The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!

[calde...@yahoo.com]

see: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!

On December 19th, 2007, George W. Bush signed into law a bill
that
mandates a massive increase in the production of ethanol, which is
used as
"biofuel" to run automobiles. Ethanol is made from corn and other
foodstuffs, and all of the various forms of biofuel, including
"biodiesel,"
are made literally from food. Even at current limited levels of
production,
the biofuel scheme has already caused huge increases in food prices
around
the world. Food banks in the United States are running low, and
desperate,
low income American families are going hungry right now. The United
Nations
has officially stated that its charity programs can no longer afford
to feed
the poor and starving people of the world because the cost of basic
food
crops has risen so dramatically due to biofuel production. When
American
farmers plant more corn in order to cash in on artificially high corn
prices
due to biofuel mandates, they plant fewer wheat, vegetables, and other
food
crops, thus food prices rise across the board as a result. We use
corn to
feed chickens and cattle, so the price of poultry, beef, and milk have
risen
dramatically and will continue to rise.
The advocacy and use of biofuels is one of the greatest hoaxes of
the
21st century. The ideology of biofuel production sounds smart and
wholesome
superficially, a kind of green, health food store way of producing
energy.
The problem is that the entire biofuel scheme is based on lies and
political
selfishness, without any legitimate science based ecological
justification
whatsoever.
1) Biofuel production starves the poor and reduces our standard of
living
by dramatically increasing the cost of food, which we all need just
to
survive. Of course the homeless, the elderly, the disabled, and all
those
living on Social Security and other fixed incomes will be hardest hit.
2) Biofuel production increases our Federal budget deficit because
it
demands large subsidies to exist. Without massive Federal subsidies
and
mandates there would be no significant free market demand for biofuels
at
all. Biofuel schemes are energy socialism gone wrong!
3) Biofuel production harms the environment by needlessly eroding
topsoil
and encouraging the destruction of forests, which are so desperately
needed
as a sponge to soak up excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Carbon
dioxide is the major greenhouse gas that causes global warming. Do
we
really want to cut down forests all over the world, from Indonesia to
Pennsylvania, just to have more land to grow corn, soybeans, palm oil,
sugar
cane, and other crops to burn as fuel in our SUVs? Biofuel schemes
speed up
global warming because the entire biofuel production process, from
beginning
to end, releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,
while
destroying native forests which naturally clean and rejuvenate our
atmosphere. Biofuels are a losing proposition on every level, except
for
the profits big agricultural corporations make on producing it.
4) Biofuels schemes are a hoax and a fraud because they take more
energy to
produce than they yield in the form of the biofuel itself. We have to
burn
large amounts of coal and oil just to produce biofuels! The numbers
for
biofuel production do not add up any way you look at them, and at the
December, 2007, United Nations meeting on strategic environmental
issues
held in Bali, Indonesia, several studies were presented detailing the
dangers of making automobile fuels from crops. Respected scientists
warned
that biofuel production is destructive to the environment and will not
give
us the clean "renewable energy" its advocates claim. Just a few days
after
the Bali conference ended, George W. Bush and the United States
Congress
ushered into existence a new law mandating massive increases in
biofuel
production, the science and the facts be damned!
5) The biofuel hoax in the United States is fueled to a large degree
by
domestic American politics. Both the Republican and Democratic
political
parties want to get the "farm vote" in politically strategic farming
states
like Iowa, Ohio, and Nebraska. Our politicians have put political
gain
ahead of the world's starving poor, the elderly on fixed incomes, and
the
welfare of the American middle class. Rich politicians can afford to
pay
the dramatically higher food bills that biofuel production creates,
and they
have decided to throw science aside and charge blindly into what will
inevitably be branded as one of the most destructive political
fiascoes of
the 21st century.
The future of American transportation rests in clean hydrogen
fuel,
made through the electrolysis of water via electricity generated by
zero
emission nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants are now safe, clean,
reliable, and proven, and they do not contribute to global warming.
We need
to get off the carbon cycle in the production of energy and use
nuclear
power to produce the highly concentrated energy supply that solar and
wind
power can never hope to provide. Solar and wind power can only
satisfy
perhaps 20% of our energy needs, because those schemes rely on energy
sources that are far too diffuse to be collected on a large enough
scale to
meet our demands. One single disaster of an old and obsolete nuclear
reactor near the city of Chernobyl in the Ukraine is no reason to be
eternally afraid of civilian nuclear power plants in general, which
have an
excellent record for safety in the United States and Europe. Coal and
oil
based power plants produce enormous amounts of air pollution and
unleash
massive amounts of greenhouse gasses, which may make much of the
earth
uninhabitable in years to come.
One of the major benefits of nuclear power is that we already
have huge
amounts of nuclear fuel on hand, already bought and paid for in the
form of
nuclear weapons materials, which can be converted into fuel rods for
civilian power production. Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed over
and
over again, because only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is
actually
used up during each fuel cycle. When you reprocess fuel rods there is
very
little high level nuclear waste that needs to be stored. The nuclear
"waste" is simply reused as nuclear fuel, and this is part of the
reason why
France's nuclear program has been so successful. France relies
heavily on
nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel reprocessing, and thus France
has the
cleanest air and cheapest electricity rates in Europe.
The United States has hundreds of years worth of nuclear fuel on
hand
right now, thanks to the cold war of the 1950s and 1960s. We can turn
our
swords into plowshares while paying only the modest costs of
converting high
level weapons grade nuclear materials into low level nuclear fuel
rods
suitable for civilian power production. Unlike oil, we do not have
to
import nuclear fuel from foreign countries as we already have huge
amounts
of it in storage.
Our latest nuclear reactor designs are excellent, with many
redundant
safety and security features built-in. The fear many Americans have
about
civilian nuclear power plants is unfounded. Coal burning power plants
emit
huge amounts of radioactive materials into the atmosphere due to the
natural
uranium content of the coal, but here is very little fear of coal
power
plants in the USA. Nuclear power plants have been unfairly demonized
by
Hollywood and some scientifically undereducated politicians well
meaning,
but misguided environmental advocates.
We must all remember that biofuels are food! With a world wide
human
population of over 6.6 billion people, we cannot afford to feed our
families
and at the same time use precious farmland to produce food products
(biofuels) to burn in automobile engines. Food belongs in the
stomachs of
hungry men, women, and children, not in the gas tanks of our Fords,
Hondas,
and Mercedes Benz automobiles. If you do not want food prices to
double,
triple, or even quadruple in the next ten years, then you had better
write
your Congressman, Senator, Governor, and President and tell them that
you do
not want to waste food to make biofuels. Biofuel is food, and you
should
not waste food because it is precious!
Christopher Calder
See news stories below!
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/16288
Greens back Biofuelwatch report
Date: 5 Dec 2007 - 15:27 Source: Green Party
"This report shows that biofuels run the risk of accelerating global
warming
and undermining climate justice" - Caroline Lucas MEP
Green Party Principal Speaker Caroline Lucas today voiced her support
for a
new report detailing the harmful effects of biofuel expansion.
'Agrofuels threaten to accelerate global warming' sets out the latest
science on biofuels and deforestation, and has been produced by
Biofuelwatch - an organisation that campaigns against the use of
bioenergy
from unsustainable sources.
The report will be released in Bali on Thursday 6th December, where
Governments at the key UN climate summit will be discussing how to
reduce
greenhouse gas emissions after the current Kyoto Protocol targets
expire in
2012. Advance copies are available.
Dr. Caroline Lucas MEP, Green Party Principal Speaker, said:
"This report shows that biofuels run the risk of accelerating global
warming
and undermining climate justice.
"The rush to biofuels is already having a disastrous effect on some of
the
world's poorest people - with increased food prices, increased
competition
over land, forced evictions and increased scarcity of water.
"It's estimated that to fill one car tank with biofuel requires around
200kg
of maize - enough to feed one person for one year .
"We are pitting the needs of the car drivers in the West for fuel
against
the needs of much of the world's poor for food.
"I hope politicians and experts at the Bali summit will listen and
learn
from this timely report."
Dr Andrew Boswell, one of the report's authors and a Green Councillor
in
Norwich, said:
"Agrofuel policies are being developed without any proper risk
analysis
having been done. The impacts from the 'worst case scenarios' such as
the
complete destruction of South-east Asia's peatlands, or the
irreversible
die-back of the Amazon forest are of such magnitude that they clearly
are
not risks worth taking.
"The net impact of increased global agrofuels production is likely to
be a
reduction of natural carbon sinks and an overall increase in
greenhouse gas
emissions."

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2108465.htm
ABC Online
Today's biofuel crops may be tomorrow's weeds
PM - Monday, 3 December , 2007 18:38:00
Reporter: Paula Kruger
MARK COLVIN: The Bali climate change summit started today and many of
those
attending would be already aware that sometimes, the solution can also
be
part of the problem.
One of the solutions proposed has been biofuel but biofuel can bring
its own
devastation.
Thousands of hectares of forest in Indonesia, for instance, have been
logged
to make way for biofuels.
There are also concerns about the environmental damage that biofuels
could
cause in Australia.
Some of the plants being proposed as biofuel crops are weeds which
could
have a devastating impact on wildlife across the country.
Paula Kruger reports.
PAULA KRUGER: The struggle to find alternative energy sources that
don't
contribute to climate change has created a boom in biofuels.
This is something worries Tim Low from the Invasive Species Council.
He says
some biofuel crops could have a devastating impact on the Australian
landscape.
TIM LOW: We don't have enough arable land. I mean that is very well
recognised by CSIRO so then you get the promotion of plants that are
highly
weedy so they actually can be grown on marginal non-agricultural land
but
that carries a very high weed risk.
PAULA KRUGER: Are there plants that you classify as weeds that are
being
proposed right now as biofuel crops in Australia?
TIM LOW: Oh absolutely. The South Australian government is very gung-
ho
about promoting giant reed. Now that is on the World Conservation
Union of
100 of the world's worst invaders.
Now their scientific unit SARDI has active trials underway right now
and
this is a rank grass. It grows about seven or eight metres high which
has
taken over waterways in California. In California they are spending
millions
of dollars a year removing it. They have a biological control program
to
bring in insects to eat it up. The South Australian government is
promoting
it.
Then there is jatropha, which is a weed around the world that has
been
declared a prohibited weed in Western Australia and the Northern
Territory.
Queensland government is planning to allow trials and a meeting will
be held
Thursday this week to consider the future of those.
This is very, very ongoing.
PAULA KRUGER: You have already raised concerns. You had a recent
report that
raised your concerns about the weed potential in biofuels. Have those
concerns been taken seriously at this stage?
TIM LOW: They certainly are by government agencies. There is a lot of
scepticism so you've got public servants who are being told by their
governments to promote biofuels but they recognise exactly the kind
of
problems that I am talking about.
I mean this information is very widespread in the literature but
because
there is a popular demand to do something, politicians are hearing
that.
They are offering investments, investment grants for biofuels and so
people
need to acquit these grants even though in some cases they personally
recognise that there just doesn't seem to be much in this.
PAULA KRUGER: So it is government funding that is driving an industry
that
could cause a big environmental problem for Australia?
TIM LOW: That's right and that is certainly the case with jatropha
where I
have actually talked to the officer who is dispensing grants. I said
look,
why are getting behind jatropha, I mean this isn't the right plan at
all and
he is saying that no-one else is applying for the grant.
PAULA KRUGER: Deborah O'Connell from Sustainable Ecosystems at the
CSIRO
says the weed risk, of biofuel crops are being taken seriously.
DEBORAH O'CONNELL: These new plants are one of a range of strategies
that we
could have and I think they need to be evaluated not only for their
weed
potential but also for their yield because at the moment, a lot of the
yield
has been quoted very high numbers of four to 8,000 litres of oil per
hectare
are based largely on overseas results and they haven't been looked at
in
Australia.
PAULA KRUGER: So there is still a lot more work to be done in
Australia when
it comes to researching appropriate biofuel crops?
DEBORAH O'CONNELL: Absolutely, absolutely. There is a lot of work to
be done
particularly in that area because we have very little idea of the
yields of
those things as well as the biosecurity risks.
PAULA KRUGER: The Invasive Species council is calling on the new
federal
government to form a steering committee that can work with the states
so
there is a more cohesive policy on offering grants for biofuel crops.
MARK COLVIN: Paula Kruger.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/29208
The ethanol scam
By JAY AMBROSE
Scripps Howard News Service
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
New energy legislation is careening toward a calamitous collision
with
American lives, especially ethanol provisions that will hike food
prices and
foul the environment while saving little or nothing on fossil-fuel
consumption.
The mandate that tens of billions more subsidized gallons of ethanol
be used
in our cars each year by 2022 is little short of a scam, a gift to
politically important corn farmers and others under the pretense that
you,
the taxpayer, are thereby awarded the enhanced prospect of energy
independence and less global warming. No such thing.
Instead, for starters, you are sponsoring a chance to pay more at the
grocery store and to keep paying more while the yay-voting members of
Congress and President Bush no doubt hope you won't blame them, as
you
should.
It works this way, a think tank tells us. Most American ethanol fuel
today
is made from corn. As biofuel demand for corn goes up, so does the
price,
which is reflected not only in what the consumer pays for corn itself,
but
what is also paid for dairy products and beef (cows eat corn),
poultry
(chickens and other domestic fowl eat corn), pork (hogs eat corn) and
corn-based products such as corn syrup. Then there's all the land that
once
was being used for other crops that's now used for corn, meaning those
other
crops are less available and cost more.
One expert from an unhappy ranchers group is quoted as saying in a
news
piece that corn prices jumped a rather amazing 21 percent last year,
no
doubt contributing heftily to a total reported food-price increase of
4.5
percent, more than twice the broad inflation rate. Federal
requirements for
still more ethanol, which come at a time when the United Nations is
warning
that world food supplies are declining, will have consequences that
cannot
entirely be foreseen but could well be disastrous.
To be sure, the legislation does not pin all its hopes on corn; it
calls for
an even larger share of future biofuel to be derived from such
nonedible
sources as biomass and switchgrass. Nevertheless, there is a problem
here.
Some analysts point out no one really knows an efficient means of
mass-producing ethanol from that stuff. It just might be that there is
no
way. For Congress to mandate the use of something that might never be
producible is at the least hubristic, if not very, very stupid. And
top
university researchers have said that even this option could have
hugely
negative impacts on food supplies.
Before promoting a bright, new future for ethanol and the companies
that
produce it, you wish members of Congress had heeded such researchers
and
some of the other studies and analyses in effect instructing them to
strangle the idea and bury it.
They might have noted, for instance, that any excuse for the
provisions was
nullified by Professor Tad W. Patzek of the University of
California-Berkeley. He has shown, one article says, that more fossil
fuels
are consumed in creating ethanol than the energy the ethanol itself
can ever
unleash in the nation's automobiles. You get to this conclusion by
calculating the energy involved in such operations as making
fertilizers for
the corn, in wastewater disposal, in transportation and in the
processes to
convert the corn to a fuel substance, the article notes.
A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
-- a
free-market group to which the United States belongs -- argues that
further
development of biofuels could have worse environmental effects than
producing oil because of "biodiversity loss" and the bad consequences
of
increased use of fertilizers and pesticides,.
A study by a Stanford University professor, Mark Jacobson, states
that
ethanol could be more dangerous to human health than gasoline if used
in
every vehicle in the country, and still another study, this one by
Nobel
Prize winning scientist Josef Crutzen, argues that biofuel emissions
could
be a greater global-warming threat than emissions from fossil fuels.
Heritage Foundation analysts report that a survey at the recently
concluded
Bali conference on climate change placed biofuels produced from food
at the
bottom of a 19-choice list of ways to lower carbon in the atmosphere.
Maybe someday Washington will do something real to address America's
energy
needs, but what we got with the ethanol provisions was pretense minus
substance or justification, and something worse: increased peril for
all of
us.

[calde...@yahoo.com]

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/06/27/the-coming-biofuels-disaster

The Coming Biofuels Disaster
Created by joe_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:42 AM

The climate debate has gotten underway and biofuels have been promoted
as a strong candidate for solving the problem of oil dependence. In
this article, Rockridge fellow Joe Brewer shares how framing has
caused public discourse to overlook the major disaster that lurks
behind biofuels.

Have you ever tried to solve a problem only to discover that you made
things worse in the process? This is happening right now with
biofuels. We are on the road to disaster because the problem we are
trying to solve has been framed inadequately. Harmful impacts from
large-scale biofuel production are largely overlooked. And we aren't
even addressing the right problem! The truth can be seen when we frame
issues in the context of livability.



Solving the Wrong Problem
Policy makers have been grappling with the fact that an excessive
amount of carbon dioxide is polluting our atmosphere, disrupting
global weather patterns and shifting the world's climate beyond safe
boundaries. The solution required by this problem is that we stop
increasing greenhouse pollution levels. This can be accomplished by
shifting our energy sector in a direction that ultimately reduces the
amount of heat-trapping gases that have accumulated since the dawn of
the industrial revolution.

On the surface, biofuels present the ideal solution to this problem.
We can grow them in large amounts and the carbon that is released by
burning them is equal to the amount they breathe in as they grow. This
simple mental accounting is very appealing, but woefully inaccurate
for describing what is really going on.

The real problem is that the way we use energy is out of balance with
natural processes, driving us away from the equilibrium necessary for
our communities to survive. This is evident in the planet's atmosphere
where global warming is running rampant, our cities are submerged in
toxic gases, and the protective ozone shield is tattered. It is also
evident in the biosphere, where we are in the midst of the Earth's
sixth mass extinction (the first in the planet's four and a half
billion year history caused by a single species - humans). Soils in
our agricultural plains are lost to wind and water, reducing the
land's capacity to produce food. And our water supplies are being
diverted, drained, and contaminated by toxic run-off. We need to find
livable solutions to this problem.

A glance at biofuels in the context of livability shows how woefully
inadequate they are for solving it. In truth, they will make things
worse. The biofuels hoax, as ecologist Eric Holt-Giménez calls it, is
based on several misunderstandings that arise in the language of the
energy debate.



The Biofuel Myth of Renewal
Biofuels are not the clear solution they seem to be. For starters, the
word biofuel is problematic. The augmentation of the word fuel with
the prefix bio- creates a meaning that uses our experience with
biological organisms (namely that they are able to reproduce
themselves). This meaning implies that biofuels are renewable because
the crops used to create them can also be reproduced. But biofuels are
not renewable without dramatically changing the ways we grow crops and
manufacture/distribute products.

Large-scale agricultural practices deplete soils, contaminate water
supplies, and are vulnerable to pests and disease when single crops
(monocultures) are grown in large fields. The widespread use of
pesticides - manufactured using fossil fuels - is also contributing to
the cancer epidemic wreaking havoc on our communities. Current
agricultural practices also require non-renewable resources and
utilize vast distribution networks that are very high in resource
demand - including the need for lots of energy.

In some areas, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, entire forests are
decimated to grow biofuel crops. The plant life destroyed in this
process releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide as the dead trees and
undergrowth decompose, exacerbating the problem they are meant to
address.

Biofuels are not renewable! Soils are depleted. Water supplies are
depleted. Highways and factories deplete mineral resources. Entire
forests are depleted.

This truth is hidden by the blending of the concepts for living
organism and fuel in the word biofuel.



Frankenfuel Monster
The word biofuel tells us that the fuel is natural. Things that are
natural are considered to be safer than things that are manufactured.
This understanding of natural tells us that biofuels are better than
manufactured fuels.

The natural frame leads to two false impressions:


Biofuels are presumed to be good for the environment
Biofuels are presumed to be better for us than manufactured fuels


The first impression is false because of the agricultural production
systems we currently use. The second impression is false because
biofuels are manufactured in two ways. First, the fuel is produced
through an industrial refinement process where ethanol is extracted
from plant materials. And second, there is considerable emphasis on
genetically engineering plants to be grown as fuel sources. These
plants - including corn, palm trees, switch grass, and algae - are not
natural if they are the product of intentional design by genetic
engineering.

One area of genetic research that isn't talked about nearly enough is
devoted to increasing plant resistance to pests. With something like
switch grass that grows quickly, the prospect of making it resistant
to pests is a recipe for a super weed. The last thing we want is an
aggressive weed that is immune to natural predators.

We shouldn't call genetically engineered plants biofuels. They are
frankenfuels. By tampering with plant DNA, we run the risk of getting
further out of balance, possibly introducing new and unexpected harms
like invasive species that take over croplands and natural
ecosystems.

The precautionary principle, which tells us that possible threats with
dire consequences should be avoided, automatically applies when the
discussion is about finding livable solutions.



Myth of Transition
The energy debate has explored biofuels as a "transition" to renewable
energy. The livability lens already shows us that they are not
renewable, but supporters often reply to such critiques by stating
that biofuels are a step in the right direction. They claim that
biofuels are better than oil (in the context of the carbon emissions
problem) and are a significant step toward a society based entirely on
renewable energy.

This is simply not true. We are dependent on oil because the massive
infrastructure of our societies is based on the use of fossil fuels.
Changing over to a biofuel society involves building a similarly
massive infrastructure. An honest account of this option includes this
truth.

In order to meet current energy demands, we must grow crops over huge
areas, build factories and storage facilities, redesign automobiles to
run on biodiesel, and more. We would be entrenched in a biofuel
society as much as we are now in a fossil fuel society. Either way, we
are still dependent on some kind of fuel.



Feeding Cars or People?
Another kind of transition will happen if we invest significantly in
biofuels. We will shift crop yields away from food production. Basic
economics tells us that the cost of goods go up when supply decreases.
The growing demand for grains to produce fuel has increased the cost
of food.


The economic incentive to grow crops for fuels instead of food will
drive down food production in the long run, permanently inflating the
cost of food. At the same time, less food will be produced. This
combination creates a situation where landowners are motivated by
profits to grow fuel crops, which will lead to an increase in the
number of hungry people in poor countries.


We are starving poor people to feed our cars!


This economic truth does not emerge in the context of carbon dioxide
levels. Only by framing the problem in the context of livability does
the impact on poor people become apparent.



Bypassing Disaster with Livability
The biofuels debate has been centered on the wrong question. The
problem is not simply the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
If we address the "carbon problem" without recognizing the "livability
problem" our solutions will fail. This is the challenge. We have to
look at these problems holistically to see the impacts of our choices.

Addressing the climate crisis requires us to do a lot more than change
from fossil fuels to plant-based fuels. Global warming is a problem
because the way we live is out of sync with nature. The solution is to
rethink how we relate to our natural environment. This is where
livability is paramount. We need to be thinking about family farms,
not factory farms. In the family farm frame, people are interacting
with the earth to produce food. The factory farm frame has people
interacting with the earth to produce money.

All of the problems with biofuels have been largely overlooked because
of the way the situation has been framed. Experts have known about
these problems for a long time, but public discourse has been too
narrow to recognize them.

When thinking about the essential features of a livable community, we
can see that biofuels will not work in their current incarnation. A
livable community:


Provides essential resources like potable water and breathable air
Preserves these essential resources for future generations
Provides food security (now and into the future)
Promotes the flourishing of life (including the millions of species we
co-exist with - and cannot exist without!)

A livable community promotes life. This means it is not destructive.
Current emphasis on pesticides and herbicides, for example, are
chemical killers that destroy life. By growing diverse crops locally,
we don't need nitrogen fertilizer that runs off into rivers and kills
life in lakes and oceans. Instead, a livable community's central
activities involve growing food in a way that supports many different
kinds of plants and animals. This diversity provides a buffer for the
community to protect it against changes in climate (where some plants
may no longer grow, but others will). In a livable community, energy
is generated to serve the needs of people. A variety of ways to
generate energy provides another kind of buffer against change. Some
sources - such as coal and oil - will be phased out when they threaten
the security of people in the community.

It is not even clear whether biofuels can be part of the solution at
all. The family farm that supports life is inherently local and small.
Introduction of an economic incentive to grow fuel crops will drive
local farmers to grow ever larger biofuel crops, resulting in the
pattern that is occurring now.

We can solve the "livability problem" by looking for ways to promote
life. The carbon dioxide problem will get fixed along the way.

[calde...@yahoo.com]

Biofuels cause starvation and speed global warming!

On December 19th, 2007, George W. Bush signed into law a bill

that mandates massive increases in the production of ethanol, which is
to be used as "biofuel" to run automobiles and trucks. Ethanol is
currently made from corn and other foodstuffs, and all of the various
forms of biofuel, including "biodiesel," are made from food or from
inedible crops which displace normal agricultural activity. Even at
current limited levels of biofuel production, this "renewable energy
source" has already caused huge increases in food prices around the
world. The United Nations has officially stated that its charity
programs can no longer afford to feed the starving people of the world
because the cost of food has risen so dramatically due to biofuel
production. Local food banks in the United States are running low on
supplies, and many families who use to contribute to food banks are
now in need of help themselves. When farmers plant more corn in order
to cash in on artificially high corn prices created by political
biofuel mandates, they plant less wheat and fewer vegetables and other
crops, and thus food prices rise across the board. We use corn to
feed chickens and cattle, so the price of poultry, beef, and dairy
products have risen dramatically and will continue to rise with no end
in sight.

The advocacy and use of biofuels is one of the greatest political
hoaxes in American history. The ideology of biofuel production sounds

wholesome superficially, a kind of green, health food store way of
producing energy. The problem is that the entire biofuel scheme is
based on lies and political selfishness, without any legitimate

science based ecological justification.

1) Biofuel production starves the poor and reduces our standard of
living by dramatically increasing the cost of food, which we all need
just to survive. Of course the homeless, the elderly, the disabled,

and those living on Social Security and other fixed incomes are the

hardest hit.

2) Biofuel production increases our Federal budget deficit because it
demands large subsidies to exist. Without massive Federal subsidies

and mandates, there would be no significant free market demand for
biofuels at all. Biofuel schemes are energy socialism gone wrong.

3) Biofuel production harms the environment by needlessly eroding
topsoil and encouraging the destruction of forests, which are

desperately needed as a sponge to soak up excess carbon dioxide from

the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (C02) is the major greenhouse gas that

causes global warming. Do we really want to cut down forests all over
the world, from Indonesia to Pennsylvania, just to have more land to

grow corn, soybeans, palm oil, sugarcane, and other crops to burn as

fuel in our SUVs? Biofuel schemes speed up global warming because the

entire biofuel production process, from beginning to end, releases
huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere while destroying
native forests which naturally clean and rejuvenate the air we
breathe.

Biofuel production will aggravate water shortages world wide
because water is diverted to grow biofuel crops and thus taken away
from our ever shrinking supplies of safe drinking water. Biofuel use
also demands a dramatic increase in the production of fertilizers made
from natural gas, coal and mined minerals in a messy industrial
process which unleashes even more greenhouse gasses. Biofuels are a
losing proposition on every level, except for the big profits giant
agricultural corporations will make producing it.

4) Biofuels schemes are a scientific hoax and an economic fraud

because they take more energy to produce than they yield in the form

of the biofuel itself. We have to use large amounts of coal and oil
just to produce biofuels. The economic numbers for biofuel production
do not add up any way you look at them, and at the recent United
Nations conference on strategic environmental issues held in Bali,

Indonesia, several studies were presented detailing the dangers of
making automobile fuels from crops. Respected scientists warned that
biofuel production is destructive to the environment and will not give
us the clean "renewable energy" its advocates claim. Just a few days
after the Bali conference ended, George W. Bush and the United States

Congress enacted a new law mandating massive increases in biofuel
production, the science and the facts be damned.

5) The biofuel hoax in the United States is fueled to a large degree
by domestic American politics. Both the Republican and Democratic
political parties want to get the "farm vote" in politically strategic
farming states like Iowa, Ohio, and Nebraska. Our politicians have
put political gain ahead of the world's starving poor, the elderly on
fixed incomes, and the welfare of the American middle class. Rich
politicians can afford to pay the dramatically higher food bills that
biofuel production creates, and they have decided to throw science
aside and charge blindly into what will inevitably be branded as one
of the most destructive political fiascoes of the 21st century.

6) Making cellulosic ethanol from lignocellulose, a structural
material that comprises much of the mass of plants, is better than
making ethanol from corn, but it still has most of the drawbacks
listed for ethanol made from food crops. Growing lignocellulose
yielding grasses on land we currently use to graze cattle will
increase the price of beef and milk. We will still have to use
fertilizers made from natural gas and coal to make inedible crops
grow, and the entire process will erode topsoil and increase the price
of food. The process for making cellulosic ethanol has not been
proven to be economically viable, and the Bush energy bill assumes new
scientific breakthroughs which have not yet occurred. Furthermore,
many of the plants being proposed as lignocellulose yielding biofuel
crops are weeds which will have a destructive impact on wildlife and
biodiversity around the world. In practical terms, there is not
enough usable land area to grow a sufficient quantity of biofuel
plants to meet the world's energy demands.

Dramatic increases in food prices created by biofuel production
will cause political instability around the globe, because food
products are sold in a world wide marketplace just like oil. Imagine
the political instability in Mexico, Central and South America,
Africa, India and Pakistan that skyrocketing food prices and mass
starvation will cause. Will a starving Pakistan, armed with nuclear
weapons, make the world a safer place? If American politicians lead
us down a path to global use of biofuels, we will be leading the world
into a historic disaster that can easily kill more humans due to
starvation than have been killed in the Iraq war by bullets and
bombs.

If we truly wish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and not just
waste time on destructive political scams, then we will have to create
an infrastructure based on nuclear energy, improved battery
technology, and clean burning hydrogen fuel, not on ethanol and
biofuels. Hydrogen is the cleanest burning fuel known to man that
releases mainly water vapor when it is burned, and it can be used in
both internal combustion engines and in fuel cells. It is very
doubtful that automakers can produce dual-fuel vehicles that run on
both hydrogen and ethanol, so we must make a strategic choice now.
Hydrogen fuel can be made through the electrolysis of water via
electricity generated from zero emission nuclear power plants, which
currently produce about 19.4% of our nation's electricity. We need to
build large numbers of nuclear power plants using mass production
techniques if we want to end global warming.

Nuclear power plants do not contribute to global warming because
they release no greenhouse gasses at all. You do not need much land
to build a nuclear power plant, and you do not need to make fertilizer
to make nuclear energy grow. We need to get off the carbon cycle for
energy production and use nuclear power to produce the highly

concentrated energy supply that solar and wind power can never hope to

provide. Even by the most optimistic estimates, solar and wind power
can only hope to satisfy perhaps 20% of our future energy needs.
Solar and wind power tap into natural energy sources that are far too
diffuse to be collected on a large enough scale to power an advanced,
industrialized nation. Solar and wind power currently produce only
about 2.4% of our nation's electricity, so even an increase to 20%
would be an major undertaking.

One of the added benefits of nuclear power is that we already own
huge amounts of nuclear fuel in the form of nuclear weapons materials,

which can be converted into fuel rods for civilian power production.

The United States Government has hundreds of years worth of nuclear
fuel in storage, thanks to the cold war nuclear arms race of the 1950s

and 1960s. We can turn our swords into plowshares while paying only

the modest price of converting high level weapons grade nuclear

materials into low level nuclear fuel rods suitable for civilian power
production. Unlike oil, we do not have to import nuclear fuel from

foreign countries or fight endless foreign wars to protect our
supplies.

Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed over and over again because

only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during
each fuel cycle. When you reprocess fuel rods there is very little
high level nuclear waste that needs to be stored. The nuclear "waste"
is simply reused as nuclear fuel, and this is part of the reason why

France's nuclear power program has been so successful. France relies

heavily on nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel reprocessing, and

thus France has the cleanest air and lowest electricity rates in
Europe.

The fears many Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants
are largely unfounded. Our latest nuclear reactor designs are
excellent, with many layers of redundant safety and security features
built-in. One single disaster that occurred in 1986 at an obsolete
Ukrainian reactor is no reason to be eternally afraid of all civilian
nuclear power plants across the board. The old Chernobyl reactor used
a dangerous design that has never been used in the West, and which did
not even have a containment vessel. The infamous Chernobyl accident
was caused by Soviet engineers conducting wildly irresponsible
experiments that were totally unrelated to normal civilian power
production, and which would never be allowed in the USA. The
Chernobyl nuclear disaster killed a total of 56 people, a great
tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster. Far fewer died at
Chernobyl than the 520 people killed in the crash of a single Japan
Airlines 747 jetliner, Flight 123, in 1985. In America alone there
are over 40,000 deaths due to automobile accidents every year, but
there is no great human cry to ban automobiles and airplanes.

Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for
safety and for clean, pollution free operation. By contrast, the over
600 coal burning power plants in the United States which produce
approximately 49% of our nation's electricity emit sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) which combine with moisture in the
atmosphere to create destructive acid rain. Coal burning power plants
also release microscopic particulate matter which clog the lungs and
which are attributed to causing approximately 24,000 unnatural
premature deaths in America every year, which is 428 times the
Chernobyl death toll.

Coal fired power plants in the USA release approximately 200,000
pounds of toxic mercury in different forms each year, and massive
amounts of carbon dioxide, which represent nearly 10% of global C02
emissions. On top of all of that, coal burning power plants release
radioactive materials into the atmosphere due to the natural thorium
and uranium content of coal. A single 1,000 megawatt coal-burning
power plant can release as much as 12.8 tons of radioactive thorium
every year, and 5.2 tons of uranium each year. The uranium figure
includes 74 pounds of uranium-235, which is the most dangerous, highly
fissionable form of uranium that was used to construct the "Little
Boy" atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

Ask yourself this obvious question. Why is there so little fear
in the United States of coal burning power plants, but so much
hysterical fear of much safer and healthier nuclear power? The answer
is that nuclear power plants have been unfairly demonized by a
Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick buck (The
China Syndrome, The Simpsons, etc.), and by scientifically
undereducated politicians and environmental activists. The fact is
there has never been a single human death attributable to the daily
activity of nuclear power plants in the USA, and American nuclear
power plants produce electricity at an average cost of less than two
cents per kilowatt-hour (2004 figure), which is comparable with coal
and hydroelectric power. Better power plant designs and the mass
production of major nuclear power components can bring the cost down
even further. The truly positive attributes of nuclear power are why
famed British atmospheric scientist and father of the Gaia theory,
James Lovelock, has publicly stated that nuclear power is the only way
human beings can stop the wholesale release of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere, and thus the only way to have a large human population on
planet earth without causing global warming. [see Nuclear power is
the only green solution, by James Lovelock]

We must remember that biofuels are made from food or from
inedible crops which displace current levels of food production. With
a world wide human population of over 6.6 billion people and growing,

we cannot afford to feed our families and at the same time use

precious farm and grazing land to produce food products and/or
lignocellulose yielding crops to burn in our automobile engines. Food

belongs in the stomachs of hungry men, women, and children, not in the
gas tanks of our Fords, Hondas, and Mercedes Benz automobiles.

If you do not want food prices to double, triple, or even

quadruple in the next ten years, then write your Congressman, Senator,

Governor, and President and tell them that you do not want to waste

food production resources on biofuels. Furthermore, state the obvious
fact that food prices are already too high and that you want all
biofuel mandates repealed and all biofuel manufacturing subsidies
ended. If this is done you will soon see food prices dropping instead
of rising, your local food banks will become full again, and the
United Nations and other charitable organizations will be able to meet
their moral obligations to help feed the world's starving masses.
Biofuel production for use in automobiles represents a needless man
made disaster, not a blessing, and biofuels are effectively
agricultural products no matter how you make them. We should not
waste or displace food production capacity if we wish to feed a hungry
world.

CC

.

[Biofuelwatcher]

Well, I guess mine is a conservative view, but I think that believing
that humans modifying the entire world for millenia is much different
from using the new tool we now have available to us, DNA, to speed up
that modification, is naïve. It is also defeatist. As a matter of
fact, I find it ironic that liberals, who pride themselves so much on
change, only support change when the government is doing it, but never
when private enterprise does it. That is just too scary. Control and
suppression of change works best in their eyes.

The United States has a financial stake in biofuels. We run a huge
trade deficit, in part due to our huge energy bill. We pay vast
amounts of money to dictatorships that suppress their own people or
persuade them with various means that it is in their interests to not
demand a voice in their own affairs.

I am thinking specifically of Putin's Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran,
among others. Not that I care so much about those countries, but 9-11
clearly showed that tensions in other countries can cascade into
dangers for our own. And dictatorships consist of two kinds of
people: those on the inside and those on the out. Nothing in between
as is the case in democracies. Real needs are met eventually in
democracies, unlike dictatorships, which suppress some people and
their needs into sub-classes permanently, with radicalizing
consequences.

Not every eventuality can be accounted for when genetically engineered
biofuels are created. That is true. Some things will probably get
away from us. But if new problems arise from it, I believe we can
figure out how to deal with the consequences. And we can't just stand
still and hope that history will too.

On Dec 20, 1:26 pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> We shouldn't call genetically engineered plantsbiofuels. They are

[calde...@yahoo.com]

I keep working on my biofuel hoax essay, and have added the following
important passage.

Excerpted from "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

"If we grow switchgrass for biofuel on "marginal" prairie land, we
will soon turn that marginal land into a desert and a dust bowl, which
it may turn into anyway due to global warming, which biofuel use will
not stop.

Computer models for the progression of global warming show the
America Midwest and Southwest getting hotter and dryer, with much of
our farm and grazing land turning into desert. We know that biofuel
use will do nothing to stop this progression, so why are we pinning so
much hope on an energy and environmental battle plan that any fool can
see will blow up in our face over time. We won't be able to produce
enough biofuels to run our cars, or enough food to fill our bellies!
The biofuel scheme is another example of a basic lack of intelligence
of our politicians, many of whom also voted for the disastrous Iraq
war despite the warnings of more thoughtful advisers. If you cannot
plan ahead and anticipate future trends, then you will lead this
nation into one disaster after another, which is exactly what is
occurring right now in Washington DC. Our Congress has become a
chorus of stupidity, and our politicians are leading us to national
suicide, not to the nirvana of energy independence."

Merry Christmas, Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

Two new paragraphs have been added to "The biofuel hoax is causing a
world food crisis!", explaining how a nuclear based, hydrogen fuel
economy will make the USA both richer and safer. The more you
carefully consider nuclear-hydrogen technology, the more positive
benefits you will find. The more you consider biofuel production, the
more devastating the prospects become. It is a choice between sanity
and insanity, and our politicians have unfortunately chosen the
politically expedient, shortsighted insane course of action.

at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

"The economic benefits of a nuclear based, hydrogen fueled
economy are spectacular. The United States balance of trade deficit
and Federal budget deficit will be greatly reduced by a nuclear
powered economy. All of the nuclear reactors will be built and run by
Americans in America, who will make high wages and pay taxes to
Federal, state, and local governments, and spend their income at local
American stores. As the USA currently imports 60% of its oil supply,
all of the dollars we now ship off to Canada (18%), Mexico (15%),
Saudi Arabia (12%), Nigeria (12%), Venezuela (10%), and Angola (6%)
will stay right here in the USA. In the year 2007, the USA is
estimated to have imported a total of about 3.8 billion barrels of
crude oil, in addition to a tremendous amount of natural gas and other
hydrocarbon products which can largely be replaced by nuclear power.
At $93. a barrel (12/24/07 price), 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil is
worth over 353. billion dollars. The current Iraq war, which was
fought both for the State of Israel and for oil, will cost United
States taxpayers over 2,000. billion dollars (2 trillion dollars) by
the time all of the long term war costs are paid. Obviously, a
nuclear based hydrogen economy will make the United States richer in
addition to saving us from desertification of our heartland, coastal
flooding, increased storm damage, and starvation caused by the deadly
combination of global warming and the biofuel hoax.

Hydrogen fuel produced from nuclear generation will be expensive
at first, but the price will decline over time as the infrastructure
grows and economies of scale lower production costs. Hydrogen fuel
manufacture and distribution techniques will become more efficient,
and electric car battery technology will also improve, allowing
Americans to drive our highways without guilt that they are burning up
precious natural resources or polluting the environment. Cars will
pass by leaving behind only a small amount of water vapor if hydrogen
powered, or just a near silent wind if electric battery powered.
Hybrid vehicles that run on both batteries and hydrogen fuel will be
common. The nuclear based hydrogen economy is a long term investment
in America's future that will pay more benefits every year as opposed
to the biofuel hoax, which will lead to destruction of our
environment, our economy, and our nation."

Merry Christmas, Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

.

[calde...@yahoo.com]

Hello,

If you want to heat up the earth's atmosphere as fast as possible,
then put biofuels in your gas tank!

"Clift and other scientists point out that using nitrogen fertilizers
to grow biofuel crops generates large amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O),
a greenhouse gas estimated to be 296 times more effective at trapping
heat than CO2. Modern synthetic fertilizers are made from natural
gas, coal, and mined minerals in an industrial process which unleashes
even more greenhouse gas. These facts alone mean that growing crops
for biofuel will heat up earth's atmosphere faster than if we only
used imported Saudi Arabian oil. Biofuel crops dramatically aggravate
water shortages because water is diverted to grow them and thus taken
away from our shrinking supplies of safe drinking water. Biofuels are

a losing proposition on every level, except for the big profits giant

agricultural corporations will make producing them."

From THE BIOFUEL HOAX IS CAUSING A WORLD FOOD CRISIS at:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

You had better get on the biofuel hoax story NOW! Biofuels are a
scientific hoax, and are going to starve more people world wide than
killed in the Iraq war by bombs and bullets!

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=213343

"Forget oil, the new global crisis is food" - THE FINANCIAL POST

BMO strategist Donald Coxe warns credit crunch and soaring oil prices
will pale in comparison to looming catastrophe

"At the centre of the imminent food catastrophe is corn - the main
staple of the ethanol industry."
---------------------------------------------------------
Biofuel production skyrockets food prices, damages the environment,
and speeds global warming.

SEE: "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!"

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Food price increases caused by biofuel production will hurt the
homeless, the disabled, and the elderly on fixed incomes most of all.
Do we really want to make food so expensive that many will not be able
to feed themselves and their children?

[Biofuelwatcher]

On Jan 4, 12:36 pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

When you think ethanol, think Iowa and presidential races.

But this is exactly why I vote Libertarian. Not with a hope that they
will take over Congress and the Presidency. Not a chance. But they
do stand against all the tax wasting schemes of the Democrats, and
they serve to remind the Republicans of the libertarian side of their
party. Like a little less war and a little more business.

[calde...@yahoo.com]

Here is an article on Obama's and Hillary's ignorance about the
dangers of biofuels! We are doomed because our politicians, even the
better ones, do not understand science and mathematics! They are all
leading us to a world food crisis and mass starvation, and they don't
even know it!

http://www.swans.com/library/art14/mdolin29.html

Clinton And Obama On Iran And Biofuels

by Michael Doliner
(Swans - January 14, 2008) Controlling Middle East oil is the
primary directive and purpose of the American Imperial policy. As long
as the United States continues to maintain the "Empire of Bases" it
must control this resource. Oil is "the prize." It is for control of
oil that we invaded Iraq and now threaten Iran. The disaster of the
Iraq occupation, which leaves American troops in Iraq but little
American influence over events except what influence Bush can buy, is
insufficient to control the Middle East. Already, independent Iran is
increasing its influence (1) throughout the Persian Gulf and beyond.
(2) If the United States wants to continue its more than a century-
long Imperial policy it will have to eliminate Iran's independence.
But any attack on Iran would likely end in worldwide catastrophe.
Hence maintenance of America's Empire is no longer possible. But in
our denial of this fact we are in danger of lashing out at Iran in a
futile, potentially apocalyptic attack. How will the current crop of
candidates handle this situation? Will they be more creative than
their stand on the destructive policies they advocate on energy
independence?

Let's consider Obama first. Here is what his Web site says:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough,
direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is
the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior.
Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its
nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives
like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments,
and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its
troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and
political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement
with Iran is our best way to make progress. (3)
The problem with Iran is neither its perfectly legal nuclear program,
nor its support for Hezbollah, but its very existence. Again, as long
as an independent Iran exists the United States will not be able to
control Middle East oil. Iran will not negotiate away its legal
nuclear program, and will not stop supporting Hezbollah in their
resistance to Israel's attacks on Lebanon. And Iran will certainly not
negotiate away its own existence. Rapprochement between Russia and
Iran, and Iran and China, make any attempt to isolate Iran silly.
Obama's approach is destined to fail. He seems like a pretty smart
man, so we might conclude that he intends to fail. After all it is one
of the strange clevernesses of presidents that they engage in
diplomatic maneuvers that they intend to fail. But what then? Either
he will have to abandon the long Imperial policy or he will have to
try to destroy Iran. But if he intends to abandon the Imperial policy
why go through the charade of attempting to negotiate non-negotiable
demands and engaging in diplomacy intended to fail? For intended
failure is designed to justify invoking a "last resort," in this case
attack. Does that mean he actually contemplates an attack on Iran?

Although the Imperial policy is doomed, nobody, certainly no
president, can end the American Imperial policy by himself. This
policy is very deep within the culture of the American ruling elites.
(4) Maintenance of this policy is an article of faith there, and
anyone who questioned it would only be risking his own position. As
with the questions raised about the "free market" policies of the
World Bank and International Monetary Fund that discredited them,
questions about the American Empire will have to come from outside. It
will be extremely difficult to end this policy in any case, but
absolutely impossible unless the policy is exposed to public view.
Right now the American Empire is the empire that dare not speak its
name. Only if the continuation of the Empire becomes an open political
question can the United States decide to abandon it.

No candidate could raise this question during the campaign, but he
could leave room for it. Obama's position requires confrontation and
phony diplomacy and so does not leave this room. His only option, when
all his negotiations and sanctions fail, will be to attack Iran. For
Obama will not, like Bush, be able to issue threats and do nothing.
Threats, when not carried out, lose their power. Even now such threats
no longer frighten Iran and are for American domestic consumption
only. Gradually, control of the Middle East will slip away as not only
Iran but former American client states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
make deals with China and India and cut American corporations out
either completely or in part. Already such deals are happening and
Iran has stopped selling oil for dollars. We are not where we were
when Bush took office. The present political culture of the United
States will not allow control of the Middle East to just slip away.
The attack on Iran simply awaits some plausible pretext. Only if the
Empire itself is questioned can anyone stop it. Obama, by opting for
"tough, direct presidential diplomacy" intended to fail, has made it
impossible to do what is needed -- namely, acknowledge the Empire's
existence, admit the Empire's necessary end, and refrain from the
futile, barbaric, horribly risky attack on Iran.

What about Hillary Clinton? Surprisingly, Clinton has no policy
position on Iran on her official Web site. She does have a speech she
gave on February 14, 2007. It is a good illustration of what we can
expect from her. Here is a quote:

Now, make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our
interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The
Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has
issued bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for
Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements
are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the
regime's request to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its
influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements
that attack Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, using
Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even
beyond its borders. (5)
Mrs. Clinton does not tell us, in this quote, what she plans to do
about Iran, but her lies and distortions give us a good idea. She
plans to continue a hostile attitude. We can also see that she plans
to continue the politics of lying and deception. But does she just
plan to talk tough, engage in pointless diplomacy intended to fail,
and try to muddle through, or does she plan to attack? One can read
through this speech without getting any clear answer to this question.
She goes on:

But America must proceed deliberately and wisely, and we must proceed
as a unified nation. The smartest and strongest policy will be one
forged through the institutions of our democracy. That is the genius
of our American system and our constitutional duty. We have witnessed
these past six years-- until the most recent election of a new
Congress by the American people-- the cost of congressional
dereliction of its oversight duty, a vital role entrusted to Congress
by our constituents, enshrined in, and even required by our
Constitution.
Clearly Mrs. Clinton has no plan. Or is it merely that she is here
talking as a senator and saying, with all these words, that the Senate
and House are important? The bloated meaninglessness of her words is
distressing. Such fuzz cannot be a cover for clear thinking, for her
position is that of someone who does not even know what is at stake
and wants to pass the decision on to someone else. Mrs. Clinton is
intellectually bankrupt. Here is a segment of her Iraq policy taken
from her Web site:

The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our
military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing
our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions
would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of
Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to
draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with
the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to
prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health
care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of
the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families. (6)
Once again she has no plan other than to ask a lot of officials to get
together and make a plan. Her plan is to plan. This paragraph is
filled with a lawyer's sneaky evasions. Notice "start" and "starting."
She is promising only to have a convention plan, not to carry out
those plans. Nothing anywhere suggests that she knows why we are
there. She criticizes the Bush administration only for incompetence
and its failure to consult Congress. That the United States has an
Empire, that control of Middle East oil is essential to that Empire's
maintenance, that Iran's independent existence makes this control
impossible, and that any attack on Iran would be a disaster, seems to
be completely beyond her. She has tried to say nothing for so long
that she has nothing to say.

Her rhetoric is a good example of the kind of obfuscation that has
long hidden the Empire's existence. It reveals, once again, the
technique of offering efforts designed to fail -- flurries of activity
that result in nothing. Fake diplomatic initiatives, convening of
councils, military investigations into their own possible war crimes,
and the initiation of "peace processes" (since when did peace become a
process?) and "road maps" all fall into this category. Hillary
Clinton's health care initiative at the beginning of her husband's
administration is a perfect example of such sound and fury signifying
nothing. And this is what she proposes to do in the Middle East.

The next president's approach to Iran is far from the only important
item on his or her agenda, but it is a crucial one. It is unfair to
expect a candidate to expose the Empire. A really successful candidate
must realize that he or she cannot oppose the rich and powerful, but
must persuade them that the Empire must end. Given the turmoil of the
Bush administration and the yawning abyss that seems to lie just ahead
of us, this might not be as hard as it seems. The Bush
administration's on-again-off-again attack plans reveal an
understanding within at least some ruling circles of the disaster an
attack on Iran would be. Although it is just one step from the
impossibility of an attack on Iran to the nonviability of the Empire
as a whole, the ruling class cannot take this step. They need the
Empire to be exposed to allow them to do what they, if they were truly
enlightened, would want to do anyway -- namely, end it and return
America to its non-interventionist tradition. To attack Iran is to
endanger the whole world, and no one who wants civilization to
continue, not even the rich and powerful, can want that, right?
Nevertheless this attack has every possibility of happening; indeed,
it will happen if the ruling circles try to maintain their very well
established American Empire. Even though this Empire is crumbling
everywhere, and even though an attack on Iran would not save the
Empire, and even though the Empire is enormously expensive rather than
profitable, and even though its end is absolutely necessary to provide
resources to mitigate the effects of the other enormous problems
facing the country and the world, and even though America's return to
its non-interventionist roots would end the terrorist threat, the rich
and powerful cannot even imagine ending the Empire. For the need to
continue the Empire is a bedrock assumption. Since the ruling circles
by themselves are powerless to stop maintaining the Empire, we can
only restrain an attack on Iran, if at all, by exposing the Empire and
its nonviability and thereby persuading the rich and powerful to give
it up. To be sure, the idea of convincing the rich and powerful to
abandon the American Empire, the maintenance of which has been their
primary interest for more than a century, is an outrageously bold
plan. Admittedly, it is a very long shot. It would require revising
the history of the twentieth century. But there is no other
alternative. Maintenance of the Empire requires a catastrophic attack
on Iran, which in any case is destined to fail of its objective. Any
attempt to end the war without ending the Empire is doomed to
failure.

I realize that what I am asking is enormous, and many will suggest
that I stick to the politically possible, but what we think of as
politically possible is not good enough. In fact it is no good
whatsoever. We need a radical turn. The choice is between decisive
action and the illusion of drift that ends eventually in world war.
Not just individual policies, but the entire framework of looking at
them must change. The terms of America's place within the world must
change with the next administration.

This in itself should be enough to tell that neither Obama nor Clinton
will do. But let us look at another related topic, energy policy.
Conventional oil, the kind that bubbles up when you punch a hole on
dry land or in relatively shallow water, peaked at 74,298,000 barrels
per day in May of 2005. (7) We have never pumped more than we did
then, and it's not likely that we will again. The world now uses
roughly 88,000,000 barrels a day and makes up the difference with
unconventional oil, the drawing down of stocks, and the production of
biofuels. Because of this shortfall the US production of biofuels is
growing very rapidly. In doing this we are converting food into fuel.
"Starting out from 7% in 1998, the percentage of the corn crop covered
by ethanol plant capacity in progress has now reached 37-38% of the
corn crop." The reference is to "Fermenting the Food Supply" by Stuart
Staniford (The Oil Drum, January 7, 2008), one of the best researchers
on peak oil, in my opinion. I urge everyone to look at this article.
(8) Its argument is long, but straightforward. Staniford convincingly
shows what one would expect, namely that biofuel growth correlates
with its profitability, that is, with the cost of oil, but also corn
prices. This obviously ties corn prices to oil prices. Staniford
continues:

That's bad news because demand for oil is extremely inelastic, and the
world is struggling to grow the supply of it at present, so over the
medium term it seems fairly plausible that there will be further rises
in oil prices. As we will see shortly, one can throw the entire global
food supply at our fuel problems and still only make a modest impact
on them...You can immediately see the problem here. The biofuel
potential of the entire human food supply is quite a small amount of
energy compared to the global oil supply -- somewhere between 15-20%
on a volumetric basis, so 10-15% on an energy basis. If you look at
the rate of growth from the mid 1980s to 2000 (and it would be similar
to 2005 but the graph doesn't go that far), we were requiring about an
additional 10mbd per decade. So if we continue to try to drive more at
historical rates of growth, eg as the middle class in China, India,
and other developing countries continue to build roads and get cars,
while our oil supply is stagnant, we can only get about a decade or
thereabouts from converting our entire food supply to fuel....
However, just because it's not a very good idea globally, doesn't mean
it wouldn't be profitable to the folks doing the conversion.
So here is the problem. If the market is allowed to dictate what is
and is not done, an enormous amount of the world's food supply will be
converted into ethanol. Those who drive can pay more than those who
eat. Food prices will skyrocket, and billions of people will starve.
This will be an absolute disaster for the poorer parts of the world,
but will also be a disaster for the United States. Given the growth
rates for ethanol production this problem will surface within five
years. The only possibilities for preventing mass starvation are
drastic drops in oil price, reduction in fuel use, or a change in
public policy. The first two are extremely unlikely. What about the
third?

How do Obama and Clinton approach the production of biofuels? Here is
Obama:

Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new
ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol
refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number
of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels
refineries. (9)
And Clinton:

Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy
sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025
and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars
and trucks by 2030. (10)
Sixty billion gallons per year is roughly four times what we produce
today. Given the problems with cellulosic ethanol this seems entirely
impossible. Is it unrealistic to expect busy candidates to be aware of
the catastrophic consequences of their policies? If so then the
continuation of civilization is unrealistic. As Staniford has clearly
shown, the only possibility of curbing the biofuels catastrophe is in
a change in public policy. This will not be easy. No candidate wants
to tell the American people that they will have to use less, lots
less, and live differently, lots differently. But just that is what is
required. Obama and Clinton both have grandiose plans for developing
new energy sources. But anyone who understands the scale of the
problem realizes that none of this will work, and facing the fact that
it won't work is crucial to developing a plan for using less. Obama
and Clinton are completely out of their depth.

It is hard to realize just how serious the situation is. It is natural
to think that things will go along pretty much as they have gone along
in the recent past. They won't.

Resources

1. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080104/cm_csm/ylynch_1 (back)

2. See http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA05Ak03.html
(back)

3. See http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ (back)

4. See http://www.mises.org/books/perpetual.pdf (large PDF document)
(back)

5. See http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1328
(back)

6. See http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/ (back)

7. See http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Another nail in the
coffin.pdf (PDF document): "Another Nail in the Coffin of the Case
Against Peak Oil," Matthew R. Simmons, November 16, 2007.

[Excerpt:] "Over time, however, the facts point to the glaring and
inconvenient reality that the May 2005 crude production represented an
all-time high, even though it barely exceeded 74 million barrels a day
-- 74,298,000/day according to the EIA. April, May and December 2005
were the first three months in the 150-year history of oil when the
world ever produced this much oil. In July 2006, global crude once
more inched above the 74 million barrel a day high-water mark. No
other monthly report before or since shows oil produced at or above
the 74 million barrel per day mark.

As months passed, the EIA revisions ended through 2006 data. As we
near the end of 2007, May 2005 is still the magical 'moment in time'
when global crude oil peaked at 74.3 million barrels a day. Some
miracle series of new oil fields could suddenly be found and quickly
brought on to production, but the more time that passes, the less
likely this is."

[...]

[The author concludes:] "In the meantime, the world is desperately in
need of a sustainable series of new energy sources and urgent adoption
of conservation measures to wean 'us' all from a chronic addiction not
just to oil, but all three forms of fossil fuels. Peak Oil is probably
now past-tense. We have no Plan B. Natural gas and possibly peak use
of quality coal and uranium might be lurking in Peak Oil's shadow.

The world sleep-walked for three decades while believing all natural
resources would last as long as any of us were around. The important
Limits to Growth book published by the Club of Rome in 1972 was both
misunderstood and ultimately ridiculed.

As our global appetite for energy grew, the era of high quality
hydrocarbon energy entered its twilight era. The nub of the world's
most singular problem is to insure we can sustain the 21 st century
without experiencing social chaos and ultimately a widespread
geopolitical conflict or war. This, in essence, is embodied in the
strange debate about what is known as Peak Oil." " (back)

8. See http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2431 (back)

9. See http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ (back)

10. See http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/ (back)

------------------------
Human civilization's only hope to survive is nuclear power, not
biofuels which will only cause mass starvation. See the pro nuclear
argument at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html -

THE BIOFUEL HOAX IS CAUSING A WORLD FOOD CRISIS

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

Biofuel hoax strikes Indonesia with street protests and social unrest!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dd64a342-c3d6-11dc-b083-0000779fd2ac.html

Jakarta takes emergency steps as tensions rise over soyabean price

"Indonesia was yesterday forced to take emergency action to calm
street protests over record soyabean prices triggered by US farmers
reducing the crop to grow more corn for biofuel."
---------------------
For full biofuel hoax story, see: The biofuel hoax is causing a world
food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

Even France now realizes that biofuels are a disaster!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL2940666220080129

France to review biofuel use on environment worries

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:17pm GMT

PARIS (Reuters) - France is envisaging changing its policy on the use
of biofuels after doubts were expressed on the environmental impact
of
so-called "green fuels," the Secretary of State for Environment said
on Tuesday.

Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet said the government had asked the French
agency for environment and energy ADEME to review the technology with
a focus on the second generation of biofuels, mostly made of plant
waste instead of grains and vegetable oils.

"France's policy on this matter is empowered to be reshaped after
ADEME's report," she said at a briefing organized by the European
American press club in Paris.

France has become one of the largest producers of biofuels in Europe
after it set an ambitious policy that anticipates by two years the EU
target on the blending of biofuels with standard fuels.

To reach its incorporation objectives -- 7 percent of all fuels by
2010, and 10 percent by 2015 -- France put in place a system of
quotas benefiting from reduced taxes in a bid to make them
competitive
compared to standard fuels.

The policy prompted many companies to invest in the sector, building
ethanol and biodiesel plants across the country.

DISCONCERTING

But concern has since risen on whether biofuels -- once hailed as a
way of reducing the world's reliance on crude oil and slowing climate
change -- really help cut greenhouse gas emissions and or if they may
contribute to rising food prices.

Several international reports cast doubts on the final environmental
impact of biofuels taking account of the energy spent to grow the
plants, the chemical products used to boost yields and the water they
consume.

"This rise of different point of views has disconcerted people,"
Kosciusko-Morizet said.

"We wonder if the discourse that says that we should go straight to
the second generation makes sense," she said.

Scientists and producers agree that the second generation biofuels,
which involve the break-down of non-edible crops and even municipal
waste by enzymes to create liquid motor fuel, will be more effective
against climate change.

But the technology is not ready yet and it may be years before it
becomes sustainable and profitable.

(Reporting by Sybille de La Hamaide; editing by Michael Roddy)

[calde...@yahoo.com]

A recent news story in the British newspaper, "THE TELEGRAPH," reveals
the true direct up-front cost of biofuels when you remove all the
Federal and State subsides from the equation.

Biodiesel in America is made from rapeseed (canola oil) and/or soybean
oil. According to the newspaper article, buying biodiesel made out of
canola oil is the same economically as buying plain diesel fuel made
out of crude oil that costs you $209. a barrel! For soybean oil it is
even worse at $232. a barrel! For ethanol from corn the cost is the
same as oil at $81. a barrel. The only publicly proven method for
making ethanol out of cellulose (switchgrass) would be the same as oil
at $305. a barrel!

Now that is just the direct up-front cost of manufacturing the fuel.
On top of that cost you have to add on the following secondary costs,
which are worse than the up-front costs.

1) Worldwide food price hyperinflation that starves poor people all
over the world and costs all of us lots of money every time we shop
for food, so we pay twice for the fuel, once at the gas station and
yet again at the supermarket!

2) Destruction of forests (and rainforests) and loss of topsoil all
over the world, acceleration of planet desertification and the
speeding global warming.

3) Loss of pure water to irrigation. Water is so scare in California
now that some farmers want to sell their water allotment rather than
grow crops with it.

So in total, the cost of biofuels is staggering and down-right
criminal. Why are we doing this to ourselves and the world? It is
like people supporting torture. It makes no sense at all, is immoral,
yet people still blindly support it. Both the Democratic and
Republican political parties and all of the presidential candidates
are chanting biofuel-biofuel-biofuel, but it is all a hoax and a
disaster. You can be sure that when the cost of food doubles yet
again, that there will be political heads rolling over this disaster,
with lots of finger pointing. Those who stay loyal to the ridiculous
biofuel cult will pay the highest political price for causing so much
misery and destruction to our standard of living and to the security
of our own families and children. Imagine the effects of another
doubling of food prices is going to have during a recession!

The biofuel food price spiral has just begun, and Bush and Congress
are forcing even more biofuels to be made, all trading food for oil.

Here is the news story link. -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2008/02/07/cnoil107.xml

Also see my web page on the biofuel hoax with all the dirty details

[calde...@yahoo.com]

see:

http://www.mercextra.com/blogs/vindu/2008/02/08/ethanol-blues-biofuels-increase-global-warming-more-than-oil/#comment-51788

The prestigious journal "Science" published a new study that states
"The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse
gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said
Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at
the Nature Conservancy. "So for the next 93 years you're making
climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing
down carbon emissions."

The study says that using ethanol or biodiesel is much worse for the
environment than using gas and diesel made from crude oil pumped from
the ground. That does not even include the worldwide food price
hyperinflation that biofuels cause, 40% increase in 2007 alone
worldwide.

BIOFUELS ARE A DISASTER FOLKS! WAKE THE HELL UP!

It costs us the equivalent of crude oil at $209 a barrel to make
biodiesel out of rapeseed, and $232. a barrel oil equivalent to make
biodiesel out of soybeans. So we are paying extra to destroy the
environment faster, burn down more rainforests, skyrocket food prices,
and increase the national debt! No one would buy biofuels at all if
they were not subsidized by Federal and State governments. Biofuels
right now are a hoax and a scam.

Please see my webpage on this issue, "The biofuel hoax is causing a
world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

GLOBAL SUICIDE CHECK LIST

Do you want to cause raise food prices worldwide and cause millions
of
people to go hungry and even starve to death?

Do you want to speed global warming so that much of planet earth
becomes
uninhabitable even sooner?

Do you want to burn down the 'lungs of the world', the tropical
rainforests?

Do you want to needlessly erode topsoil around the world, and cause
accelerated desertification of the planet?

Do you want to increase the Federal budget deficit?

Do you want to pay even more for fuel at the pump?

Do you want to cause political instability and wars around the world?

If your answer is YES to these questions, then biofuels are the
product for
you, because biofuel production does or will do all of these things!

See "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

Politicians who support biofuels are water skiing behind the Titanic!
Biofuel production represents the greatest disaster of the 21st
century! Biofuel production shrinks the human food supply. The more
biofuels we create, the less food we have to eat. Biofuel production
speeds global warming more than anything else we could do!

The respected Journal SCIENCE recently published the study, "Use of
U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through
Emissions from Land Use Change." The study found that biofuel
production using grains or even switchgrass as a feedstock greatly
increased the release of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, both
powerful greenhouse gases. The study found that using any biofuel was
far worse for the environment than using ordinary gasoline and diesel
made from crude oil.
See story at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861

The fact that biofuel production has caused worldwide food price
hyperinflation, up 40% in 2007 alone according to the UN's Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), makes biofuel production an even
greater tragedy, and growing switchgrass to make biofuels will crowd
out human food production as much as growing more corn! That is why a
UN food official, Jean Ziegler, called biofuels a "crime against
humanity." When Americans foolishly turn their food into fuel, they
raise food prices globally which causes hunger and starvation around
the world. It also gives farmers in other countries a strong
financial incentive to burn down more rainforests in order to grow
more food. The Amazon basin and rainforests in Malaysia, Indonesia,
and the Philippines are on fire right now because of United States
biofuel mandates.

In America we make biodiesel out of rapeseed and soybeans, which costs
us the equivalent of making regular diesel out of oil that costs $209
a barrel for rapeseed, and $232 a barrel for soybeans. Making
ethanol from corn costs us the equivalent of oil at $81. a barrel, and
that's not including the lower energy value per gallon of ethanol
which reduces gas mileage. Many biofuel growers and manufacturers
have become a malignant and unethical force in America who, like the
tobacco companies, do not care if they destroy the environment or
inflate global food prices as long as they make their own fortune in
the booming biofuel scam. President Bush's goal is to have our
biofuel industry make 36 billion gallons of expensive biofuel by 2022,
which will dangerously heat up this planet as farming contributes more
to global warming each year than all the land, sea, and air
transportation combined. This destruction makes no sense
strategically because by 2015 it is estimated that oil from American
shale will cost only $30 a barrel to manufacture, and there is more
oil potential in Colorado shale alone than the entire Middle East had
before drilling began in Iran in 1908.

The world is suffering a global food crisis, and now is not the time
to make matters worse by expanding biofuel production which will
continue to shrink the human food supply when we desperately need it
the most. Unfortunately, America's television media is underreporting
this worlds most important story of our rapidly shrinking human food
supply, and instead covers cute zoo animals and Britney Spears. To
get informed about the biofuel crisis, please see my webpage on the
subject, which has a tremendous amount of concentrated information and
useful links.

See: "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

For links to shocking news stories about the world food crisis, please
see:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html

To sum up the situation, biofuel production speeds global warming,
causes water shortages, erodes precious topsoil, is more expensive
than using oil, and biofuels skyrocket food prices by shrinking the
human food supply. It makes no difference if you use switchgrass or
other inedible crops to make biofuels, because normal food production
will be crowed out. The effect is exactly the same! The better
alternative to oil is clean hydrogen fuel created by nuclear energy,
but even plain old oil is better for the environment than biofuels!
We all need to work to have all biofuel mandates, subsidies, and
incentives repealed in order to LOWER FOOD PRICES now! The biofuel
backlash has just begun, and those politicians who stay loyal to the
worst idea of the 21st century will find themselves very unpopular
with voters when food prices double yet again during a period of
economic recession.

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

An essential point that political leaders and the media have missed
about the world food crisis is that rising oil prices have not shrunk
the human food supply, but biofuel production has! It is quite
different to just raise the price of something than to actually reduce
its supply. Higher oil prices naturally raise the cost of everything
that takes energy to produce, but on top of that United States and
European Union policies have actually shrunk the human food supply by
artificially mandating a shift of agricultural resources to biofuel
production. President Bush's 2007 "Energy Independence and Security
Act" turns our food into fuel, and is reminiscent of Chairman Mao Tse
Tung's 1958 Five Year Plan, known as "The Great Leap Forward," in
which China's agricultural based economy was forcefully shifted to
greater industrial output.

The higher food prices of 2008 cannot easily lead to increased food
production, as would normally be the case, because of Bush's
government mandated shift of land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment,
and manpower resources to biofuel production. With biofuels out of
the equation, farmers could have easily passed higher energy costs on
to consumers without shrinking food production, and they could have
increased food output to meet the greater demands of an expanding
world population. Higher prices normally give producers a strong
incentive signal to make more of a product so they can make more
money. Now those incentive signals are confused and ineffective
because of forced government biofuel mandates. Farmers must now
produce for the automotive biofuel market as well as for the human
food market.

Chairman Mao Tse Tung banned private agriculture in 1958 in his shift
to communes and industry, which reduced incentives to produce food,
and this led to a 15% drop in grain production in 1959 and another 10%
reduction in 1960. Biofuel production has consumed an estimated 33%
to 38% of America's corn crop, depending of whose statistics you
believe, and has caused many farmers to grow corn to make ethanol
instead of wheat to make bread. Bush's 2007 biofuel mandates have
called for even more of our food to be turned into fuel in the name of
"energy independence," but at the tragic cost of global food
security. Mao's top-down meddling in agricultural production was
compounded by droughts and storms, just as Bush's top-down meddling in
world agriculture has been compounded by a drought in Australia which
reduced wheat production, and a winter storm in China which caused
major crop failures. A convergence of forces turned Mao's well
meaning 1958 plan into the greatest famine in history, and resulted in
the death by starvation of tens of millions of Chinese people. Bush's
well meaning 2007 "Energy Independence and Security Act" may
eventually take even more lives worldwide.

SEE 10 good reasons to oppose biofuels at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

New study says ethanol from cellulose not likely affordable - ever!
That means no ethanol from switchgrass, wood chips, and "crop waste"
is ever likely to be affordable!

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746

Cellulosic ethanol: not likely to be viable

New study from mainstream ag economists at Iowa State

Posted by Tom Philpott at 3:45 PM on 03 Mar 2008


Cellulosic ethanol represents a beacon on the horizon -- the
justification cited by wiseguys like Vinod Khosla for dropping
billions per year in public cash to prop up corn ethanol production.

Corn ethanol, you see, is a bridge to a bright cellulosic future.

But the beacon is looking more and more like a mirage, a ghost, a
specter; the bridge we're hurtling down may well lead to a chasm. A
quiet consensus seems to be forming among people you'd think would
know the facts on the ground: cellulosic ethanol, touted as five years
away from viability for decades now, may never be viable.

Last fall, a researcher from the USDA -- an agency that has lavished
ethanol with research cash since the '70s -- declared that while
cellulosic has 'some long-term promise' (some?), we shouldn't expect
it to contribute significantly to fuel supplies before 2013.

Then in January, Colin Peterson -- chair of the House Ag Committee and
a long-time friend of agribiz -- let slip that 'I'm not sure
cellulosic ethanol will ever get off the ground.' He muttered
something about 'a lot bigger problem to overcome here than people
realize in terms of the feedstocks.'

Now we get a new study (PDF) from a trio of ag economists at Iowa
State University. For the record, the authors are conventional ag
scholars firmly entrenched within the corporate-dominated research
world described so well by Nancy Scola in her recent 'Monsanto U.'
post.

Indeed, one of the authors holds the Pioneer Hi-Bred International
Chair in Agribusiness. (Pioneer is the genetically modified seed arm
of the chemical giant Dupont.) The researchers' patrons -- i.e., the
agribiz giants -- benefit from the corn-as-bridge-to-cellulosic myth;
it keeps those highly profitable government goodies coming.

So it's surprising to see these mainstream economists deliver such a
dismal forecast for cellulosic ethanol.

To come up with their forecasts, the authors do their economists'
trick of creating a model and plugging in various assumptions.

They start by calculating that without the latest round of goodies --
i.e., the fat 'Renewable Fuel Standard' of the 2007 Energy Act --
cellulosic ethanol (and biodiesel, too) would have withered away. In
that scenario, corn ethanol would keep ramping up from the current
level of about 7 billion gallons, pushed by high oil prices and the
$0.51/gallon tax credit that's existed for years.
Here's what they say would have happened by 2022, if the 2007 Act had
never happened (economists lay out their conditional, speculative
scenarios in the simple present tense):

The corn ethanol sector expands until total production exceeds 18
billion gallons per year. Biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol from
switchgrass are not viable in this scenario. Cellulosic ethanol never
expands, and the biodiesel sector contracts so that there are no
biodiesel plants operating in the long run.
They add a bit that I found particularly devastating: 'These results
suggest that [without the 2007 Energy Act], once the opportunity cost
of land is taken into account, rational farmers will not grow
switchgrass or soybeans for biofuel production, and rational investors
will not build these plants.'
Believe me, that thing about 'rational' farmers and investors is
strong stuff, coming from conventional economists.

Now, what happens when we account for the 2007 Act's hefty mandate?
Current production, almost all from corn, stands at about 7 billion
gallons. The act demands 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022, of
which 15 billion comes from corn, and the other 21 billion gallons
comes from cellulosic (and to a much less extent biodiesel).

The authors seriously doubt the cellulosic target can even come close
to being met. They reckon that the mandate can inspire 'rational'
farmers and investors to churn out 4.5 billion gallons of cellulosic
ethanol by 2022 -- but there's a catch. In order to reach even that
level, the government will have to significantly jack up the tax
credit awarded to mixers -- from the current 51 cents to $1.55.
The message is this: Even with the fat 2007 Act mandate, cellulosic
ethanol can only offset a tiny amount of petroleum use -- and then
only if it's borne aloft by titanic amounts of public cash.
--------------------------------
The biofuel disaster just keeps getting worse, and at an ever
accelerating rate!

SEE 10 good reasons to oppose biofuels - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

A lesson in how biofuel companies spread their propaganda!

Here is an example of how the biofuel business con works. You get the
media outlets like newspapers and TV people, who can't count and don't
understand science, to fall for your misinformation and create
customers for you as well as investors. See the propaganda piece at
the link below posing as "news."

"The race is on for better biofuels"

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080309/BIZ/803090330&sfad=1
---------------
below is my e-mail reply to the guilty newspaper.

Dear Seacoast Business and News Staff,

Your story, "The race is on for better biofuels - UNH may lead way for
better biofuels" - March 9th is an example of the kind of bad
reporting that is helping to starve the world. See:
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2104849.0.2008_the_year_of_global_food_crisis.php

This story was full of misstatements and blatant business propaganda.
Firstly, biodiesel made from rapeseed costs the same to make as
regularly diesel from oil at $209. a barrel. Biodiesel from soybeans
costs the same as diesel from oil at $232. a barrel. It is only
because the Federal Government gives a $1.00 a gallon tax credit for
biodiesel that you can sell cooking oil at a competitive price. Now
explain to me how that is helping the Federal Budget deficit or making
us independent of foreign oil? Please stop publishing the nonsense
and lies of the biofuel industry.

Growing massive amounts of switchgrass to produce ethanol from
lignocellulose has most of the same drawbacks of making ethanol from
corn. We will use land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor
to grow switchgrass that will be diverted from food production, with
soaring food prices as a result. If we grow switchgrass on land
currently used to graze cattle, we will reduce beef and milk
production. If we grow switchgrass on unused "marginal" prairie
lands, we will soon turn those marginal lands into a new dust bowl,
which they may turn into anyway due to global warming. Computer

models for the progression of global warming show the America Midwest
and Southwest getting hotter and dryer, with much of our farm and
grazing land turning into desert. We know that biofuel use will

actually speed up global warming, so why are we pinning so much hope
on an environmental battle plan that any fool can see will blow up in
our face over time? We won't be able to produce enough biofuels to
run our cars, or enough food to fill our bellies!

The very process of making ethanol from lignocellulose has not

been proven to be economically viable, and the Bush energy bill

assumes new scientific breakthroughs that have not occurred. A new
study from three agricultural economists at Iowa State University with
insider information on the latest biofuel technology says ethanol made
from cellulose will likely NEVER be affordable The Federal tax
credits for ethanol made from cellulose would have to be raised from
the current $.51 to $1.55 per gallon, which will be unacceptable to
Congress and the American public. Switchgrass, crop waste, and wood
chip biofuel schemes are too expensive to ever work!

The newspaper article can be found here - http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746
The full study can be found here - pdf 180kb at:
http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp460.pdf

Coming soon after the Princeton study published in SCIENCE showing
that all biofuels are far worse for the environment and global warming
than gasoline leaves the biofuel zealots little cover to hide behind.
SEE - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861

Some of the plants being proposed as biofuel crops are noxious weeds

which will have a destructive impact on wildlife and biodiversity
around the world. In practical terms, there is not enough usable land
area to grow a sufficient quantity of biofuel plants to meet the

world's energy demands. Even if the USA dedicated 100% of our corn
and soybean production to biofuels, we would only satisfy 12% of
gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. "The biofuel potential of

the entire human food supply is quite a small amount of energy

compared to the global oil supply - somewhere between 15 to 20% on a
volumetric basis, so 10 to 15% on an energy basis." - Quote from
Stuart Staniford in Fermenting the Food Supply. - http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2431

Using agricultural "waste" to make biofuels has its own
problems. Removing unused portions of plants that are normally plowed
under increases the need for nitrogen fertilizers, which release the
most potent greenhouse gas of all; nitrous oxide. Much of the
residual crop biomass must be returned to the soil to maintain topsoil
integrity, otherwise the rate of topsoil erosion will increase
dramatically. If we mine our topsoil for energy, we may end up
committing slow agricultural suicide like the Mayan Empire. Without
topsoil, the world starves! Using wood chips to make ethanol sounds
like a good idea until you remember that we currently use wood to make
pellet fuel for stoves, paper, particle board, and a thousand building
products. Every part of the trees we cut down for lumber are used for
something, including the bark which is used for garden mulch. The
idea of sending teams of manual laborers into forests to salvage
underbrush for fuel would be prohibitively expensive. Our forests are
already stressed just producing lumber without tasking them with
producing biofuel for our automobiles.

The prospect of growing algae to make biodiesel has more positive
potential than making ethanol from switchgrass, but you are still
stuck with the fact that algae need solar energy to turn carbon
dioxide into fuel. To make biodiesel, algae are used as organic solar
panels which output oil instead of electricity. Research reports brag
that algae can produces 15 times more fuel per acre of land than
growing corn for ethanol, but that still means we would need
approximately 30 million acres of algae ponds in the USA to meet 100%
of our projected automotive fuel usage by the year 2022. That figure
does not include fuel for aircraft and ships. Those algae schemes
that use less land invariably call for feeding algae sugar. The sugar
must be made from corn or other crop, so you are simply trading
ethanol potential to make oil instead of vodka. If you grow
genetically engineered super-algae in open-air ponds, the genetically
modified algae will immediately be carried to ponds, lakes,
reservoirs, and oceans all over the world in the feathers of migrating
birds, with unknown and possibly catastrophic consequences. Using
agricultural waste water is a good idea for producing algae, and algae
may be of use to our society for making very small amounts of fuel,
fertilizer, chicken feed, and lubricants. The acreage required to
replace all human oil consumption would obviously be impossible.

Please visit my page on biofuels, "The biofuel hoax is causing a world
food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html This has a
warehouse of information and links.

I also have a short essay comparing the Bush biofuel plant to Mao's
failed "Great Leap Forward" 5 year plan which led to the starvation of
millions of Chinese at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/bush-mao.html

You can find a cross-section of the latest biofuel disaster news at -
http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html

---------END----------
I do not own any stocks and do not work for any company, so I have no
business profit motive when assessing the facts on biofuels. My
motives to oppose biofuels are as follows.

1) I do not like watching the US starve the world because of our own
stupid policies.

2) I don't like the idea of trying to survive 14 more years of food
price inflation just so crooked biofuel companies can get rich. That
is what the Bush biofuel plan means!

3) I don't see why we should pay more for poorer quality fuel that
has less energy per gallon and gives lower MPG.

4) Biofuels speed global warming, causes water shortages, and erodes
topsoil. Biofuels are the worst enemy of the environment and I feel
that we are destroying the earth fast enough with overpopulation so
there is no need to create manmade disasters to destroy it even
faster.

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

A new study says corn ethanol biofuel production will cause a 10 to 34
percent increase in nitrogen pollution in the Mississippi and
Atchafalaya Rivers due to fertilizer run-off, thus increasing the size
of the "DEAD ZONE" in the Gulf of Mexico.

SEE news story at - http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jU6qItzJ1GYKP8nH0U2vO6ggZlag

STUDY ABSTRACT at - http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0708300105v1

"Corn-based ethanol production compromises goal of reducing nitrogen
export by the Mississippi River"

Simon D. Donner*, and Christopher - Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)

[calde...@yahoo.com]

Biofuels = doom for Democrats! Foodgate is here!

NEWS STORY - SLEEPWALKING INTO A FOOD NIGHTMARE - "As production of
biodiesel has rocketed 1,200 percent in recent years, soybeans, the
primary ingredient, have risen to almost $15 per bushel, tripling over
the past two years."
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4920.3205.0.0

If Democrats wake up and jump off the biofuel bandwagon to hell now,
they still have time to blame this disaster on Bush. If they keep on
their Nixonian stonewalling of this manmade disaster, they will reap
the political consequences of having starved the world.

The biofuel disaster is much like Chairman Mao's infamous "Great Leap
Forward", which caused mass starvation that killed millions.
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bush-mao.html

ALL THE FACTS ON BIOFUELS - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

NEWS - "Egyptian government urges end to biofuel subsidies"

"The U.S. and Europe should stop encouraging the growth of maize and
other crops for the production of biofuels, a practice that is pushing
up food prices and hitting the world's poorest people, Egyptian
Minister of Investment Mahmoud Mohieldin said Wednesday."

http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?infoId=17306

----
Parallels - Biofuels and Mao's "Great Leap Forward"

An essential economic point that political leaders and the media have

missed about the world food crisis is that rising oil prices have not

shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has! Higher oil

prices naturally raise the cost of everything that takes energy to

produce, but in addition to that United States and European Union

policies have actually shrunk the human food supply by artificially
mandating a shift of agricultural resources to biofuel production.
President Bush's 2007 "Energy Independence and Security Act" turns our
food into fuel, and is reminiscent of Chairman Mao Tse Tung's 1958
Five Year Plan, known as "The Great Leap Forward," in which China's
agricultural based economy was forcefully shifted to greater
industrial output.

The higher food prices of 2008 cannot easily lead to increased food
production, as would normally be the case, because of Bush's
government mandated shift of land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment,
and manpower resources to biofuel production. With biofuels out of
the equation, farmers could have easily passed higher energy costs on
to consumers without shrinking food production, and they could have
increased food output to meet the greater demands of an expanding
world population. Higher prices normally give producers a strong
incentive signal to make more of a product so they can make more
money. Now those incentive signals are confused and ineffective
because of forced government biofuel mandates. Farmers must now
produce for the automotive biofuel market as well as for the human
food market.

Chairman Mao Tse Tung banned private farms in 1958 in his shift to
communes and greater industrial output at the expense of agriculture.
This led to a 15% drop in grain production in 1959 and another 10%

reduction in 1960. Biofuel production has consumed an estimated 33%
to 38% of America's corn crop, depending of whose statistics you
believe, and has caused many farmers to grow corn to make ethanol
instead of wheat to make bread. Bush's 2007 biofuel mandates have
called for even more of our food to be turned into fuel in the name of

"energy independence," but at the tragic cost of global food supply

security. Mao's top-down meddling in agricultural production was
compounded by droughts and storms, just as Bush's top-down meddling in

agriculture has been compounded by a drought in Australia which
reduced wheat production, and a winter storm in China which caused
major crop failures. A convergence of forces turned Mao's well
meaning 1958 plan into the greatest famine in history, and resulted in
the death by starvation of tens of millions of Chinese people. Bush's
well meaning 2007 "Energy Independence and Security Act" may
eventually take even more lives worldwide.

MORE FACTS ABOUT BIOFUELS - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

An open letter to all members of the United States Congress.

On April 3rd the price of corn hit $6 a bushel, which translates into
higher prices for chicken, eggs, beef, and diary products at a time
the US is already in a recession. Low income families are losing
their homes and many bakeries and restaurants are going out of
business due to high food prices. Last year so many wheat farmers
switched to growing corn for ethanol that the USDA states that by the
end of May, US wheat supplies will be lower than at any time since
1948. This spring more wheat has been planted, but that means less
corn was planted as our supply of growing land is limited, and by next
year corn prices will be much higher than they are today. High corn
prices are destroying the poultry industry in America, but many
politicians don't seem to care. Many politicians also do not seem to
care that there have been biofuel created food riots in at least 20
nations; Mexico, Haiti, Bolivia, Morocco, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Yemen,
Senegal, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Namibia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, the
Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, the Philippines,
and Italy.

Those of you who voted against the foolish Bush biofuel bill should be
very proud that you made the sound decision not to support turning our
own food into fuel. It is better to drill in ANWR (with at least 10.4
billion barrels of oil) and North Dakota's Bakken Oil Formation (with
at least 175 billion barrels of oil) than in the human food supply!
Those of you who voted for the disastrous biofuel legislation should
be ashamed of yourselves and endeavor to come clean with fellow
Americans that you have so badly damaged with your poor judgment. I
suggest holding a press conference and admitting guilt, that wasting
food is an immoral crime when there is so much hunger in the world,
and vow to repeal this counterproductive legislation as soon as
possible. You have made a similar mistake to Chairman Mao's 1958
"Great Leap Forward", which ending up starving millions of people.
That well meaning plan by government to force a shift from agriculture
to industry is very similar to our government's mandated shift from
feeding people to feeding cars and trucks.

What is truly disgusting is that so many of my fellow Democrats voted
for this inherently ugly act, and Democrats loudly claim to "put
people first"! The biofuel legislation was as big a mistake as the
Iraq War, and only those who admit guilt now and try to correct this
mess will ever be forgiven by the public. You have starved the world,
speeded up global warming by increasing C02 and nitrous oxide
emissions, needlessly eroded topsoil, polluted rivers and the Gulf of
Mexico with fertilizer run-off, and have created a vampiric, solely
profit driven biofuel manufacturing industry that lies through its
fangs and will be very difficult to get rid of. Scientific studies
have shown that ethanol form cellulose (switchgrass, crops waste, wood
chips, etc.) will never be economically viable, so none of the guilty
politicians should try to rationalize their crime by saying this
problem is only "a temporary glitch."

For all the tragic biofuel facts and positive environmental
alternatives, see http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Sincerely,
Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

The biofuel fiasco is not just a major problem here in the USA, but
also in European as well. In Asia, China has finally banned the
production of biofuels from its own home grown food supply, because
the Chinese figured out they were staving their own people with an
idiotic policy. Now China only imports biofuels from Third World
countries, where they don't give a damn if the local, indigenous
people starve to death. Biofuel production displaces human food
supply agriculture, which means we intentionally feed cars and trucks
instead of people. Because of biofuel production, we shrink the human
food supply, speed global warming, create water shortages, erode
precious topsoil, pollute rivers, streams, and even oceans, destroy
forests, and then we pat ourselves on our back for being "GREEN."

The biofuel fad represents a kind of IQ and ethics test. It is not
surprising that many myopic, overweight American politicians are
failing that test spectacularly. Most Democrat and Republican
politicians have never been hungry a single day in their lives, and
they take food for granted. Democrats claim to "put people first",
not starving people first. Republicans claim to support the "free
market", not subsidized, socialized, monster energy schemes.
Obviously both political parties are living a lie, and neither are
true to their stated values. Our politicians are DANGEROUSLY OUT OF
TOUCH WITH REALITY, because they live in a small, insulated world of
lobbyists, back room deals, and political payoffs. Their political
payoff to the farm states has backfired, and the world is now
suffering a global food crisis, with 33 countries suffering political
instability as a result. The Secretary General of the United Nations
has called for rich nations to reconsider their decadent biofuels
policies, but Queen Nancy Pelosi and King George W. Bush do not
listen, and loudly proclaim "Let them eat biofuels!" 20 countries
have had food riots, with many violent deaths as a result. Deaths by
malnutrition due to American and European biofuel policies is already
in the millions. Globally, it is estimated that about 44,000 people
die each day from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease.
That works out to over 16 million men, women, and children every year.

Our idiot kings are wearing no clothes, and the crowd still cheers!
Why?

- Look at this disturbing news story about biofuel advocating
politicians in the UK. -

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/commentary/OneWorld.aspx

STILLBORN POLICY WAITING TO BECOME A MOM

by Dr. Andrew Boswell April 5th, 2008

Despite its insipid name, the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation
(RTFO) is dangerous new legislation being introduced on April 15 that
forces biofuels to be blended into the UK fuel supply.

It is the policy child of wider EU plans to mandate massive amounts of
biofuels into petrol and diesel across Europe. For four years, I and
others have warned that these EU targets will wreak havoc on the
climate and food supplies, and eco-systems and people in the global
South.

Although, the RTFO has had a long gestation, only now are these
concerns being echoed by senior scientists and policy makers creating
a quandary for the government.

So who would relish the jobs of Ruth Kelly, transport minister, and
deputy, Jim Fitzpatrick, in implementing this legislation as the
voices calling for a suspension of the 'law of compulsory blending'
become stronger, louder and more persistent?

January 14 - a Royal Society report warned that biofuels could do more
damage than fossil fuels by accelerating rainforest destruction.

January 15 - policy 'grandfather', EU environment commissioner,
Stavros Dimas, tells the BBC that "environment problems caused by
biofuels are bigger than we thought", and suggests that targets might
have to be put on hold.

January 20 - a group of MPs, the Environmental Audit Committee
publishes a report 'Are Biofuels Sustainable?', that calls for
moratoriums of UK and EU targets.

February 8 - peer reviewed scientific studies show that converting
land for biofuel plantations creates a biofuel 'carbon debt'. It would
take 840 years of biofuel production to repay the carbon debt in
destroying peatland rainforest. Even for agricultural land reclaimed
from US conservation land (similar to set-aside in UK), the figure is
decades.

Asked by a journalist how policymakers might react, I replied that I
could only imagine that London and Brussels were in panic. Within 10
days, Ruth Kelly announced the 'Gallagher Review' on the indirect
impacts of biofuel policy - a desperate response to this research.

February 26 - the UN's World Food Programme warned that due to rising
food prices, it is short of $0.5bn just to meet existing food aid
deliveries. Its advisers estimate that the rush to biofuels is 30pc of
the cause of these rising food prices.

Meanwhile, Europe plans for a 12-fold EU increase of wheat based
ethanol refineries. Last year's UK wheat surplus was around 0.75
million tonnes, and ministers here plan an expansion in ethanol
refineries specifically using wheat that will take the UK into a 3
million tonnes deficit by 2010.

March 8 - the government chief scientist, John Beddington, warns that
the rush towards biofuels is theatening world food production and the
lives of billions of people.

March 24 - Prof Bob Watson, DEFRA chief scientist, says "it would
obviously be insane if we had a policy to try and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions through the use of biofuels that's actually leading to
an increase in the greenhouse gases from biofuels." - a none too
oblique reference to the RTFO.

Yet DEFRA will disregard its chief scientist, and the government carry
on regardless, as when I asked DEFRA minister, Joan Ruddock, on the
March 28 EDP 'On the Spot' online debate - her bland response "the
advice of our chief scientist, Bob Watson, will of course continue to
inform our future thinking on this subject."

On April 1, RTFO minister, Jim Fitzpatrick gave the thin excuse to
Parliament that the government could not suspend the introduction of
the RTFO without tiresome debates in both Houses of Parliament. Well,
yes, but isn't that what Parliament is for when it is clear that
legislation is dangerously misconceived?

And how independent can the 'thinking' of Gallagher Review be, when it
will be carried out by the Renewable Fuels Agency that was set up by
the Department of Transport to roll out biofuels? It's rather like
asking Dr Frankenstein to appraise his creation. In any case, its
initial report is late June, two-and-a-half months after the RTFO
starts on April Biofools Day.

The RTFO is a stillborn policy for it is unviable as a mechanism to
reduce UK carbon emissions and there is now little public confidence
in it. Further, the RTFO is an irrelevance anyway as the EU plans to
do away with any member country biofuel legislation after 2010 - they
are seeking to impose European-wide legislation for much greater
biofuel levels from then on. So the policy may be stillborn, but the
monster still exists.

April Biofools Day will be marked by protests on April 15 including a
demonstration outside Downing Street at 6pm, but the real work is in
stopping the monster - see www.biofuelwatch.org.uk for details.
-------------
For all the biofuel facts, see - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

For biofuel disaster news, see - http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

German Minster says biofuels are causing 30 to 70% of current food
price inflation!

Biofuels declared "nothing short of disaster!"
- - - - -
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/198490,german-minister-calls-for-biofuel-rethink-over-rising-food-prices.html

THE EARTH TIMES

German minister calls for biofuel rethink over rising food prices

Washington - German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul
said Saturday in Washington ahead of a World Bank meeting that the
world needed to reconsider the use of biofuels amid skyrocketing food
prices. "The targets for (fuel) blends must be put to the test," she
said ahead of the spring meeting of the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund (IMF) in the US capital.
Increasing production of biofuels was 30 to 70% responsible for the
rapid rise in food prices, she said.

Dearer food was "a danger for growth, combating poverty, stability and
peace in the world," she said.
High prices for food had led to riots, looting and violence in many
mainly poor countries.

- - - - -
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=7ac33c22-ff7f-4108-a61f-a24757c61776

EDMONTON JOURNAL

Biofuels nothing short of disaster

Environmentalists to blame as emissions worsen, world's poor starve
Lorne Gunter, The Edmonton Journal Published: 3:01 am

Note to environmentalists: Remember, you were the ones who demanded
biofuels the loudest.
It turns out the production of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel
is likely to cause far more environmental damage than it prevents, not
to mention triggering widespread famine and eating up more rainforest
and grassland than beef production ever could.

The production and consumption of biofuels releases far more carbon
emissions than are prevented when ordinary gasoline and diesel are
burned without first being mixed with corn or sugar cane derivatives.

Even the world's first tentative steps towards increasing biofuel
production has caused a doubling of annual deforestation rates in the
Amazon.

According to Wetlands International, Indonesia has razed so much
wilderness to grow palm oil trees for biodiesel that it has moved from
the world's 21st-biggest greenhouse gas emitter to third in just the
past three years. Only China and the United States -- in that order --
generate more carbon emissions.
With its rapid conversion of rainforest to cane production for fuel,
Brazil has slipped into fourth place.
Turns out the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by
chopping down rainforests and switching grassland to corn, cane,
soybean or palm oil production far exceeds that released by burning
oil pumped from the ground or extracted from oilsands. The original
environmental studies advocating biofuels as a way of curbing
greenhouse emissions and cleaning the air hadn't taken this into
consideration.

Corn-based biofuels are particularly ineffective. After the ethanol is
made, the stocks must be destroyed, thereby releasing all the carbon
they took up during their growth.
Then there is the biofuel revolution's impact on world food supplies.
According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "37
countries are currently facing food crises." The reasons are complex,
ranging from rising fuel costs to floods and droughts.
Still, the great biofuel rush has been a major contributor, as well.

In just the last month, Haiti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia and
Madagascar have suffered food riots. Even Pakistan and Mexico have
witnessed unrest over food prices -- Mexico City had tortilla riots --
as grains, oilseeds and corn that once went solely to the food market
are now being bid on by fuel suppliers, too. The Philippines,
Uzbekistan, Bolivia and Cameroon have also had protests or street
violence over food.
Again according to the FAO, the price of food staples such as rice and
corn has risen 57 per cent in just the past year, driven as much as
anything by the need to find feedstock for biofuel production.
In the developed world, where diets are much richer and more varied,
the effect of these increases has been minimal -- maybe five to 10 per
cent on a family's grocery bill. That's not easily absorbed by
everyone, yet since food makes up less than a third of average family
spending in industrialized countries, even a 10-per-cent increase in
food would add less than three per cent to most families' cost of
living.

But in the developing and underdeveloped worlds, the competition for
crops from the biofuel industry has increased family food tabs by as
much as half, pricing a traditional basic diet out of some families'
grasp. Hence the growing number of countries with food crises. And we
have only just begun to see what stresses the biofuel craze will
create.

In Europe and North America, bio-fuels make up less than five per cent
of energy consumed. However, either through government edict or the
desire of corporations to appear "green," biofuel consumption is
projected to double or triple by 2020.

Thanks to biofuel, the World Bank projects global food costs will stay
above 2004 levels until at least 2015. Expect more millions to go
hungry just to satisfy the desire of industrial-world
environmentalists to be seen to be saving the planet.

The sad irony, of course, is that not only is the developed world's
green conscience starving the rest of the world, it's creating more
environmental harm -- not less -- in the process.

Talk about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. But
watch, in typical liberal fashion, green crusaders will look to blame
someone else for their colossal error, in this case, likely, greedy
corporations and conservative politicians. Indeed, the revisionism has
already begun.
Time magazine, long a champion of environmentalism, recently called
the biofuel craze "the clean energy scam." But who did it blame for
the fraud?

Al Gore, David Suzuki and the Sierra Club? No. Biofuels, according to
Time, have become "the trendy way for politicians and corporations to
show they're serious about finding alternative sources of energy and
in the process slowing global warming." In other words, George Bush
and Big Oil are to blame.
It's true corporations are pouring $100 billion or more a year into
biofuel development. Even our own federal Tories have committed $2
billion to the cause.

But whose hectoring, lobbying, advertising and scaremongering created
the political pressure that has compelled politicians and executives
to go "green?" The environmental movement. That's who's behind the
disaster of biofuels.
- - - - - - - -

For the full story on the biofuel disaster, see -

[calde...@yahoo.com]

UNPATRIOTIC ETHANOL CON MEN

To be 'patriotic' means to be inspired by love of country. Patriots
want the best for their nation, and do not support policies that
damage their country's economy, environment, or the welfare and safety
of their fellow citizens. Ethanol biofuel production harms everything
that true patriots wish to protect.

Certain television networks, government officials, and biofuel
manufacturers are misleading the American people with propaganda that
biofuels are somehow "patriotic" and freeing us from dependence on
foreign oil. They say that if biofuels cause rapid food price
inflation, then Americans should suffer with a smile because ethanol
is good for our "national security." This argument is nonsense, and a
rationalization used to take money from ordinary American citizens to
subsidize large agricultural corporations that make our biofuels. Big
business makes ethanol, not Mom and Pop, and ethanol production is
equivalent to a new tax on food that starves the poor to feed the
rich. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the German Government Development
Minister, stated ahead of a recent World Bank meeting in Washington
D.C. that "Increasing production of biofuels was 30 to 70% responsible
for the rapid rise in food prices."

We have to use substantial amounts natural gas, coal, and oil just to
manufacture ethanol, and it takes more fossil fuel derived energy to
produce ethanol from corn than it does to make ordinary gasoline from
crude oil. America needs real energy solutions, not a destructive
product that yields no positive net energy gain. To add insult to
injury, ethanol is subsided by our hard earned tax dollars through a $.
51 per gallon federal tax credit, so we are paying more money for less
energy.

The other false argument is that ethanol is a "clean" fuel that will
reduce air pollution. That would only be true if ethanol had the same
energy content as gasoline and yielded the same gas mileage, which it
does not. Ethanol inherently has 30% less energy per gallon than
gasoline, so you have to burn much more ethanol per miles traveled.
On a per mile basis, which is the only basis that counts, ethanol does
not reduce automobile exhaust emissions.

Ethanol speeds global warming because ethanol production releases more
greenhouse gases than gasoline, and the added corn farming causes
water shortage and water pollution due to fertilizer run-off. Farming
for ethanol erodes topsoil and eliminates essential food surpluses, so
we have no food safety net when we need it the most, which is NOW!
American food banks are running low on supplies, and many low income
Americans are going hungry because our politicians wanted the
financial and political backing of the powerful biofuel lobby, a
monster they created by their own scientific ignorance and myopic
political selfishness.

The ethanol con men are acting in an "unpatriotic" way by shrinking
the human food supply as they turn countless warehouses of our own
precious food into inferior quality fuel. Our politicians have
created a world food crisis, and millions are going hungry, from
Tibet, to Indonesia, to Haiti, to Louisiana. President George W.
Bush's Katrina style mishandling of the United States food supply may
be the biggest man made disaster of the 21st century.

For all the details on biofuels, SEE "The biofuel hoax is causing a

world food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

SEE the "Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle"
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

Christopher Calder

[calde...@yahoo.com]

The biofuel aggravated food crisis is not just a problem for others,
it is hurting people right here in the USA. Public schools can no
longer afford to provide decent lunches for our kids. US food banks
are running low on supplies, and millions of low income Americans are
unable to afford enough food to get them through the month.

When you are the one starving, its not such a joke or a light issue to
be glib about.

To put this in perspective, the infamous Cambodian dictator Pol Pot
only killed 1.7 million people between 1975 and 1979. Biofuels will
contribute significantly to the deaths of 10 to 20 million in 2008
alone, and that may turn out to be a underestimate. You only realize
the magnitude of a great famine like this until years after it is
over. Mao's "Great Leap Forward" 5 year plan caused the death of tens
of thousands of Chinese, but he had good intentions just like Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, who all support biofuels.

See my essay below on the Mao famine.

Parallels - Biofuels and Mao's "Great Leap Forward"

An essential economic point that our political leaders and media

have missed about the world food crisis is that rising oil prices have

not shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has. Higher

oil prices naturally raise the cost of everything that takes energy to

produce, but additionally United States and European Union policies
have actually reduced the amount of food available for humans to eat

legislation has demanded even more of our food to be turned into fuel

in the name of "energy independence," but at the tragic cost of global
food supply security. Mao's top-down meddling in agricultural
production was compounded by droughts and storms, just as Bush's top-
down meddling in agriculture has been compounded by a drought in
Australia which reduced wheat production, and a winter storm in China
which caused major crop failures. A convergence of forces turned
Mao's well meaning 1958 plan into the greatest famine in history, and

resulted in the death by starvation of tens of millions of people.

Bush's well meaning 2007 "Energy Independence and Security Act" may
eventually take even more lives worldwide.

-----
Find biofuel disaster news links at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html

For a full explanation of biofuels and better alternatives, see
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder