Register to reply

Stop biofuel lunacy

by wolram
Tags: biofuel, lunacy, stop
Share this thread:
wolram
#37
Apr15-08, 06:53 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,690
Quote Quote by esbo View Post
Would you be happy if they chose to improve themselves by blowing your brains out and robbing you?
Because believe me that is what I would do if I were in their position.
What goes around comes around.
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
#38
Apr15-08, 07:21 PM
P: 1,011
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
#39
Apr15-08, 07:22 PM
P: 84
Quote Quote by wolram View Post
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.
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
#40
Apr15-08, 07:33 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,690
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
#41
Apr15-08, 07:34 PM
Sci Advisor
Nabeshin's Avatar
P: 2,193
Quote Quote by esbo View Post
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.
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
#42
Apr15-08, 07:44 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Quote Quote by esbo View Post
No I am just replying to your irrational view of the issue.
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.


When people are staving your arhuement that they are not really starving is not going to go down too well.
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
#43
Apr15-08, 08:13 PM
P: 84
Quote Quote by Nabeshin View Post
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.
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
#44
Apr15-08, 08:33 PM
P: 84
Quote Quote by wolram View Post
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.
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
#45
Apr15-08, 08:45 PM
P: 84
Quote Quote by Hurkyl View Post
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)
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
#46
Apr15-08, 08:49 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Quote Quote by esbo View Post
but any fool would know that the Chineese middle class does not triple overnight.
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
#47
Apr15-08, 08:52 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Quote Quote by esbo View Post
Unfortunately it is not really possible to have an arguement if you choose to miss the point.
Nor is it possible to have a reasoned argumeent with someone who resorts to emotional fallacies and hyperbole.


I am saying the biofuels are pushing up fuel prices are you denying that is the case.
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
#48
Apr15-08, 09:25 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,501
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
#49
Apr15-08, 09:40 PM
P: 84
Quote Quote by Hurkyl View Post
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)
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
#50
Apr15-08, 09:44 PM
P: 84
Quote Quote by Hurkyl View Post
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.
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
#51
Apr15-08, 09:48 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Quote Quote by esbo View Post
Unfortunately as you refuse to answer any point driectly, I have to resort to having an arguement with a figment of my imagination.
Then don't have that argument in this forum.

You miss the point and take it off onto a largly irrelevant side issue.
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.
wolram
#52
Apr15-08, 09:52 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,690
This is a couple of years old but i doubt if the situation is much different, the costs may be
but not the inter change.

http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/progra...ation/tm10.pdf
esbo
#53
Apr15-08, 09:53 PM
P: 84
Quote Quote by latecommer View Post
I have a problem with with the first statement that global warming would reduce the amount of land available for food production. an increase in temperature would move the "growth line further north and south. while the middle would of course suffer, the major food producing areas of the world would now be extended. Canada for instance is now producing grain further north than in the past. Is there a source you could site varifying your statement?
Of course there has been no "global" warming in nearly a decade. the slight rise in temperature reported (if it is true) in the Northern Hemisphere has been more than off set by the steady decline of the Southern Hemisphere.

The far more dangerous possibility is that we are actually entering a global cooling period. As a atmospheric chemist I work with has said.....CO2 is not a cause of warming and never has been. CO2 increases have always followed temperature, by as much as hundreds of years, CO2 is not chemical able to raise the temperature by more than a fraction of the natural forcing we have. And of course when the highest concentrations know of this benificial gas occured we were in the depth of an ice age.

When we quite the foolish thinking of CO2 forced climate we will once again observe that the Sun is what controls the climate, and it has shown all the signs of a impending minimum. With solar activity at a 200 year low (similar to the little ice age) we need to put our limited resources toward preparing for an extended cool period.
All that said I agree 100% with your point that bio-fuel will create a worse situation than the problem it attempts to solve. It is a case of the pols saying we have to do do something to appease the people, and as usuall they are doing the wrong thing.

Another point I must make is that it is too simplistic to blame the U.S. and SUV's for starvation. Who sets the prices for oil? certainly not the United States. And insofar as starving the world, the United States has for many years been the greatest supplier of food aid to other countries, in fact many years supplying more free food and technology than the rest of the world combined. As I said it is the simplistic knee jerk reaction to blame the U.S. When much more obvious reasons abound.
I think if you look at the facts the USA is a net importer of food, so it is consuming the worlds food (both in bellies and gas tanks), largely on borrowed money.
So if you are indeed giving food and technology away it is probably not really yours in the first place (sorry could not resist that one).

And oh Mr Gates can I have my free copy of window VISTA please??

On second thoughts I won't bother - I have read the reviews
esbo
#54
Apr15-08, 09:56 PM
P: 84
Quote Quote by Hurkyl View Post
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.
Well then try challanging some of the *facts* I have posted, or just agree that they are correct.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Hydrogen car lunacy. Earth 61
Algae: The Next Biofuel Earth 0
Biofuel steps into the Jet fuel market Computing & Technology 6
UN expert seeks to halt biofuel output Earth 8