Thoughts on food for fuel?

[ColdBlooded]

What do you think?

Starving the 3rd world to feed our energy wants?

Sacrificing food security (if they had it to begin with) for our consumption of fuel.

Sharp rise in the price of corn, sugar, pork (just to name a few) in the past year because of the new demands for ethanol.

What other effects will this have on the environment? Land usage, shortages of water, etc?

Is this a quick fix to a deeper problem of consumption? Is this a conspiracy to further enslave the 3rd world? Or just a market force that supplies the need and finds the labor and resources wherever available regardless of those exploited?

 

[mrraskal666]

WHAT IF WE MADE ALL THE 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES WORK FOR US SO WE DONT HAVE TO WORK NOMORE AND CAN HAVE THE MONEY AND LIVE RICH?

 

[ColdBlooded]

So can we revive the idea of an IQ/basic education level test to be able post in this forum?

I hate to discriminate against the obviously mentally fucking disadvantaged 666’ers out there, but even I have my limits.

 

[mrraskal666]

i was just asking, just a normal question, nothin to cry about

 

[|GOD|||ZILLA|]

growin' hemp could easily solve this problem... but that's too easy.. we need to make shit complicated.

 

[JoMoDo]

Sharp rise in the price of corn, sugar, pork (just to name a few) in the past year because of the new demands for ethanol.

off topic, but the messed up thing is these sectors of 'agriculture' recieve more gov't subsidies than raw produce such as fruits and veggies....

What other effects will this have on the environment? Land usage, shortages of water, etc?

Well, if we look at the historical trends of any type fuel or energy source, it usually has a detrimental impact on the surrounding enviornment, be it burning coal, oil rigs, hydroelectric damns, nuclear energy, natural gas, so I can't imagine the long terms effects from producing ethanol will be much different, what the detriments are, who knows, but time will tell

Is this a quick fix to a deeper problem of consumption?

It's a B.S. fix to a deeper problem of consumption

Is this a conspiracy to further enslave the 3rd world?
Or just a market force that supplies the need and finds the labor and resources wherever available regardless of those exploited?

Not so much enslave them, but corporations manipulating high level corrupt politicians and gov't officials of those countries to exploit their natural resources.....


Too bad we don't domestically research some real alternative fuels like solar power, or my personal favorite...
www.hempcar.org

 

[Mac Jesus]

Not only will it affect poor communities in Latin America who rely on corn as a source of food; it will also affect American alcoholics. Now that Mexicans are torching agave fields to make room to grow corn, a now much more profitable crop. Lack of agave plants = lack of tequila. Sad thing is, lack of tequila would probably drive more people away from ethanol then people starving in the 3rd world.

 

[ColdBlooded]

It is known very precisely today that one ton of corn can only produce 413 liters of ethanol on average, according to densities. That is equivalent to 109 gallons.

The average price of corn in U.S. ports has risen to $167 per ton. Thus, 320 million tons of corn would be required to produce 35 billion gallons of ethanol.
According to FAO figures, the U.S. corn harvest rose to 280.2 million tons in the year 2005.

Although the president is talking of producing fuel derived from grass or wood shavings, anyone can understand that these are phrases totally lacking in realism. Let’s be clear: 35 billion gallons translates into 35 followed by nine zeros!

Afterwards will come beautiful examples of what experienced and well-organized U.S. farmers can achieve in terms of human productivity by hectare: corn converted into ethanol; the chaff from that corn converted into animal feed containing 26% protein; cattle dung used as raw material for gas production. Of course, this is after voluminous investments only within the reach of the most powerful enterprises, in which everything has to be moved on the basis of electricity and fuel consumption. Apply that recipe to the countries of the Third World and you will see that people among the hungry masses of the Earth will no longer eat corn. Or something worse: lend funding to poor countries to produce corn ethanol based on corn or any other food and not a single tree will be left to defend humanity from climate change.

Other countries in the rich world are planning to use not only corn but also wheat, sunflower seeds, rapeseed and other foods for fuel production. For the Europeans, for example, it would become a business to import all of the world’s soybeans with the aim of reducing the fuel costs for their automobiles and feeding their animals with the chaff from that legume, particularly rich in all types of essential amino acids.

“In just 18 years, close to 2 billion people will be living in countries and regions where water will be a distant memory. Two-thirds of the world’s population could be living in places where that scarcity produces social and economic tensions of such a magnitude that it could lead nations to wars for the precious ‘blue gold.’

“Over the last 100 years, the use of water has increased at a rate twice as fast as that of population growth.

