It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food is demanding an international five-year ban on producing biofuels to combat soaring food prices.
Switzerland's Jean Ziegler said the conversion of arable land for plants used for green fuel had led to an explosion of agricultural prices which was punishing poor countries forced to import their food at a greater cost.
"232kg of corn is needed to make 50 litres of bioethanol," Ziegler said on Thursday. "A child could live a year on that
Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by MBF
I consider this opinion shortsighted, at best. What happens as we continue to deplete oil supplies and increase our reliance on biofuels? Also, the UN obviously isn't talking about boxes of cornflakes in developed countries at this point. Most assuredly, the short term effect will be felt first in developing countries that are having difficulty feeding their exploding populations already. Maybe that doesn't concern you.
I agree that biofuel from waste products is a viable stop-gap measure, but I doubt it will replace our dependence on fossil fuels anytime soon. One of the related links I posted looks at wood chips, though I don't think they produce ethanol.
Hemp is a viable option as well, probably one of the best, but I don't think we will find an oil and opiate controlled world turning to hemp anytime soon either, unless some major changes are made at the very top.
Rapporteur (derived from French) is used in international and European legal and political contexts to refer to a person appointed by a deliberative body to investigate an issue or a situation, and report back to that body.
New research by a University of California petroleum engineering professor suggests that worldwide crude oil supplies will start to run so low over the next nine years that resource-blessed countries like Saudi Arabia will begin to hoard them for domestic use instead of exporting -- and states with large reservoirs of natural gas, like Montana, will seek ways to avoid sharing with less-advantaged neighbors like Oregon.
Attempts to forestall the political and economic damage by turning aggressively to agriculture for "renewable" transportation fuel in the form of ethanol will prove futile, according to professor Tad W. Patzek, as new calculations show that the entire surface of the Earth cannot create enough additional biomass to replace more than 10% of current fossil fuel use.
Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by MBF
I consider this opinion shortsighted, at best. What happens as we continue to deplete oil supplies and increase our reliance on biofuels? Also, the UN obviously isn't talking about boxes of cornflakes in developed countries at this point. Most assuredly, the short term effect will be felt first in developing countries that are having difficulty feeding their exploding populations already. Maybe that doesn't concern you.
I agree that biofuel from waste products is a viable stop-gap measure, but I doubt it will replace our dependence on fossil fuels anytime soon. One of the related links I posted looks at wood chips, though I don't think they produce ethanol.
Hemp is a viable option as well, probably one of the best, but I don't think we will find an oil and opiate controlled world turning to hemp anytime soon either, unless some major changes are made at the very top.
Originally posted by Icarus Rising
It is only going to get worse, imo, unless we find an alternative to alternative fuels like ethanol.
Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Well, if they'd quit using food crops for biofuel and let people use hemp, this wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Originally posted by uberarcanist
Let the market decide what balance of biofuels and food grains we should have.
Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by America Jones
Non sequitor! How can my plea that biofuels be subjected to the free market be interpreted as meaning that I believe America, at present, is an example of perfect free market economics?