Enviro Nazis will cause WWIII

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,844
93
48
Why costs are climbing

As food prices surge, starvation looms for millions. Experts call for emergency action but admit there's no quick fix
ERIC REGULY
From Saturday's Globe and Mail April 12, 2008 at 12:13 AM EDT

ROME — Fatal food riots in Haiti. Violent food-price protests in Egypt and Ivory Coast. Rice so valuable it is transported in armoured convoys. Soldiers guarding fields and warehouses. Export bans to keep local populations from starving.
For the first time in decades, the spectre of widespread hunger for millions looms as food prices explode. Two words not in common currency in recent years — famine and starvation — are now being raised as distinct possibilities in the poorest, food-importing countries.
Unlike past food crises, solved largely by throwing aid at hungry stomachs and boosting agricultural productivity, this one won't go away quickly, experts say. Prices are soaring and stand every chance of staying high because this crisis is different.
A swelling global population, soaring energy prices, the clamouring for meat from the rising Asian middle class, competition from biofuels and hot money pouring into the commodity markets are all factors that make this crisis unique and potentially calamitous. Even with concerted global action, such as rushing more land into cultivation, it will take years to fix the problem.
The price increases and food shortages have been nothing short of shocking. In February, stockpiles of wheat hit a 60-year low in the United States as prices soared. Almost all other commodities, from rice and soybeans to sugar and corn, have posted triple-digit price increases in the past year or two.
Yesterday in Rome, Jacques Diouf, director-general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, said the cereal-import bill for the poorest countries is expected to rise 56 per cent this year, on top of the 37 per cent recorded last year. "There is certainly a risk of [people] dying of starvation" unless urgent action is taken, he said. "I am surprised I have not been summoned to the Security Council to discuss these issues."
...
Other UN officials have been equally blunt. Sir John Holmes, the UN's top humanitarian official and emergency relief co-ordinator, said this week that soaring food prices threaten political stability. The UN and national governments are especially worried about potentially violent situations in Africa's increasingly crowded urban areas. Rioting triggered by absent or unaffordable food could cripple cities. "The security implications should not be underestimated as food riots are being reported across the globe," Mr. Holmes said.
Nigeria's Kanayo Nwanze, vice-president of the UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development, sees no short-term fix. "I wouldn't be surprised if there is an escalation of food riots in the next few months," he said. "It could lead to famine in certain parts of Africa if the international community and local governments do not put emergency actions into place."
And it's not just the UN that thinks so. Independent analysts, economists and agriculture consultants say the term most often used to describe the food prices and shortages — crisis — is not hyperbole.
How did it come to this? Surging food prices, now at 30-year highs, are actually a relatively new phenomenon. In the mid-1970s, prices began to fall as the green revolution around the world made farms dramatically more productive, thanks to improvements in irrigation and the widespread use of fertilizers, mechanized farm equipment and genetically engineered crops.
...
By 2001, the surpluses began to shrink and prices reversed. In the past year or so, the price curve has gone nearly vertical. The UN's food index rose 45 per cent in the past nine months alone, but some prices have climbed even faster. Wheat went up 108 per cent in the past 12 months; corn rose 66 per cent. Rice, the food that feeds half the world, went "from a staple to a delicacy," says Standard Chartered Bank food commodities analyst Abah Ofon.
...
The dramatic price rises have been driven by factors absent in previous food shortages.
They include turning food into fuel, climate change, high oil and natural gas prices (which boost trucking and fertilizer costs), greater consumption of meat and dairy products as incomes rise (which raises the demand for animal feedstuffs), and investment funds, whose billions of dollars of firepower can magnify price increases.
Driven by fears of global warming, biofuel has become big business in the U.S., Canada and the European Union. The incentive to produce the fuels is overwhelming because they are subsidized by taxpayers and, depending on the country or the region, come with content mandates.
Starting next week, Britain will require gasoline and diesel sold at the pumps be mixed with 2.5-per-cent biofuel, rising to 5.75 per cent by 2010 and 10 per cent by 2020, in line with European Union directives. Ontario's ethanol-content mandate is 5 per cent. As the content requirements rise, more and more land is devoted to growing crops for fuel, such as corn-based ethanol. In the EU alone, 15 per cent of the arable land is expected to be devoured by biofuel production by 2020.
That's raising alarm bells, especially given lingering doubts about the effectiveness of ethanol in combatting climate change. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said this week he's worried that ethanol production is pushing up food prices everywhere, and he called for an urgent review of the issue. Economist Dr. Hazell has said that filling an SUV tank once with ethanol consumes more maize than the typical African eats in a year.
Rising ethanol demand is one of the main reasons why Wall Street securities firm Goldman Sachs predicts high food prices for a long time. "We believe the recent rise in agriculture prices is not a transient spike, but rather represents the beginning of a structural increase in prices, much as has occurred in the energy and metals markets," Jeffrey Currie, Goldman's chief commodities analyst, said in a research note last month
...
While Australia and Canada could bounce back in the next season or the season after, depending on temperatures and rainfall, rising global temperatures do not bode well for agriculture in many parts of the world.
The UN has predicted that climate change could reduce production in developing countries by 9 to 21 per cent by 2080 and that sub-Saharan Africa could lose more than 30 per cent of its main crop, maize. Southern Asia, it said, could see millet, maize and rice production fall by 10 per cent. The challenge is to offset the losses with higher crop yields on arable land less affected by climate change.
...
Cutting back on ethanol production alone would go some way to restoring supply-demand balance in the food markets. "If we decide to do something about it, we can just use less food for fuel," he said.
But everyone — analysts, economists, agriculture experts, the UN — thinks all bets are off in the next two or three years. It's almost impossible to boost production quickly, because of land and water shortages and competition from biofuels.
"I can say with some degree of confidence that if governments and international development agencies do not put in place a concerted effort quickly, then we are looking at a very serious problem," Mr. Nwanze said.

