• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Killing 20+ MIllion people per year

Tim the plumber said:
Your, and much more those who push the agenda at a higher level, hysteria about CO2 which is harming nobody is the cause under which this policy opperates. To that degree you are responsible for your activism.

Your refusal to consider the number of deaths this use of food as fuel causes mearly makes it obvious the denial you are in.
Click to expand...

I have not refused to consider the number. In fact, the opposite is provably true: I have repeatedly considered the figure of 20per million per year and rejected it based on the evidence. Evidence I have shown you repeatedly.
800 million people in some sort of clinical undernourishment. Say 40 year average life expectancy if they are very lucky. If this increase of 30% to 70% in the price of basic food stuff reduces that life expectancy by 1 year that is a 2.5% loss. That is 20 million per year.
Click to expand...
No, let's not "say" anything. Let's prove it.

You're making up a short life expectancy and then attributing the entirety of that life expectancy to malnourishment. You're literally suggesting nobody ever dies of any other cause.

You're also entirely inventing the idea that this extremely wide range of price increases will cause an arbitrary 1 year decrease in life expectancy. All of this is just pulled straight out of your ass.

You also refuse to ignore a glaring fact: malnourishment-related deaths have declined while biofuel usage increased dramatically.

Is it really so much to ask that you go with numbers provided by people who are experts in the subject? Are you really suggesting that you're the first person to ever consider the idea that malnourishment reduces life expectancy in ways other than death-by-starvation? Or maybe you think some experts in the field have made better-informed estimates of that number? Is that a possibility to you?

Your deliberate clouding of the issue with extremist rhetoric is responsible for many deaths, because of the apathy you have inspired.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
800 million people in some sort of clinical undernourishment. Say 40 year average life expectancy if they are very lucky. If this increase of 30% to 70% in the price of basic food stuff reduces that life expectancy by 1 year that is a 2.5% loss. That is 20 million per year.
Click to expand...

Jesus H Christ. Not only are you an inveterate liar who refuses to look at the available information, but you are absolutely clueless about the very, very basic mathematics you pretend to base your lies on.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that 100% of early death rates in those 800 million people is due to hunger, and let's pretend that they have an average 40 year life expectancy. With a 40 year life expectancy, that means that on average 1 in 40 of those people die each year. How basic is that? Very -ing basic, that's how basic! 1 in 40 of 800 million is 20,000,000, and 1 in 39 is 205,128,820.

Your ridiculous assumptions that you have pulled out of your hindquarters would give a figure of about 5 million excess deaths, but you are so utterly dismal at understanding simple concepts that you've decided to multiply that figure by four just to get your earlier number, which also emerged from some bodily orifice.

And you wonder why you have zero credibility to anyone with more than two brain cells?

Go on now, time for you to start asserting that biofuels reduce life expectancy from 40 to 36... we're waiting :roll:



Deuce is right: Making a laughing stock of this issue is far more likely to perpetuate it than anything else. But since your goal is and always has been the smearing of climate science, you really have no desire to end it, as long as there's useful idiots who'll swallow the narrative you're trying to tell.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Jesus H Christ. Not only are you an inveterate liar who refuses to look at the available information, but you are absolutely clueless about the very, very basic mathematics you pretend to base your lies on.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that 100% of early death rates in those 800 million people is due to hunger, and let's pretend that they have an average 40 year life expectancy. With a 40 year life expectancy, that means that on average 1 in 40 of those people die each year. How basic is that? Very -ing basic, that's how basic! 1 in 40 of 800 million is 20,000,000, and 1 in 39 is 205,128,820.

Your ridiculous assumptions that you have pulled out of your hindquarters would give a figure of about 5 million excess deaths, but you are so utterly dismal at understanding simple concepts that you've decided to multiply that figure by four just to get your earlier number, which also emerged from some bodily orifice.

And you wonder why you have zero credibility to anyone with more than two brain cells?

Go on now, time for you to start asserting that biofuels reduce life expectancy from 40 to 36... we're waiting :roll:



Deuce is right: Making a laughing stock of this issue is far more likely to perpetuate it than anything else. But since your goal is and always has been the smearing of climate science, you really have no desire to end it, as long as there's useful idiots who'll swallow the narrative you're trying to tell.
Click to expand...

So your assesment is that 5 million people per year die as a result of this use of food as fuel is it?

Well, that's OK then.
 
