The UN is nothing but a toothless dog which can bark rather loudly but has not power to back up its warnings.
Yea, but whose fault is that? (asked rhetorically; I know, it's the US's)
btw:
I think I've agreed with all that's been said above about the "crime" part of biofuels displacing food....
But why does nobody talk about producing biofuels on marginal (poor, unused) soils. That is also an option; we're not just limited to a food vs. fuel choice.
Growing on marginal soils (providing jobs for poor poeples and refugees) will also sequester much more carbon than simply replacing food with fuel. Win-win!
http://ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=42982"Planting more trees is the only long-term solution to the wood shortage -- and CARE does have a small nursery at Iridimi where two shifts of around 20 workers -- all refugees -- tend thousands of tiny seedlings. But many of the young trees die from a lack of water, Djimdim says, and even those that survive might need three years before they start producing firewood."
Now as a scientist, I ask why "the young trees die from a lack of water?"
Isn't this a refugee camp, on marginal soil, with lots of human wastes ...needing processing?
...organic processing, ...by growing biomass ...for fuel ...to trade for food, etc.
Am I missing something here, or is everyone else?
Biofuels offer a way to restore the land and support populations; but yes, they have to be done the right way; not replacing existing arable land and food supplies.
That truly is a crime.
...but to repeat, there is a third option:
Biofuels offer a way to restore the land and support populations.
