The damage environmentalists can do with their lack of understanding of supply and demand, is tremendous. I don't see them protesting this little problem.
Cost of food forces World Vision to cut aid
World Vision is cutting back on the vital flow of aid it provides to some of the world's most impoverished -- saying it can no longer afford to feed 1.5 million of the 7.5 million people that received aid last year.
World Vision cites rising food costs driven by high fuel prices, unpredictable weather and demand from China and India, as well as the failure of countries to meet their donation commitments as the driving factors for the decision.
Environmentalists are asking for a carbon tax, this will increase the price of fuel even more, which will not reduce consumption in the developed world, but it sure will impact the third world countries. Yet they still think biofuels are a good idea!
Maybe they should stop those earth days, and start helping real people, in real need. All funds that presently are being spent on carbon credits, carbon capture, and global warming scientists, should be diverted to helping with this food crisis that they helped create. Wonder how much the Suzuki Foundation is giving to World Vision?
Do they think about the damage biofuels would do, or did it just seem like a 60's kind of thing to support? Farmers are going to switch to planting corn, this will raise the price of feed for cattle farmers, who will send more cattle to be slaughtered, which will decrease the price of beef initially, but as cattle become scarcer, the price of beef will rise, and all food items are going to get more expensive.
But, hey, bring on the biofuels, and the carbon taxes, let the children starve, that will reduce everyone's footprint now won't it! If you have time to protest, you have time to go volunteer to help those who are starving.
Where should the money go? To environmentalists and global warming, or to helping starving children? To a fake crisis or to a real crisis, that is actually killing people right NOW?
16 comments:
It's a sad fact that the Left wrecks everything it touches. The secret is not to let them get their hands on anything important.
climate change has it's most profound effect on the earth's poorest. spouting high school economics doesn't come close to approaching reality.
take a drive north and see the effect oil production is having on the athabasca river and the people that depend on it.
It's a sad fact that the Left wrecks everything it touches.
This is a lie.
The secret is not to let them get their hands on anything important.
However, this is true of the fright wingers.
Oh then Jeff, you want all production of oil and gas to stop, and biofuels to be used instead? The environmentalists don't even understand high school economics, but they tell us CO2 is killing our planet and we are supposed to believe them? Show me the proof!!
They made a huge mistake with biofuels, when are they going to say, oops, global warming is wrong too?
i certainly wouldn't expect oil production to stop. no serious person could.i'm not a big fan of biofuels at all. however, we have to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels while we develop other sustainable energy sources. biofuel is only a small part of solution.
i suspect your hostility towards the well-documented science that says man-made Co2 is the driving force behind climate change comes from personal reasons rather than from objective consideration.
obviously, i cannot provide the proof you require in a comment at a blog. further, i think you would ignore any links i might provide.
you know as well as i that the body of the scientific evidence that suggests we're heading for disaster without some pretty drastic change is immense.
your reasons to dismiss it are your own. but please, be honest, the reasons have nothing to do with science.
The 40% price increase in food wouldn't have anything to do with the 100% increase in crude oil prices, now would it?
It is despicable to use a crisis like this to further your own petty political goals, by claiming that somehow fighting climate change is causing mass starvation. Last week it was the "DDT ban killed millions" canard.
If you have the slightest interest in actually knowing something about this, you could start here. The most important quote from there is this:
"As always, if you take [all the world's] food and divide it by the world's population, there's more than enough for everyone"
There is enough food. The problem is distribution, and the cost of the oil for making fertilizers and transport.
I did laugh out loud though, when you moaned about "the price of beef will rise". Do you figure World Vision is busy handing out steaks? If you really cared about the hungry, and not about trying to make some partisan point, you would stop eating all meat products. It takes 12 times the acreage to grow grain to raise beef as it would for humans to simply eat the grain.
They made a huge mistake with biofuels, when are they going to say, oops, global warming is wrong too?
Nice try. The mistake with biofuels is a political one. They haven't been terribly wrong on the science behind global warming though.
The mistake with biofuels is allowing the corn lobby to bolster their faltering sales, yes, their faltering sales with the biofuel business. Because there is no actual food shortage. There is a distribution shortage. So there is lots of corn here, and they decided to boost the business with the biofuel business. The only problem is corn is not a very good feedstock. Better to use switchgrass, which will grow on marginal lands, thus avoiding the problem of displacing food producing land.
Biofuels are a good way to reduce fossil fuel dependence. The carbon is cycled on a year by year basis, instead of taking 200 million years of fixed carbon and releasing it over 200 years.
You sound like a roommate I had. When asked to do dishes, it was a long drawn out production, requiring having no dishes in the place at all for several hours. Every dish had to be washed at the same time. This roommate made having them do dishes so unpalatable that they never had to do them.
You are doing the same by making it an either-or, shutdown all oil and gas production or do nothing. The more moderate centrist people can easily see that we can develop new technologies over time.
Like I said awhile ago hunter, you are doing a great job with this blog. Proof is the angry anonny's that are trolling here. Have to wonder if jeffy and friends ever think about the people who are starving TODAY instead of getting all worked up about what Gore and his inconvenient deceptions say about the future.
Nice try at laying on the guilt about the beef.Did you know Gore is being criticised for eating beef...by PETA...
All this anger and trying to impose lifestyles on others must make them dizzy...
"...It is despicable to use a crisis like this to further your own petty political goals,..."
Is that Gore you refer to anon?He has invented the crisis.
I do my part...I eat my broccoli and beef, and give to World Vision...my choice.
bluetech
Biofuels are political??? Who made global warming a political issue, it sure wasn't the politicians. Now that they do something about biofuels, it's not enough, or the right technology, or it will work except the politicians made a mistake with corn, they should use hemp, blah, blah.
The problem is that environmentalists tell us the discussion is over, global warming is real, and it we don't do something RIGHT NOW, your grandchildren will starve....how about the staring children now? Nope, they are too busy protesting the seal hunt, or giving out juvenile awards at conferences they do nothing but disrupt. Yes, they banned DDT, which could save millions of children, RIGHT NOW.
No proof Jeff, well I can provide proof that children are starving to death today! Which should I believe? Some guys spouting doom and gloom 50 years from now, or the starving children TODAY?
My reasons are that I can think for myself, I don't just believe the garbage being spouted by scientists. Computer models? HA.
Beef, is an example of why ALL food prices will rise. How about Ont/Que farmers send their excess supply to World Vision instead of dumping it. Can't do that, supply management keeps the prices high for those producers.
And finally Thanks Bluetech!
Like I said awhile ago hunter, you are doing a great job with this blog.
No argument there.
Proof is the angry anonny's that are trolling here.
Your projection is showing. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
Have to wonder if jeffy and friends ever think about the people who are starving TODAY instead of getting all worked up about what Gore and his inconvenient deceptions say about the future.
I think about them every day. It will simply be worse in the future if nothing is done.
Your projection is showing again, who is the one getting "all worked up".
Most of us are just trying to solve a problem. You are the one claiming (with not a shred of proof) that there is no problem, and instead look at the starving people. They are not starving because of efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
Prove your statement about "inconvenient deceptions".
Nice try at laying on the guilt about the beef.Did you know Gore is being criticised for eating beef...by PETA...
Who said anything about a guilt trip over beef? Do you deny that it takes 12 times as much resources to grow food to feed the cows than to use that food to feed people?
Why are we feeding animals when there are starving children you claim to care so much about?
All this anger and trying to impose lifestyles on others must make them dizzy...
I think you are the angry one. Just because everyone else is trying to do some good.
Who is trying to impose lifestyles? You are.
"...It is despicable to use a crisis like this to further your own petty political goals,..."
Is that Gore you refer to anon?He has invented the crisis.
Can you not come up with something better than quoting me and then saying it refers to the opposite side?
Prove that Gore (or anyone else) "invented" the crisis. Too bad he's not running for US President, eh? Kind of ruins your "political goals" narrative.
i have to wonder at bluetech's comments. rather than address the very reasonable observations posted by myself and others, he chooses to resort to childish name calling.
it's also funny to hear bluetech dismiss the anonymous commentary. it's not as though he/she or you are any more real to your readers than the anonymous offerings.
in fact, the only person in your entire comments thread that lists a real name is me.
i have no problem with those who choose to remain anonymous but it's crap when those with nicknames call out those without.
Biofuels are political??? Who made global warming a political issue, it sure wasn't the politicians.
No, it was the fright wingers and the oil companies that made it a political issue. Do you consider the World Trade Organization a "political issue"? Treaties were made to reduce emissions, but the oil companies were concerned for their profits. Instead of simply trying to deal with how to reduce emissions without undue hardship, we get massive campaigns that all just shriek "it's not happening", "it's lies".
Now that they do something about biofuels, it's not enough, or the right technology, or it will work except the politicians made a mistake with corn, they should use hemp, blah, blah.
Exactly my point. They do the wrong things, then demand everyone shut up because they did "something". Your "blah, blah" captures their attitude exactly. They think they can just throw a sop and shut everyone up.
The problem is that environmentalists tell us the discussion is over, global warming is real,
That is true. The research continues though, since the facts could always be wrong. Something your people never ever admit. You never admit it could be true.
and it we don't do something RIGHT NOW, your grandchildren will starve....how about the staring children now?
What about them? The World Food Plan distributes food to 70 million people worldwide. They are requesting more money to pay for this food since prices have gone up. What are you doing about it? Canada is expected to put more money in.
Nope, they are too busy protesting the seal hunt, or giving out juvenile awards at conferences they do nothing but disrupt.
You seem to have bundled everything you hate into one convenient package. It blinds you to seeing anything beyond your talking points.
Yes, they banned DDT, which could save millions of children, RIGHT NOW.
No, it wouldn't. That is a lie.
No proof Jeff, well I can provide proof that children are starving to death today! Which should I believe? Some guys spouting doom and gloom 50 years from now, or the starving children TODAY?
What, exactly, are you doing about the starving children? Why are we fighting in Afghanistan, instead of feeding the starving children? Why are we doing any kind of economic activity, instead of feeding the starving children. Do you see how silly your argument is? "we shouldn't do anything about climate change while there are starving children". It is just as silly as claiming anyone who wants to reduce emissions believes "we should stop all economic activity to reduce emissions"
My reasons are that I can think for myself, I don't just believe the garbage being spouted by scientists. Computer models? HA.
Sneer away, then use just about any piece of technology which was made using designs that required models.
Very telling that you frame it is a "belief". Do you consider it a "belief" that when you step outside, gravity will continue to hold you near the ground?
Beef, is an example of why ALL food prices will rise. How about Ont/Que farmers send their excess supply to World Vision instead of dumping it. Can't do that, supply management keeps the prices high for those producers.
They dump it? Really?
There is enough food for everyone. The problem is distribution.
Anon's don't bother me, as long as they come here and argue the issue presented, like Anon 6:39 just did.
No personal attack, no swearing, just a well reasoned out response. Granted Anon disagrees with my stance, but I encourage those types of responses because they start an honest debate.
We all want to help, some of us just have different ways of doing it. Some protest, some lobby governments, some donate to charities, some actually go to countries to help.
I have nothing against developing new technologies for new cleaner power sources, that is not my problem with this whole global warming scheme.
My problem is that we are told how to think, by Gore and Suzuki, and they are some of the biggest phonies. They use their status to scare people while they are raking in the money. They do more to harm the environmental movement, than one little "denier" like me will ever do.
"..Prove your statement about "inconvenient deceptions".
anon@6:17
smalldeadanimals.com today has an iteresting discussion.
Those dramtically melting ice caps have an interesting origin...Hollywood.
bluetech
comment at sda:
"The woman responsible for CGG (computer generated graphics) for 'The Day After Tomorrow admited that Gore's piece was from the movie.
She was fine with it, because it 'illustrated the problem'. Apparentely, as with all things left, the end justified the means"
jeff@ 3:53
"spouting high school economics doesn't come close to approaching reality."
How about using computer graphics...does that 'approach relity' for you jeff?
bluetech
Anon@639 PM:
"Sneer away, then use just about any piece of technology which was made using designs that required models.
Very telling that you frame it is a "belief". Do you consider it a "belief" that when you step outside, gravity will continue to hold you near the ground?"
Apples and porcupines, anon. Computer forecast models for climate use finite difference schemes to approximate differentials inherent in the equations; they use finite summations to approximate integrals; and they use paramterizations (also known as "fudge factors") to approximate/estimate processes that are a) unresolvable and b) largely not understood.
The atmosphere and climate are nonlinear systems, and attempting to forecast their future states using imperfect model output, when it has been shown that model output gets worse and worse as integration time increases, is not science. It's science fiction.
As well, and this is a small (but important) point: check out surfacestations.org. The GIGO principle applies.
Don't get me wrong, I think we should reduce our dependence on nonrenewable resources, but doing so because of so-called "settled science" (an oxymoron, by the way) is the wrong way to go about it.
Post a Comment