and I believe it's because he doesn't know any better.
In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, lisa pallez <lisapallez@...> wrote:
>
> I wish he'd mentioned industrial hemp, but, . . . Time also had a
great article (to use as a starting point) about "The Clean Energy
Scam" . . .
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
>
>
> http://www.naturalnews.com/023091.html
>
>
> The Biofuels Scam, Food Shortages and the Coming Collapse of the
Human Populationby Mike Adams
>
> (NaturalNews) It was one of the dumbest "green" ideas ever
proposed: Convert millions of acres of cropland into fields for
growing ethanol from corn, then burn fossil fuels to harvest the
ethanol, expending more energy to extract the fuel than you get from
the fuel itself! Meanwhile, sit back and proclaim you've achieved a
monumental green victory (President Bush, anyone?) all while
unleashing a dangerous spike in global food prices that's causing a
ripple effect of food shortages and rationing around the world.
>
> I think politicians need to spend less time bragging about their
latest greenwashing schemes and more time studying The Law of
Unintended Consequences. Because while growing fuel on cropland
initially sounds like a great idea, any honest assessment of the
total impact leads you to the inescapable conclusion that biofuels
are largely a government-sponsored scam. With a few exceptions (see
below), biofuels produce no net increase in energy output, and they
cause food shortages while creating strong economic incentives for
the destruction of the very rainforests we desperately need to
stabilize the climate!
>
> And now we're just starting to see the early signs of the economic
and social insanity that has been unleashed by this foolish pursuit
of biofuels around the world: Food rationing in Sam's Club stores in
the U.S., rapidly-rising prices on bread, rice and corn, and price
spikes at cafeterias and restaurants that depend on these staple
ingredients. The price of rice has tripled globally, unleashing riots
in Haiti and Bangladesh, and the United Nations has issued warnings
that millions of people around the world now face starvation because
they can't afford to buy food. Americans are even starting to hoard
food once again, after years of avoiding basic preparedness measures.
(One benefit to all this, however, is that farmers are actually
getting paid decent prices for their crops now, after years of
operating on the verge of bankruptcy...)
>
> Most biofuel efforts are a shamNot all of these price spikes are
due to the conversion of croplands to biofuel fields, but much of it
is. As a result, it's suddenly becoming obvious to nearly everyone
that the pursuit of biofuels, as currently structured, is a grand
greenwashing hoax. It doesn't produce more fuel than it consumes, and
it drives up food prices to boot!
>
> Now, there are biofuels programs that really do work. The growing
and harvesting of sugar cane in Brazil, for example, provides an 8-to-
1 return on energy investment. But even that pursuit is tarnished by
claims of unsafe work environments and massive environmental
pollution (the sugar cane fields are burned before being harvested, a
process that releases massive amounts of CO2 into the environment).
>
> The only truly promising biofuels technology available today is
based on microalgae. Feed CO2 to a vat of algae, and you can produce
biofuels cheaply and responsibly, without destroying the environment.
But these programs are only in experimental phases. Nobody is
producing biofuels on a large scale from algae farms (not yet,
anyway).
>
> And that leaves the great American breadbasket: The corn and wheat
fields. It is here that food is now being displaced by crops grown
for biofuel processing. So where a farmer used to grow corn as a food
source, he's now growing it to sell to a biofuel processing facility
which turns the corn into ethanol. Obviously, the laws of economics
come into play here, meaning that every bushel of corn used for
biofuels production means one less bushel of corn available for food.
Factor in the laws of supply and demand, and you can see that the
more crops we use for biofuels, the higher the prices will rise for
food.
>
> Politicians, it seems, have no understanding of economics. They
need to study the basics as they are presented in Henry Hazlitt's
Book, Economics in One Lesson, which is a Libertarian-oriented guide
that explains basic economics to anyone willing to learn. Economics
is focused on the study of human behavior, or more precisely,
consumer choice. Now, it seems, consumers are about to be faced with
a choice they never wanted to have to make: Should I buy fuel, or
food?
>
> In other words: Do I want to drive my car, or do I want to eat?
>
> You can have fuel or food, but not bothUnder a biofuels-focused
agricultural policy, the same limited resources (soil, sunlight and
water, essentially) can be used for only one thing at a time. You
can't use the corn twice, obviously (you can't eat the corn and
process it for biofuels at the same time), so you've got to make a
choice: Will you grow the corn for fuel, or for food?
>
> The more you grow for fuel, of course, the less food you have, and
that drives up food prices. But if you swing back the other way and
grow more corn for food to ease food prices, the fuel prices go up.
Trying to solve both problems at once is a bit like trying to pick up
a wet watermelon seed with your fingers: It keeps slipping to the
side.
