Mark Steyn has been spitting chips, he seems to have had a gutful of the self righteous, sanctimonious, hypocrisy which passes for rational argument by the â€˜Greensâ€™
Where to begin? For the last ten years, we have, in fact, been not warming but slightly cooling, which is why the eco-warriors have adopted the all-purpose bogeyman of â€œclimate change.â€ But letâ€™s take it that the editors of Time are referring not to the century we live in but the previous one, when there was a measurable rise of temperature of approximately one degree. Thatâ€™s the â€œwarâ€: one degree.
At least five people have been killed in food riots in Port-au-Prince. Prices have risen 40 percent since last summer and, as Deroy Murdock reported, some citizens are now subsisting on biscuits made from salt, vegetable oil and (mmmm) dirt. Dirt cookies: Nutritious, tasty, and affordable? Well, one out of three ainâ€™t bad.
Unlike â€œglobal warming,â€ food rioting is a planet-wide phenomenon, from Indonesia to Pakistan to Ivory Coast to the tortilla rampages in Mexico and even pasta protests in Italy.
Well, Western governments listened to the eco-warriors, and introduced some of the â€œwartime measuresâ€ theyâ€™ve been urging. The EU decreed that 5.75 percent of petrol and diesel must come from â€œbiofuelsâ€ by 2010, rising to 10 percent by 2020. The U.S. added to its 51 cents-per-gallon ethanol subsidy by mandating a five-fold increase in â€œbiofuelsâ€ production by 2022.
The result is that big government accomplished at a stroke what the free market could never have done: They turned the food supply into a subsidiary of the energy industry. When you divert 28 percent of U.S. grain into fuel production, and when you artificially make its value as fuel higher than its value as food, why be surprised that youâ€™ve suddenly got less to eat? Or, to be more precise, itâ€™s not â€œyouâ€ whoâ€™s got less to eat but those starving peasants in distant lands you claim to care so much about.
This is the issue to me, as Richard North has pointed out time and again, for the UK to meet its intended use of 10% biofuels would require fourteen million tons of wheat, as opposed to UK production of eleven million.
That is right, three million more than is currently produced, plus a need to import another ten million to eat. Seriously, where the fuck did they think it was going to come from? Al Gore?
For the EU as a whole? The biofuel mandate would require 70% of its available agricultural land. And that is before we eat anything.
Seriously, can these people count? Are they completely innumerate? Is this the standard of thought and consideration they put into every decision they make?
Is this the standard of ignorance and wishful thinking they apply to AGW itself? Can they even spell AGW?
Heigh-ho. In the greater scheme of things, a few dead natives keeled over with distended bellies is a small price to pay for saving the planet, right? Except that turning food into fuel does nothing for the planet in the first place. That tree the U.S. Marines are raising on Iwo Jima was most likely cut down to make way for an ethanol-producing corn field: Researchers at Princeton calculate that to date the â€œcarbon debtâ€ created by the biofuels arboricide will take 167 years to reverse.
The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell: The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be developing countries. In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to starve to death.
Itâ€™s not the environmental movementâ€™s chickenfeedhawks whoâ€™ll have to reap what they demand must be sown, but we should be in no doubt about where to place the blame â€” on the bullying activists and their media cheerleaders and weathervane politicians who insist that the â€œscienceâ€ is â€œsettledâ€ and that those who query whether thereâ€™s any crisis are (in the designation of the strikingly non-emaciated Al Gore) â€œdenialists.â€
Whether or not thereâ€™s very slight global cooling or very slight global warming, thereâ€™s no need for a â€œwarâ€ on either, no rationale for loosing a plague of eco-locusts on the food supply. So why be surprised that totalitarian solutions to mythical problems wind up causing real devastation? As for Timeâ€™s tree, by all means put it up: It helps block out the view of starving peasants on the far horizon.
So why be surprised that totalitarian solutions to mythical problems wind up causing real devastation?
Green is illiterate, green is innumerate, green confuses touchy feely fantasies with rational thought. Green gestures and poses. Green drivels and moans about â€œpeopleâ€ on the abstract, but is indifferent to the suffering of real, true, concrete individuals, suffering caused as a direct result of the policies implemented by green.