I'll snip most of this...
Couple of points: I've never heard anyone but you proposing that we
need to sequester the last 200 years of human carbon emissions.
<snip>
> >OTOH, I am sure, that there is currently a disturbing
> >trend, that needs to be delt with, be it short term or long term.
>
> Dealt with how?
>
While I am in favor of cutting back, I don't see that it's possible to cut
back to a total carbon neutral economy. Nor do I see to many ways of
doing it, that does not leave the lower income brackets ( that can least
afford the change ), and give most of the benefits to the rich. At this
point, I would be happy, to see a 0 ( zero ) net increase from one year to
the next - say no increase in 2006 levels, from 2005. Then work back, to
2004 and once 2004 levels have been reached, work back to 2003 levels and so
on. I believe jumping back 15 years in one jump would be economically
damaging on a national and world level - and would affect the rich the
least.
I also believe that everyone, not just developed nations, should cut back
( or just maintain levels for less developed nations). Indeed, the less
developed should have an easier time of increasing production without
increasing levels - perhaps a 'green house gas' credit should be given to
developed nations that help less developed nation to increase productivity
without increasing the levels.
Have you read the Kyoto Protocol?
<snip>
> Many. What point are you making Greg? Are you arguing against global
> warming now or the dreaded Welfare State? LOL!
I disagree with both.
So does that put them both in the same category? A bit of a random
coupling, isn't it? Anyway your dread of the so-called Welfare State
is something that's only to be found in the US within a US context,
it just doesn't make any sense anywhere else, as we've established
here quite a few times before. The US concept of a Welfare State
seems to be all in the mind, not something that exists. Thus we've
had people here screaming that the UK are just a bunch of - aaarghhh!
the S-word! - Socialists. LOL! But (please!) let's not argue about
it, just check the archives, eh? On the other hand, global warming,
though it's also subject to a peculiarly US-centric view, is a
planetary reality and not only an impending but a currently unfolding
disaster. The two just don't have anything in common.
<snip>
> >As it has happened though out history, there are always those people that
> >would sit back and let others do the work while they do nothing in
return,
> >and still expect to be fed.
>
> You mean the rich and greedy? No you don't. How does this relate to
> the end of fossil fuels equating to the end of the fight against
> world hunger?
>
Not just the wealthy, I'm including those that rely on the welfare system.
As far as I'm concerned. if you don't contribute something useful (even if
it is watching the kids of people that go to work ), you don't eat.
So? How does that relate to the end of fossil fuels equating to the
end of the fight against world hunger? It doesn't.
As for the end of fossil fuels, and how it relates to world hunger:
Currently almost every group that works against world hunger, relies on
cheep fossil fuel to distribute food. I believe that as the cost of
fuel goes up, then that is that much more food, that can be distributed for
a given amount of money. Subsequently there are two choices:
Use the same amount of funds to distribute less food ( less food - less
weight - lower fuel cost ).
Use more money to compensate for increased fuel cost.
I hope this cleared up things.
No it doesn't, not at all. Do you actually believe that the fight to
end world hunger depends on rich-country handouts? That's bizarre.
I'll tell you what - a large proportion of the hungry would not be
hungry anymore if the rich nations and their corporations AND their
so-called aid agencies just got out of their countries and left them
alone.
You don't know how this works, eh? These people are not hungry
because they're incapable or incompetent, they're hungry because
they've been marginalised, swept aside by the concerns of the rich
and powerful. Handouts (which are largely tied to the interests of
the donor nations, the main beeficiaries) should be reserved strictly
for emergencies, and then it has to be very judiciously done or it
can do more harm than good - for instance, by destroying the market
position of the surviving farmers, leaving that community totally
dependent.
I said this below earlier in this exchange, on this same question,
didn't you read it?
Do you really believe that the fight against world hunger depends on
the use of fossil-fuels? It's much easier to make the exact opposite
case. It's fossil-fuels that have underpinned the economic practices
that have led to the marginalisation of so many. Wherever you see
"wealth creation" it's usually a lot safer to read wealth extraction
and concentration, with poverty creation the result. Hence the
so-called Green Revolution, based on so-called HYVs, high-yielding
varieties (actually high-response varieties bred for their response
to fossil-fuel based chemical fertilizer inputs), and usually
mechanization, where grain production and the numbers of the hungry
increased hand in hand. There was always a minimum size of farm that
got assisted, with the small farms left out, though everywhere small
farms have been shown to be the more productive. So the rich got
richer, the poor were devastated, a typical case. Now, though
similar programs continue, a typical case of a different sort is
that millions upon millions of small farmers in poor countries and
3rd World countries are turning to sustainable methods which do not
rely on fossil fuel inputs. This is the kind of development that
really does put food in hungry people's mouths, as opposed to aid
(mostly tied to the donor country's interests) and programs such as
the "Green Revolution", few of which stand up beyond the national
data showing increased calories per capita, which mask the growing
poverty figures. It's the same everywhere, with so-called "free"
trade vs fair trade, for another instance. It's a quite different
story if you remove fossil-fuels from the picture. Too often
fossil-fuels means top-down, centralised, corporatist practices that
are inimical to local economies and the poor. Most of the so-called
benefits of fossil-fuel-based economics go to "the few who have far
too much" - it's just waste, and the costs are horrendous, whether
in human terms or environmental.
Have you read this?
http://journeytoforever.org/community.html
Community development
http://journeytoforever.org/community2.html
Community development - poverty and hunger
Do you think the surplus food production of rich countries like the
US is what stops these hungry millions from starving? It seems you
do. The fact is that the surpluses and their production actually
contribute to world hunger. Please read this:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html#grainexports
Biofuels - Food or Fuel? > US grain exports
Read the whole page. US corn is used for feeding animals, not hungry
people - 76% of the corn used in the US is used for animal feed.
Twenty percent of the total US corn crop is exported; two-thirds of
these exports go directly to the wealthy industrial OECD countries,
mostly to feed animals. Less than three-tenths of one percent of
total US corn exports went to the 25 poorest countries in 1996. More
US corn goes to make alcoholic beverages in the US than is exported
to feed the hungry in the world's 25 most undernourished countries
combined.
You have to do some studying Greg, you've got this all wrong. JtF is
a good place to start. It's not just about biofuels, you know. Not
even mainly about biofuels.
Best wishes
Keith
Greg H.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
