Biofuels: Poison for the Poor?

[Plane]

it`s not that plant can`t be used for fuel.
it`s that fuel is required to
1.make fertizer
2.process plants to fuel
3. I think tending the fields itself cost something also
meaning it`s not really gas independence
but hey i just realize it`s also nature dependent.
meaning a really bad crop season can`t impact us even more greatly

p.s. I might be totally wrong.but using food crops for anything but food ,just doesn`t sound good.

All of these things have substitutes , but all of the substitutes have  higher cost than the present arrangements.

You are right the result will be higher costs , but as oil becomes more in demand or less avalible this won't be avoided.

[Richpo64]

>>The title of this article is "Poison for the Poor", and of course, neither ethanol nor biofuels are poisonous when used properly.<<

Are you serious? You could not possibly have read the article.

[Plane]

http://www.bant-shirts.com/petrolcide-t-shirt.htm

[Amianthus]

Are you serious? You could not possibly have read the article.

Probably too subtle for him.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Not subtle, just dumb.

Why should I have to give proof that Juniorbush has run up the deficit higher than anyone on record, which has been in every newspaper in the world, and this clown not have to state exactly how much the price of corn has risen since a supposed boost in the production of ethanol has occurred?

The way to deal with this is simply to end the subsidies for the production of ethanol. Accusing greens as 'poisoning the poor' is both useless and wrong.

There was no data on forests being trashed to plant oil palms, either.

And absolutely no suggestions as to how to deal with the rising price of petrofuels, either.

[Richpo64]

>>The way to deal with this is simply to end the subsidies for the production of ethanol. Accusing greens as 'poisoning the poor' is both useless and wrong.<<

Is that really what you get out of this article? The writer isn't claiming the poor are actually being poisoned, he's using the term as you would the term "poison pill." To simply it, he's saying that ethanol does more harm to the poor and the world than any good it may do.

I agree with him, at least at this point in time.

[Amianthus]

Why should I have to give proof that Juniorbush has run up the deficit higher than anyone on record, which has been in every newspaper in the world,

As I've said in the past, I usually only ask for a source when I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Debt as a percentage of GDP:

[Xavier_Onassis]

Bogus crap!

 The debt is calculated in dollars, not as a percentage of any GDP.

In dollars, or even in dollars adjusted for inflation, no one has come close to Juniorbush.

Surely you cannot compare the present minor conflict to WWII.

The US was not attacked by Iraq, but it was attacked by Japan, and the Iraq war was totally unnecessary.


By the way, observe that both Clinton and Carter REDUCED the debt, and the Republicans increased it.

President Gore would surely have been far better than Sockpuppet Juniorbush.

[Amianthus]

The debt is calculated in dollars, not as a percentage of any GDP.

The population and money basis have increased during that time period as well. Comparing to GDP takes that into account. So, since you're into using pure dollars for comparison, I guess you're happy with the budget increases that Bush presided over for social spending as well? After all, the total dollars went up (even though dollars per capita went down when adjusted for inflation).

By the way, observe that both Clinton and Carter REDUCED the debt, and the Republicans increased it.

I guess Ike, Nixon, and Ford weren't Republicans? And if you want to use pure dollars again, Clinton and Carter INCREASED the debt, since it was larger when they went out of office than when they went in. Carter went in owing $776b and left owing $1,137b, Clinton went in owing $4,643b and left owing $6,198b. Neither of those were reductions, unless you want to compare to the increase in GDP.