On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:38:12 +0100, "William Black"
 wrote:

>You can't stop a popular uprising with the cops.
>
>The cops rule with the agreement of the population.

Really most of the population never seemed to agree with anything I did, they
soon changed their minds when a uniform officer visibly armed to the teeth
arrived.

--  
Lansbury (Retired)
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
your energy consumption instead.

"The implication of the report is that crop-derived fuels have been
the ultimate cause of food riots, starvation and high prices around
the world

Seventeen pages of graphs, footnotes and economic modelling; oh, and
another couple of pages of bibliography. Hardly the stuff to get the
pulse racing, you might think.

But in the week since the Guardian exclusively revealed the contents
of the World Bank's draft internal report on the link between biofuels
and food prices, its findings have been reported in newspapers, blog
and broadcast media from Durban to Delhi.

What's caused all the fuss? Well, the World Bank report argues that
the drive for biofuels by American and European governments has pushed
up food prices by 75%. That is in stark contrast with the White
House's claims that using crops for fuel, rather than food, has only
pushed prices up by 2-3%.

All the other factors discussed - rising demand for food from China
and India, back-to-back droughts in Australia - are, the report says,
marginal:

    "Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks
would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other
factors would have been moderate."

The implication of this report, then, is that crop-derived fuels have
been the ultimate cause of food riots, starvation and high prices
around the world. And it is not an anti-biofuels campaigner who
arrived at that conclusion, but an internationally respected World
Bank economist with three decades' experience in tracking commodity
markets.

This is controversial stuff. It was certainly too controversial for
the World Bank to publish when the report was completed back in April.

One source told me the study had gone all the way up to Robert
Zoellick, the head of the World Bank, but was not published because
"it was too hot for the Bank to handle".

Prompted by the Guardian's report, the Bank may now push the report
out - although it may not be in quite this form. We'd rather you saw
the original, which is why
we're publishing it today, here: PDF of World Bank biofuels report."

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/07/10/Biofuels.PDF

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug  typed:
> There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
> low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
> your energy consumption instead.

Why do you suppose car drivers don't already reduce their energy 
consumption?

As has been pointed out, some of us have a net surplus of electricity and 
water and actually make money from selling that surplus.  There are some of 
us (for the terminally st00pid, that means you) for whom reduction in energy 
needs would be a good aim rather than squandering energy on starting new, 
mostly pointless, usenet threads devoted to cars.

-- 
Dogpoop
http://www.glass-uk.org/
"You would probably do better not to bother with renewable
energy"  Doug, UK.Transport 29/04/2008 08:53.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:ce5fa04e-2db2-48ae-95b6-1dee8b9045be@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
> low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
> your energy consumption instead.

What the fuck are you on about?

On 11 Jul, 07:15, "Dogpoop"  wrote:
> Doug  typed:
>
> > There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
> > low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
> > your energy consumption instead.
>
> Why do you suppose car drivers don't already reduce their energy
> consumption?
>
Because many of them still use oversized cars for making non-essential
journeys.
>
> As has been pointed out, some of us have a net surplus of electricity and
> water and actually make money from selling that surplus.  There are some of
> us (for the terminally st00pid, that means you) for whom reduction in energy
> needs would be a good aim rather than squandering energy on starting new,
> mostly pointless, usenet threads devoted to cars.
>
How can you possibly compare the massive energy use of cars at 10kWh/
litre to the tiny consumption of posting new threads? Its ridiculous!
Looking at my latest electricity bill my home consumption is
equivalent to 0.2 litre/day for everything, same as driving an average
car about 1.4 miles/day and my energy supplier currently owes me 97
quid because my energy use still continues to fall.

So how is your 'surplus energy' generated then? Let me guess, 'wannabe
clean and green, carbon neutral with a low carbon footprint?' Yeah
sure! Pull the other one and go plant another tree why don't you!

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:

> So how is your 'surplus energy' generated then? Let me guess, 'wannabe
> clean and green, carbon neutral with a low carbon footprint?' Yeah
> sure! Pull the other one and go plant another tree why don't you!

What would someone else have to do Doug, for you to say "Well done, good 
effort"?

In message , Graculus 
 writes
>"Doug"  wrote in message 
>news:ce5fa04e-2db2-48ae-95b6-1dee8b9045be@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
>> low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
>> your energy consumption instead.
>
>What the fuck are you on about?

Duhg hates modern capitalist society. His reasons are various, but the 
biggest one is because he isn't in charge.

