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
- 100% Wind By 2030
- It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Climate Grifting Shutting Down
- Fundamental Pillars Of Democracy
- An Inconvenient Truth
- Antarctic Meltdown Update
- “Trump eyes major cuts to NOAA research”
- Data Made Simple II – Sneak Preview
- Attacks On Democracy
- Scientists Warn
- Upping The Ante
- Our New Leadership
- Grok Defines Fake News
- Arctic Meltdown Update
- The Savior Of Humanity
- President Trump Explains The Stock Market
- Net Zero In Europe
- The Canadian Hockey Stick
- Dogs Cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes And Droughts
- 50 Years Of Climate Devastation
- Climate Cycles
- Hiding The Decline
- Careful Research At BBC News
- New Video : Man Made Climate Emergency
- Geoengineering To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- gordon vigurs on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- arn on 100% Wind By 2030
- gordon vigurs on 100% Wind By 2030
- arn on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- arn on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- dm on 100% Wind By 2030
- conrad ziefle on 100% Wind By 2030
- conrad ziefle on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- conrad ziefle on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- conrad ziefle on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
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.