“According to statistics from the World Water Council, it is estimated that by 2015, the number of inhabitants affected by this grave situation will rise by 3.5 billion people.

“The United Nations celebrated World Water Day on March 23, and called to begin confronting, that very day, the international scarcity of water, under the coordination of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), with the goal of highlighting the increasing importance of water scarcity on a global scale, and the need for greater integration and cooperation that would make it possible to guarantee sustained and efficient management of water resources.

“Many regions on the planet are suffering from severe water shortages, living with less than 500 cubic meters per person per year. The number of regions suffering from chronic scarcity of this vital element is increasingly growing.
“The principal consequences of water scarcity are an insufficient amount of the precious liquid for producing food, the impossibility of industrial, urban and tourism development and health problems.”

 

[ThaG]

Ethanol is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels:

1. it also produces CO2 so we're not solving the greenhouse gas problem at all

2. it will require large areas of land to provide the biomass needed for large scale production

If we want to kill the planet, we can switch to ethanol, but if we want sustainable energetics, we need something else combined with drastic reduction of population

 

[GTS]

Ethanol is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels:

1. it also produces CO2 so we're not solving the greenhouse gas problem at all

2. it will require large areas of land to provide the biomass needed for large scale production

If we want to kill the planet, we can switch to ethanol, but if we want sustainable energetics, we need something else combined with drastic reduction of population

hopefully your part of that population reduction

 

[ColdBlooded]

UN rapporteur criticizes food-based ethanol production

GENEVA, June 14. — Jean Ziegler, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, said that producing ethanol from foodstuffs would condemn hundreds of thousands of people in the world to death from hunger, Prensa Latina reported.

Ziegler accused the United States, European Union and Japan of “total hypocrisy” for promoting ethanol production in order to reduce their dependence on imported oil, the article said.

“There is a great danger for the right to food from the development of biofuels,” the UN envoy said at a press conference during a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council.

He added that hundreds of thousands of people could die from hunger as a result of producing ethanol from basic foodstuffs like corn. He noted that in some parts of Mexico, the price of corn shot up by 16% as a result of greater demand for producing biofuels.

 

[ThaG]

hopefully your part of that population reduction

The energy needs of 7 billion people are 7 times those of 1 billion

The pollution 7 billion people cause is 7 times the pollution 1 billion cause

Do you see the connection between population and problems with the environment?

Even if we find a way to get absolutely clean energy in enormous quantities (antimatter or something of that sort), we are not solving our environmental problems:

1. Resources are not limited to energy, most metals will be over in the 22nd century and with them economy in its present form. Yes, you can produce them from nuclear reactions (assuming you have an unlimited energy source) but this is unlikely to be achieved by then

2. All this energy released in the environment will cause additional problems (thermal pollution)

3. Urbanization and destruction of habitats will continue

4. Pollution will continue

 

[GTS]

The energy needs of 7 billion people are 7 times those of 1 billion

The pollution 7 billion people cause is 7 times the pollution 1 billion cause

Do you see the connection between population and problems with the environment?

Even if we find a way to get absolutely clean energy in enormous quantities (antimatter or something of that sort), we are not solving our environmental problems:

1. Resources are not limited to energy, most metals will be over in the 22nd century and with them economy in its present form. Yes, you can produce them from nuclear reactions (assuming you have an unlimited energy source) but this is unlikely to be achieved by then

2. All this energy released in the environment will cause additional problems (thermal pollution)

3. Urbanization and destruction of habitats will continue

4. Pollution will continue

Even if I agreed with you, you have to understand that you have no appreciation for life. You have been sheltered your whole life. To say with no remorse that a human life should be ended to save your science project is sane? Why not reduce the balkans population?

 

[nhojsmith]

Even if I agreed with you, you have to understand that you have no appreciation for life. You have been sheltered your whole life. To say with no remorse that a human life should be ended to save your science project is sane? Why not reduce the balkans population?

i could argue that he may have more appreiciation for life than you appear to have. he is talking about long term viability of the planet and preservation of the human population. There is no question that a reduced population would extend resources. at the same time, thag should consider that an increased population, by directly threatening preservation, may motivate new avenues of science to remedy the problem (invetion by neccessity).

emotion clouds logic and rationality. would you sacrifice 1 innocent child to save 5 innocent children? whats your stance on cloning etc?

 

[GTS]

i could argue that he may have more appreiciation for life than you appear to have. he is talking about long term viability of the planet and preservation of the human population. There is no question that a reduced population would extend resources. at the same time, thag should consider that an increased population, by directly threatening preservation, may motivate new avenues of science to remedy the problem (invetion by neccessity).

emotion clouds logic and rationality. would you sacrifice 1 innocent child to save 5 innocent children? whats your stance on cloning etc?