He started out as a communist, as did many others of the era with his 
mindset. Orwell describes Duhg's sort well in The Road To Wigan Pier:

"We have reached a stage when the very word ‘Socialism’ calls up, on 
the one hand, a picture of aeroplanes, tractors, and huge glittering 
factories of glass and concrete; on the other, a picture of vegetarians 
with wilting beards, of Bolshevik commissars (half gangster, half 
gramophone), of earnest ladies in sandals, shock-headed Marxists chewing 
polysyllables, escaped Quakers, birth-control fanatics, and Labour Party 
backstairs-crawlers... One sometimes gets the impression that the mere 
words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with 
magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, 
sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in 
England... If only the sandals and the pistachio-coloured shirts could 
be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaller, and 
creeping Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises 
quietly!"

Duhg was a Stalinist, which at the time he saw as the route to having 
the power over people which he felt he richly deserved. He denies it 
vehemently now, of course, but then he lies about his own name so who 
can believe a word he says on anything? No doubt he was cheering loudly 
as the Soviet tanks crushed the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, 
brutally repressing many including the anarchists who he now claims to 
be among.

But the glorious people's communist revolution never happened in the 
free West, which Duhg blamed on 'decadent' capitalist society. So he 
supported any cause that weakened the West against the Soviet Union and 
became a CND supporter. Then when the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc 
collapsed, he needed a new cause to latch himself on to and found, like 
many other ex-Stalinists, the green movement.

Here he could mingle with fellow misanthropes and control freaks. It 
must have felt like a homecoming for him. At last he and his fellow 
ex-tankies had found a new means to impose by stealth the changes he 
wanted that he could never achieve through the ballot box. That is what 
Duhg's post you quoted (and all his others) are all about. We are 
talking about a complete failure of a human being who hates the rest of 
us for failing to recognise his great genius and wants his revenge by 
trying to wreck the society that keeps him fed, clothed, housed and 
entertained at our expense.


-- 
Ed Banger

See Duhg admit to being Doug Bollen:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/c7c992ee0d86b40b

Brimstone wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> 
>> So how is your 'surplus energy' generated then? Let me guess, 'wannabe
>> clean and green, carbon neutral with a low carbon footprint?' Yeah
>> sure! Pull the other one and go plant another tree why don't you!
> 
> What would someone else have to do Doug, for you to say "Well done, good 
> effort"? 
> 
> 

Don't hold your breath, it ain't going to happen.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:ce5fa04e-2db2-48ae-95b6-1dee8b9045be@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
> low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
> your energy consumption instead.

I suspect that if I owned a car that matched that description, I would 
probably want to get rid of it, but not for the same reasons as you. As I 
pointed out in an earlier thread, the current generation of biofuels has far 
more to do with political ambitions than any real science. However, there 
are viable alternatives under development that should be able to produce as 
much light oil as we are ever likely to need on otherwise completely 
unproductive land. They could be on line within a decade at most, long 
before we need to worry about any genuine oil shortages. Proven reserves in 
Venezuela alone would run the entire world for the next 44 years and Saudi 
Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE all have bigger reserves - 
four times larger in the case of Saudi Arabia.

....
> What's caused all the fuss? Well, the World Bank report argues that
> the drive for biofuels by American and European governments has pushed
> up food prices by 75%. ..

Which proves that you simply accept what journalists tell you, even though 
they are wrong. What the report actually says is that other causes produced 
a rise of 35%, while biofuels produced the remaining 75% of the 140% rise. 
75% of 140% is 105%. If you actually understood the reports you serve up, 
you would not have missed that, but it also follows that you don't 
understand reports that don't support your views, so you will never grasp 
how wrong you are in most things.

Colin Bignell

In message , nightjar 
<cpb@?.me.uk.invalid> writes
>
>"Doug"  wrote in message
>....
>> What's caused all the fuss? Well, the World Bank report argues that
>> the drive for biofuels by American and European governments has pushed
>> up food prices by 75%. ..
>
>Which proves that you simply accept what journalists tell you, even though
>they are wrong. What the report actually says is that other causes produced
>a rise of 35%, while biofuels produced the remaining 75% of the 140% rise.
>75% of 140% is 105%. If you actually understood the reports you serve up,
>you would not have missed that, but it also follows that you don't
>understand reports that don't support your views, so you will never grasp
>how wrong you are in most things.

In addition, I couldn't give a flying fig about food prices. It's only 
going to be a problem for those who bring kids into the world that they 
can't support and expect the rest of us to pick up the tab. Oh, and 
losers like Duhg.