Thanks Al.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Yup it's gonna be tough!

It's disingenuous however to lay responsibility for the looming crisis on the doorstep of environmentalists (tree-huggers, AGW fanatics et al.) Responsibility rests with those content to strip the planet of resources and relegate millions to poverty while profitting at the expense of everyone else. It's not surprising to see this kind of message, the disappointment is in appreciating how narrow the window on reality is that many people regard as their "knowledge" of the world in which they live.

Examples abound and historians, anthropologists, paleontologists and many others have discovered the truth behind the downfall of ancient civilizations and provided that knowledge to the world ....for a very long time. Civilizations that failed to participate and engage their existence in the context of broader considerations passed. Whether it's the regional social organizing principles of Aztec and Myan societies or societies that once existed in other locations across the surface of this planet, the evidence obtained through generations of study is simple and quite plain to even the most unsophisticated intellect. While it may appear that a society or a 'civilization' can forge ahead idealizing the "progress" of wealth accumulation and orderly consumption of everything around them, the truth is that these groupings of human beings live in the same global ecosystem, use and abuse the same global resources and waste and/or destroy everything around them then move on to repeat the cycle...almost viral-like in nature.

When the world shinks from time to time, the steam age, the Industrial Revolution the development of manned flight etc., that global system becomes smaller and smaller. What used to be a destruction and over-consumption limited to a relatively small area extends the borders of its effects until marine ecosystems, arboreal ecosystems and the entire ecosystem of the planet is affected by the misues and disregard for the finitely limited substances and resources upon which all of life depends.

"Building" economies of consumption, altering the landscape to accomodate even greater "development", ignoring the larger impact that inevitably follows from re-distributing and focusing both consumption and "progress" cannot help but re-shape the environment and the ecosystem of an entire planet.

Believing that a fossil fueled economy would or could last forever without enormous advances made in not only how resources are used but an equally gigantic rapprochement with the earth and the resources upon which everyone and every living creature relies, is both foolish and short-sighted.

The idea that the tree-huggers and the environuts are responsible and spreading blame around is one act of desperation to emerge from a developing consciousness of how terribly in trouble we all are. Not a surprise but kind of sad.
 

johai

Time Out
Mar 23, 2008
203
4
18
Canada - Golden Triangle
The problem is that most people have things that concern them more than the impending crisis and regardless of shortages and higher consumer prices that plastic always emerges and `we'll` worry about it when the bills arrive. `People are strange......`
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Johai

Who convinced them that this is the way reasonable people engage reality?

Could it be that banks and lending institutions, consumer targetted financing for the "convenience" of continuing to purchase and consume whether you have the money in the bank to make those purchases or not...have anything to do with the status quo?

