Killing 20+ MIllion people per year

[ocean515]

That's my biggest problem with liberals.

They have these noble ideals, that I would love to see become reality. They problem is, the side effects from implementing measures to get there.

They only see what they have their tunnel vision agenda set to. They ignore the side effects.

It is my experience making decisions based on emotion, not reason, never has the desired result. Emotion can trigger noble efforts, but reason must dominate the execution of them.

The inability to control the influence of emotion is a real problem, and places roadblocks on the road to addressing issue that could otherwise be resolved.

 

[LowDown]

Tim the Plumber is claiming 20 million people die per year because of biofuels.

However, this is impossible because there simply aren't that many nutrition-related deaths per year. Even if you attribute every single malnourishment-related death solely to biofuels (which would obviously be ludicrous), you can't come up with 20 million per year. Not even close.

And every time I point this out, Tim the Plumber claims I am personally complicit in 20 million deaths per year.

The best part is that I'm opposed to biofuel subsidies, ethanol in particular. So, my opposition to biofuels makes me personally complicit in an imaginary number of deaths attributable to biofuels. Some people just can't be helped.

You appear to be correct about the number of people who starve to death. What I found from the World Food Programme:

• Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth.
• Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year.
• One out of six children -- roughly 100 million -- in developing countries is underweight.
• One in four of the world's children are stunted. In developing countries the proportion can rise to one in three.

Other sources I checked seemed to support this. While malnutrition is common actual death by starvation is uncommon, and much of the time it affects children.

Much of the famine in the developing world is due to poor governance rather than a lack of affordable food. Just $3 billion in aid to these countries would solve this problem if the leaders were not so inclined to divert said aid into Swiss bank accounts, and so on. And then you have people starving in Venezuela just because of Maduro's stupid-assed latin-socialist pride, his refusal to accept foreign aid.

Nevertheless, it seems likely that the cost of basic food grains has a lot to do with people not getting enough to eat.

Most likely Tim the Plumber's point still stands even if his number is off. The fact that 1 in 9 people in the world are malnourished is pretty huge.

I should point out that as grim as the "1 people in 9 are malnourished" might be, it is a big improvement over the situation in the world only 47 years ago, when over a billion were malnourished, and the world's population was 3.7 billion.

 

[Deuce]

That's my biggest problem with liberals.

They have these noble ideals, that I would love to see become reality. They problem is, the side effects from implementing measures to get there.

They only see what they have their tunnel vision agenda set to. They ignore the side effects.

You've just been shown a bunch of environmentalist groups against biofuels. I've pointed out I'm against biofuels.

Whose ****ing agenda are you talking about?

 

[Mithrae]

Most likely Tim the Plumber's point still stands even if his number is off.

Most amazingly, in one thread on one of the many times I and others have asked Tim to substantiate his far-fetched claims, he resorted to asking other posters to do it for him and supply (words to the effect of) 'that paper I read about it from the forum once.' Jack Hays obliged with an on topic WUWT link, to a report from a conservative think tank declaring that biofuels are causing more deaths than climate change, estimating a figure at about 200,000 per year ("at least 192,000" was the phrase, if memory serves). That may or may not be correct, but at least it's plausible.

Tim of course completely ignored the information he'd begged for, and as we see has continued to claim a number over one hundred times larger.

Obviously, it's not just that "his number is off." Imagine someone declaring that the Fukushima disaster had killed hundreds of thousands of people, and therefore atheists are complicit in those deaths and government should become a legal arbiter of what can and cannot be theorized or disseminated as physics, and you'll pretty much have a precise comparison for what Tim has done on this topic: Making wildly, ridiculously absurd claims about death rates, asserting complicity in those deaths for groups and individuals whose connection to the 'cause' of them is tenuous or non-existent, and then trying to turn it into an attack on a related field of science itself.

 

[Threegoofs]

The topic of this thread is quite concerning.

I think it demonstrates a serious, significant problem in the world today.

How in the world do elected officials function efficiently if they have to listen to the petitions of every nutter in their constituency that makes up false numbers and fake issues? There's only so much time in a day!

Discuss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LowDown]

Most amazingly, in one thread on one of the many times I and others have asked Tim to substantiate his far-fetched claims, he resorted to asking other posters to do it for him and supply (words to the effect of) 'that paper I read about it from the forum once.' Jack Hays obliged with an on topic WUWT link, to a report from a conservative think tank declaring that biofuels are causing more deaths than climate change, estimating a figure at about 200,000 per year ("at least 192,000" was the phrase, if memory serves). That may or may not be correct, but at least it's plausible.

Tim of course completely ignored the information he'd begged for, and as we see has continued to claim a number over one hundred times larger.

Obviously, it's not just that "his number is off." Imagine someone declaring that the Fukushima disaster had killed hundreds of thousands of people, and therefore atheists are complicit in those deaths and government should become a legal arbiter of what can and cannot be theorized or disseminated as physics, and you'll pretty much have a precise comparison for what Tim has done on this topic: Making wildly, ridiculously absurd claims about death rates, asserting complicity in those deaths for groups and individuals whose connection to the 'cause' of them is tenuous or non-existent, and then trying to turn it into an attack on a related field of science itself.

We can agree that Tim's argument is over the top without ignoring the fact that 900 million people are malnourished. If it is true that using corn for fuel ethanol is pushing up the price of corn and putting it out of reach of poor people in developing countries then it's a problem.

The fact that corn for ethanol is an especially inefficient process that actually ends up putting more carbon dioxide into the air than normal fuels and that this program is maintained just to put coin into the pockets of well connected corporations makes it especially immoral.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You've just been shown a bunch of environmentalist groups against biofuels. I've pointed out I'm against biofuels.

Whose ****ing agenda are you talking about?

So why are liberals in general, still punching it?

Why aren't they, in general, asking to stop the subsidies?

Cherry picking one or more environmentalist groups... Out of how many?

Any real environmentalist group worth listening to would have been against what biofuel production has become from the start. There are very few places where it is practical.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The fact that corn for ethanol is an especially inefficient process that actually ends up putting more carbon dioxide into the air than normal fuels and that this program is maintained just to put coin into the pockets of well connected corporations makes it especially immoral.

I didn't read the article, maybe I should. At face value, I don't believe they generate more greenhouse gasses, but then they might. My dislike is the costs associated with bringing ethanol to market.

Supply and demand price increases on grains.

Extra water usage for growing that if not now, will be a future problem as populations increase.

Subsidies paid to keep the fuels in reach of consumers.

And I'm sure there are more.

 

[ecofarm]

Biofuel should be derived primarily, perhaps exclusively, from waste. In some places it is so.

 

[LowDown]

I didn't read the article, maybe I should. At face value, I don't believe they generate more greenhouse gasses, but then they might. My dislike is the costs associated with bringing ethanol to market.

Supply and demand price increases on grains.

Extra water usage for growing that if not now, will be a future problem as populations increase.

Subsidies paid to keep the fuels in reach of consumers.

And I'm sure there are more.

The plants that produce fuel ethanol are fueled by natural gas. That and the emissions of corn cultivation and land use issues produce the excess carbon dioxide.

It's kind of amazing how much has been written about this. Scientific publications have emerged that take positions that are polar opposites with some claiming that ethanol use reduces CO2 emissions and others claiming it doesn't. The article I linked takes a fairly balanced approach to evaluating these claims.

Ethanol policy is a masterpiece of crony capitalism. If for no other reason it should be dismantled for that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Biofuel should be derived primarily, perhaps exclusively, from waste. In some places it is so.

There is a limited amount of energy generated from some sewage waste. The covered man-made ponds are covered, and the natural gasses generate power to run the complex, as the waste goes through the biological break down.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The plants that produce fuel ethanol are fueled by natural gas. That and the emissions of corn cultivation and land use issues produce the excess carbon dioxide.

It's kind of amazing how much has been written about this. Scientific publications have emerged that take positions that are polar opposites with some claiming that ethanol use reduces CO2 emissions and others claiming it doesn't. The article I linked takes a fairly balanced approach to evaluating these claims.

Ethanol policy is a masterpiece of crony capitalism. If for no other reason it should be dismantled for that.

Probably true. Just an areas I have not bothered learning.

 

[ecofarm]

There is a limited amount of energy generated from some sewage waste. The covered man-made ponds are covered, and the natural gasses generate power to run the complex, as the waste goes through the biological break down.

Restaurant, and even household, food waste is also a source. For example, in Sweden household food waste is a separate recycling bin.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Restaurant, and even household, food waste is also a source. For example, in Sweden household food waste is a separate recycling bin.

They tried doing that here in Portland. I think it's still going on in some places, but the stench... It doesn't get picked up timely enough!

Biofuels from waste oil are of a limited supply. Programs like this are good, but can only service so many customers.

 

[ecofarm]

They tried doing that here in Portland. I think it's still going on in some places, but the stench... It doesn't get picked up timely enough!

Biofuels from waste oil are of a limited supply. Programs like this are good, but can only service so many customers.

These are still the places to start, in my opinion. Working on making these sources more convenient and efficient, in my opinion, is better than subsidizing farms that use a tremendous amount of energy and water in the first place, because there are no inherent costs (beyond convenience and transportation) in food waste use.

 

[Deuce]

We can agree that Tim's argument is over the top without ignoring the fact that 900 million people are malnourished. If it is true that using corn for fuel ethanol is pushing up the price of corn and putting it out of reach of poor people in developing countries then it's a problem.

The fact that corn for ethanol is an especially inefficient process that actually ends up putting more carbon dioxide into the air than normal fuels and that this program is maintained just to put coin into the pockets of well connected corporations makes it especially immoral.

It's impossible to discuss this topic while being accused of murdering hundreds of millions of people. Sorry.

 

[Deuce]

So why are liberals in general, still punching it?

Why aren't they, in general, asking to stop the subsidies?

Cherry picking one or more environmentalist groups... Out of how many?

Any real environmentalist group worth listening to would have been against what biofuel production has become from the start. There are very few places where it is practical.

You haven't shown me an environmentalist group supporting it. "Liberals in general?" I am not convinced this is the case.

 

[UtahBill]

We have researched algae-diesel fuels, ethanol, etc. since the Carter days. No success yet. But every 10-15 years or so some midwest farmers get congress to give them grants to build ethanol plants that have yet to generate more than a few gallons of useable fuel. Brazil does a good job, though. Better climate, more water, more arable land, great access to sugar cane crop wastes, etc. Not having a lot of access to oil helps to motivate them as well.

 

[Lord of Planar]

These are still the places to start, in my opinion. Working on making these sources more convenient and efficient, in my opinion, is better than subsidizing farms that use a tremendous amount of energy and water in the first place, because there are no inherent costs (beyond convenience and transportation) in food waste use.

I may be wrong, but seems to me using a garbage disposal, and putting the food waste there is the winner.

Sweden has a popularization density four times that of Oregon. I don't know about Portland vs. the cities in Sweden they do this in, but higher density makes picking up of such waste more economical.

I don't want to see farming subsidies at all. If the free market doesn't want it... too bad...

 

[Lord of Planar]

We have researched algae-diesel fuels, ethanol, etc. since the Carter days. No success yet. But every 10-15 years or so some midwest farmers get congress to give them grants to build ethanol plants that have yet to generate more than a few gallons of useable fuel. Brazil does a good job, though. Better climate, more water, more arable land, great access to sugar cane crop wastes, etc. Not having a lot of access to oil helps to motivate them as well.

Yep.

Like I said, only so many places are good for it.

 

[ecofarm]

I may be wrong, but seems to me using a garbage disposal, and putting the food waste there is the winner.

Sweden has a popularization density four times that of Oregon. I don't know about Portland vs. the cities in Sweden they do this in, but higher density makes picking up of such waste more economical.

I don't want to see farming subsidies at all. If the free market doesn't want it... too bad...

