UN official calls biofuel schemes a "crime against humanity! Food riots around the world! Bush bill wil starve the world!
calde...@yahoo.com
.
Wednesday, 26 December 2007
.
UN issues warning of critical food shortages 'The livelihoods of
billions of people will be severely challenged
.
Rosslyn Beeby
.
Almost 40 countries are facing critical food shortages as world food
prices soar to record levels, the United Nations warns.
.
The world's food supplies are rapidly dwindling due to crop failures
caused by global warming, natural disasters, wars, and a trend away
from farming food crops to growing biofuels and grain to feed cattle,
the agency says.
.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's global food price index
reached its highest level this year, rising by more than 40 per cent,
compared with 9 per cent last year.
"There is a very serious risk that there will be less people able to
get access to food because of prices," FAO head Jacques Diouf said.
.
The cost of imported food for the world's poorest countries has risen
by 25 per cent this year to about $US107 billion the highest on
record. Countries facing critical food shortages include 20 African
countries as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Nepal and Pakistan.
Food riots caused by shortages and rising prices have also occurred in
Mexico, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Senegal.
.
In its monthly analysis of global food prices, the FAO said there had
been an unprecedented "hike in world prices of, not just a selected
few, but of nearly all, major food and feed commodities".
Rarely had the world felt such "a widespread and commonly shared
concern about food price inflation," the FAO analysis said. In
Australia, food prices have increased by 12percent over the past two
years, chiefly because of drought and crop shortages linked to global
climate change.
Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows prices for bread and eggs
have increased by 17 per cent since 2005, vegetables by 33 per cent,
honey by 100 per cent, dairy products by 11percent and fruit by 43 per
cent.
.
A recent report by economist John Quiggin for the Australian
Conservation Foundation concluded "price shocks similar to those being
experienced by Australian consumers during the currently severe
drought may start to occur every two to four years, rather than once a
decade, unless strong action is taken to reduce global emissions".
Quiggin said some practices proposed as strategies to mitigate the
impact of climate change such as growing corn and sugar cane for
biofuels and the use of forestry plantations as carbon sinks would
inevitably contribute to "upward pressure on food prices".
The impact of biofuels on world food production will be reviewed at a
UN conference on food security next year.
.
It was essential biofuel policies were "coordinated at an
international level taking into consideration the objective of
fighting hunger," Diouf said.
Higher meat consumption in emerging market nations across Asia are
also driving food price increases.
In 1985, China's average consumption of meat was of 20kg, but per
capita meat consumption had now increased to 50kg, Diouf said. This
reduced the amount of grain available because 1kg of beef could take
as much as 8kg of grain to produce.
The British medical journal The Lancet recently published a study
suggesting a 10 per cent cut in global meat consumption by 2050 would
reduce greenhouse emissions from agriculture and also improve health
for rich and poor nations.
.
Agricultural experts have also warned global warming will result in
shorter growing seasons and smaller crop yields across most of the
developing world, affecting the lives of billions of people. A report
by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
estimates wheat production in India could drop by 50 per cent within
40 years, putting as many as 200 million people at risk of worsening
food shortages.
.
Growing seasons in many parts of Africa will decrease by 20 per cent,
with some of the world's poorest farming communities in east and
central Africa including Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia and Eritrea among
the worst affected.
.
"The livelihoods of billions of people in developing countries,
particularly those in the tropics, will be severely challenged as crop
yields decline due to shorter growing seasons," International Rice
Research Institute director Dr Robert Zeigler said.
The FAO said soaring petroleum prices had contributed to price
increases for agricultural crops by raising farm production costs and
boosting demand for biofuels.
"The combination of high petroleum prices and the desire to address
environmental issues is currently at the forefront of the rapid
expansion of the biofuel sector: this is likely to boost demand for
feedstocks, most notably, sugar, maize, rapeseed, soybean, palm oil
and other oil crops as well as wheat for many more years to come."
.
According to the FAO, the amount of corn used for biofuel production
in the US will double to 110 million tonnes by 2016. In Europe, the
amount of wheat devoted to biofuel will rise twelvefold to 18 million
tonnes by the same date.
Earlier this year, Jean Ziegler, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Food, denounced biofuels as "a crime against humanity" and
called for a five-year moratorium on their production.
--------------------------
SEE "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!"
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Don't let this nightmare stupidity continue! Write your politicians
and tell them to stop this disaster before it gets worse!
Other shocking news stories on the biofuel hoax at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html
.
Christopher Calder
.
Rod Speed
> Wednesday, 26 December 2007
> UN issues warning of critical food shortages
> 'The livelihoods of billions of people will be severely challenged
Mindlessly silly. And hasnt got a damned thing to
do with your stupid claims about biofuels anyway.
> Rosslyn Beeby
> Almost 40 countries are facing critical food shortages as world
> food prices soar to record levels, the United Nations warns.
World food prices havent done anything even remotely resembling 'soar', fool.
> The world's food supplies are rapidly dwindling due to crop
> failures caused by global warming, natural disasters, wars,
> and a trend away from farming food crops to growing
> biofuels and grain to feed cattle, the agency says.
Biofuels are a trivial part of that.
> The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's global food
> price index reached its highest level this year, rising by
> more than 40 per cent, compared with 9 per cent last year.
Mindlessly silly, the real increase in retail prices have been
nothing even remotely resembling anything like 40%, fool.
AND whatever has been seen in the last year, wont be repeated anyway, you watch.
> "There is a very serious risk that there will be less people able to get
> access to food because of prices," FAO head Jacques Diouf said.
What a fool, wont happen, you watch.
And in the first world thats exactly what most need
anyway, less calories shovelled into their mouths.
> The cost of imported food for the world's poorest countries has risen
> by 25 per cent this year to about $US107 billion the highest on record.
Usual bogus statistic. The vast bulk of the food in the world's
poorest countrys isnt even imported in those countrys, fool.
> Countries facing critical food shortages include 20 African
> countries as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Nepal and Pakistan.
Mindlessly silly. You wont be seeing famine in any one of those countrys, you watch.
> Food riots caused by shortages and rising prices have also
> occurred in Mexico, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Senegal.
Bare faced lie.
> In its monthly analysis of global food prices, the FAO said there had
> been an unprecedented "hike in world prices of, not just a selected
> few, but of nearly all, major food and feed commodities".
Pity about the rest that didnt see that. Anyone with a clue eats
those in the years where the other stuff increases unusually.
Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.
> Rarely had the world felt such "a widespread and commonly
> shared concern about food price inflation," the FAO analysis said.
It wont be repeated, you watch.
> In Australia, food prices have increased by 12percent over the past two years,
Bare faced lie.
> chiefly because of drought and crop shortages linked to global climate change.
Nope, nothing to do with global climate change.
There's been a drought, fool, and thats just come to an end.
So you can stop mindlessly hyperventilating because it wont be
repeated, and 6% a year is no big deal even if it had happened
in the worst drought we have seen for over a century.
> Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows prices for bread and eggs
> have increased by 17 per cent since 2005, vegetables by 33 per cent,
That is a lie, and the ABS never said that either.
> honey by 100 per cent, dairy products by 11percent and fruit by 43 per cent.
That is a lie, and the ABS never said that either.
> A recent report by economist John Quiggin
> for the Australian Conservation Foundation
Who are a complete pack of hysterical fools.
> concluded "price shocks similar to those being experienced
> by Australian consumers during the currently severe drought
Pure fantasy.
> may start to occur every two to four years, rather than once a decade,
We dont get droughts like that every decade, fool.
And we wont be seeing them every 2-4 years either, you watch.
> unless strong action is taken to reduce global emissions".
Even the complete replacement of all power generation and transport
fuel with nukes and hydrogen overnight wouldnt stop that anyway, fool.
> Quiggin said some practices proposed as strategies to mitigate the impact
> of climate change such as growing corn and sugar cane for biofuels
That aint why some are into biofuels, fool.
> and the use of forestry plantations as carbon sinks would
> inevitably contribute to "upward pressure on food prices".
Pig ignorant lie.
> The impact of biofuels on world food production will be
> reviewed at a UN conference on food security next year.
And if they actually have a clue, will find that the effect is completely trivial.
