Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« HSI goes nuclear | Main | More Mother Jones »
Friday
Apr222011

Sir John B on climate change and food

Sir John Beddington says "the food system is failing". No doubt the answer is more funding.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    We see that in every single instance of comparison, the Theory of the Greenhouse Effect appears to contradict what the Laws of Thermodynamics have to say about the exact same physical situation. The conclusion of this article is very simple: there is no such thing as a radiative Theory of the ...

Reader Comments (56)

Nothing new here -- been around since Malthus

And of course, there are dozens of solutions as well. My favorites are Soylent Green as well as Logan's Run

Apr 23, 2011 at 6:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

I suppose it would be out of place to suggest that Beddington should read Lomborg - his assessment of the FAO data showed conclusively that Beddington is just plain wrong. Food supply is rising faster than population - which is partly why food prices in real terms are falling. And this man is Britain's finest?

Apr 23, 2011 at 10:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Iceman Cometh

Well it was foretold in 1972 (limits to growth) that there should be a food crisis now, so there must be a food crisis now. Just like there is a "climate crisis" now.

Only, where is it ?

Apr 24, 2011 at 1:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterHans Erren

FergalR --
"Regarding corn to ethanol, I only believe that the problem is exaggerated, not that it is non-existent...It's far too simplistic when people say that 40% of US corn is burned as fuel."
I agree with you on those, and thank you for presenting the facts behind it. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that such efforts are misguided, and serve mainly to enrich one political constituency (in this case, corn farmers) at the expense of others (notably lower-income consumers).

As to the efficacy of such efforts, I wonder what the figures are on the energy cost of the additional lands put under tillage, and ethanol processing, vs. (say) extraction and refinement of crude oil of equivalent energy content. What is the implied cost of CO2 emissions avoided by this method, when all effects are included? Unfortunately, although I think I can lay hands on the energy cost of producing gasoline, I'm not aware of equivalent documentation for ethanol. Plus, unlike e.g. windmills & solar PV, where the additional end costs are explicit in FITs and other subsidies, it's a little trickier to isolate end costs for ethanol, which should show up as a portion of price changes in gasoline and corn-based foods. The amount attributable to ethanol, as opposed to other effects, would seem to be difficult to quantify. Is anyone aware of a paper or report which attempts this calculation?

Apr 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterHaroldW

This wet prick was elevated to the peerage?? Must have been a Blair nomination.

Apr 24, 2011 at 3:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterLevelGaze

HarlodW;

The IEA estimates corn-ethanol production cost from $40-$135/bbl equivalent on page 4 of this .pdf. US corn yield is twice the international average so I guess that's where the $40/bbl ethanol would come from. No details are given and the IEA website isn't the easiest place to search for specifics. They're very pro-CO2 tax so I wouldn't trust them anyway.

Apr 24, 2011 at 4:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterFergalR

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>