Tim the plumber said:
So your assesment is that 5 million people per year die as a result of this use of food as fuel is it?

Well, that's OK then.
Click to expand...

So you assert that 5 million deaths per year are okay :roll: Your reading comprehension is almost as bad as your maths, unless of course you're just aiming to reiterate your compulsive dishonesty.
 
Mithrae said:
So you assert that 5 million deaths per year are okay :roll: Your reading comprehension is almost as bad as your maths, unless of course you're just aiming to reiterate your compulsive dishonesty.
Click to expand...

I understand why you are so upset about this idea that your chosen religion is causing real evil.

You wanted to have a policy/religion which made you superiour to all those poor fools chasing material gain, which you did not do that well at, and justified your sense of being an elite.

Well it comes with responsibilty for the results of it. Many millions of dead people.

The more that we go along the road of demonising CO2 the more deaths will pile up on the alter of bad science.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I understand why you are so upset about this idea that your chosen religion is causing real evil.
Click to expand...

I guess slander was already part of your repertoire, but nice to see further confirmation.

So... utterly dismal maths, atrocious reading comprehension, blatant liar and serial slanderer.

What on earth are you trying to prove with all of this, besides your personal hatred of and desire to assert government control over scientific information?



Heck, if nothing else what about the poor folk who actually 'liked' your opening post? Granted, your end game was already on display there, but how do you think they now feel seeing this sorry display of the lengths you'll go to in this crusade? Many of them profess to be libertarians, did you not consider that? :(
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
I guess slander was already part of your repertoire, but nice to see further confirmation.

So... utterly dismal maths, atrocious reading comprehension, blatant liar and serial slanderer.

What on earth are you trying to prove with all of this, besides your personal hatred of and desire to assert government control over science?



Heck, if nothing else what about the poor folk who actually 'liked' your opening post? Granted, your end game was already on display there, but how do you think they feel seeing this sorry display of the lengths you'll go to in this crusade?
Click to expand...

He's worried that his electric bill will be a few pounds higher each month.

Swear to God. That's his burning motivation.
 
Threegoofs said:
He's worried that his electric bill will be a few pounds higher each month.

Swear to God. That's his burning motivation.
Click to expand...

Don't swear. Least of all to God! I've recently started revisiting my old religious debate forums, and I have to concede that the quality of discussion is higher here. Marginally. But a lot more one-sided, too - there's so many logically-illiterate folk on both sides of religious discussion it's not even funny.

At least here it's mostly just the folk who 'like' Tim's government-should-arbitrate-scientific-discussion crusade.
 
Tim the plumber said:
So your assesment is that 5 million people per year die as a result of this use of food as fuel is it?

Well, that's OK then.
Click to expand...

No, your assessment is that 5 million people per year die as a result of biofuels, but you were just so bad at math you thought it was 20 million. You're still using arbitrary numbers you made up when you inaccurately arrive at 20 million from 5.

Kudos to Mithrae for actually assessing your math. I never bothered because your math was conceptually based on such an absurd premise: that literally all undernourished people die from malnourishment-related issues. (not to mention a completely made-up life expectancy that is lower than any nation that actually exists)
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
No, your assessment is that 5 million people per year die as a result of biofuels, but you were just so bad at math you thought it was 20 million. You're still using arbitrary numbers you made up when you inaccurately arrive at 20 million from 5.
Click to expand...

Hehe... 20 million from 512,820 actually, now that I double-check. Realized something was terribly wrong when I re-read my assertion that 800 million divided by 39 was 205 million :lol: Turns out it was meant to be 20.5 million, not 25 million.

Due to missing a decimal I was out by a factor of ten.

Due to being a mathematically-illiterate agenda-driven serial slanderer and propagandist, Tim was out by a factor of forty even by his own ridiculous unsubstantiated assumptions. And quite frankly, even that amazing magnitude of error and dismal mathematics is still better than his 100-fold error compared to the right-wing think-tank's estimate of biofuel-related deaths which he begged off Jack!
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
I guess slander was already part of your repertoire, but nice to see further confirmation.

So... utterly dismal maths, atrocious reading comprehension, blatant liar and serial slanderer.

What on earth are you trying to prove with all of this, besides your personal hatred of and desire to assert government control over scientific information?



Heck, if nothing else what about the poor folk who actually 'liked' your opening post? Granted, your end game was already on display there, but how do you think they now feel seeing this sorry display of the lengths you'll go to in this crusade? Many of them profess to be libertarians, did you not consider that? :(
Click to expand...