We could start with city centers, at least restaurants. Sending commercial food waste to landfills is not a viable alternative to collection and use as biofuel.

Yep.

Like I said, only so many places are good for it.

Most of those places are not being utilized for such.

 

[Mithrae]

We can agree that Tim's argument is over the top without ignoring the fact that 900 million people are malnourished. If it is true that using corn for fuel ethanol is pushing up the price of corn and putting it out of reach of poor people in developing countries then it's a problem.

The fact that corn for ethanol is an especially inefficient process that actually ends up putting more carbon dioxide into the air than normal fuels and that this program is maintained just to put coin into the pockets of well connected corporations makes it especially immoral.

For sure, and if Tim started a thread citing that conservative think tank paper Jack showed him and saying we should oppose commercial biofuel crops because of the estimated 200,000 deaths per year, I and probably the others he's slandered over the years would more or less be in full agreement.

But the fact that he has frequently resorted to personal slander and is still spreading blatant lies and ridiculous anti-scientific non sequiturs suggests a malicious intention behind his propaganda which should certainly be recognised and mocked - not 'liked' and further expanded on as folk like Ocean, Jmotivator and Lord of Planar have done.

 

[Mithrae]

So why are liberals in general, still punching it?

Why aren't they, in general, asking to stop the subsidies?

Why aren't conservatives, in general? :roll: The biggest beneficiaries of most if not all agricultural subsidies are the companies and individuals which own the most land. Handing over vast sums of money to the already-rich is not and never has been a 'liberal' agenda - least of all when it often comes at the expense of potential livelihoods of third world farmers. The primary (and perhaps only) popular justification of such practices is a nationalist 'America first' mentality horrified at the prospect of other countries out-competing one's own.

Farm Subsidies That Kill - The New York Times (2002)

The U.S., Europe and Japan spend $350 billion each year on agricultural subsidies (seven times as much as global aid to poor countries), and this money creates gluts that lower commodity prices and erode the living standard of the world's poorest people.

''These subsidies are crippling Africa's chance to export its way out of poverty,'' said James Wolfensohn, the World Bank president, in a speech last month.

Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Program, estimates that these farm subsidies cost poor countries about $50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports. By coincidence, that's about the same as the total of rich countries' aid to poor countries, so we take back with our left hand every cent we give with our right.

''It's holding down the prosperity of very poor people in Africa and elsewhere for very narrow, selfish interests of their own,'' Mr. Malloch Brown says of the rich world's agricultural policy.

It also seems a tad hypocritical of us to complain about governance in third-world countries when we allow tiny groups of farmers to hijack billion of dollars out of our taxes.

For example, the U.S. has only 25,000 cotton growers, but they are prosperous (with an average net worth of $800,000) and thus influential. So the U.S. spends $2 billion a year subsidizing them, and American production of cotton has almost doubled over the last 20 years -- even though the U.S. is an inefficient, high-cost producer. The result is a glut that costs African countries $250 million each year, according to a World Bank study published in February.​

Yet again, we see how telling it is when certain folk choose to fixate on biofuel crops, rather than the broader issues which have been known and widely discussed for decades.

 

[Lord of Planar]

For sure, and if Tim started a thread citing that conservative think tank paper Jack showed him and saying we should oppose commercial biofuel crops because of the estimated 200,000 deaths per year, I and probably the others he's slandered over the years would more or less be in full agreement.

But the fact that he has frequently resorted to personal slander and is still spreading blatant lies and ridiculous anti-scientific non sequiturs suggests a malicious intention behind his propaganda which should certainly be recognised and mocked - not 'liked' and further expanded on as folk like Ocean, Jmotivator and Lord of Planar have done.

I will agree that any claim those deaths would be reduced are silly. We cannot feed the world. However, we need to stop subsidizing fuel and energy and let the true costs come to market.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why aren't conservatives, in general? :roll: The biggest beneficiaries of most if not all agricultural subsidies are the companies and individuals which own the most land.

I agree. Like I said, I want to see all subsidies eliminated. Now maybe on occasion, someone can show me one that has merit, but I can't think of any at the moment.