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.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Final Score For The Inflation Reduction Act
- Fraudster Fighting Climate Misinformation
- Ice Free Glacier National Park
- Climate Comedy Cancelled
- Warmest March On Record
- New Climate Metric
- Bad-Faith Trial Misconduct
- Food And Energy Experts
- “Are We Imagining It?”
- The Suffragettes
- Michael Mann Upset
- A Serious Problem
- Miami Drowning
- No Longer The Greatest Existential Threat
- Almost Unanimous Consensus Of Scientists
- Maryland To Drown
- Rapid Virus Mutation
- Wisconsin To Save The Planet
- Magical Musk
- “Scientists Forecast”
- “thing of the past” update
- Defunding The Climate Scam
- “Record Low Sea Ice”
- Leader Of The Free World
- Measuring The Heat
Recent Comments
- Mike Peinsipp on Final Score For The Inflation Reduction Act
- Billyjack on Ice Free Glacier National Park
- David M Kitting on Warmest March On Record
- william on New Climate Metric
- arn on New Climate Metric
- william on Ice Free Glacier National Park
- oeman50 on Climate Comedy Cancelled
- william on New Climate Metric
- dm on Warmest March On Record
- Jack the Insider on Food And Energy Experts
And that’s only considering damage done by ethanol, which I believe they low-balled the numbers, but that’s a quibble. Has anyone seen a death count by people that can’t afford to heat their homes now? Or, when the whirlygigs and pinwheels fail to provide needed energy?
200,000 lives are a small price to pay for the happy feelings you get from not using fossil fuels.
Let them eat carbon credits!
What do warmists call 2ook deaths due to privations caused by climate change “mitigation” policies?
A good start
I keep suggesting that if people think CO2 is such a terrible poison, then they should go on a carbon free diet. No-one ever bites. No even to tell me that it may possibly be lethal.
Personally I do not believe most people truly believe in CAGW, they are just following a fasion.