-- 
Ed Banger

See Duhg admit to being Doug Bollen:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/c7c992ee0d86b40b

Ed Banger wrote:

> Duhg was a Stalinist, which at the time he saw as the route to having
> the power over people which he felt he richly deserved. He denies it
> vehemently now, of course, but then he lies about his own name so who
> can believe a word he says on anything?

We can believe it when Doug tells us he's a liar because it's supported by 
evidence. But I'd still check.

On 11 Jul, 09:07, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:

> Which proves that you simply accept what journalists tell you, even though
> they are wrong. What the report actually says is that other causes produced
> a rise of 35%, while biofuels produced the remaining 75% of the 140% rise.
> 75% of 140% is 105%. If you actually understood the reports you serve up,
> you would not have missed that, but it also follows that you don't
> understand reports that don't support your views, so you will never grasp
> how wrong you are in most things.
>
> Colin Bignell

"Doug" & mathematics...

Doug wrote:
> There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
> low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
> your energy consumption instead.
> 
> "The implication of the report is that crop-derived fuels have been
> the ultimate cause of food riots, starvation and high prices around
> the world

But the biofuel I use is produced from waste oil; the oil has already 
been used for the purpose it was grown for.

On 11 Jul, 06:52, Doug  wrote:
> There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
> low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
> your energy consumption instead.

Once again "Doug", you're behind the times. I think you'll find that
I, and several others who post to this board, are in favour of the
newer forms of Bio-fuel production which are made from waste and would
have no impact on food crops. But don't let scientific progress stand
in your way.

And just to make it clear to you, again:

Yes, I am in favour of bio-fuels, I am not terribly concerned about
the conversion of energy from one for to another as many people seem
to be and I am probably a much better person, taller, more handsome,
more popular, and certainly younger and stronger than you. All in all,
I am more of a winner than you. Compared to you Doug, I am fantastic.
Women fawn over me, men buy me drinks and people seek out my view
rather than me having to push them on others. I enjoy driving and I
enjoy visiting other countries, especially if it means flying. I like
travelling by train, I like cycling, and I like using the oil from the
ground to lubricate it's chain. I like using vast amounts of energy to
cook two or three times a day. I like using condoms to prevent me from
becoming a parent just yet, and they more than likely use lots of
petro-chemical in their production. I like taking pharmaceuticals when
I'm ill or in pain to help speed recovery. They also use petro-
chemicals in their production. I am grateful for the introduction of
genetically modified bacteria that produce insulin to treat my
father's diabetes. I am grateful for the GM foods that are grown and
help to feed vast numbers of poor people who, for various reasons,
continue to live in marginal conditions around the globe. But I am not
in favour of the ridiculous number of people on earth - there's simply
too many but others will hold a different opinion to me, so sod it,
it's just something I'll have to live with.

I short, Doug, on balance I like the modern world, and I support
science and technology in it's quest to make things more efficient &
improve our standard of living even further. But I intensely dislike
your thinly veiled anachronistic social agenda. I think it is
embarrassing. I think you & they are a childish group of whining
imbeciles who have no apparent control over their own thoughts. But
fuck it, not everyone thinks like me, and there's nothing I can do to
change your & their views, so I'll live with it.

On 11 Jul, 10:12, conkers...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On 11 Jul, 06:52, Doug  wrote:
>
> > There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
> > low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
> > your energy consumption instead.
>
> Once again "Doug", you're behind the times. I think you'll find that
> I, and several others who post to this board, are in favour of the
> newer forms of Bio-fuel production which are made from waste and would
> have no impact on food crops. But don't let scientific progress stand
> in your way.
>
As yet unproven and not in general use. Big deal! I suppose you were
in favour of biofuel from crops until you discovered it wasn't viable.
>
> And just to make it clear to you, again:
>
> Yes, I am in favour of bio-fuels, I am not terribly concerned about
> the conversion of energy from one for to another as many people seem
> to be and I am probably a much better person, taller, more handsome,
> more popular, and certainly younger and stronger than you. All in all,
> I am more of a winner than you. Compared to you Doug, I am fantastic.
> Women fawn over me, men buy me drinks and people seek out my view
> rather than me having to push them on others. I enjoy driving and I
> enjoy visiting other countries, especially if it means flying. I like
> travelling by train, I like cycling, and I like using the oil from the
> ground to lubricate it's chain. I like using vast amounts of energy to
> cook two or three times a day. I like using condoms to prevent me from
> becoming a parent just yet, and they more than likely use lots of
> petro-chemical in their production. I like taking pharmaceuticals when
> I'm ill or in pain to help speed recovery. They also use petro-
> chemicals in their production. I am grateful for the introduction of
> genetically modified bacteria that produce insulin to treat my
> father's diabetes. I am grateful for the GM foods that are grown and
> help to feed vast numbers of poor people who, for various reasons,
> continue to live in marginal conditions around the globe. But I am not
> in favour of the ridiculous number of people on earth - there's simply
> too many but others will hold a different opinion to me, so sod it,
> it's just something I'll have to live with.
>
> I short, Doug, on balance I like the modern world, and I support
> science and technology in it's quest to make things more efficient &
> improve our standard of living even further. But I intensely dislike
> your thinly veiled anachronistic social agenda. I think it is
> embarrassing. I think you & they are a childish group of whining
> imbeciles who have no apparent control over their own thoughts. But
> fuck it, not everyone thinks like me, and there's nothing I can do to
> change your & their views, so I'll live with it.
>
So, while you are complacently in favour of a very harmful status quo
I wish to see a move towards a considerable improvement in the future.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 11 Jul, 10:57, Doug  wrote:

