Do Biofuel Policies Reduce CO2 by Starving the Poor?

[Snowleopard]

Shrinking the amount of food that people and livestock eat decreases the amount of carbon dioxide that they breathe out or excrete as waste. The reduction in food available for consumption, rather than any inherent fuel efficiency, drives the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in government models, the researchers found.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-03/pu-dbp032715.php

• Tweet

[Eddie]

So much better for the corporates than, say, outlawing cars.

• Tweet

[Petty Tyrant]

its a huge speculation and ridiculous. How do they figure?  What skinny people consume less air than fat?  Aircraft doing food drops from international aid efforts in famines pollute less than the people would if they were well fed?  Wheres the math on this? 

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

its a huge speculation and ridiculous. How do they figure?  What skinny people consume less air than fat?  Aircraft doing food drops from international aid efforts in famines pollute less than the people would if they were well fed?  Wheres the math on this?

I've often wondered how US Govt rationalized the corn to ethanol thing.

This study purports to explore that.

Yes it is ridiculous, that was the point;   but that doesn't mean it's not true.

It's pretty obvious that a body that metabolizes less carbs will emit less CO2, and even more obvious that starving people have less offspring and die sooner.

The study is not available to me from here, but since it's Princeton, it is likely to be credible.

Here is the link, if you have access:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6229/1420.short

• Tweet

[Eddie]

I've often wondered how US Govt rationalized the corn to ethanol thing.

That's explainable under the subject of "conduit scheme", well defined by Steve from Virginia.

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

I've often wondered how US Govt rationalized the corn to ethanol thing.

That's explainable under the subject of "conduit scheme", well defined by Steve from Virginia.

Yes, I'm sure "corn to ethanol"  qualifies as a conduit scheme.  No question that such a scheme (or something quite similar) is actually the prime motivation, rather than any concern for the environment.

Nonetheless it would be interesting to find a justification along the lines alleged by this study.

• Tweet

[Petty Tyrant]

its a huge speculation and ridiculous. How do they figure?  What skinny people consume less air than fat?  Aircraft doing food drops from international aid efforts in famines pollute less than the people would if they were well fed?  Wheres the math on this?

I've often wondered how US Govt rationalized the corn to ethanol thing.

This study purports to explore that.

Yes it is ridiculous, that was the point;   but that doesn't mean it's not true.

It's pretty obvious that a body that metabolizes less carbs will emit less CO2, and even more obvious that starving people have less offspring and die sooner.

The study is not available to me from here, but since it's Princeton, it is likely to be credible.

Here is the link, if you have access:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6229/1420.short

U dont need to read the whole study. The abstract says it all  . 1 The effects and relationships are unknown 2.  "In effect" eating less pollutes less. First lets look at what u say is obvious. Starving people breed less and die sooner. have u been to places like phillpines or india or africa? you will see them all with 5 to 10 children They breed just fine With calorie deficit.
And they walk or bicycle burning a lot of calories. THey do a lot of work by hand like washing clothes. So they burn plenty and respirate plenty with blittle food. How does this compare with using a car orcwashing machine for pollution?  a car will burn more oxygen in a day and possibly even an hour than a person in a lifetime. And if they really start starving that is a humanitarian crisis and the un wfp gets involved. Foreign nationals fly there and set up hq and many vehicles including 4wd and trucks and helicopters and transport planes are used. The pollution from these  far exceeds the saving in breathing  from the few who drop dead before they get there.

it is eating too much that causes inactivity reducing breathing and infertility Reducing population. If u watch the biggest loser there are always women saying they need to lose the weight to get pregnant. being too overweight will prevent anyone wanting to have sex with them in the first place. And as for dying sooner eating too much will increase your risks a lot more than eating too little.

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

its a huge speculation and ridiculous. How do they figure?  What skinny people consume less air than fat?  Aircraft doing food drops from international aid efforts in famines pollute less than the people would if they were well fed?  Wheres the math on this?

I've often wondered how US Govt rationalized the corn to ethanol thing.

This study purports to explore that.

Yes it is ridiculous, that was the point;   but that doesn't mean it's not true.

It's pretty obvious that a body that metabolizes less carbs will emit less CO2, and even more obvious that starving people have less offspring and die sooner.

The study is not available to me from here, but since it's Princeton, it is likely to be credible.

Here is the link, if you have access:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6229/1420.short

U dont need to read the whole study. The abstract says it all  . 1 The effects and relationships are unknown 2.  "In effect" eating less pollutes less. First lets look at what u say is obvious. Starving people breed less and die sooner. have u been to places like phillpines or india or africa? you will see them all with 5 to 10 children They breed just fine With calorie deficit.
And they walk or bicycle burning a lot of calories. THey do a lot of work by hand like washing clothes. So they burn plenty and respirate plenty with blittle food. How does this compare with using a car orcwashing machine for pollution?  a car will burn more oxygen in a day and possibly even an hour than a person in a lifetime. And if they really start starving that is a humanitarian crisis and the un wfp gets involved. Foreign nationals fly there and set up hq and many vehicles including 4wd and trucks and helicopters and transport planes are used. The pollution from these  far exceeds the saving in breathing  from the few who drop dead before they get there.

it is eating too much that causes inactivity reducing breathing and infertility Reducing population. If u watch the biggest loser there are always women saying they need to lose the weight to get pregnant. being too overweight will prevent anyone wanting to have sex with them in the first place. And as for dying sooner eating too much will increase your risks a lot more than eating too little.

From the abstract:

Our analysis of the three major models used to set government policies in the United States and Europe suggests that ethanol policies in effect are relying on decreases in food consumption to generate GHG savings

OK   If you wish to proclaim that the study (or the policies) are invalid without reading the study, go ahead.   You could even be correct!

I think the policies are wrong if they are as alleged, whether technically valid or not, and that is my intended emphasis.

• Tweet

[jdwheeler42]

I've often wondered how US Govt rationalized the corn to ethanol thing.

That's explainable under the subject of "conduit scheme", well defined by Steve from Virginia.

Yes, I'm sure "corn to ethanol"  qualifies as a conduit scheme.  No question that such a scheme (or something quite similar) is actually the prime motivation, rather than any concern for the environment.

While I'm sure a conduit scheme was part of it, I wonder how much of the push for ethanol was the oil and gas industry looking for a substitute for the controversial MBTE, which seemed to be phased out at the same time that ethanol became popular as a gasoline additive.

• Tweet