Would you suppose that the gamble that your "job", your "career" your "future" is secure and can be reliably depended upon and thus "qualify" you for "credit" might have anything to do with the myth of consumerism without consequence? When your job is shipped off-shore because you now need $600.00 a mont above-and-beyond fixed expenses to meet your credit-card debt...your mortgage debt...your auto-loan, your retirement plan...and you won't accept a job that doesn't pay those bills...so your "employment" your "career" your "future" is given away to some peon in Bangladesh or India or Mexico or somewhere else...that you're smart to go into more debt to purchase a home you can't afford becuase your lending institution is satisfied that you're "secure" in your job?

It's all working out just magnificently isn't it!
 

johai

Time Out
Mar 23, 2008
203
4
18
Canada - Golden Triangle
Mikey,
Could not agree more! They saw this coming and capitalized on it. Like those $5000.00
certified cheques we all receive but hopefully are shredded.
Good One. Two points and game over. Johai
.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,844
93
48
Bio-Foolishness

FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
April 21, 2008

Poverty, famine and violence are among the supposed products of global warming in the future. Yet these calamities are with us today thanks to a key element of "green" policy, biofuels. This feel-good measure is becoming a real-world disaster.
The prices of wheat and rice this year will have doubled since 2004, according to World Bank projections. Soybeans, sugar, soybean oil and corn are expected to be 56% to 79% costlier than in 2004. The bulk of the increases have come in the past year and can be attributed to the West's push to turn these crops into fossil-fuel replacements like ethanol. Food prices will likely remain overinflated until at least 2015, the Bank says.
The result of these rising prices is that 100 million people could slip back into poverty, erasing seven years' worth of gains, Bank President Robert Zoellick warned earlier this month. Food inflation and shortages have sparked riots from Egypt to the Philippines, and six people were killed in Haiti alone during nine days of related unrest there this month.
Soaring oil prices have made it more expensive to transport food products, though the World Bank estimates this and costlier fertilizer account for only 15% of the rise in food prices. Improved eating habits in developing nations are also increasing demand for grains – both for human consumption and to feed livestock, since rapid economic growth in places like China means more people have enough money to buy meat. But the Bank notes that "almost all" of the increased growing of one of the key crops, corn, "went for biofuels production in the U.S."
It's no coincidence that the U.S. and the EU, which are leading the biofuel charge, both have powerful ag lobbies that see this latest eco-craze as a new way to milk taxpayers. U.S. and EU promotion of biofuels represent a trifecta of bad regulation: arbitrary production targets to juice demand, subsidies that encourage inefficient use of crops as fuel rather than food, and tariffs that stifle foreign competition. If only Third World consumers had the same influence as rich-world farmers.
The link between biofuel mandates and food shortages has become so clear that the European Environment Agency this month recommended that Brussels drop its target of getting 10% of its fuel for road transportation from crops and biomass by 2020. But so far, EU policy makers aren't budging. The only movement from Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas has been to make a tautological call for "sustainability criteria" for this supposedly "sustainable" policy.
The U.S. isn't any better. As these columns noted in February, the White House and Congress had scarcely mandated 36 billion gallons of biofuel production by 2022 – five times 2006 levels – when scientific studies debunking the environmental benefits of ethanol, et al. began piling up. So far, there's no sign of any serious rethink going on in Washington.
Meanwhile, the United Nations is playing its usual head-in-the-sand role. A report issued Tuesday at a Unesco conference in Paris suggests that greater reliance on organic farming – not biotechnology – is the key to stabilizing food supplies. In truth, using plants that are genetically modified to consume less water and produce greater yields, among other benefits, is probably the best chance we have of filling the food gap in the short and medium term. But eco-radicals have been making unscientific objections to "frankenfoods" for a long time now. It's hardly surprising that the specter of famine wouldn't change their minds.
Biofuel advocates say a "second generation" of plant-based power that doesn't compete with food production for cropland will be ready by 2020. Maybe so. But even if these predictions are right, can we really afford a 12-year transition to those new fuels, given the upheaval that is already under way?
One of the dangers of the global warming "consensus" is that policy makers, once committed to a certain plan of action, will be unable to change course. Admitting that biofuels are a special-interest scam would risk denting the enviro-industrial complex that is driving so much other policy these days. Just look at the continued push for a carbon cap-and-trade system in the U.S. While in theory this is a market-based mechanism for reducing carbon emissions, Europe's experience shows that in practice it's a way for certain companies to profit at the expense of others, with no discernible effect on the environment.
Green-dreaming central planners think they can radically alter the global economy with only minimal side effects. Unfortunately, as the food shortages world-wide are showing, this untruth is just too convenient for them to give it up easily.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
You want a solution?

Teach people to grow and kill their own damn food in their own damn countries. Ground too dry? Not enough water? Either start building greenhouses, shield or control the level of sun they get so things do not dry out or burn away and put some backbone into it, or die. Besides that, why the hell are they living in areas where they can't grow enough food for their population?

Grow and adapt or die. That's the way she goes. There's plenty of solutions, just nobody wants to think, they just want to complain complain complain, expecting someone else to do it for them.

Close all our borders, close down NAFTA, start developing independantly and internally, deal with the rest of the Commonwealth if need be, but countries have to stop suck holing one another whenever they need something done. Figure it out yourself.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
So are we destroying the third world by making food to cheaply thanks to our subsidies, that make local farming uncompetetive.

or are we destroying the third world by making our food to expensive?

They complain if we make food to cheap then they complain if we make food too expensive.

Praxius hit the nail on the head, make your own food. If you are not self-sufficient, why did you continue to increase your population.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
So are we destroying the third world by making food to cheaply thanks to our subsidies, that make local farming uncompetetive.

or are we destroying the third world by making our food to expensive?

They complain if we make food to cheap then they complain if we make food too expensive.

Praxius hit the nail on the head, make your own food. If you are not self-sufficient, why did you continue to increase your population.

Cuba for the most part is self sufficient all on their own, even with the US blockade thing still going on. They are a case in point on how one country can still survive with most of their resources coming from within their own country.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,844
93
48
Cuba for the most part is self sufficient all on their own, even with the US blockade thing still going on. They are a case in point on how one country can still survive with most of their resources coming from within their own country.
Other than the beaches life would be hell in Cuba.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Compared to what?

Cuba doesn't rank that badly in the HDI world index, above more than half the world. Its on par with Mexico and Brazil, and above India, China and waaaay above Africa.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
You want a solution?

Teach people to grow and kill their own damn food in their own damn countries. Ground too dry? Not enough water? Either start building greenhouses, shield or control the level of sun they get so things do not dry out or burn away and put some backbone into it, or die. Besides that, why the hell are they living in areas where they can't grow enough food for their population?

Grow and adapt or die. That's the way she goes. There's plenty of solutions, just nobody wants to think, they just want to complain complain complain, expecting someone else to do it for them.

Close all our borders, close down NAFTA, start developing independantly and internally, deal with the rest of the Commonwealth if need be, but countries have to stop suck holing one another whenever they need something done. Figure it out yourself.

Sort of sounds like our role in Afghanistan.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Why costs are climbing

As food prices surge, starvation looms for millions. Experts call for emergency action but admit there's no quick fix
ERIC REGULY
From Saturday's Globe and Mail April 12, 2008 at 12:13 AM EDT

ROME — Fatal food riots in Haiti. Violent food-price protests in Egypt and Ivory Coast. Rice so valuable it is transported in armoured convoys. Soldiers guarding fields and warehouses. Export bans to keep local populations from starving.
For the first time in decades, the spectre of widespread hunger for millions looms as food prices explode. Two words not in common currency in recent years — famine and starvation — are now being raised as distinct possibilities in the poorest, food-importing countries.
Unlike past food crises, solved largely by throwing aid at hungry stomachs and boosting agricultural productivity, this one won't go away quickly, experts say. Prices are soaring and stand every chance of staying high because this crisis is different.
A swelling global population, soaring energy prices, the clamouring for meat from the rising Asian middle class, competition from biofuels and hot money pouring into the commodity markets are all factors that make this crisis unique and potentially calamitous. Even with concerted global action, such as rushing more land into cultivation, it will take years to fix the problem.
The price increases and food shortages have been nothing short of shocking. In February, stockpiles of wheat hit a 60-year low in the United States as prices soared. Almost all other commodities, from rice and soybeans to sugar and corn, have posted triple-digit price increases in the past year or two.
Yesterday in Rome, Jacques Diouf, director-general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, said the cereal-import bill for the poorest countries is expected to rise 56 per cent this year, on top of the 37 per cent recorded last year. "There is certainly a risk of [people] dying of starvation" unless urgent action is taken, he said. "I am surprised I have not been summoned to the Security Council to discuss these issues."
...
Other UN officials have been equally blunt. Sir John Holmes, the UN's top humanitarian official and emergency relief co-ordinator, said this week that soaring food prices threaten political stability. The UN and national governments are especially worried about potentially violent situations in Africa's increasingly crowded urban areas. Rioting triggered by absent or unaffordable food could cripple cities. "The security implications should not be underestimated as food riots are being reported across the globe," Mr. Holmes said.
Nigeria's Kanayo Nwanze, vice-president of the UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development, sees no short-term fix. "I wouldn't be surprised if there is an escalation of food riots in the next few months," he said. "It could lead to famine in certain parts of Africa if the international community and local governments do not put emergency actions into place."
And it's not just the UN that thinks so. Independent analysts, economists and agriculture consultants say the term most often used to describe the food prices and shortages — crisis — is not hyperbole.
How did it come to this? Surging food prices, now at 30-year highs, are actually a relatively new phenomenon. In the mid-1970s, prices began to fall as the green revolution around the world made farms dramatically more productive, thanks to improvements in irrigation and the widespread use of fertilizers, mechanized farm equipment and genetically engineered crops.
...
By 2001, the surpluses began to shrink and prices reversed. In the past year or so, the price curve has gone nearly vertical. The UN's food index rose 45 per cent in the past nine months alone, but some prices have climbed even faster. Wheat went up 108 per cent in the past 12 months; corn rose 66 per cent. Rice, the food that feeds half the world, went "from a staple to a delicacy," says Standard Chartered Bank food commodities analyst Abah Ofon.
...
The dramatic price rises have been driven by factors absent in previous food shortages.
They include turning food into fuel, climate change, high oil and natural gas prices (which boost trucking and fertilizer costs), greater consumption of meat and dairy products as incomes rise (which raises the demand for animal feedstuffs), and investment funds, whose billions of dollars of firepower can magnify price increases.
Driven by fears of global warming, biofuel has become big business in the U.S., Canada and the European Union. The incentive to produce the fuels is overwhelming because they are subsidized by taxpayers and, depending on the country or the region, come with content mandates.
Starting next week, Britain will require gasoline and diesel sold at the pumps be mixed with 2.5-per-cent biofuel, rising to 5.75 per cent by 2010 and 10 per cent by 2020, in line with European Union directives. Ontario's ethanol-content mandate is 5 per cent. As the content requirements rise, more and more land is devoted to growing crops for fuel, such as corn-based ethanol. In the EU alone, 15 per cent of the arable land is expected to be devoured by biofuel production by 2020.
That's raising alarm bells, especially given lingering doubts about the effectiveness of ethanol in combatting climate change. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said this week he's worried that ethanol production is pushing up food prices everywhere, and he called for an urgent review of the issue. Economist Dr. Hazell has said that filling an SUV tank once with ethanol consumes more maize than the typical African eats in a year.
Rising ethanol demand is one of the main reasons why Wall Street securities firm Goldman Sachs predicts high food prices for a long time. "We believe the recent rise in agriculture prices is not a transient spike, but rather represents the beginning of a structural increase in prices, much as has occurred in the energy and metals markets," Jeffrey Currie, Goldman's chief commodities analyst, said in a research note last month
...
While Australia and Canada could bounce back in the next season or the season after, depending on temperatures and rainfall, rising global temperatures do not bode well for agriculture in many parts of the world.
The UN has predicted that climate change could reduce production in developing countries by 9 to 21 per cent by 2080 and that sub-Saharan Africa could lose more than 30 per cent of its main crop, maize. Southern Asia, it said, could see millet, maize and rice production fall by 10 per cent. The challenge is to offset the losses with higher crop yields on arable land less affected by climate change.
...
Cutting back on ethanol production alone would go some way to restoring supply-demand balance in the food markets. "If we decide to do something about it, we can just use less food for fuel," he said.
But everyone — analysts, economists, agriculture experts, the UN — thinks all bets are off in the next two or three years. It's almost impossible to boost production quickly, because of land and water shortages and competition from biofuels.
"I can say with some degree of confidence that if governments and international development agencies do not put in place a concerted effort quickly, then we are looking at a very serious problem," Mr. Nwanze said.

Thanks Al.

What a load of BS that article was.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Here's a cartoon for you Walter. Reminds me of your thread titles. :p

 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Speaking about the original article/post.... where does WWIII come into play again? All I read was a bunch of prices going up, people starving and dieing and some rioting here and there..... nothing new.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,844
93
48
Climate change 'may put world at war'
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 23/04/2008

Climate change could cause global conflicts as large as the two world wars but lasting for centuries unless the problem is controlled, a leading defence think tank has warned.
The Royal United Services Institute said a tenfold increase in research spending, comparable to the amount spent on the Apollo space programme, will be needed if the world is to avoid the worst effects of changing temperatures.
However the group said the world's response to the threats posed by climate change, such as rising sea levels and migration, had so far been "slow and inadequate," because nations had failed to prepare for the worst-case scenario.
"We're preparing for a car bomb, not for 9/11," said Nick Mabey, author of the report which comes after Lord Stern, who compiled an economic assessment of climate change for the Government, said last week that he had underestimated the possible economic consequences.
Mr Mabey, a former senior member of the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit who is now chief executive of the environmental group E3G, said leading economies should be preparing for what would happen if climate change turned out to be running at the top of the temperature range scientists are predicting.
He noted that investment in energy research is ten times less than the £10 billion a year (at 2002 prices) spent on the Apollo shuttle programme.
Unless similar sums are poured into battling climate change the world risks being caught completely unprepared if the climate reaches a "tipping point" where warming and sea level rise began to accelerate, he said.
Even if climate change was more benign than the worst-case scenario, the research would not be wasted as technological advances in nuclear power, biofuels, carbon capture and storage and renewables were urgently needed anyway, he added.
The report said: "If climate change is not slowed and critical environmental thresholds are exceeded, then it will become a primary driver of conflicts between and within states."
It added: "Climate impacts will force us into a radical rethink of how we identify and secure our national interests.
For example, our energy and climate security will increasingly depend on stronger alliances with other large energy consumers, such as China, to develop and deploy new energy technologies, and less on relations with oil producing states.
"No strategy for long run peace and stability in Afghanistan can possibly succeed unless local livelihoods can survive the impact of a changing climate on water availability and crop yields."
A spokesman for the Foreign & Commonwealth Office said: "We welcome the RUSI report as a helpful addition to the growing debate on climate security."
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
72
Ottawa ,Canada
There is enough space and ways to grow food -enywhere.People should be permited by the government to feed themself any way they wat to .If not the government should be eliminated and charged with attempted murder.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Climate change 'may put world at war'
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 23/04/2008

Climate change could cause global conflicts as large as the two world wars but lasting for centuries unless the problem is controlled, a leading defence think tank has warned.
The Royal United Services Institute said a tenfold increase in research spending, comparable to the amount spent on the Apollo space programme, will be needed if the world is to avoid the worst effects of changing temperatures.
However the group said the world's response to the threats posed by climate change, such as rising sea levels and migration, had so far been "slow and inadequate," because nations had failed to prepare for the worst-case scenario.
"We're preparing for a car bomb, not for 9/11," said Nick Mabey, author of the report which comes after Lord Stern, who compiled an economic assessment of climate change for the Government, said last week that he had underestimated the possible economic consequences.
Mr Mabey, a former senior member of the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit who is now chief executive of the environmental group E3G, said leading economies should be preparing for what would happen if climate change turned out to be running at the top of the temperature range scientists are predicting.
He noted that investment in energy research is ten times less than the £10 billion a year (at 2002 prices) spent on the Apollo shuttle programme.
Unless similar sums are poured into battling climate change the world risks being caught completely unprepared if the climate reaches a "tipping point" where warming and sea level rise began to accelerate, he said.
Even if climate change was more benign than the worst-case scenario, the research would not be wasted as technological advances in nuclear power, biofuels, carbon capture and storage and renewables were urgently needed anyway, he added.
The report said: "If climate change is not slowed and critical environmental thresholds are exceeded, then it will become a primary driver of conflicts between and within states."
It added: "Climate impacts will force us into a radical rethink of how we identify and secure our national interests.
For example, our energy and climate security will increasingly depend on stronger alliances with other large energy consumers, such as China, to develop and deploy new energy technologies, and less on relations with oil producing states.
"No strategy for long run peace and stability in Afghanistan can possibly succeed unless local livelihoods can survive the impact of a changing climate on water availability and crop yields."
A spokesman for the Foreign & Commonwealth Office said: "We welcome the RUSI report as a helpful addition to the growing debate on climate security."

We're all gonna die!!!
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
well duh.

Everyone, everywhere , since the that dawn of time..has died. We are no different.