> As yet unproven

Wrong.

> Big deal! I suppose you were in favour of biofuel from crops until you
> discovered it wasn't viable.

"Discovered"? Oh man, your attempt at spin is woeful. I still am in
favour of bio-fuels from crops. Just because you have this idea that
bio-fuels = taking food from starving foreigners doesn't mean that
everyone shares that idea, or that that idea is correct. It isn't, by
the way. Like the "problem" water companies here keep bitching about,
it actually turns out that a mis-management of resources is to blame.

Not that this is relevant, but do you not feel a little embarrassed at
being a vegetarian in the UK? I mean, you could get a fair proportion
of your nutritional requirements by eating meat which was produced by
farming livestock on land which can't support crop growth. But you
choose to burden the world market for vegetarian solutions to your
dietary requirements. If you have a genuine medical reason for not
eating meat, fair enough. But if you solely do it from an idea of it
being "better" in some  esoteric way, then perhaps you should have a
bit of a think about your actions, and get some help with the maths.


> So, while you are complacently in favour of a very harmful status quo

No, no I'm not. I clearly stated that I am not in favour of large and
increasing human population. Surely you read that, right?! I mean, you
can't just have ignored it and decided to lie, could you?

> I wish to see a move towards a considerable improvement in the future.

Doesn't seem like it. You are constantly seen to deride any new
advancements in science and technology.

In message 
, 
Doug  writes
>On 11 Jul, 10:12, conkers...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> I short, Doug, on balance I like the modern world, and I support
>> science and technology in it's quest to make things more efficient &
>> improve our standard of living even further. But I intensely dislike
>> your thinly veiled anachronistic social agenda. I think it is
>> embarrassing. I think you & they are a childish group of whining
>> imbeciles who have no apparent control over their own thoughts. But
>> fuck it, not everyone thinks like me, and there's nothing I can do to
>> change your & their views, so I'll live with it.
>>
>So, while you are complacently in favour of a very harmful status quo
>I wish to see a move towards a considerable improvement in the future.

"The future". It's not like you have many years left now, is it, you old 
fool?


-- 
Ed Banger

See Duhg admit to being Doug Bollen:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/c7c992ee0d86b40b

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:52:22 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:


>"The implication of the report is that crop-derived fuels have been
>the ultimate cause of food riots, starvation and high prices around
>the world

By how much has the price of rice increased?
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

Doug wrote:
>
> As yet unproven and not in general use. Big deal! I suppose you were
> in favour of biofuel from crops until you discovered it wasn't viable.
>> And just to make it clear to you, again:

I suppose you, like other people who pretend to "green" credentials, 
were in full support of biofuels just a couple of years ago. Told you so 
indeed. We should be telling you so.


-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On Jul 11, 6:52 am, Doug  wrote:
> There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
> low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
> your energy consumption instead.
>
> "The implication of the report is that crop-derived fuels have been
> the ultimate cause of food riots, starvation and high prices around
> the world
>
> What's caused all the fuss? Well, the World Bank report argues that
> the drive for biofuels by American and European governments has pushed
> up food prices by 75%. That is in stark contrast with the White
> House's claims that using crops for fuel, rather than food, has only
> pushed prices up by 2-3%.
>

Who's seen this report?

It seems odd that a 2% usage of food for biofuels would be the root
cause of a 75% rise in food prices.
Especially went record bad harvests have been seen across the world.

I'll reserve judgment until I'll seen the report though.

