Posted on 04/14/2008 10:23:24 PM PDT by ricks_place
BRUSSELS (AFP) - The EU Commission on Monday rejected claims that producing biofuels is a "crime against humanity" that threatens food supplies, and vowed to stick to its goals as part of a climate change package.
"There is no question for now of suspending the target fixed for biofuels," said Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.
"You can't change a political objective without risking a debate on all the other objectives," which could see the EU landmark climate change and energy package disintegrate, an EU official said.
Their comments came amid growing unease over the planting of biofuel crops as food prices rocket and riots against poverty and hunger multiply worldwide.
UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told German radio Monday that the production of biofuels is "a crime against humanity" because of its impact on global food prices.
EU leaders, seeking to show the way on global warming, have pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2020.
As part of a package of measures the 27 member states have set a target of biofuels making up 10 percent of automobile fuel by the same year.
"We don't have an enormous danger of too much of a shift from food production to biofuels production," said Michael Mann, spokesman for EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel.
Mann, like Helfferich speaking to reporters in Brussels, stressed that the 10 percent target would in part be achieved through higher yields and increased production.
Ziegler also accused the European Union of subsidising its agriculture exports with effect of undermining production in Africa.
"The EU finances the exports of European agricultural surpluses to Africa ... where they are offered at one half or one third of their (production) price," the UN official charged.
"That completely ruins African agriculture," he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Except that this second time they are right.
Liberal ideas have consequences, and they’re usually not pretty. In the 1960’s Mao’s artificially created famines killed 60 million Chinese peasants for the ‘greater good’; today I wonder how many will die from Al Gore’s artificially created famines? The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Environmentalists are raising the price of gasoline and food because of their agenda.
They block drilling in ANWR and offshore, then they take food to be used in gasoline.
Yes, let them eat cake...
Barbara Helfferich, the new Marie Antoinette!
Meanhwile Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, head of Nestle, the world’s biggest food and beverage company, last month argued that “to grant enormous subsidies for biofuel production is morally unacceptable and irresponsible”.
“There will be nothing left to eat,” he added.
ping
ping
If I had the time to work the details of this hypothesis! Assuming Global Warming is real, humanity can choose the course of action. The worlds current course (ACTION 1) will lead to more suffering, untimely death, poverty, and chaos than the alternative course (ACTION 2) fix the problems as they arise.
ACTION 1 - Humanity stops the world from warming. The world economy enters a period of contraction; encumbered by artificial restrictions on energy and CO2 emissions. A world economy in negative growth will not be able to aid impoverished people. There will be little resources to address human health and welfare let alone climate induced difficulties. No dikes; no evacuations; no biome transfers; no aid for populations moves. Food riots are already happening in the third world as biofuels are manufactured rather than food.
ACTION 2 - Humanity accepts that the world is warming to a new equilibrium. Allow the world economy to grow at the highest rate it may, unencumbered by artificial restrictions such as CO2 emissions. A good world economy is the surest way to give a hand up to impoverished people. Address each climate induced difficulty as it arises. Build dikes where possible; evacuate where necessary. Replant forest as subtropical climate shifts towards the poles. Help populations move in dire circumstance. Good economy means resources available including charity to lend a hand up to self sufficiency for third worlders.
(1) Socialism kills!
(2) Socialists don't care.”
Its how they feel about it and what their intentions are that count; people are expendable, the ends justify the means to a true liberal-progressive,
Absolutely accurate.
Very well said, m'friend, and comps to you!
From the article:
*”You can’t change a political objective without risking a debate on all the other objectives,” which could see the EU landmark climate change and energy package disintegrate, an EU official said.*
This EU official is saying that if they admit they were wrong on biofuels then their Global Warming programs might be questioned & their whole house of cards could fall.
The Euros are having second thoughts.
"You'll eat dirt and LIKE it!"
There is big money in starvation.
To the left,burning,rather than eating,food is the new global warming gold rush.
Culls the surplus population and their destructive CO2 exhalations as well.
Misanthropes all.
Worth repeating
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
