Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
I have a new paper — Could Biofuel Policies Increase Death and Disease in Developing Countries? — which suggests that global warming policies may be helping kill more people than it saves. It was published last month in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Access to the paper is free.
Part of the PR notice put out by the journal is reproduced below:
—————————————————————
Biofuels Policy May Kill 200,000 Per Year in the Third World
TUCSON, Ariz., March 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — U.S. and European policy to increase production of ethanol and other biofuels to displace fossil fuels is supposed to help human health by reducing “global warming.” Instead it has added to the global burden of death and disease.
Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles. Higher food prices, in turn, condemn more people to chronic hunger and “absolute poverty” (defined as income less than $1.25 per day). But hunger and poverty are leading causes of premature death and excess disease worldwide. Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease.
Research by the World Bank indicates that the increase in biofuels production over 2004 levels would push more than 35 million additional people into absolute poverty in 2010 in developing countries. Using statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Indur Goklany estimates that this would lead to at least 192,000 excess deaths per year, plus disease resulting in the loss of 6.7 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per year. These exceed the estimated annual toll of 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million lost DALYs that the World Health Organization attributes to global warming. Thus, developed world policies intended to mitigate global warming probably have increased death and disease in developing countries rather than reducing them. Goklany also notes that death and disease from poverty are a fact, whereas death and disease from global warming are hypothetical.
Thus, the biofuel remedy for global warming may be worse than the disease it purports to alleviate.
————————————————————————————-
The paper also shows that based on the World Health Organization’s latest estimates of death and disease from global warming and 23 other global health risk factors (for the year 2004), global warming should be ranked last or second last, depending on whether the criterion used is the burden of disease or death.
Policies that subsidize or mandate biofuels benefit neither Mother Earth nor humanity.
Anothe brilliant post from Indur M. Goklany.
Yet more evidence that the “War on Global Warming” is actually a war on the poor.
Absolutely true! Biofuels are one of the “green products” that has produced bad results for our Society. In Europe, it will be mandatory to have 10% of biofuel in diesel, by 2020. In Portugal, besides the increase due to oil price, biofuel incorporation has represented an increase of about 0.02€ per liter each month.
Green projects have definitely killed our economy. As you know, Portugal has asked for a bailout. And a lot of it is explainable by our “green economy”:
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/04/dark-economy-inside-perspective.html
Ecotretas
Perhaps I’m being excessively cynical but, since many greenies are also enthusiastic malthusians, maybe the “unforeseen” consequence of increased numbers of dead and dying people from starvation isn’t accidental at all. I hope to God I’m wrong.
Whoever has the highest bid, wins. Unfortunately this mentality will kill people.
Fabulous. Now I will hold my breath waiting for all those concerned citizens to drop the “evil CO2” mantra and show some real concern by agitating for real solutions for real people with real problems.
(expires quitely and unnoticed in corner of room)
It is self evident that biofuel production, which has doubled the cost of some foods, and denying the developing world the vital cheap energy the need will kill the most vulnerable.
I see no mention of land clearance, plowing, planting and harvesting of the biofuel crop. All part of the life cycle surely?
As a pensioner in the UK I already have problems with food prices and if we lose power next winter for any extended period, my life, and my wife’s, will be at risk. The death rate here in the UK will rocket. Never mind the death rate in the undeveloped countries.
The greenies target is the developed countries. So far they are holding all the aces.
“the estimated annual toll of 141,000 deaths ” from Global Warming. That’s high, of course, by about 200,000.
It would be good to see more cost-benefit analyses related to climate change abatement. Many of us have commented for years on the likelihood that reducing energy use world wide would have catastrophic consequences to the poor.
Too many studies have focused on the negative consequences of climate change. Few focus on the possible benefits of such change, the costs of abatement, and the cost-benefit of adaptation rather than abatement.
Perhaps Indur M. Goklany has started us along a better path.
Should I cancel the delivery of my big-block Chevvy?.
I need moral guidance.
I promise to only use it to pick up my mail from the bottom of the drive.
This ‘food for fuel’ policy is probably the most stupid policy put in place thanks to the CAGW craze. It is worse than even billions spent on creating wind farms because ethanol kills people and it kills them right now. At best, ethanol production creates social instability around the world by contributing to high food prices.
That arable land is used to grow fuel instead of food is criminally insane. It should be banned outright.
This is nothing new
Biofuels scandal + food prices. Biofuel crisis, biofuel oil, biofuel production, cars, algae, systems and basic
| Fecha de creación: 24/04/2008
….As I have always said… there is so much overproduction of food in the EU / UK that we can afford setaside policies despite so many people in the world starving. We split up large (locally / relatively ) fields to provide modern day mansion houses for the well-to-do, with theirexpansive “lawns ” therefrom, and horse paddocks. Horses = ruminants – remember the nonsense about CH4 from ruminants !! ?? .. and what little land remains , we are encourage to spare some for Bio-fuels too. In my time in the 60’s to 80’s in Farming, we were encouraged to engage in sustainable methods – maintain / increase soil OM content thro’ use of straw being returned directly or via FYM to help earthworms = better soil structure……… – and we didn’t call it Bio or Organic farming – just plain farming. What a waste of my Education, now – what happens when a PC element allows socalled “Green Agenda” politics to take over….
I am ranting & it’s my coffee break – now over ! but as a beginner to responses – please excuse me. in the N of Scotland
Sorry, let me get this right. The PDREU/UESR & the UN are actually out to relieve the effects of disease & poverty, right? Like they did with Malaria (65 million deaths & God knows how many otherwise affected since arbitrarily banning DDT), AIDS (25+ million deaths & God knows how many infected), Rawanda (3 million + deaths (they’re improving) & goodness knows how many maimed, raped, destroyed lives etc). Now they propose making basic foodstuffs much more expensive so the poor get poorer & hungry get hungrier. reminds me of a few Nazi like comments passed around n the UN some years back about population control. Purrleese tell me they aren’t doing this! Sarc off.
Everything is bad for the poor. Here in Australia, employers regularly have to explain how the poor will be worse off if they have to pay them more. Crocodile tears.
Like many here I’ve long waited to see some hard-nosed analysis of the effects of biofuels. Many thanks, Indur – true humanitarian.
It’s funny, don’t you think, that in the world of the Very Green bio-fuels are a cool and groovy thing but cows, pigs, goats , chickens, fish etc. are bad things if we eat their flesh. Meat surely doesn’t add any more CO2 than the biomass it uses to grow with, not that CO2 is a bad thing anyway.
To me it looks just the same in that they are all part of the above ground carbon cycle. Meat is in fact a very efficient storage and delivery system for protein by which I mean it is energy dense and so costs less to transport than grains and veggies etc.
Or have I missed something?
SustainAgility, climate change and crazy biofuels policy
Fecha de creación: 24/04/2009
I was just reading the usual propaganda about electric cars http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/17/electric-hybrid-vehicles-ford and having a laugh at the comments from the sheeple, when one of them mentioned (As the middle classes with money do), its simple to park it on your drive way even night and re-charge it, well hang on a minute I live in, per square mile, one of the most populated parts of Europe and I can tell you drive ways just don’t exist so where do I park my car to recharge it then? Or am I just stupid and haven’t realised that in modern times if you can’t afford a drive way you can’t have a car?
(I haven’t bothered leaving a comment as most people around here will know anything negative about AGW and it gets Censored).
Of course. The EU, for example, fawning over “evil” India and China, and other developing countries over their CO2 output is just the same.
It’s modern colonialism. Why do you think are tomatos from the EU cheaper in some African areas than local products?
The law of unintended consequences at work? I’ll let the Warmists have the last word.
Green Peace 2007
Biofuels: green dream or climate change nightmare?
“As you may have already seen, along with WWF, the RSPB, Friends of the Earth and enoughsenough.org, we’ve placed an advert in several of today’s papers warning the government about the environmental risks of biofuels as an alternative to petrol and diesel. ”
——————–
Friends of the Earth – 2007
Biofuels – a big green con?
“The UK’s largest environmental groups have launched an advertising campaign attacking environmentally destructive ‘biofuels’.”
——————–
Guardian – 2008
Biofuel farms make CO2 emissions worse
“Transforming ecosystems into farms for biofuel crops will increase global warming and result in net increases in carbon emissions, according to a study. ”
——————–
Guardian – 2011
Bristol’s biofuels plant must be refused planning permission
“Burning biofuels in cars is mad enough, as it causes more environmental destruction – in terms of both carbon emissions and the loss of habitats – than petroleum. I’ve been campaigning against it since 2004. ”
——————–
Spiegel – 2011
Is Environmentalism Really Working?
“And Germans have been unusually stubborn about the biofuel E10 — the name refers to the 10 percent ethanol admixture……Many haven’t yet fully realized that E10 is an ecological swindle. People who want to help the environment shouldn’t use it. Nine large European environmental associations recently conducted a joint study which concluded that the bottom line impact of the fuel on the environment is negative…….A single full tank of bio-ethanol uses up as much grain as an adult can eat in a whole year.”
**************************************
**************************************
Note:
The author of the above post (Indur M. Goklany) has been associated with the IPCC since its inception in 1988 as an author, expert reviewer. Today, it appears, he is a little more skeptical. ;O)
There are three essential industrial processes omitted from that circular diagram. Item 1 is the coal mine needed to supply the electricity generator.The second item is the electricity power plant needed to supply the very heavy power demand of, no. 3, the ammonium nitrate manufacturer. For the sake of brevity we can ignore the fleets of heavy vehicles that are needed to distribute the n.a. to the farmers and those needed to deliver the crop to the bio facility. Like wind farms, the most essential ingredient of biofuel is subsidy.
Never fall for the LIE that CO2 is causing food riots. Food riots are partly being caused by biofuels. CO2 is essential for plants! The biosphere has been greening!
The following study found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole saw an increased greening of 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases
http://modis.cn/pubs/PERS_2007_Liang.pdf
The Sahel has been greening.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/trends_africa2008/desertification.pdf
Another excelent post from the author.
Like others who have posted in similar vein, I too have become quite cynical about the Greens and their errant Malthusian views. I am no longer willing to grant them possible good motives in promoting their multiple silliness and I no longer see them as merely misguided but as evil – there is too much evidence now for me to believe that starvation of the poor in developing countries due to ‘Green’ governments mandatingting the use of ‘green’ fuels and the scandal of the Green encouragement of the spread of Malaria can be atributed to the Law of Unintended Consequences. I know ‘wicked’ seems a terribly old-fashioned word, but I see it as an entirely appropriate apellation for the Greens of the world.