>
> One thing that has become abundantly clear in all this is that the
era of cheap food and cheap fuel is over. I've written about this on
NaturalNews, where I use the term "food bubble" to describe the most
recent era of cheap food. As it turns out, cheap food is only made
possible by cheap oil, and with oil now approaching $120 a barrel (a
price that virtually no one thought possible just two years ago),
food prices are simultaneously skyrocketing. (Modern farming
practices use a lot of fossil fuel. So does transporting food across
the country or around the world. Eat local, folks!)
>
> Add to this the fact that global climate change is already
underway, altering weather patterns and creating floods, droughts and
other agricultural calamities, and you start to get the picture of
just how bad things might get. That's not even to mention the very
serious problem of collapsing honeybee populations due to a
mysterious condition called colony collapse disorder that's
devastating honeybee populations across North America right this
minute. Honeybees, in case you didn't know, pollinate plants that
represent about 30% of all the calories consumed by Americans. That's
about one out of every three bites of your dinner, and it all depends
on the "free" work performed by honeybees -- bees who are apparently
going on strike by refusing to keep working for us.
>
> Prepare for mass global starvationSo, to repeat, the food bubble is
now starting to implode. What does it all mean? It means that as
these economic and climate realities unfold, our world is facing
massive starvation and food shortages. The first place this will be
felt is in poor developing nations. It is there that people live on
the edge of economic livelihood, where even a 20% rise in the price
of basic food staples can put desperately-needed calories out of
reach of tens of millions of families. If something is not done to
rescue these people from their plight, they will starve to death.
>
> Wealthy nations like America, Canada, the U.K., and others will be
able to absorb the price increases, so you won't see mass starvation
in North America any time soon (unless, of course, all the honeybees
die, in which case prepare to start chewing your shoelaces...), but
it will lead to significant increases in the cost of living, annoying
consumers and reducing the amount of money available for other
purchases (like vacations, cars, fuel, etc.). That, of course, will
put downward pressure on the national economy.
>
> But what we're seeing right now, folks, is just a small
foreshadowing of events to come in the next couple of decades. Think
about it: If these minor climate changes and foolish biofuels
policies are already unleashing alarming rises in food prices, just
imagine what we'll see when Peak Oil kicks in and global oil supplies
really start to dwindle. When gasoline is $10 a gallon in the U.S.,
how expensive will food be around the world? The answer, of course,
is that it will be triple or quadruple the current price. And that
means many more people will starve.
>
> Fossil fuels, of course, aren't the only limiting factor
threatening future food supplies on our planet: There's also fossil
water. That's water from underground aquifers that's being pumped up
to the surface to water crops, then it's lost to evaporation.
Countries like India and China are depending heavily on fossil water
to irrigate their crops, and not surprisingly, the water levels in
those aquifers is dropping steadily. In a few more years (as little
as five years in some cases), that water will simply run dry, and the
crops that were once irrigated to feed a nation will dry up and turn
to dust. Mass starvation will only take a few months to kick in.
Think North Korea after a season of floods. Perhaps 95% of humanity
is just one crop season away from mass starvation.
>
> The carrying capacity of planet Earth has reached its apexThe truth
about all this, folks, is that the resources on our planet can only
support a limited population, and I think we've over-populated the
planet to a point where we're wiping out non-renewable resources at
an alarming rate. This means a population correction is due. When
there are too many people consuming too much food, using up too much
water and burning too much oil, you can get away with a rapid
expansion for a little while (a few decades, perhaps), but eventually
reality kicks in and there's a global population correction that
brings the population size back down to levels that can be sustained
on the planet.
>
> It's not a pretty picture. We're talking about the loss of a
billion human lives, perhaps more. This is what's coming. It's as
predictable as the laws of gravity. When you over-populate a planet
and use up all the resources, the population eventually finds itself
in a resource panic, and mass death ensues. You can observe the same
thing with colonies of bacteria on a nutrient-rich petri dish: They
will expand at an accelerating rate, multiplying their numbers until
there's no more food left in the petri dish, and then they will
experience a massive die-off. You might say that human beings are
smarter than bacteria, and that's true, but as current events are
clearly demonstrating, they're not much wiser! They still doom
themselves to the same stupid fate by refusing to look at the long-
term implications of their actions.
>
> Humans are really good at making babies and eating food, but
they're terrible at thinking even ten years ahead about the
implications of their present-day decisions. That's why the global
population control masterminds call people "feeders and breeders," by
the way. Those are the two things human beings do extremely well:
Fornicate and clean their plate. (Not necessarily in that order,
though...)
>
> The economies of our world have, sadly, been based on economic
models that strongly encourage this kind of consumption and growth.
We live in a "throwaway economy," where people are encouraged to
consume and expend as much as possible. No corporation makes money
teaching people how to use less. And so we've pushed for aggressive
expansion since about the 1950's: Build more, eat more, consume more.
We've turned farm lands into housing tracts, and rainforests into
biofuel fields. We've over-fished the oceans, over-farmed the soils
and over-extended ourselves to the point where a population
correction is inevitable. We, the human race, have painted ourselves
into a desperate corner, and the simple fact of the matter is that
unless we quickly discover some new energy technology that provides
the world with cheap, plentiful energy, we are headed straight
towards a global population implosion that will leave a billion or
more people dead.
>
> And biofuels, of course, are no answer for this problem. You cannot
grow enough corn to solve the problems of an expansionist,
imperialistic race of beings (that's us humans) who have taken over
the planet like a cancer tumor, wiped out countless species,
destroyed huge swaths of natural rainforests, poisoned the oceans and
rivers, polluted the skies and, at every opportunity, betrayed the
very Earth that has given us a home in the first place. Humans can
betray Mother Nature for a while, but in the end, we will pay a dear
price for our own arrogance, greed and lack of vision. The human race
is being sent back to kindergarten, where it needs to learn some
basic lessons about living in harmony with the planet. Lessons like:
Don't use up all the resources in a few generations. Don't think
you're smarter than nature. And never forget how much Mother Nature
does for us all for free! (Like pollinating the crops, producing
oxygen, cleaning the air, water, etc. Read the book
> Mycelium Running to learn more...)
>
> In time, we will either learn these lessons, or we will perish.
It's really as simple as that. And all these suddenly-popular "save
the planet" efforts we've seen by corporations recently are just a
joke. We can't save the planet. The planet will be fine after we're
gone, folks. What we're trying to save here is human civilization.
The very idea that we think we can "save the planet" is arrogant all
by itself. All we can do is respect the planet and find ways to live
with it as polite guests living on a generous host.
>
> Whether humans survive the next hundred years or not, planet Earth
certainly will. And frankly, the planet will do much better without
us. With humans gone, the Earth would quickly be restored to a
vibrant, pristine state, full of life and abundance. The Earth
doesn't need us, folks. But we, of course, certainly need the Earth.
The real question is this: Can we learn to play nice and treat the
Earth with respect? If not, we won't be around much longer to worry
about it.
>
> Nature needs to be granted legal standingOne final thought: I am an
advocate of the idea that Mother Nature needs to be granted legal
standing. I believe that humans do not automatically "own" nature,
and that we cannot simply cut down forests, bulldoze mountainsides,
fish the oceans, build dams and engage in other highly disruptive
activities without first getting permission and paying royalties to a
global Mother Nature Authority that stands up for the rights of the
planet. Nature is not ours to own or destroy. We, as the guests on
this planet, have no right to simply assume ownership over other
living systems on this planet and exploit them for our own financial
gain. The "destroy and consume" model of free market enterprise is
simply not sustainable, folks. It does not lead us to a happy future;
it leads to our own destruction.
>
> Or, put another way, over the last hundred years or so, mankind has
committed countless acts of violence against nature. It has pursued a
policy of committing atrocities against Mother Nature -- a kind of
genocide against anything non-human (animals, plants, fish, etc.).
Humans have proven themselves to be, by far, the most violent and
destructive life forms to ever exist on this planet. And yet paired
with that violence, humans are an infant species, with little or no
foresight, with virtually no ability to see the future implications
of their own actions. We are, in a sense, the dumbest intelligent
creatures ever to walk the face of this Earth.
>
> We can land a man on the moon, but we can't even prevent our own
rainforests from being clear-cut by soybean farmers and cattle
ranchers. We can develop high-tech medicines, but we can't even
openly recognize the more powerful medicines found in a simple
dandelion plant. We can create amazing computers and televisions and
internet technologies the beam information across the globe at the
speed of light, but we pollute those information pathways with
corporate ads for useless stuff and dangerous medicines that only
make our fellow humans beings less enlightened. We are capable of so
much, and yet we have accomplished so little. We are, by any honest
assessment, a race of little children, running around the planet with
far too much power and not nearly enough maturity. We're like a band
of infants with flamethrowers.
>
> Frankly, we don't deserve this planet, and Mother Nature is about
to take it away from us. It's time for us to either grow up, or
perish. And all these people who say "we have to protect the economy,
not the environment" should probably just be rounded up and shipped
off to Mars where they can play with the Martian dust all they want
until they finally get the picture.
>
> ###
>
> About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a
mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a
prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews,
reports and consumer guides, reaching millions of readers with
information that is saving lives and improving personal health around
the world. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no
money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or
the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker
of energy efficient LED lights that greatly reduce CO2 emissions. He
also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called
BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help support consumer
advocacy programs. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email
newsletter software company that develops software used to send
permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams is currently the
executive director of the Consumer Wellness
> Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and enjoys outdoor activities,
nature photography, Pilates and adult gymnastics. Known on the 'net
as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements
and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
Try it now.
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder