The Poor are the victims of Kyoto etal.

[Toro]

This is nothing new. Anybody who knows what a "progressive" cost schedule actually is will understand the basic idea without needing to see such math. Give me the freedom to institute green energy policy and set the price of energy and I will save the poor money and simultaneously increase the cost. The fact that someone is ignorant of this reality doesn't make it less real and the fact that someone may be opposed to this reality does not make it impossible.

Of course, you could have the same effect of a progressive cost schedule if you did not have a progressive cost schedule and increased taxes on the wealthy/middle class and increase welfare transfers to the poor.

Higher energy prices need not increase the cost of life for those below the poverty line.

It almost certainly will though, for energy costs are an input into the economy. Everything else being equal, in an economy that is reliant upon imports for energy - as most European economies are - rising energy costs leads to rising inflation, and inflation is an insidious tax, particularly on the poor. If the monetary and fiscal authorities attempt to deal with the inflation, then the policies will lead to higher interest rates and/or less government spending, neither of which are beneficial to the poor. So, yes, higher energy prices need not increase the cost of life for those who are poor. It is likely, however, that they will.

 

[Niflmir]

Of course, you could have the same effect of a progressive cost schedule if you did not have a progressive cost schedule and increased taxes on the wealthy/middle class and increase welfare transfers to the poor.

It almost certainly will though, for energy costs are an input into the economy. Everything else being equal, in an economy that is reliant upon imports for energy - as most European economies are - rising energy costs leads to rising inflation, and inflation is an insidious tax, particularly on the poor. If the monetary and fiscal authorities attempt to deal with the inflation, then the policies will lead to higher interest rates and/or less government spending, neither of which are beneficial to the poor. So, yes, higher energy prices need not increase the cost of life for those who are poor. It is likely, however, that they will.

But will the inflation caused by the carbon tax regime be greater than the inflation caused by the rising energy costs in the old regime? It may be true that emissions have risen in some countries which have implemented carbon taxes, nobody said it was a panacea, but have the emission levels risen above the level they would have risen to without the taxes, are there marginal gains? If the consumption of energy has been slowed by these processes then has the rate of cost increase correspondingly decreased? If not, then there is an artificial nature to the rising prices that needs to be analysed to stem off the inflation you mention. Lack of knowledge of ideal policy is not proof of lack of existence, which is all I meant to say in any case. But of course the burden is upon me to clarify things. In what follows I will take a broad view of inflation as the increase to the money supply above a corresponding increase to the goods consumed.

One can control inflation in this way: control the price of energy sold to consumers and tax the producers. The producers cannot put the tax off onto the consumer and so they subsume the burden. Because of the lowered profits, layoffs are made and a corresponding decrease in energy production occurs. There are now more unemployed people, which we didn't want, but the money supply can be made constant so long as the government destroys some of the taxes, so we will not cause inflation. The tax was of course a temporary measure proportional to emission levels, so the money can be invested into the research necessary to curb emissions. This can be done in such a way whereby the companies which were taxed are allowed to keep their money so long as it is invested in research and layoffs are not made, thus we will also increase the goods produced which should accomodate the energy loss more easily than the decirculation of money. The pegged price of energy will, unfortunately, lead to deflation unless an environmentally-efficient method of production is found.

Anyways, not sure how much I will be on in weeks to come. Happy holidays, just in case.

 

[Extrafire]

Actually, civil society is founded on the principle that everyone deserves respect until they show otherwise, that is the basis for common courtesy.

Nonsense. I am courteous to strangers. I am courteous to those whose opinions I don't know. But once you post here, I know your thought process and I respond accordingly. But respect is something I only give to those who have demonstrated that they deserve it. The elderly deserve it automatically just by being elders, and I do accord it to them. If you are elderly and I have not shown you that respect I apologize, for I do not know your age. But other than that, respect must be earned.

That you disagree with something and immediately become insulting and happen to make a comment which is particularly insensitive due to my personal history (which you really couldn't know about) should convince you of the importance of basic manners, which I accuse you of lacking. Don't replace the golden rule with "Treat others like garbage until you think you like them."

I have responded to your posts with the respect they deserve. If you found it personally insulting, I would suggest that you have a very thin skin. I will treat you the same as anyone else who posts the same ideas.

The argument you present is essentially: Because a few countries have tried and failed, all countries must fail. But empirical examples can only invalidate, never prove, regardless of how many white swans you have shown me, you haven't proven that a black swan doesn't exist.

Not quite my argument. And black swans do exist, in Australia.

I have explicitly shown that this is false, I have shown you one black swan, albeit an ugly one. I could in fact invent an infinity of policies which would succeed, just by monkeying around with the cost schedule. You assert without evidence that any such system, or at least a "Marxist" system, will destroy the economy and thereby hurt the poor. The fact that an energy pricing system exists in Germany, Italy and France which has a higher cost of electricity than Canada or the US and yet gives a lower price to the poor is empirical proof that a progressive pricing schedule, need not be disastrous to the economy or "Marxist" given the private nature of their energy providers, and one should keep in mind the robustness of their unified economy in the face of the current crisis. Our tax system in Canada is progressive and this has in no way lead to widespread economic collapse.

The strength of our capitalist economies is what allows us to do these things and make special allowances for the poor (of whom I am one). The kind of hit that the economy would have to take to meet Kyoto and/or its successors would hit that economy hard, which is why the poor would suffer, since there would be less wealth to be shared with them.

 

[Toro]

But will the inflation caused by the carbon tax regime be greater than the inflation caused by the rising energy costs in the old regime? It may be true that emissions have risen in some countries which have implemented carbon taxes, nobody said it was a panacea, but have the emission levels risen above the level they would have risen to without the taxes, are there marginal gains? If the consumption of energy has been slowed by these processes then has the rate of cost increase correspondingly decreased? If not, then there is an artificial nature to the rising prices that needs to be analysed to stem off the inflation you mention. Lack of knowledge of ideal policy is not proof of lack of existence, which is all I meant to say in any case. But of course the burden is upon me to clarify things. In what follows I will take a broad view of inflation as the increase to the money supply above a corresponding increase to the goods consumed.

Yes, it is certainly safe to assume that, unless there is a reduction in tax elsewhere on energy, inflation will be greater since demand for power tends to be inelastic, and the majority of the tax will be passed on by higher prices.

As I said, "all things being equal."

There are benefits to less energy consumption - which is part of the point of higher energy taxes - but there are costs. Since costs are passed along to the consumer, and since the poor consume relatively more than those who are not, especially on staples of life, then the poor will probably bear the same if not more of the relative cost of rising energy costs, all else being equal.

One can control inflation in this way: control the price of energy sold to consumers and tax the producers. The producers cannot put the tax off onto the consumer and so they subsume the burden. Because of the lowered profits, layoffs are made and a corresponding decrease in energy production occurs. There are now more unemployed people, which we didn't want, but the money supply can be made constant so long as the government destroys some of the taxes, so we will not cause inflation. The tax was of course a temporary measure proportional to emission levels, so the money can be invested into the research necessary to curb emissions. This can be done in such a way whereby the companies which were taxed are allowed to keep their money so long as it is invested in research and layoffs are not made, thus we will also increase the goods produced which should accomodate the energy loss more easily than the decirculation of money. The pegged price of energy will, unfortunately, lead to deflation unless an environmentally-efficient method of production is found.

Energy and natural gas production was regulated for decades in the US, using a complex set of tariffs in an attempt to regulate the nat gas market. The regulation of prices, particularly in the gas market, lead to under investment in the industry. This is what will occur if you attempt any broad regulation of pricing in the energy market. By requiring companies to do A B C and D to effect E F G and H, you will incur unnecessary costs which will lead to deadweight loss from both the costs required to abide by the regulations, as well as from the tax itself. Currently, billions of dollars - and growing - are being poured into alternative energy sources, having little or nothing to do with government policy, simply because the price of oil is near $100. The market is usually (but not always) a more efficient allocator of capital than government. It is axiomatic in economics that you can control the price of something or you can control the supply of something, but you cannot control both. And by attempting to control the price received by the producer, you will also effect the supply of alternative energy, which will almost certainly be less than that produced from the emissions taxes and corresponding regulations you cited above, given the deadweight costs of the regulatory regime and taxes imposed.

Anyways, not sure how much I will be on in weeks to come. Happy holidays, just in case.

You too.

 

[Walter]

See what you bloody AGW's have done.

The beer crisis
Trouble brewing

Dec 19th 2007 | ST LOUIS
From The Economist print edition
A shortage of hops threatens Christmas



JUST as the festive season gets going, drinkers in America are finding their favourite beer suddenly more expensive or even—horrors!—not available at all. Hit by price increases and shortages, many breweries, particularly the small “craft brewers” and the even smaller microbreweries, are being forced to raise prices, make do with modified recipes or shut off the spigots altogether.
The humble hop, the plant that gives beer its distinctive flavour, is the main problem. Many farmers in the Pacific north-west, where America's hop production is concentrated, have turned to more profitable lines—especially corn, which can be made into ethanol. The decrease in hop production, put at some 50% over the past decade, has sent prices through the roof. Brian Owens, the brewmaster of the O'Fallon Brewery near St Louis, Missouri, says that the variety he once bought for $3 a pound (0.45kg) now costs five times that. Many smaller breweries cannot find what they need at any price. Industry giants like Anheuser-Busch and Miller are better off, thanks to long-term contracts. But even Anheuser-Busch has been forced to raise prices for its six-packs.
Without their supply of hops, some smaller producers are going out of business, bringing to a halt the fastest-growing segment of the industry. Other craft brewers and brewpubs are experimenting with new recipes, hoping their customers will adapt.
The hops shortage is only part of the problem. Things are no better for barley, used to make the malt that yeast turns into alcohol. It too has been ploughed under in favour of corn. Crop failures in Australia and Europe, combined with the weak dollar, have made it harder to replace the shortage with imports. Other price increases, of fuel, glass and metal, add to the pressure. Not such a merry Christmas.

 

[Walter]

Should have followed the maxim: if it ain't broke don't fix it.

EU to reconsider biofuels targets

• <LI class=byline>Jessica Aldred and agencies <LI class=publication>guardian.co.uk,
• Monday January 14 2008

The EU is to re-examine its policy on biofuels after admitting that the environmental and social impact of producing the crops may be greater than originally thought, it emerged today.
The European commission's environment minister, Stavros Dimas, admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems that would be raised by its policy of getting 10% of Europe's road fuels from plants by 2020.
He said the environmental impact and the effect on poor communities of boosting biofuel production would be greater than Brussels had originally thought.
The acknowledgement, in an interview for the BBC, follows a report published in the journal Science last week which warned that biofuels made from corn, sugar cane and soy could have a greater environmental impact than burning fossil fuels.
The research, from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, found that although the fuels themselves emitted fewer greenhouse gases, they all had higher costs in terms of biodiversity loss and destruction of farmland.
"Regardless of how effective sugar cane is for producing ethanol, its benefits quickly diminish if carbon-rich tropical forests are being razed to make the sugar cane fields, thereby causing vast greenhouse-gas emission increases," the report's authors, Jörn Scharlemann and William Laurance, wrote.
Another scientific study published last August also warned that the target of getting 10% of petrol and diesel needs from renewable sources by 2020 was less effective in curbing carbon emissions than a programme of restoring forests and protection plant habitats.
Dimas said today that there had been "a lot of enthusiasm" for the biofuels option a year and a half ago as a means of meeting overall targets in cutting emissions from vehicles.
That enthusiasm had "gone down" because of revelations that the environmental and social problems were greater than thought.
"We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were," he told the BBC.
Dimas said the commission would now have to "move carefully" on the issue of biofuels, adding: "We have to have criteria for sustainability, including social and environmental issues, because there are some benefits from biofuels."
One of the criteria in pushing biofuels was that the policy had to be "sustainable" - meaning that harnessing biofuels should not mean clearing existing forest land.
If the necessary sustainability could not be achieved, said Dimas, the EU targets would not be met.
Greenpeace's executive director, John Sauven, said: "The dangers of mass biofuel production need to be taken seriously because as things stand biofuels could be worse than useless at combating climate change.
"But UK government targets mean that soon motorists will be forced to pump these fuels into their tanks, with no way of knowing where they're coming from. We need to be sure that when we fill up we are not trashing the world's rainforests. A better, quicker solution would be to make our cars far more fuel efficient."
The earlier study, published in Science last August, warned that the European biofuels policy was a "mistake".
It compared the relative environmental benefits of growing crops on arable land to produce biofuels, or replanting the same land with trees, and found that the quantity of CO2 absorbed by forests over 30 years would be "considerably greater" than the emissions avoided by using biofuels.
The extent of the benefits of biofuels will be assessed in a review being published today by the Royal Society. The report is expected to urge EU governments to ensure that they only endorse a biofuels policy which can be proven to cut carbon emissions.

 

[Walter]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]US: January 16, 2008 [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]WASHINGTON - Almost a third of the US grain crop next year may be diverted from the family dinner table to the family car as fuel, putting upward pressure on food prices, a leading expert warned on Tuesday. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Grain prices are near record levels as the United States produces more ethanol, now made mostly from corn, to blend with gasoline and stretch available motor fuel supplies.
Farmers, hoping to cash in, are expected to grow 30 percent of next year's grain crop for ethanol use as more refineries that process corn into fuel come online, according to Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute and long-time critic of using food grains for fuel.
"The price of grain is now tied to the price of oil," Brown said at the Reuters Global Agriculture and Biofuel Summit.
As a result, he said, prices will go up for poultry, beef and pork as well as dairy products because corn is the number one animal feed for farmers.
"Our refrigerators are stuffed with corn," Brown said. For example, feed prices make up about 40 percent of the cost of poultry alone, he said.
The pressure on food prices from ethanol will only get worse as the new energy law passed last month requires US ethanol production to soar from about 9 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
"What we see are cars beginning to compete with people for world grain supplies," Brown said. "We could see a consumer revolt in this country."
Brown said that an SUV with a 25-gallon (95 litres) tank filling up with ethanol would use enough grain, about 560 pounds (254 kg), to feed the average person for one year.
However, the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group that lobbies for ethanol producers, says corn demand for ethanol doesn't have a big effect on retail food prices.
The group cites government data that shows labor costs account for 38 cents of every dollar spent on food, with packing, transportation, energy, advertising and profits accounting for 24 cents. Just 19 cents can be attributed to the cost of food inputs like grains and oilseeds, the group said. Still, rising ethanol demand helped cut world grain inventories last year to an all-time low of just 53 days of demand, compared with the 70 days of grain stocks many food experts say is normal. Brown said higher corn prices may bring back the backyard-type Victory Gardens last seen in World War II, with rural homeowners planting small plots of corn to cash in on growing ethanol use. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Story by Tom Doggett [/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Westmanguy -

I think I agree with you but you write like your Ritalin prescription has long since expired. It is very difficult to understand your disjointed thoughts and half-finished ramblings.

Pangloss

Pangloss no pun intended, but you are contradicting your self. On one hand you agree with Westmanguy and on the other hand you are making fun of him with the assertion him being on Ritalin, maybe you don't like Liberals as his avatar name is Liberal man. Whats up with that?

 

[Walter]

Corn on the Mob

by Patrick J. Michaels

This article appeared on http://www.spectator.org/American Spectator (Online) on January 30, 2008.
addthis_url = location.href; addthis_title = document.title; addthis_pub = 'cato_webmaster';

Indonesia is a land in turmoil, home to massive volcanoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. On Monday, January 14, it experienced a brand new type of disturbance, the world's first food riot caused by another nation pandering to the global warming mob. Indonesians took to the streets, demanding that their government to do something about the price of soybeans, a dietary staple.
All over the world, food prices are on the rise. For most of the late 1990s and up until 2005, the price of beans on the Chicago Board of Trade had remained stable at about $5 a bushel. Since then, they have shot up over 150 percent, to around $13. Corn has doubled, to $5. Wheat prices have tripled.

Complete article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9126

 

[Zzarchov]

So walter? You are saying you are a marxist then?

The government should collectivise farms perhaps? Screw the concept of a free market?

As the price of crops go up, so too will more people start producing crops, resulting in equilibrium.

 

[Walter]

So walter? You are saying you are a marxist then?

The government should collectivise farms perhaps? Screw the concept of a free market?

As the price of crops go up, so too will more people start producing crops, resulting in equilibrium.

The price is going up because of the foolish, leftist drive to use more ethanol instead if gasoline.

 

[Tonington]

The price is going up because of the foolish, leftist drive to use more ethanol instead if gasoline.

You're deluded if you think left leaning organizations are big fans of government subsidized/mandated ethanol that helps Ag-business more than it helps small farmers.

Bush and his cronies are the ones pushing ethanol derived mostly from corn, one of the worst of all biofuels.

Organizations for ethanol are made predominantly Ag-business and auto industry lobbyists. The "leftists" are almost as critical of ethanol as they are of coal.

 

[Zzarchov]

The price is going up because of the foolish, leftist drive to use more ethanol instead if gasoline.

And Gasoline is only used because of leftist policies that don't take into account the true cost in an effort to have more government meddling into the economy.

So if they reverse that, good for them.

But you're still defending marxist policies.

 

[gopher]

``You're deluded if you think left leaning organizations are big fans of government subsidized/mandated ethanol that helps Ag-business more than it helps small farmers.

Bush and his cronies are the ones pushing ethanol derived mostly from corn, one of the worst of all biofuels.

Organizations for ethanol are made predominantly Ag-business and auto industry lobbyists. The "leftists" are almost as critical of ethanol as they are of coal.``



You obviously know what you are talking about unlike the right wingers on this forum.

The one thing that has always been a constant on this forum is the endless lies and ignorance of the right wingers.

For anyone who is smart enough and open minded enough, do yourself a favor by actually reading the truth about the corporate welfare receiving fat cats who lobby for and profit from ethanol:


http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/pubcit_ethanol.html


From wikipedia:


```According to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, "ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government.```



When will this forum's right wingers stop showing their ignorance???

 

[Walter]

Friday, January 11, 2008

Biofuels advocate wins China's highest science award

The People's Republic of China has honored its leading scientists for their innovative work. Petrochemical scientist turned biofuels advocate Min Enze and botanist Wu Zhengyi shared the highest prize for contributions to their fields. The 'State Supreme Science and Technology Award' is the country's highest national science honor. Chinese president Hu Jintao presented the 5 million yuan (about US$600,000) awards at the annual national science-technology award ceremony at the Great Hall of the People.

Premier Wen Jiabao said in a keynote speech that China had reached a stage in its history where it was more dependent on scientific and technological innovation, and it should strive to enhance its innovative capabilities, which were a national strategic priority. The Communist Party of China should become "friends with scientists" and "extensively take their advice" he said.

The 2007 prize is shared by Min Enze and Wu Zhengyi. 84-year-old Min Enze - who obtained his PhD at Ohio State University in 1951, one of the first Chinese students to do so - is known as the founding developer of China's oil refining catalysts and is recognized for his later work on green chemistry and biofuels as a way to turn China's environmental crisis around. 92-year-old botanist Wu Zhengyi is a renowned plant taxonomist.

Prizes are awarded in five categories, including the Natural Science Award and the Technological Invention Award. This time a record high of 90 projects won awards in these two categories. At the event, it was announced that in 2007 China saw a 30 percent increase in patent applications, signalling the nation's increasing awareness of the importance of scientific and technological innovation.

From black to green chemistry
As a top petrochemical scientist, Min Enze helped kickstart the country's industrial boom 50 years ago. He has devoted most of his life to the petrochemical industry - notorious for its pollution - and began research on green chemistry only seven years ago to search for alternatives.

In a twist of irony, the 84-year-old got the award for his efforts to tackle China's environmental damages through developing an innovative process for manufacturing biodiesel based on hydrogenating natural oils. In 2000, he published a key article titled "The Future of the Refinery", introducing the idea of biodiesel production and integrated biorefineries.

The award review committee praised his work as an explorer in the research and development of petrochemical green chemistry, as well as his efforts to make better biofuel. "Biodiesel research meets the needs of our country," Min said after he received the award from President Hu Jintao:

He said he has been focusing on green chemistry, particularly biodiesel production, since the turn of the millennium. "I left the things of today to my students, and dedicate myself to the things of tomorrow and the days after," he said.

By the 1980s, it had become clear that chemical processes which eliminate pollution at the source rather than post-treatment were needed. Min, who was vice-president and chief engineer at RIPP, called for basic research and drew up a roadmap for technology innovation.

He led a five-year National Natural Science Foundation of China research project to develop green chemical technologies. Producing biodiesel fuel by developing oil-bearing plants will turn agricultural and forestry products into industrial products, said Min.



Darned right-wing Chinese.

 

[Walter]

Biodiesel in the Bay Area


Have you ever been behind a diesel car or truck? Then you know they stink and are highly polluting. But change the fuel from petroleum diesel (petro-diesel) to biodiesel and everything changes. With biodiesel the smell is similar to that of French fries or popcorn. And even better is the health improvement. Biodiesel is biodegradable and about as toxic as table salt, and biodiesel vehicles have significantly reduced emissions.
In the Bay Area, biodiesel is becoming increasingly important as a renewable transportation fuel. Several cities and counties are using biodiesel in their fleets. Biodiesel co-ops, and even a public biodiesel station, have sprouted across the area to supply the fuel to a growing number of consumers.
In September of 2003, at the urging of Marin County Supervisor Susan Adams, Marin's Department of Public Works began testing biodiesel in one of its diesel vehicles. After six months the department was so pleased that it decided to use B20 (a blend of 20% biodiesel and 80% petro-diesel) in more of its diesel vehicles, everything from pick-up trucks to large construction equipment. The B20 worked so well that the department decided this year to move to B30. Today about 40% of the department's diesel vehicles run on B30. The main limitation is that the county has installed a biodiesel tank at only one depot, but it hopes to have biodiesel at the other depots in the future. The only reservation was with seasonal-use vehicles; no one has done much testing on how the fuel will do if it sits in the vehicle for a long period of time without use.The biodiesel program has been a great success and has been incorporated into Marin County's Cities for Climate Protection action plan.
The city of Berkeley, with one of the longest records of using biodiesel of any city in the U.S., provided Marin with crucial support and guidance on Marin's transition to biodiesel. In 2001 the Ecology Center, which runs all the recycling trucks in Berkeley, converted to 100% biodiesel. Except for a few hoses and gaskets it required no investment in new equipment - simply a change in fuel. The trucks immediately quit spewing black, smelly smoke, and public support for biodiesel grew. In 2003 Berkeley decided to run all 180 of its diesel-powered vehicles on 100% biodiesel. Recently the city has temporarily reduced its use of biodiesel as part of a troubleshooting process, but hopes to resume full use when the problems are resolved.
At the urging of biodiesel advocates San Francisco began a biodiesel pilot project at Muni in 2004, which it is hoping to expand later this year.
And biodiesel is not just for government. Many thoughtful people have chosen to run their cars and trucks on biodiesel rather than petro-diesel. The cost is more, currently about a dollar per gallon more, but these early adopters believe that they are helping to improve the environment and the air we all breathe.
The Biofuel Oasis in Berkeley, open since 2003, is a popular place for Bay Area residents to fill up with biodiesel. At that time there were no public biodiesel pumps in San Francisco or the East Bay. SaraHope Smith and Jennifer Radtke, members of the Berkeley Biodiesel Collective, saw the need and filled it. For more information on Biofuel Oasis see www.biofueloasis.com or call (510) 665-5509. There are now also biodiesel pumps in Sonoma County, Mendocino County (Hopland and Laytonville), and San Jose.
Last June a group of San Franciscans who use biodiesel in their passenger cars and trucks, formed the San Francisco Biofuels Cooperative. They aim to increase public access to biodiesel, educate the public about it, and advocate for the city and state to use it. The co-op purchases biodiesel in bulk and resells it to its members, providing members with a viable alternative to the stinky petro-diesel sold by the petroleum giants. The Co-op welcomes new members. For more information, see www.sfbiofuel.org/ or call (415) 267-3998. The Sierra Club applauds these efforts and we encourage our members to support biodiesel use in their local community.

Darned right-wing Sierra Club.

 

[Avro]

Why even bring this argument forward Walt when you don't even think we have a problem with climate change or pollution for that matter. Your line should read we don't need Kyoto because the reasons for it are false much like the Iraq war.

If the problem were real however I personaly would choose saving the planet over the poor (natural selection) and the problem is real I'm afraid.

Also, generally the poor are the ones who suffer the most from a bad enviroment anyways so doing something about it may actually help them but the planet comes first old boy.

 

[gopher]

Yeah, and he makes a ''great'' argument as to why libs should be blamed for the billions the wealthy enjoy in corporate welfare.




:angryfire:IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT REICH WINGERS:angryfire:

 

[Walter]

Biofuels will not feed the hungry

Published: February 25 2008 20:14 | Last updated: February 25 2008 20:14

Between 1990 and 2005 the proportion of children under five who were underweight declined by one fifth. But that progress is now under threat. Rising food prices mean that malnutrition and starvation once again threaten many of those at the bottom of the world’s economic ladder. While recent spikes in prices are unlikely to be permanent, producers should stop wasting food by subsidising biofuels and give the World Food Programme the funds it needs to distribute calories to those who cannot cope by themselves.
International market prices for wheat, corn, soyabeans and dozens of other commodities have doubled or trebled in recent years. The result is poverty – for millions, a doubling of food prices means destitution – and increased malnutrition. World Food Programme officials have told the Financial Times that the agency may have to cut food rations, or even the number of people it reaches, unless donors provide more cash to pay higher prices.

 

[MikeyDB]

Walter offers a lucid insightful thesis here...

Anyone who tampers with the right of the wealthy /stauts quo/right-wing is automatically responsible for obesity, starving children (simultaneously with the aforementioned), gobal warming hysteria, everything that's evil in the world....

Why Walter.....you sound like a liberal........