Mega droughts of the Past Were Worse

Deuce said:

You switched to appeal to emotion instead of supporting your assertion. I've had enough of it, so I'll just stop you here:

1) Only about 9 million people die each year from "hunger and hunger-related diseases," not "tens of millions." So even attributing literally every one of those deaths to ethanol, you're short
2) 75% of families in the poverty circumstances you refer to grow their own food.
3) Undernourishment rates have been declining for decades

2015 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by WHES

Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Leaders warn on biofuels and food

Did you bother to read any of that?

Do you think that the world's poor get their deaths well recorded? Do you think that if they had slightly more resources they might be able to avoid malaria and TB etc.?

Making food expensive will hurt those who cannot afford it. It's very simple. That you will attack anybody who disagrees shows your denialist mentality.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

*sigh*

"Tens of millions" is my point of contention here. You said that "tens of millions die each year" because of this and I've proven that to be false.

Yes, biofuels raise the price of food. Yes, I would expect there's a non-zero impact on hunger rates. I am not a supporter of ethanol. I am, in fact, specifically against any and all subsidization of ethanol. It's a stupid fuel. It takes more energy to create than it gives back. I'm not categorically against biofuels. Some types of fuel may be energy-positive and be grow able on land unsuitable to growing food. (I recall reading about some proposal for switchgrass or something as a biofuel, requiring far less energy to produce than corn and could be grown on strips next to highways and the like) But the way we're doing it now? Stupid. Counterproductive. Expensive. It's welfare for big agricultural conglomerates.

But you came in here wagging your finger about those darn warmists and their hysteria while simultaneously massively exaggerating the number of deaths attributable to biofuels.

You are the one attacking people who disagree with your hysterical, false presentation of the issue.

Click to expand...

Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty

Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:

That's 8 million children. No mention of the number of adults there.

If you live on $3 a day do you think that having your food 75% more expensive than it should be is OK?

I cannot give you a precise figure of number of people who would be around today if bio-fuels had not happened but let's face it there would be a lot.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

You switched to appeal to emotion instead of supporting your assertion. I've had enough of it, so I'll just stop you here:

1) Only about 9 million people die each year from "hunger and hunger-related diseases," not "tens of millions." So even attributing literally every one of those deaths to ethanol, you're short
2) 75% of families in the poverty circumstances you refer to grow their own food.
3) Undernourishment rates have been declining for decades

2015 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by WHES

Click to expand...

Lord Tammerlain said:

Darn you with your facts

Don't you know this is not about facts but truthiness. If it feels true it has to be true regardless of facts

Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:

Yeah, only 9 million people's deaths can be directly atributed to hunger so it's OK to raise the price of food on the back of bad science. That's 9 million a year for the last decade+ who will be happy to know that their deaths aided the GW cause.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Tim, I've been laying off this conversation, but i think you're going a bit overboard.

First off, I believe most the people who live in such conditions, like the $3 figure, mostly farm their own food. None of this affects, them in the way you believe.

However... I believe this situation to be most relevant:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/w...Land, Group Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out

All in the name of carbon credits...

If you search, you will find multiple sources in essence claiming the same thing. People are pushed out of their lands, so countries leaders can cash in carbon credits.

Click to expand...

The urban sector's share of the poor is rising over time. Among those living on no more than $1 a day, the proportion found in urban areas rose from 19 percent to 24 percent between 1993 and 2002; over the same period, the urban share of the population as a whole rose from 38 percent to 42 percent. Nonetheless, it will be many decades before a majority of the developing world's poor live in urban areas.

Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:

Urban Poverty - Finance & Development, September 2007



Sure, the majority of the world's poor try to grow their own food. But there are plenty of people in such conditions.

Also the effect of increased food prices will not be at all trivial if you manage to be earning $6 a day. The idea that pushing up food prices is not killing millions of people is just ludicrous.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

I agree there is impact, but even to me, you do seem to exaggerating the truth.

Aren't we better than that?

Click to expand...

Nearly half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, survive on less than $2 a day. About 20 percent of the world's population, 1.2 billion people, live on less than $1 a day. Nearly 1 billion people are illiterate and 1 billion do not have safe water.
United Nations Resources for Speakers on Global Issues ...
United Nations Resources for Speakers on Global Issues - Home

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Weather is cyclical.

When will the alarmists realize that?

Click to expand...