Vice-President Al Gore
Third Annual Farm Journal Conference, December 1, 1998
"I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in the Congress — at one point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save it. The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be."
And now there are food riots and some sentiment to form a posse to go after this Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Posted by peter at April 26, 2008 03:07 AM(1) Had you been reading (attending, comprehending) there were TWO separate threads that examined the Biofuel issue and the false assertions you make (more likely copied).
(2) Obviously, the current food 'crisis' is more a function of the more rapid weakening of the dollar; which was ongoing and further exacerbated by economic recession. The economic recession is a natural response to the housing crisis, spending money that we don't have by 'selling' our country to Chinese and Arab banks, and generally-malfeasant leadership by Cheney [other readers: I'm talking in a simple reductionisic way so that Peter, Dennis, and Bagley can comprehend).
(3) It is true that ethanol (as now produced via the ADM and sold to the oil companies)produces a large carbon footprint AND causes world-wide diversion of corn commodities to ethanol not foodstock.
(3) It is a lie to blame Gore for this problem, blame BushCo, Archer-Daniels-Midland and their multi-million dollar lobbying efforts over several years.
(4) This is a right-wing attack designed to weaken Gore and the eventual nominee; and sabotague honest efforts to save the planet.It is your Republican friends that are, themselves, oil 'barons' and future residents of Paraguay (aka last refuge for Nazis).
(5) As has also been stated correctly on Left Coaster in yesterday's threads, there are current projects to more efficiently convert foodstock to biofuels, e.g. algae beds. Some of us are conserving, using green technologies, and using recycled vegetable oils to power our cars and tractors.
(6) No one with any political acumen thinks Gore would accept the VP slot for a multiude of reasons.
How is your commentary adding to an honest and intelligent discussion of anything? Take your McCain/right wing erroneous talking points elsewhere.
Posted by tfitznc at April 26, 2008 05:37 AMThere once was a man named Gore,
who thought he had a climate change cure,
then things like grain and rice,
went far up in price,
now he's to blame for starving the poor!
Isn't global warming global?
UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told German radio Monday that the production of biofuels is "a crime against humanity" because of its impact on global food prices.
"The EU finances the exports of European agricultural surpluses to Africa ... where they are offered at one half or one third of their (production) price," the UN official charged.
"That completely ruins African agriculture," he added.
In recent months, rising food costs have sparked violent protests in Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mauritania, the Philippines and other countries.
In Pakistan and Thailand, troops have been deployed to avoid the seizure of food from fields and warehouses, while price increases fuelled a general strike in Burkina Faso.
The European Environment Agency, advisors to the European Commission, on Friday recommended that the EU suspend its 10 percent biofuels target.
It argued that the target would require large amounts of additional imports of biofuels leading to the accelerated destruction of rain forests. The agency also questioned the environmental benefits of biofuels.
Also in a recent report the World Bank said bluntly "biofuel production has pushed up feedstock prices".
Meanhwile Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, head of Nestle, the world's biggest food and beverage company, last month argued that "to grant enormous subsidies for biofuel production is morally unacceptable and irresponsible".
"There will be nothing left to eat," he added.
Where's the cheap dollar here?
European leaders are aware of the growing body of opinion opposed to biofuels but Dimas has stressed the use of "second generation" biofuels; including leaves, straw and pond algae.
The first generation of green fuels -- biodiesel and ethanol-- are made from wheat, maize, colza, sugar beet etc, also used for human and animal feed.
However, according to French Ecology Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, the methods for utilising the second generation sources are far from complete.
"That will take 10 to 20 years," she told AFP.
How many will starve waiting the 10 to 20 years for second generation sources to develope? Seems this is a global problem.
Calling this a 'shrill' of right wingers is so disingenuous. It's such a stupid idea to use food for fuel...garbage yes, food...no way.
"European leaders are aware of the growing body of opinion opposed to biofuels but Dimas has stressed the use of "second generation" biofuels; including leaves, straw and pond algae."
JUST LIKE I SAID [above]:
"(5) As has also been stated correctly on Left Coaster in yesterday's threads, there are current projects to more efficiently convert foodstock to biofuels, e.g. algae beds. Some of us are conserving, using green technologies, and using recycled vegetable oils to power our cars and tractors."
BTW Peter, what are your ideas for saving the planet???
So far, all you have to offer is 'corporate speak', right-wing talking points from Rove's rear end, and criticisms of early and honest efforts to save the planet.
That will take 10 to 20 years," she told AFP.
The people can't wait that long. They are hungry now. And Al Gore is directly responsible for aiding this dilema we're in. The ecology movement was something to support. Not "saving the planet" but preserving our resources, not cutting down the rainforest to plant cane for fuel. The global warming crowd has killed the ecology movement. Producers of greenhouse gases, any greenhouse gas, are being targeted. Farmers and ranchers in New Zealand and Australia produce 40% of those countries greenhouse gas. They were being threatened for not doing their part to cut down greenhouse gases.
Greenpeace's founder now likes nuclear power! That should tell you something.
China's producing solar cells all the while increasing its production of greenhouse gas. IPCC in 2007 had forecast an increase of 2.5 to 4.5% per year for China. They are now in the area of 10 to 11% per year and rising. How can America and the European Union begin to offset that? India, the third world nations not even included. Man made climate change is a crock. 1998 was a high temperature mark...temps have returned to 1930's levels(-.7C) as greenhouse gas production has risen. America has seen its greenhouse gas production reduced lately, with no credit given.
Save the world...I wouldn't know how to do that, but I do drive a very nice 2001 Civic EX that gets 33 to 35 mpg. in city that could get 10%more if our gas wasn't EPA restricted.
Posted by peter at April 26, 2008 07:21 AMThanks for your honest acknowledgement that you don't have any answers (rather obvious), that you don't believe in global warming ["Man made climate change is a crock"]; and that you don't care about its implications (i.e., 'live now, pay later').
What does China's use of solar cells have to do with their being one of the largest contributers to greenhouse gases?
How do you explain the melting of the artic shelves? Do you even understand the implications of a rise in ocean level?
As for the rest of your tripe, references and citations?
BTW, SAFE nuclear power may indeed end up being one of the MANY options that we will need to implement as a step-wise alternative plan to reduce reliance on oil/petrofuel.
Keep on trolling!
Posted by tfitznc at April 26, 2008 08:16 AMChina's use of solar cells means that without them China would be an even greater contributor to greenhouse gases.
Posted by jwrjr at April 26, 2008 08:21 AMChina's not using them but producing them making more greenhouse gas, a lot more in the process from coal fired power sources.
Ice melts, its melted before, it will melt again. There's a bar right on the edge of the East River in NYC. Well it was built right on the edge, now its some distance from the water. It didn't move, the water moved. Its called adapting. These ice melts aren't caused by air temps but moreso water temps...currents flowing from warmer climates, or geothermal events. The air still is quite cold, look at the winter we've been experiencing still. How much worse would it have been had the Artic not had a melt last summer?
Weather...climates...they happen, the sun is the constant. Its always there warming the planet. The planet has experienced colder times and warmer times...yet we're still here. We've been able to evolve to where we are today in spite of the warm and cold times.
Posted by peter at April 26, 2008 08:51 AMtft: Obviously, the current food 'crisis' is more a function of the more rapid weakening of the dollar; which was ongoing and further exacerbated by economic recession.
Uh, no. I own a farm in Iowa. It used to grow food for eating. Now it grows food for fuel. As do most of the neighboring farms. If not all of them at this point.
No matter your belief on whether man-made global warming is happening, the burning of fossil fuels is dirty business. Buring coal spews radioactivity into the air, causing an estimated 200,000 cases of cancer a year world wide. The number of cases of asthma has skyrocketed the past few decades.
For our health, we need to move on to the next thing after fossil fuels. That's a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and biofuels. And in 100 years, technology and science will lead to the next, next thing.
Of course, I was extremely disappointed to see the environmental groups oppose the construction of transmission lines to transfer the solar power from the Mohave desert to San Diego.
Link.
Oh, and then there's wind power. In order to produce the same amount of power that a nuclear power plant does, you need 260-sq miles of real estate. And wind only works 30% of the time, so you need to build the nuke to back up the solar, too.
Posted by Muck at April 26, 2008 09:45 AMHow many will starve waiting the 10 to 20 years for second generation sources to develope?
Those sources aren't quite that far away. If we're allowed to have them, that is.
We only have to look at the impact of NAFTA on Mexican corn production for an example closer to home. NAFTA allowed our cheap Federally supported corn to be dumped in the Mexican market to an extent that Mexican farmers couldn't profitably grow corn. That resulted in a flood of unemployed Mexican farm workers into the United States. You see the connection? And this happened worldwide under the stewardship of the World Bank and the W.T.O. Rather than invest in agriculture in the 2nd and 3rd world they invested in reducing agriculture in the 2nd and 3rd world. Immediate investment in local, regional and state agriculture worldwide will change this dynamic in about 18 mos.
How can America and the European Union begin to offset that?
By using these things. By removing silicon from the cells and having higher wattage. Polysilicon has been slowing the growth of solar for some time now. If I can get inexpensive thin film technology I have the roof surface area to power twice my current usage.
That's a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and biofuels.
Nuclear is a dead-end. If the U.S. built the plants it needs nuclear as a fuel is exhausted in 30 years. Re-processed nuclear power? Well, it would cost 60X more than current nuclear fuel. Japan leads the way here since it put on so many rooftop solar panels that they did away with the need for 5 new nuclear plants.
A new nuclear plant is going to cost about $12 billion dollars and take at a minimum 6 to 10 years to build. You can't just pop them in like you do a Morton building. You need massive amounts of steel and concrete, and stable geology. The logistics are quite demanding and can't be "fast-tracked". Clearing all ecologic and health concerns out of the way it will still take 6 years at a minimum to bring a plant online.
For $12 billion you can put solar on 300,000 homes at current solar cost and take them off the grid or put energy back into the grid at peak production. With new solar technologies and the price drop from advanced production you can do 600,000 homes.
Of course, if you do that the current players in energy don't fare too well. And that is precisely why it will never happen. House Democrats tell us we can't have healthcare reform, so I have no doubt they will tell us we can't have new forms of energy. How can I tell this? Since 2005 under the Buschco misadministration the United States -the originator of solar technology- dropped from 3rd to 5th in worldwide production of solar cells.
China's not using them...
That's why they are going for 300 meagawatts of pure solar by 2010, and 20% of total power generation by 2020. They may never overtake the U.S. as the No. 1 dumper of carbon into the atmosphere. USA! USA! USA!
Posted by phidipides at April 26, 2008 10:44 AMAh, Phid, there you go again. The debate is over. The science is settled. You're a nuclear power denier. If you have other research that scientists and nuclear physicists aren't aware of, you should fax it to them pronto.
I'd be happy if the nuclear power lasted 100 years. 100 years ago, technology was quite different than now. 100 years from now, there will be tremendous technology advances. We just have to get from here to there. It's not going to be "30 years" worth, because of recycling and because it's not going to be our sole source of power.
I don't doubt that the enviromental nitwits in the US will oppose new nukes, but they're a shrinking group of deniers. There are at least 30 new nuclear power plants on the board here in the US. We'll see if these plants get built, and we do the right thing for future generations here.
The problem with solar, Phid, is that the sun doesn't always shine. So you'd still need to build coal or gas plants as backups otherwise you'd have the blackouts like the Euros are having who are relying on solar (and wind).
And as the link I gave demonstrated, the environmental nitwits oppose transmission lines. So if you can't put solar power in the Mohave desert, it raises doubts about solar's viability on a large enough scale. It'd just a drop in the bucket of our energy needs.
But I'm for solar. I'm for wind. It's just that the costs you're citing don't include the coal and natural gas backups. Factor those in. And factor in the real estate demands for solar and wind, too.
Strangely enough, Obama is the pro-nuke candidate, while Hillary calls herself an "agnostic" on nuclear. Although recently she has said she'd consider it. But she's saying anything and everything about now.
Posted by Muck at April 26, 2008 11:54 AMThe global food crisis doesn't primarily involve corn. And it has exploded because grain prices have (very recently) exploded because the dollar is tanking as a result of Bernanke's low interest/save Wall Street policies.
The current Food Crisis Because of Environment!! talking points are Right Wing disinformation designed to cause anger over clean fuel policies.
I have come to conclude that we should not be using human food for fuel---that was basically an "environmental" gambit that farm state Repubs decided to support to get more money into farmer and ADM/agribusiness bank accounts. If conservative Repubs support something, one must always be suspicious. They do NOTHING for the overall public good.
Let's can the ADM ethanol from food program and find out how to make it from plant waste, not food. As for world food prices, fire Bernanke immediately and put in a competent central banker who will reverse the weak dollar, Wall Street bailout plan via Greenspanian micro-interest rates.
Posted by euzoius at April 26, 2008 11:54 AMEuz, the weak dollar isn't really a bad thing as long as it's just gradual decline. Which it has been. The prices of things here haven't risen dramatically. The core rate of inflation year over year is around 2%.
Barron's has a column today saying that the dollar may be rallying.
Bernanke is lowering rates to stimulate the economy. Their mission (the Fed) is high employment and low inflation. He kept rates too high for too long, killing real estate and creating this slowdown in the economy. But rates have come down and the Fed will cut rates another .25-.5% again next week.
This is great for consumers who are servicing debt payments.
Posted by Muck at April 26, 2008 12:01 PMSoylent Green premium is the obvious answer.
A pig smoker conversion mounted on top of every vehicle. The extra food supply from freed-up corn would ensure an endless source of raw material, and cemetary space could be used to grow more corn.
Patriotic Peter could volunteer for early R+D, and finally be of some use to humanity.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 26, 2008 12:13 PMIt's just that the costs you're citing don't include the coal and natural gas backups.
I see. We don't have any coal or natty gas generators now? You think we are starting from "0" with electricity?
The debate is over. The science is settled.
In your narrow mind, sure. Whatever you think.
And as the link I gave demonstrated, the environmental nitwits oppose transmission lines.
Maybe they can use the lines my little red state uses when we bring the 6 massive natty gas generation plants online during the summer (built during the Enron debacle, they sit idle until needed so we can suck a little money from California. We don't really use them). But I can understand why it was built in the Moe-Jave. Not enough sunshine in San Diego.
Posted by phidipides at April 26, 2008 12:28 PMPhid, how will solar replace fossil fuels at night and on days when the sun isn't shining?
Posted by Muck at April 26, 2008 02:05 PMPhid, how will solar replace fossil fuels at night and on days when the sun isn't shining?
Wow, things must have changed a lot while you were asleep! There's these things now call "batteries," and they actually store energy. Way cool, huh? But now they can do it on an amazing scale - like keep whole cities lit up! And with wind energy, you don't even have to worry about cloudy days; the wind blows all the time. With just a small initial investment, we could harness quite a bit of free energy, couldn't we?
Posted by iamcoyote at April 26, 2008 06:07 PMHey, coyote. Are you authoring on a blog? I don't see you much here. I'll come read if you give me a link.
Posted by phidipides at April 26, 2008 06:44 PMPhiddy, I think she writes for Newsweek now and gets paid big, albeit $.75 on the dollar bucks.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 26, 2008 08:16 PMGod, coyote, batteries. Your answer is batteries.
I can only imagine the environmental damage caused by thousands or millions of tons of new batteries. And over time, the ability of batteries to store a charge diminishes. Maybe they can use your backyard as a toxic waste dump for old batteries.
Coyote, wind turbines only work on average 30% of the time. Look it up.
Seems like you folks are out to make the environment worse. Crazy loons. Try reading something besides blogs. Try a science journal.
Posted by Muck at April 27, 2008 12:12 AMMuck, your entire post at 12:01 is platitudious nonsense.
The only accurate observation is that the Bernanke Bailout Machine will likely continue with more destructive rate cuts next week.
Posted by euzoius at April 27, 2008 07:26 AMmuck: "Euz, the weak dollar isn't really a bad thing as long as it's just gradual decline. Which it has been. The prices of things here haven't risen dramatically. The core rate of inflation year over year is around 2%."
Really? Been to the supermarket lately?
Core rate of inflation? Great, so long as you don't drive and don't eat.
Posted by Gay Veteran at April 28, 2008 09:22 AM