation, not from world food shortages but world food costs.

kmarinas86

Is is just me, or are people who were against U.S. crop subsidization (because they put third-world farmers at disadvantage) are finally getting what they wanted?

esbo

Buying a gun will get you more food in the long term than buying food.

You are wrong to assume that these people just rely on food aid or 'just live'.
Their wages cannot afford food prices inflated by biofuel.
If there are mass deaths it won't just be the poor who will die and the unrest will
spread.
"Let them eat cake" might seem like a good idea to some, but unfortunately for them
they usually end up headless.

wolram

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ey-800220.html

Some facts, Biofuel is Not the main problem.
And a lot of food aid goes to people who do not work as in producing some thing.

Nabeshin

Oh come on. Take a step back and realize how ridiculous what you're saying is. Here's a counter-point:
Less biofuel=more conflict over oil=more deaths in the middle east.

Now if you could quit responding emotionally to any point someone makes that is contrary to your ideas (i.e calling them a murderer) then perhaps we can have a discussion.

Hurkyl

Huh? I haven't even said anything about my view on the issue. I did, however, make a reasoned challenge one of your ridiculously exaggerated claims -- that is the exact opposite of what it would mean for my post to be irrational.


If you want to argue with a figment of your imagination, then you shouldn't do it on the forum. If you want to have a rational discussion with real people, then you need to respond to what they actually say.

(My apologies if someone really did make that claim -- I didn't notice it)

esbo

No you are wrong. Totally wrong.
As food prices increase there is more civil unrest in places like Iraq.
High food prices increase civil unrest and is a recruiting sargent for terrists and the like
which disrupt fossil oil supplies pushing prices even higher.
You are into a vicious circle here.
If you would quit beinig pompous and listen to what I am saying you might be able to see what the problem is.
You are the one who is being emotional I am being factual.
Biofuel is a murderous policy, there is no doubt about that.
Telling someone who is facing starvation to quit being emotion is about as stupid as it gets.

esbo

There are not many real facts in that link.
"not because of a crisis caused by famine or war but because of market conditions"
is all it says it does not say that biofuel is the cause of the 'market conditions.

I can't post the link but it is (or was on the link you posted)
"The Big Question: Why are food prices rising so fast, and who are the beneficiaries?"

"Finally, cereals which had been used for food in the past are being diverted into the production of biofuels, such as ethanol. Biofuels were blamed for a huge rise in maize prices earlier this year, which led to unrest in Mexico after the price of tortillas more than tripled over six months."

So it is clear from that report that biofuels *are* the main problem. They *tripled* the price of maize.
A lot of newspapers are reluctant to report the true cause, maybe because their governments are the ones responsible for the switch to biofuel.
They seem to be desperate to cover up this fact and are coming up with lame excuses such as the expansion of Chineese middle classes, but any fool would know that the Chineese middle class does not triple overnight. Changes such as that are gradual and the market would be able to cater for them.
What the market cannot cater for is huge swathes of the food supply suddenly being bought up by countries such as the USA and fed into gas tanks.
The USA has efectively declared war on these countries by buying up their food supply
to burn in thier SUV's on their Summer vacation, a criminal act in my opinion.
It looks like another one of Bushes great ideas.

esbo

Unfortunately it is not really possible to have an arguement if you choose to miss the point.
I am saying the biofuels are pushing up fuel prices are you denying that is the case.

This is what you said.

"The world supply of food is far greater than what the current human population eats, and the capacity for food production is far greater than what is actually supplied."

Care to explain that?
If the world supply is greater than what we eat why are we producing more than what we
eat? And if there is a surplus of food, why are prices so high why have they doubled and trippled in a very short time scale.
The same goes for food production capacity, if that is so great why are prices sky-rocketing?

Hurkyl

Any "fool" can dismiss an idea without a second thought -- but it takes a reasoned mind to consider it first.

Exercise: come up with some hypothetical examples of how the Chinese could increase their food consumption over a short time scale, without a change in population.

If you cannot even come up with one example, then I posit you really have no business arguing so passionately -- passion can sometimes be a good thing, but it can also be exceedingly harmful to one's self when passion supplants reason.

(Note that I am not asserting that the Chinese are the primary cause, or even any sort of contributing factor -- I'm simply harshly criticizing the fact that you would automatically dismiss the possibility without giving it any consideration. i.e. that you're being irrational)

Hurkyl

Nor is it possible to have a reasoned argumeent with someone who resorts to emotional fallacies and hyperbole.


If you want to have an argument with a figment of your imagination, then don't do it in this forum. If you want to have a discussion with me, or anyone else, then you had better start responding to what we actually say, rather than making stuff up.

Ivan Seeking

I have merged this thread with another one on this topic, so if there are any discontinuities in the discussion, that is likely the reason.

esbo

Again you are just missing the point, the Chineese are not going to increase their
food consumption dramatically because changes in a nations food consumption tend to
change gradually.
Has there been a step change in China demographic profile? No.
Chinas GDP has been growing at about 9% so maybe they can consume 9% more food
They can certaintly afford to consume 9% more food, maybe they consumed 10% more food, but it is equally likely that that produced 9% more food afterall if GDP increased
9% is would be fairly remarkable if there was no increase in their food production.
It might have increased more than that.


"There are 1.3 billion people in China and they are now eating twice as much meat as they did in 1990. The demand for more meat is staggering but so too is the increase in grain production to feed extra livestock. Two studies being released today indicate the days of cheap food are coming to an end, with a range of factors conspiring to transform food production and markets on a global scale."

So a doubling in meat consumtion in 18 years that equates to 4% growth per annum
and I will bet you a pound to a penny that there has been a similar growth in food production. Indeed that is what it says "The demand for more meat is staggering but so too is the increase in grain production to feed extra livestock."

So anyone who associates the recent dramatic changes in food prices to China, quite frankly is living in cloud cuckoo land, or quite simply lying through their teeth to cover up
the real resason.

It is *blindly obvious* that the incease in food prices has gone hand in hand with the increase in biofuel productio nwhich has taken off recently.

Biofuels are the "new kid on the block" and production has soared, it just politically inconvienient to admit it, far easier to fill up your SUV and blame it on China.

And even if China is consuming more food you can imagine how devastation the massive explosion in biofuel will have on food supplies. Increse in demand for food accompanied by
as massive switch of agricultural land to biiofuel production.
And actually China is producing more biofuel too so their extra demand for food is caused
by biofuel.

It is misinformation by the press, smoke and mirrors to disguise the real problem.

There is no doubt about that. It is so obvious.

esbo

Unfortunately as you refuse to answer any point driectly, I have to resort to having an arguement with a figment of my imagination.
You miss the point and take it off onto a largly irrelevant side issue.

Hurkyl

Then don't have that argument in this forum.

If you didn't want to defend your assertions regarding side issues, then you shouldn't have asserted them.

If you stick to facts and reasoned arguments, and this thread might be interesting. If you attempt other methods of persuasion, then I'm going to challenge them.