Fod

In message 
, Fod 
 writes
>On Jul 11, 6:52 am, Doug  wrote:
>> There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
>> low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
>> your energy consumption instead.
>>
>> "The implication of the report is that crop-derived fuels have been
>> the ultimate cause of food riots, starvation and high prices around
>> the world
>>
>> What's caused all the fuss? Well, the World Bank report argues that
>> the drive for biofuels by American and European governments has pushed
>> up food prices by 75%. That is in stark contrast with the White
>> House's claims that using crops for fuel, rather than food, has only
>> pushed prices up by 2-3%.
>>
>
>Who's seen this report?
>
>It seems odd that a 2% usage of food for biofuels would be the root
>cause of a 75% rise in food prices.
>Especially went record bad harvests have been seen across the world.
>
>I'll reserve judgment until I'll seen the report though.

I hope the price of imported tofu and lentils quadruples.


-- 
Ed Banger

See Duhg admit to being Doug Bollen:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/c7c992ee0d86b40b

On 11 Jul, 06:52, Dzhug.  wrote:
> There is no escaping it now. Kiss your 'wannabe green, carbon neutral,
> low carbon footprint cars' goodbye and good riddance and just reduce
> your energy consumption instead.

Unlike you, I don't own, and have never owned or run any kind of motor
vehicle.

> Prompted by the Guardian's report, the Bank may now push the report
> out - although it may not be in quite this form. We'd rather you saw
> the original, which is why
> we're publishing it today, here: PDF of World Bank biofuels report."

No it is not a World Bank report, read the first three lines you
fuckwit.

> http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/07/1...

"Draft, not for citation or circulation"
"April 8, 2008"
"A Note on rising food prices [1]"

"[1] The views expressed in this paper are those of the Author and
should not be attributed to the World Bank or its Executive Directors"

Which pretty much makes it a meaningless piece of paper, unsuitable
for citation, and unsupported by the World Bank.


http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/07/bad-juice-ii-biofuels-maybe-not-quite-so-bad-world-bank-says/

A World Bank spokesperson added:

    [Mr.] Mitchell is still getting input from peer reviewers and the
paper is still being finalized. As a result, the Bank chose not to use
a specific figure in the Spring Meetings and G8 papers. As [World Bank
boss Robert] Zoellick said today in Japan: “That’s an internal study
that we’ve been circulating to people to try to get different views
from other aid agencies and different economic analyses. So, my own
view is that that is probably at the far end. You see other people
talk about ranges of 20 percent, 25 percent. There’s s some at the
lower end that I think are less credible. So, on this one I think I’m
going to rely on the experts to be able to sort it through.”

On 11 Jul, 11:11, conkers...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On 11 Jul, 10:57, Doug  wrote:
>
> > As yet unproven
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Big deal! I suppose you were in favour of biofuel from crops until you
> > discovered it wasn't viable.
>
> "Discovered"? Oh man, your attempt at spin is woeful. I still am in
> favour of bio-fuels from crops. Just because you have this idea that
> bio-fuels = taking food from starving foreigners doesn't mean that
> everyone shares that idea, or that that idea is correct. It isn't, by
> the way. Like the "problem" water companies here keep bitching about,
> it actually turns out that a mis-management of resources is to blame.
>
You actually mean you are still in favour of biofuels from crops
despite akll the adverse publicity it has received recently? It is not
just a cause of starvation but it doesn't live up to any of the claims
previously made about it.
>
> Not that this is relevant, but do you not feel a little embarrassed at
> being a vegetarian in the UK? I mean, you could get a fair proportion
> of your nutritional requirements by eating meat which was produced by
> farming livestock on land which can't support crop growth.
>
Farming livestock is woefully inefficient and wasteful compared to
arable and virtually any land in the UK can be adapted to grow some
food crops, certainly the rich meadows presently used for grazing.
>
 >But you
> choose to burden the world market for vegetarian solutions to your
> dietary requirements. If you have a genuine medical reason for not
> eating meat, fair enough. But if you solely do it from an idea of it
> being "better" in some  esoteric way, then perhaps you should have a
> bit of a think about your actions, and get some help with the maths.
>
> > So, while you are complacently in favour of a very harmful status quo
>
> No, no I'm not. I clearly stated that I am not in favour of large and
> increasing human population. Surely you read that, right?! I mean, you
> can't just have ignored it and decided to lie, could you?
>
Well you seem to be in favour of everything else.
>
> > I wish to see a move towards a considerable improvement in the future.
>
> Doesn't seem like it. You are constantly seen to deride any new
> advancements in science and technology.
>
What I deride is empty technological promises which are seldom
fulfilled coupled with greenwash lies.

We already have the technology to reduce hypemobility and its
attendant pollution, its called the internet, but people like you
still chose to give in to your wander lust and pursue a car dependent
lifestyle.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On Jul 12, 7:28 am, Doug  wrote:

> You actually mean you are still in favour of biofuels from crops
> despite all the adverse publicity it has received recently?

By christ, I think he's got it! As for the "adverse publicity" - well
that's absolutely meaningless. You are, whether you like to think so
or not, hell bent on ramming down people's throats the idea that bio-
fuels = bad, and that simply isn't true. You purposely obfuscate the
details involved to try to make any mention of any form of bio-fuel in
to a portent of doom and destruction. That is immoral, really.


> It is not just a cause of starvation but it doesn't live up to any of the
> claims previously made about it.

Just like that, really. Rhetoric, sensationalism and appeals to
emotion do nothing but weaken your own arguement. I suggest you that
you track down Bernays' best known tome and learn a thing or two about
trying to get your point across effectively.


> Farming livestock is woefully inefficient and wasteful compared to
> arable and virtually any land in the UK can be adapted to grow some
> food crops, certainly the rich meadows presently used for grazing.

Again, you show your own ignorance about a subject. Let's dedicate all
the open fields in the country to growing vegetarian fare, I'll
happily munch away on boar and goat - animals which don't need open
fields to live & feed in. To say that farming livestock is inefficient
and wasteful just goes to show that you have no idea about the
habitats of animals and that you have simply fallen for the ideas put
forward to you by the pretty girl in the pressure group, or what
you've read in the newspapers, or what you've seen on the telly.

So, now we've theoretically allocated all open fields to arable
farming, what do we actually grow? I generally don't like cereals, so
a fair proportion of those fields will have to be nothing but
vegetables. But I'm not so keen on potatoes in large amounts, so that
leaves us with making sure that there's lots of leafy green things and
other root veg. But, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't be able to
consistently consume enough veg each day to meet my energy
requirements (I have nothing against vegetarian food at all, in fact
one of my favourite snap palaces when I was a student in Manchester
was a vegetarian cafe. My worry comes from the fundamental physics of
energy in - energy out.). So what do I do Doug? That's one of the
reasons I like to eat meat. It tastes good (which is the main point)
and it supplies me with nutrients and crucially energy. I'm not too
keen of beef that much, it's OK, but it's not a patch on pork. Where
can I farm pork... Oh yes, pretty much anywhere. Forests would be
ideal.

Having said this, I wouldn't want you to think about it too much,
because you might start to see the holes in your own arguments and get
upset.


> Well you seem to be in favour of everything else.

Oh right, so long as I "seem" to be, that's OK to make that
assumption. Why don't you just ask for each individual point?


> What I deride is empty technological promises which are seldom
> fulfilled coupled with greenwash lies.

Well if that is true, I would suggest that you work on the way that
you deal with each issue rather than just lumping everything together,
giving people the impression that you don't really understand what you
are talking about.


> We already have the technology to reduce hypemobility and its
> attendant pollution, its called the internet,

OK, that's great. Not quite sure you've thought that through properly
though.


> but people like you still chose to give in to your wander lust

You can't fight nature Doug!


> and pursue a car dependent lifestyle.

Not dependant. Just "car using".

Petert wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:52:22 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> "The implication of the report is that crop-derived fuels have been
>> the ultimate cause of food riots, starvation and high prices around
>> the world
> 
> By how much has the price of rice increased?

What's been the change in the price of sugar?

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 12 Jul, 12:40, conkers...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Jul 12, 7:28 am, Doug  wrote:
>
> > You actually mean you are still in favour of biofuels from crops
> > despite all the adverse publicity it has received recently?
>
> By christ, I think he's got it! As for the "adverse publicity" - well
> that's absolutely meaningless. You are, whether you like to think so
> or not, hell bent on ramming down people's throats the idea that bio-
> fuels = bad, and that simply isn't true. You purposely obfuscate the
> details involved to try to make any mention of any form of bio-fuel in
> to a portent of doom and destruction. That is immoral, really.
>
As things stand, all biofuels currently in use are problematic in one
way or another. Either they don't save on CO2, contribute to
starvation, destroy the environment, use too much energy to produce,
or can never be  in sufficient quantity to satisfy the considerable
energy appetite or motorists.
>
> > It is not just a cause of starvation but it doesn't live up to any of the
> > claims previously made about it.
>
> Just like that, really. Rhetoric, sensationalism and appeals to
> emotion do nothing but weaken your own arguement. I suggest you that
> you track down Bernays' best known tome and learn a thing or two about
> trying to get your point across effectively.
>
Suggest you try to learn something about the subject itself before
posting.
>
> > Farming livestock is woefully inefficient and wasteful compared to
> > arable and virtually any land in the UK can be adapted to grow some
> > food crops, certainly the rich meadows presently used for grazing.
>
> Again, you show your own ignorance about a subject. Let's dedicate all
> the open fields in the country to growing vegetarian fare, I'll
> happily munch away on boar and goat - animals which don't need open
> fields to live & feed in. To say that farming livestock is inefficient
> and wasteful just goes to show that you have no idea about the
> habitats of animals and that you have simply fallen for the ideas put
> forward to you by the pretty girl in the pressure group, or what
> you've read in the newspapers, or what you've seen on the telly.
>
Again you display your ignorance of the subject. Care to quote a
source which supports your claims?
>
> So, now we've theoretically allocated all open fields to arable
> farming, what do we actually grow? I generally don't like cereals, so
> a fair proportion of those fields will have to be nothing but
> vegetables. But I'm not so keen on potatoes in large amounts, so that
> leaves us with making sure that there's lots of leafy green things and
> other root veg. But, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't be able to
> consistently consume enough veg each day to meet my energy
> requirements (I have nothing against vegetarian food at all, in fact
> one of my favourite snap palaces when I was a student in Manchester
> was a vegetarian cafe. My worry comes from the fundamental physics of
> energy in - energy out.). So what do I do Doug? That's one of the
> reasons I like to eat meat. It tastes good (which is the main point)
> and it supplies me with nutrients and crucially energy. I'm not too
> keen of beef that much, it's OK, but it's not a patch on pork. Where
> can I farm pork... Oh yes, pretty much anywhere. Forests would be
> ideal.
>
Also you know nothing about nutrition. The nutrients found in meat are
also in many plants and energy is supplied by sugars and
carbohydrates. Using animals to convert human food, such as grain and
beans, to meat is a very inefficient process and they don't live on
grass alone.
>
> Having said this, I wouldn't want you to think about it too much,
> because you might start to see the holes in your own arguments and get
> upset.
>
> > Well you seem to be in favour of everything else.
>
> Oh right, so long as I "seem" to be, that's OK to make that
> assumption. Why don't you just ask for each individual point?
>
> > What I deride is empty technological promises which are seldom
> > fulfilled coupled with greenwash lies.
>
> Well if that is true, I would suggest that you work on the way that
> you deal with each issue rather than just lumping everything together,
> giving people the impression that you don't really understand what you
> are talking about.
>
You obnviously don't understand anything at all about this subject,
hence your empty assertions.
>
> > We already have the technology to reduce hypemobility and its
> > attendant pollution, its called the internet,
>
> OK, that's great. Not quite sure you've thought that through properly
> though.
>
Why not?
>
> > but people like you still chose to give in to your wander lust
>
> You can't fight nature Doug!
>
Actually you can. In civilised societies we fight the urge to kill
others, to name just one.
>
> > and pursue a car dependent lifestyle.
>
> Not dependant. Just "car using".

Nope, dependent, unless you can honestly claim that you can properly
support your present lifestyle without using a car.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 13 Jul, 08:06, Doug  wrote:

> As things stand, all biofuels currently in use are problematic in one
> way or another. Either they don't save on CO2, contribute to
> starvation, destroy the environment, use too much energy to produce,
> or can never be  in sufficient quantity to satisfy the considerable
> energy appetite or motorists.

Right, so again I ask: If all current bio-fuel production methods are
so terrible, then is this a good enough reason to stop development of
the new production techniques? You are effectively deriding all bio-
fuels because the prototype production systems, or systems which
aren't terribly scalable were put to use. I propose that it isn't a
good enough reason to stop development of newer production techniques.
I am in favour of bio-fuels. I drove to Manchester today to visit
family. On the way I got to see those marvellous wind turbines on the
Pennines *not spinning*. I think that wind turbines are a useless idea
for electricity generation, but I don't think that all methods of
electricity generation are useless. Until you understand that, you
can't possibly understand the mess of an idea you have about bio-
fuels.


> Suggest you try to learn something about the subject itself before
> posting.

Well guess what. I have. I've even had the cheek to study it at
university. Still doesn't change the fact your rhetoric,
sensationalism and appeals to emotion do nothing but weaken your own
argument.


> Again you display your ignorance of the subject. Care to quote a
> source which supports your claims?

What? That rearing boars and goats in wooded areas is possible? It's
well known. Wild boars even live in such places all of their own
accord. Farming livestock is a very good way to convert nitrate into
protein. See, I can't do that, but goats can. Think of them as little
mobile protein factories. If you are suggesting that I need to supply
evidence that you don't know much about the subject, then sure. Just
see your previous reply where you said "Farming livestock is woefully
inefficient and wasteful compared to arable". You can put goats and
sheep on hills and moors where you can't farm arable products. You can
farm pigs & boars in woods and forests. I'm not quite sure what
evidence you'd like though.


> > So, now we've theoretically allocated all open fields to arable
> > farming, what do we actually grow? I generally don't like cereals, so
> > a fair proportion of those fields will have to be nothing but
> > vegetables. But I'm not so keen on potatoes in large amounts, so that
> > leaves us with making sure that there's lots of leafy green things and
> > other root veg. But, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't be able to
> > consistently consume enough veg each day to meet my energy
> > requirements (I have nothing against vegetarian food at all, in fact
> > one of my favourite snap palaces when I was a student in Manchester
> > was a vegetarian cafe. My worry comes from the fundamental physics of
> > energy in - energy out.). So what do I do Doug? That's one of the
> > reasons I like to eat meat. It tastes good (which is the main point)
> > and it supplies me with nutrients and crucially energy. I'm not too
> > keen of beef that much, it's OK, but it's not a patch on pork. Where
> > can I farm pork... Oh yes, pretty much anywhere. Forests would be
> > ideal.
>
> Also you know nothing about nutrition.

OK Doug, show me in my reply where I say that a vegetarian diet
couldn't supply me with enough nutrients. You won't, because I didn't.
What I did say though, was that I was doubtful that a vegetarian diets
could provide me with all my energy needs. So, stop moving the
goalposts, to paraphrase yourself.


> The nutrients found in meat are also in many plants and energy is supplied by sugars and
> carbohydrates.

Wow, that sentence shows me that you must be a certified genius on the
subject. But I'd still prefer it if you actually made an effort to
comprehend what I'd typed before you moved the goalposts.


> Using animals to convert human food, such as grain and
> beans, to meat is a very inefficient process

I'm not suggesting we feed them on "human food" as you so poorly put
it. Anyway, as I've already said several times, livestock can be
farmed in areas where arable farming wouldn't be viable, and they
convert nitrate to protein very efficiently.


> and they don't live on grass alone.

Neither do humans Doug, neither do humans.


> You obnviously don't understand anything at all about this subject,
> hence your empty assertions.

What empty assertions? You've come on here, acting the blowhard as
usual, trying to dictate to people what they should be doing but when
your ideas have been held up to scrutiny, they fall apart. It is you,
more often than not, who spouts the empty assertions. But please, let
me know which of my assertions are empty. In return, I'll continue to
point yours out.


> > > We already have the technology to reduce hypemobility and its
> > > attendant pollution, its called the internet,
>
> > OK, that's great. Not quite sure you've thought that through properly
> > though.
>
> Why not?

How can I go on holiday through the internet?

> > > but people like you still chose to give in to your wander lust
>
> > You can't fight nature Doug!
>
> Actually you can.

No you can't Doug!

> In civilised societies we fight the urge to kill others, to name just oneAh, this is a good example of one of your empty assertions. It isn't
human nature to kill, Doug. If it were, the human race would have died
out many moons ago. It is human nature to defend one's self, whether
that ends in the death of another is a related, but different matter.
For a small percentage of the population, the desire to maim and kill
is present, you my commonly know them as psychopaths. This is a
deviant trait in society. Before you say it, let me assure you that
this is not a "semantic dodge" or whatever other ill though-out empty
assertion you were ready to use.


> > Not dependant. Just "car using".
>
> Nope, dependent, unless you can honestly claim that you can properly
> support your present lifestyle without using a car.

Yet another example of you trotting out your empty assertions. Your
argument does not follow. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The method
of transport is irrelevant. You may have well have asked me if my
present lifestyle could continue if we didn't have bicycles or shoes.
And my answer would be yes, of course it could. It would probably be
more difficult, but I could quite easily continue my present lifestyle
without using a car (or shoes for that matter). You seem to forget
that humans have travelled all around the globe for centuries before
cars. But actually, in this post:
 you did seem to
try to convince us that people didn't travel very far before cars &
planes.

So what have learnt then Doug? Well, I for sure have learnt (or
rather, had the idea reinforced) that when you start to bluster and
accuse people of such things as "semantics", "empty assertions"
"moving goalposts" and such, it's more than likely that it is *you*
supplying those.