“The judge identified nine aspects of An Inconvenient Truth, nine core errors, where Al Gore either misstated the IPCC or prejudicially exaggerated what they found.” John Day is the lawyer for a British parent who sued the British Department
of Education when they tried to distribute An Inconvenient Truth to schools.
Europe driving developing countries to hunger
Written by Kristin McMurray   
Friday, 02 April 2010 11:42
BiofuelDuring the debate with Sarah Silverman this past Tuesday, she asked the rational question of "What's wrong with playing it safe and assuming that climate change is happening?"

Phelim explained the banning of DDT and the millions of resulting deaths in Africa and other developing nations.  Now, we have another example of how green advocacy ends up hurting the most poverty stricken in the world.

A recently released report from ActionAid says that up to 100 million more people could go hungry if Europe continues to increase their use of biofuels. 

Even with this recently released information, it is likely that Europe will continue to purchase biofules for years to come.  Why?  Climate legislation requires that 10 percent of all feuls come from renewable sources. 

As a result by 2020 biofuel consumption in the EU will jump nearly four-fold with ActionAid predicting that two thirds will be imported, mainly from third-wolrd countries.  The organization also estimates that for every one percent rise in the price of food, 16 million more poor people become hungry.

This is the danger of playing it safe or passing feel good legislation.  If this had just been passed by the free market it would have been easily corrected, but instead those in developing countries will suffer for environmentalists good intentions.

Share this page on your favorite Social Websites...

Comments (2)add comment
Think about it!, Low-rated comment [Show]

Argus said:

Well, I'm not even a bit sure global warming is happening. Some scientists who have talking talking this happen to be least serious in their reports. Just consider the story about Himalayan glaciers that were said to disappear "by 2035 and perhaps sooner". Georg Kaser from University of Innsbruck commented on this claim: "It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing". However, warming alarmist passed it on paying no attention to serious objections from those academics who warned it was widely inaccurate. They even found some speculative arguments to support the initial claim. Now it seems that there was a simple misreading from an earlier report that estimated glaciers would disappear by 2350 - a difference of more than 300 years... You may read this - 'Climategate' panel set to report (published yesterday): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci...618441.stm and other associated articles ("UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers"; " India criticises UN warning on Himalayan glacier melt")
And what astonishes me most - it is the argument like this: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report". smilies/shocked.gif
Then it should be explained how an average temperature for the whole planet is calculated. Frankly, I don’t know how it is calculated for the country I live in. Last winter was quite cold for us, with no thaws. But the most peculiar feature in my countryside is that the local temperature may normally differ by more than 10 degrees from that in the capital city where almost half of the country’s population live – although it is less than 200 km far way. People who live close to the sea coast have quite different feeling about the weather. Sometimes they have no snow while we enjoy a good white winter time. And many of them are unaware of such fact. In winter, the thermometers outside our house always show a lower temperature than that given to us by the weather forecast service.
BTW, if it’s warming, then why is it not now being called by this very name – “warming”? Why to use “climate change”?
April 14, 2010
Votes: +4

Write comment