Nobody knows what the future holds. To make assumptions and to say we need to kill some of our population to preserve resources is fine if you want to be the first to step up and be a guinea pig. What people are you talking about depopulating? I think it's not my own emotion clouding logic, but actualy nazism breeding through science.

 

[ThaG]

Nobody knows what the future holds. To make assumptions and to say we need to kill some of our population to preserve resources is fine if you want to be the first to step up and be a guinea pig. What people are you talking about depopulating? I think it's not my own emotion clouding logic, but actualy nazism breeding through science.

OK, I give you an example - imagine a city in India with 20 million population 8 million of them have no home, no income, no education, no future whatsoever. What's the use of them for humanity as a whole and is there any purpose in their existence (and it is not a particularly happy existence, you know)??

A second example - a middle class suburb in USA, people are working 9 to 5, they are supposed to have some education but are still dumb, semi-literate and hopelessly ignorant about the world. All they are doing is wasting resources for a life that has no meaning other than wasting resources. They are not creating anything useful for mankind, but the impact of their existence on the planet is disastrous.

Now forget the names of the countries and realize these are the typical pictures you will see all around the world. Is there any meaning behind the existence of all these people? Are they creating anything? Are they doing anything else other than ruining the planet?

You say we don't know what the future holds. When scientists warn that there is an asteroid that will pass close to the planet and has a chance of 1:10,000 to hit us, people all get freaked out and start demanding that we do something about it. Note, the chance is 1:10,000. When scientists say that global warming is 90% certain to be man-caused, people say "Oh, you're not sure, we're not going to change our lifestyles"...

Where's the logic here, compare a 9:10 chance to 1:10,000....

Same with overpopulation. We are already overpopulated and it's only a matter of time for the disaster to happen (it is already happening in Darfur). The chance is close to 1...

But we don't "know what the future holds" so we're not going to even admit to ourselves there is a problem to be solved...

 

[GTS]

*I agree with population control but only in Bulgaria. I'd rather 1 million homeless Afghans live then 1 person like you live.

 

[ThaG]

*I agree with population control but only in Bulgaria. I'd rather 1 million homeless Afghans live then 1 person like you live.

Bulgaria is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - we are one of the few countries with a decreasing population, but we have huge problem with uneducated essentially uncontrollable gypsies having 10 babies and threatening to take over the country in the next 50 years if things go on the same way...

We also need population reduction but only of certain groups. Same applies to the whole world - those who contribute more to environmental problems (exceed their resources the most) will have to reduce more - this is especially true about USA and Japan and overpopulated tropical countries (Brazil immediately comes to mind)

Anyway, these are just thoughts about what has to be done, we all know it will never be done until it's too late and nature takes care of us because we are unable to do so.

You don't have to worry about "mad/nazi type of scientists" killing "innocent babies". This will never happen. BTW these babies are not innocent, they are guilty of existing, everybody is on average 5/7 guilty of it, as hard as this concept is to understand by some people.

 

[ThaG]

i could argue that he may have more appreiciation for life than you appear to have. he is talking about long term viability of the planet and preservation of the human population. There is no question that a reduced population would extend resources. at the same time, thag should consider that an increased population, by directly threatening preservation, may motivate new avenues of science to remedy the problem (invetion by neccessity).

emotion clouds logic and rationality. would you sacrifice 1 innocent child to save 5 innocent children? whats your stance on cloning etc?

See, there will be a point when the problems will be realized and solutions will be looked for. I agree with that. My fear is that it will be too late. I am not at all so optimistic that solutions will be found quickly enough, scientists are not magicians. Again, we are already EXCEEDING THE RESOURCES OF THE PLANET BY MORE THAN 30%! In the same time the only time the problem with overpopulation was mentioned at a United Nations meeting was in the early 70s. After that the problem was NEVER even mentioned. To sum it up: we are already too many but we refuse to realize with the exception of some ultra-radical environmentalists who nobody listens to.

I am not an "environmentalist" because I look at the bigger picture, I want that to be clear. Whether 50% of species on this planet will die or not is not a big deal, they will die anyway and others will take their place. Evolution will take care of biodiversity, don't worry so much about that. What we should be concerned about is:

1. the existence of life on the planet because this is at stake right now

2. our own survival

The two things are closely related and personally I am not happy about the idea of a few science-illiterate mega rich people on Wall Street, who care only about their shares and profits, deciding the future of the planet.