Global warming skeptic Dennis T. Avery from the Hudson Institute in DC also is the director for the Center for Global Food Issues. What an interesting convergence of roles, eh?
He’s got an pointed observation about the global warming alarmism, and the consequences that actually can be measured.
“A global food crisis looms, as crops are diverted to biofuels. Food prices have soared 83 percent in three years. Thousands of U.S. farmers are pulling their land out of the government’s biggest conservation program to plant millions of acres back to crops and pasture. U.S. environmentalists warn that ‘years of conservation progress’ will be lost as America’s 35-million-acre Conservation Reserve dwindles, especially in the important bird-nesting areas of the northern Great Plains. “
What’s that got to do with global warming alarmism, you might ask. Avery explains:
“All of this because of the rush to biofuels - the first, big, panicked mistake of the global warming scare. The public was sold on the now obviously foolish idea that it’s better to burn food in our fuel tanks than to feed people and raise livestock from the world’s scarce cropland.”
“Economists began predicting these awful consequences two years ago when President Bush first announced his federal biofuels mandate. We already needed to double crop yields by 2050 - to prevent the plow down of the world’s remaining wildlands while we supplied food and feed for the last global surge of world population growth, fast-rising affluence, and expanding pet numbers.”
“U.S. corn nets only about 50 gallons worth of gasoline per acre per year, and Americans burn more than 134 billion gallons of gasoline per year. We were already using virtually all of the country’s cropland to produce food and food. Biodiesel is no more productive. The massive land requirements of biofuels made this disaster inevitable - but few thought the disaster would arrive so fast.”
“Over the past two years, corn has soared from $1.86 per bushel to more than $6, and the U.S. spring planting intentions confirm there won’t be enough grain - for people or pigs - again this year. If we refuse to burn coal, drill for oil, or build nuclear power plants, this is what we must expect: hunger, deprivation, and destruction of the planet’s natural resources.”
“The earth’s global warming since 1940 totals only 0.2 degree C. We’ve had no warming at all for the past 10 years and temperatures dropped in 2007 - while CO2 in the atmosphere continued to rise. “
The Al Gores of alarmism will starve us before they cool us off. Count on it.
Actually, most people truly concerned about global warming have been advocating for less vehicle mileage period, or sustainable alternatives like electric powered. Biofuels were originally concieved as biodiesel from waste oil. Ethanol is a product of red-state agrobusiness interests and detroit manufacturers looking to greenwash themselves and their products. Nice try Orange Punch, but maybe you should be a little more discerning when you try and lump your disparate boogeymen together.
In fact if you remember it was your boy George who made the big America is addicted to oil speech hyping the unproven Swithgrass Biofuel to the country as a distraction from much more prosaic and achievable strategies such as raising vehicle mileage standards.
IF President Bush had unveiled his goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the beginning of his administration instead of in its waning months, he might have actually played a role in linking the United States to global efforts to curb climate change. But the proposals he made yesterday, which in 2001 could have been a starting point for negotiations with advocates of stronger action in Congress, are now too belated and too weak to be more than a historical footnote. All three remaining presidential candidates are committed to much more stringent, mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide.
The fact there are disparate boogey men doesn’t diminish the argument. As long as we’re lumping, “sustainable alternatives like electric powered” are equally foolish. Without massive subsidies (us paying for your indulgences) electric-powered cars are a pipe dream. In fact, generating the electricity to charge them simply shifts the greenhouse gas emissions to another source.
So, as nice tries go, nice try.
At your service in Christ . . .
Mark Landsbaum
“Without massive subsidies (us paying for your indulgences)” As a libertarian you should be familiar with economics. The concept of negative externalities should be familiar to you. So who is paying for who’s indulgences?
“In fact, generating the electricity to charge them simply shifts the greenhouse gas emissions to another source.”
And cleaning one source of emissions is much easier than cleaning many sources.
Logic stymies your limited idealogy…yet again.
Yours in knowledge.
Marco Anderson
It’s a curious argument that it’s OK to chase the source greenhouse emissions elsewhere so they can be chased from there elsewhere.
The fact is, there’s no place you will chase them that they disappear. Only one more place to subsidize. It’s the greenies’ own perpetual motion solution. The toothpaste never leaves the tube. It’s just pushed to another corner, then the process repeated again. It’s perfect for job security for those doing the pushers. And painful for those paying the bill.
At your service in Christ . . .
Mark Landsbaum