> It was essential biofuel policies were "coordinated at an international
> level taking into consideration the objective of fighting hunger," Diouf said.
More fool Diouf.
> Higher meat consumption in emerging market nations
> across Asia are also driving food price increases.
They can afford that, which is why they are doing that, fool.
> In 1985, China's average consumption of meat was of 20kg, but per
> capita meat consumption had now increased to 50kg, Diouf said.
They can afford that, which is why they are doing that, fool.
> This reduced the amount of grain available because 1kg
> of beef could take as much as 8kg of grain to produce.
They can afford that, which is why they are doing that, fool.
> The British medical journal The Lancet recently published
> a study suggesting a 10 per cent cut in global meat consumption
> by 2050 would reduce greenhouse emissions from agriculture
And changing to nukes for power generation
would reduce greenhouse emissions much more.
> and also improve health for rich and poor nations.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
And reducing the gross excess of calories most in first world countrys
shovel into their mouths would improve health MUCH more.
> Agricultural experts have also warned global warming will result
> in shorter growing seasons and smaller crop yields across most
> of the developing world, affecting the lives of billions of people.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> A report by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
> Research estimates wheat production in India could drop by
> 50 per cent within 40 years, putting as many as 200 million
> people at risk of worsening food shortages.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Growing seasons in many parts of Africa will decrease
> by 20 per cent, with some of the world's poorest farming
> communities in east and central Africa including Rwanda,
> Burundi, Ethiopia and Eritrea among the worst affected.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> "The livelihoods of billions of people in developing countries,
> particularly those in the tropics, will be severely challenged
> as crop yields decline due to shorter growing seasons,"
> International Rice Research Institute director Dr Robert Zeigler said.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> The FAO said soaring petroleum prices
Hasnt happened.
> had contributed to price increases for agricultural crops by raising
> farm production costs and boosting demand for biofuels.
Must be one of those rocket scientist fools.
> "The combination of high petroleum prices and the desire to address
> environmental issues is currently at the forefront of the rapid
> expansion of the biofuel sector: this is likely to boost demand for
> feedstocks, most notably, sugar, maize, rapeseed, soybean, palm oil
> and other oil crops as well as wheat for many more years to come."
Must be one of those rocket scientist fools.
> According to the FAO, the amount of corn used for biofuel
> production in the US will double to 110 million tonnes by 2016.
And the US is perfectly capable of supplying that.
> In Europe, the amount of wheat devoted to biofuel will
> rise twelvefold to 18 million tonnes by the same date.
Peanuts as part of the world production of wheat.
> Earlier this year, Jean Ziegler, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the
> Right to Food, denounced biofuels as "a crime against humanity"
> and called for a five-year moratorium on their production.
Who cares ? He's always been a hoax himself.
> --------------------------
> SEE "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!"
There is no 'world food crisis', fool.
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
> Don't let this nightmare stupidity continue! Write your politicians
> and tell them to stop this disaster before it gets worse!
And they'll just click their heels and do what you demand, eh ?
Yeah, right.
> Other shocking news stories on the biofuel hoax at:
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html
You wouldnt know what real shocking news was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
Don Klipstein
calde...@yahoo.com wrote in part in a diatribe against biofuels:
>The cost of imported food for the world's poorest countries has risen
>by 25 per cent this year to about $US107 billion the highest on
>record.
Cost in US dollars up 25%? And how many percent did the euro gain
against the US dollar in that time period? How many percent did the
Canadian dollar gain with respect to the US dollar in this time period?
How about the Japanese yen and gold?
It appears to me we have a case on the US dollar!
One big cause is USA's huge trade deficit, with USA pumping out dollars
abroad. About 35% of USA's trade deficit is in importing oil! We ain't
yet cutting back much in consumption when the price makes the pump price
of gasoline $3.10 a gallon!
Secondary to that is USA government spending too much and doing deficit
spending, with pork of all kinds including those "earmarks" that upticked
bigtime since Bush II took office. Not that I find the current crowd of
Democrats barely having a majority of Congress making any improvement
here, despite Clinton having the only presidential term netting lack of a
deficit in the most-coinciding 4 fiscal year period since Eisenhower!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Support our troups, O5 and below. SeaWoe
> In <1117092a-19fa-41e6-95d4-36c0a8159...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> calderh...@yahoo.com wrote in part in a diatribe against biofuels:
There are two way to make fuel from biomass.
1) use food as base
2) use waste plant material as base.
Bush goes for the first, due to the vast nimner4 of votes in farm
states (and other reasons I won't mention, but you muight guess.)
Thus, the OP may be correct.
calde...@yahoo.com
"Roger Speed" obviously needs a psychiatrist ASAP
THE BIOFUEL HOAX IS CAUSING A WORLD FOOD CRISIS!
at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
On December 19th, 2007, George W. Bush signed into law an
historic energy 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 the
price of food around the world, which can be experienced firsthand at
any supermarket in America. Unfortunately, consumers/voters are
undereducated as to exactly why food prices have risen so
dramatically.
The United Nations has officially stated that its charity
programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the
world because of high food costs created by biofuel production.
Earlier this year, Jean Ziegler, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Food, denounced biofuels as "a crime against humanity" and
called for a five-year moratorium on their 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 prices created by political biofuel mandates, they
reduce production of other crops, and thus food prices rise across the
board. We use corn to feed chickens and cattle, so the price of
poultry, eggs, beef, and dairy products have risen substantially 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 political 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 to soak up excess carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (C02) is the major greenhouse gas that
causes global warming, and the two great sponges of carbon dioxide are
the oceans and the forests. The oceans are losing their ability to
absorb C02 as they are becoming increasingly acidic due to pollution,
so if we also destroy our forests global warming will accelerate that
much faster. 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.
Roland Clift, a senior science advisor to the British government,
has stated that British plans to promote ethanol and biodiesel
produced from plants is a "scam." On the subject of tropical
biodiesel production, Clift states that "Biodiesel is a complete scam
because in the tropics the growing demand is causing forests to be
burnt to make way for palm oil and similar crops. "We calculate that
the land will need to grow biodiesel crops for 70-300 years to
compensate for the CO2 emitted in forest destruction." On British
plans to produce home grown biodiesel from rapeseed, Clift points to
research showing the crop generates copious amounts of nitrous oxide,
an even more powerful global warming gas than CO2.
Biofuel production will aggravate water shortages world wide
because water is diverted to grow biofuel crops and thus taken away
from our 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 gases. Biofuels are a losing
proposition on every level, except for the big profits giant
agricultural corporations will make producing them.
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, natural
gas, 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
December, 2007, Conference on Climate Change 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, America's political leaders 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 and corporate greed. 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 to the wind 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. If we grow switchgrass for ethanol production 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 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 in
Washington DC at this very moment. Our Congress has become a chorus
of stupidity, and our politicians are leading us to national suicide,
not to the nirvana of energy independence.
The very process of making cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass
and other plants has not been proven to be economically viable, and
the Bush energy bill assumes new scientific breakthroughs that have
not yet occurred. Many of the plants being proposed as lignocellulose
yielding 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.
The prospect of growing algae to make biodiesel has more positive
potential than making ethanol from switchgrass, but large open algae
sewage ponds are difficult to manage due to contamination from
invasive algae and bacteria, and the inherent problem of finding an
algae that will survive wide swings in temperature and pH. If a
sealed algae system can be developed that produces biodiesel on only a
small amount of land, and that produces much more energy than it takes
to manufacture, then algae based biodiesel might be a very positive
venture. To date there has been no proof that such a system is viable
or truly carbon neutral. If you have to run algae farms off the waste
of coal fired power plants, as has been proposed, then you have a band-
aid solution that will not stop global warming in its tracks, which is
what we need to do if we want our children and grandchildren to
survive on this planet.
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. There
have already been mass public protests and food riots in Mexico,
Morocco, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Senegal over the high price of basic
staple foods. 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
people 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 electric car
battery technology, and hydrogen fuel, not on ethanol and biofuels.
Hydrogen releases water vapor when burned and is the cleanest burning
fuel known to man. Hydrogen can be used in both internal combustion
engines and in fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel can be made through the
electrolysis of water via electricity generated from zero emissions
nuclear power plants, which currently produce about 19.4% of our
nation's electricity. We need to build large numbers of nuclear power
plants now using mass production techniques if we want to end global
warming. Otherwise, we will just continue talking endlessly about the
subject with no positive effect.
Nuclear power plants do not contribute to global warming because
they release no greenhouse gases 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. Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to
attack by viruses, bacteria, fungi, insects, or competing weeds, as
are biofuel crops. We need to get off the organic carbon cycle for
energy production and use inorganic 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 a 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 costs of converting high level weapons grade nuclear
materials into low level nuclear fuel rods suitable for 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 that 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
carefully engineered 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 accident killed a total of 56 people, a
great tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster. Far fewer people
died at Chernobyl than on Japan Airlines Flight 123 in 1985, when a
lone 747 jetliner crashed and killed all 520 passengers. Americans
suffer over 40,000 deaths due to automobile accidents every year, but
there is no great human cry to ban automobiles.
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
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 each year, and nearly 10% of global carbon
dioxide emissions, which represents an enormous river of skyward bound
greenhouse gas. 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 highly
fissionable form of uranium that was used to construct the "Little
Boy" atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
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 has 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. Newer, more efficient power plant designs
and the mass production of major structural and control components can
bring the cost down even further.
Nuclear power is the only technology that can produce an
extremely high volume of energy using only a tiny amount of land and
at reasonable cost, all without emitting any greenhouse gases. That
is why the father of Gaia theory, British atmospheric scientist James
Lovelock, stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a large
human population on planet earth without causing global warming and
destroying the environment. Please read James Lovelock's public
statement on nuclear energy, Nuclear power is the only green solution,
at: http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm
The economic benefits of a nuclear based, hydrogen fueled economy
are spectacular. The United States foreign 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 over 60% of its oil supply, all of the
dollars we now ship off to Canada (18%), Mexico (14%), Saudi Arabia
(14%), 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, increased storm
damage and coastal flooding, and world wide 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. 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. If you modify
a current production line Toyota Prius by giving it a hydrogen capable
gas tank, slightly alter its internal combustion engine so that it can
run on hydrogen gas, and rewire its electrical system so that its
batteries can be plugged into a charging station, then you have an
excellent hydrogen-electric hybrid automobile right now. The nuclear
based hydrogen economy is achievable with current technology, and 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.
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 we
wish a fast, short term fix to rising oil prices, then drilling in the
Alaska ANWR oil reserve will do far less environmental damage than
plunging ahead with the biofuel hoax, and drilling for oil in Alaska
will help lower food prices, not raise them. One positive idea would
be to use Federal revenues from sale of the ANWR reserves to help fund
the switchover to a national nuclear-hydrogen infrastructure.
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 declining
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.
.
Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> "Roger Speed" obviously needs a psychiatrist ASAP
So stupid it cant even get my name right from one line to the next.
> THE BIOFUEL HOAX IS CAUSING A WORLD FOOD CRISIS!
THERE IS NO WORLD FOOD CRISIS.
> at:
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
Just the usual mindless shit mindless respewed.
Larry Bud
> billions of people will be severely challenged
The only "Solutions" these socialists have is for the government to
control the supply of energy. Can't use oil, now we can't use
biofuels.
The only thing that will make some people happy is if we go back to
horse and carriage, and if you do that, you piss off the animal
"rights" people.
Larry Bud
> abroad. About 35% of USA's trade deficit is in importing oil! We ain't
> yet cutting back much in consumption when the price makes the pump price
> of gasoline $3.10 a gallon!
The term "trade deficit" is as misleading as they come. There is no
deficit. We've traded money for an equal value of goods.
clams_casino
and the suckers think the US dollar will have the same value tomorrow as
it does today.
Rod Speed
Nope, they just dont have any choice on that if they want the sale.
Horvath
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote this crap:
>>The term "trade deficit" is as misleading as they come. There is no
>>deficit. We've traded money for an equal value of goods.
>>
>
>and the suckers think the US dollar will have the same value tomorrow as
>it does today.
Mine will.
Geor...@Horvath.net
This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.