If you want to show your estimates of how many people this policy is killing then do so.

I have not claimed that I can prove beyond dispute, that the science of it is settled, the figure of 20 million per year. It's just my personal best guess.

If you have a better number show it.
 
Threegoofs said:
He's worried that his electric bill will be a few pounds higher each month.

Swear to God. That's his burning motivation.
Click to expand...

I know you will never get this but for some of us the idea of millions of people dying for no good reason is a horrendous thing. Even other people who we don't know and have never seen and are poor. Even those I still think of as important people.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I know you will never get this but for some of us the idea of millions of people dying for no good reason is a horrendous thing. Even other people who we don't know and have never seen and are poor. Even those I still think of as important people.
Click to expand...

We can't fix the problem unless we actually understand it, and we can't understand it with such an outlandishly inaccurate picture like the one you are presenting.

We aren't objecting to the core premise: biofuels made from food crops increase the price of food, which can have a non-zero effect on starvation rates. But it's worth assessing whether that number is even statistically measurable, or whether it's the "millions" you claim.

But you've just admitted to being full of it. Your own estimate doesn't actually work out to be 20 million when the math is done right, and yet you stuck with the 20 million number as "your best guess." This proves it, it proves that you straight-up lied when you brought up the math in the first place. You started with the conclusion and then invented a math problem that lead to it... and failed. You lied, Tim. You're still unable to admit you just made the number up.

And until you admit to that lie, I have to assume you're lying about giving a crap about starving people. If you really wanted to help them, you'd stop clouding the issue with lies.
 
RetiredUSN said:
A interesting article on ethanol based fuels by C. Ford Runge published through Yale University.

The Case Against More Ethanol: It's Simply Bad for Environment - Yale E360

Worth reading.
Click to expand...

The very short version for me was always the EROI of <1: It takes more than a gallon of ethanol's worth of power to produce a gallon of ethanol. So why are we doing it? Sure, energy conversion for better transportation/storage/local usage isn't inherently a bad idea, but we already have an energy storage method for driving cars around. It's called gasoline. Ethanol replaces some of the gasoline with an inherently less-efficient substance. That's not even addressing the food price issue, it's just a fundamentally flawed source of energy!

I should point out that I'm specifically referring to ethanol from corn. Other biofuels might prove to be useful, I've heard of experimentation with algae-based production, or switchgrass. If those could be proven to be energy-positive, then they might be useful to some degree.
 
Besides the nutty premise of making up numbers due to biofuels, I think it's worth pointing out that one of the primary purposes for mandated ethanol in gasoline is TO RAISE CORN PRICES.

It's not a bug- it's a feature.

And it doesn't cause spikes in prices- it puts a more solid floor on them.

It's also worth noting that despite Tims histrionics about food prices, the price per bushel of corn has dropped in half since 2013- from $7/bushel to about $3.30/bushel.

And ethanol production has been fairly stable in that time, from what I've seen.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tim the plumber said:
I know you will never get this but for some of us the idea of millions of people dying for no good reason is a horrendous thing. Even other people who we don't know and have never seen and are poor. Even those I still think of as important people.
Click to expand...

Making people rely for their lives on food grown on the other side of the planet isn't a solution to starvation. You're wanting to put a band-aide on a sucking chest wound, keeping people just alive and barely healthy enough to reproduce. The solutions to the problem would require hard work and concerted effort and probably wouldn't be as immediately satisfying as a righteous tirade on an internet forum.
 
Deuce said:
We can't fix the problem unless we actually understand it, and we can't understand it with such an outlandishly inaccurate picture like the one you are presenting.

We aren't objecting to the core premise: biofuels made from food crops increase the price of food, which can have a non-zero effect on starvation rates. But it's worth assessing whether that number is even statistically measurable, or whether it's the "millions" you claim.

But you've just admitted to being full of it. Your own estimate doesn't actually work out to be 20 million when the math is done right, and yet you stuck with the 20 million number as "your best guess." This proves it, it proves that you straight-up lied when you brought up the math in the first place. You started with the conclusion and then invented a math problem that lead to it... and failed. You lied, Tim. You're still unable to admit you just made the number up.

And until you admit to that lie, I have to assume you're lying about giving a crap about starving people. If you really wanted to help them, you'd stop clouding the issue with lies.
Click to expand...

If you think that the price rise of 30% to 70% due to this is only responsible for a decrease in lfe expectancy of those who are actually malnourished of 1 year you have a much more optimistic imagination than me.

I also think that the next couple of billion people who survive on $3 a day or less or so would have a significant increase intheir life expectancy if they could afford such luxary items as very basic health care.

The reason you are unwilling to actually think about this ina any sort of number terms is that you don't want to see the down side of the Greenn agenda. You are in denial.
 
Deuce said:
The very short version for me was always the EROI of <1: It takes more than a gallon of ethanol's worth of power to produce a gallon of ethanol. So why are we doing it? Sure, energy conversion for better transportation/storage/local usage isn't inherently a bad idea, but we already have an energy storage method for driving cars around. It's called gasoline. Ethanol replaces some of the gasoline with an inherently less-efficient substance. That's not even addressing the food price issue, it's just a fundamentally flawed source of energy!

I should point out that I'm specifically referring to ethanol from corn. Other biofuels might prove to be useful, I've heard of experimentation with algae-based production, or switchgrass. If those could be proven to be energy-positive, then they might be useful to some degree.
Click to expand...

Hey, I have no trouble with biofuel from not food.
 
Tim the plumber said:

If you think that the price rise of 30% to 70% due to this is only responsible for a decrease in lfe expectancy of those who are actually malnourished of 1 year you have a much more optimistic imagination than me.

I also think that the next couple of billion people who survive on $3 a day or less or so would have a significant increase intheir life expectancy if they could afford such luxary items as very basic health care.

The reason you are unwilling to actually think about this ina any sort of number terms is that you don't want to see the down side of the Greenn agenda. You are in denial.
Click to expand...

Threegoofs pointed out that corn prices have dropped by half since 2013 despite steady biofuel production. Do you have a response to that?
 
Threegoofs said:
Besides the nutty premise of making up numbers due to biofuels, I think it's worth pointing out that one of the primary purposes for mandated ethanol in gasoline is TO RAISE CORN PRICES.

It's not a bug- it's a feature.

And it doesn't cause spikes in prices- it puts a more solid floor on them.

It's also worth noting that despite Tims histrionics about food prices, the price per bushel of corn has dropped in half since 2013- from $7/bushel to about $3.30/bushel.

And ethanol production has been fairly stable in that time, from what I've seen.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How wrong can you be???
While this year's food-price spike hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, the world went through a similar crisis just around three years ago. In 2007 and 2008, grain prices hit what had been record highs, prompting food riots in a number of developing countries, just as they do today — the high price of bread may have helped spark protests in Tunisia and Egypt. A major review of the 2007-08 food crisis by the International Food Policy Research Institute found that the surge in U.S. corn production for biofuels played a key role in the increase of prices. A 2008 report by the World Bank agreed, pegging the rise of biofuels in Europe and the U.S. as the most important factor in the run-up of prices. "It's pretty simple — corn that could go for food or fuel is diverted to fuel," says Brill. "That influences prices."
Click to expand...

Food Prices: Crisis Deepens as Biofuels Consume More Crops - TIME

When you take away 40% of US grain from people eating it and then allow the randomness of the climate to make the opportunities for speculators more golden what do you expect???
 
Grand Mal said:
Making people rely for their lives on food grown on the other side of the planet isn't a solution to starvation. You're wanting to put a band-aide on a sucking chest wound, keeping people just alive and barely healthy enough to reproduce. The solutions to the problem would require hard work and concerted effort and probably wouldn't be as immediately satisfying as a righteous tirade on an internet forum.
Click to expand...

How very rightous of you.

In case you had not noticed Europe has relied on inported food for the last couple of centuries.
 
Deuce said:
Threegoofs pointed out that corn prices have dropped by half since 2013 despite steady biofuel production. Do you have a response to that?
Click to expand...


YES!!!

As I said in the OP just because the situation is getting less bad does not mean that you have the right to slow down the reduction in suffering because you want to make rich western farmers richer!!!

The third world would be developing very muich quicker if this price manipulation was ended.
 
Tim the plumber said:
YES!!!

As I said in the OP just because the situation is getting less bad does not mean that you have the right to slow down the reduction in suffering because you want to make rich western farmers richer!!!

The third world would be developing very muich quicker if this price manipulation was ended.
Click to expand...

Can you substantiate the price increase from US ethanol production in, say, Congo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom