Wednesday, 25 June 2008

Oxfam: 'Green Policies' Dragging 30 Million into Poverty

The replacement of traditional fuels with biofuels has dragged more than 30 million people worldwide into poverty, an aid agency report says.

Oxfam says so-called green policies in developed countries are contributing to the world's soaring food prices, which hit the poor hardest.

BBC News

Is this the new face of environmentalism, where humans are left to die, in order so affluent Western 'environmentalists' can feel better?


Letters From A Tory said...

The EU has driven this particular policy, Gordon Brown just jumped on board.

Peter Risdon said...

"Is this the new face of environmentalism, where humans are left to die, in order so affluent Western 'environmentalists' can feel better?"


Renegade Eye said...

It's more insidious than how your post described it.

In the US, it's a pork barrel project, given to corn growers for votes.


Tu S.Tin said...

ok.... I don't understand the comments this post is getting? Do people just read things and jump on the attack without looking farther into whats going on?
I would have to say Oxfam is "contributing" to the spread of bullshit!
Sure what they are saying is something to keep in mind but ... come on!! there are a hundred things combined that put us in the state we are in.

one of them - a very large part!! Is the price of fuel!!
which brings us to the topic of biofuels.... why is this labeled a green policy? Finding alternative sources would end dependencies on oil, etc....
Why aren't "humanitarians" ever concerned with the general population and their/our future?
why is no one attacking opec?

Tu S.Tin said...

on that link ... scroll down to food.
one thing I can never understand is how people in rural areas are most affected?
they should be the ones growing their own food?

Derek Wall said...

its not a green policy but a Bush policy to throw money at key Republican states and blend a little bio with the petroleum

marvin said...

In the UK it is purely a 'green' policy

Tu S.Tin said...

I'm gonna disagree with you marvin, only cause I don't want to believe they are that stupid!
and even if it is strictly a "green" policy.... how is oxfam blaming it for dragging millions into poverty and starvation?
The UK is at a record all time high and still growing global market for "exporting" of food...

but if you wanna talk about new problem is our obsession with eating meat.
Like it or not we live in a world now where almost everything is a humanitarian issue, which means some things will have to change for everyone.

I'm as peace, love and tree hugging as they come, and reading all this I admit to moments of let's save the rain forest, since Brazil always comes up ...But how? unless the entire world gives up all our advancements and technology and goes back to living like cave men.
and think about it, can you imagine yourself as Brazil .... "sorry! you arent aloud to have an economy, grow, develop, advance, catch up with the rest of us or even participated at all.... nothing personal, just trying to keep it "green".

marvin said...

The European Union has a target for 2010 that 5.75% of transport fuels should come from biological sources, but the target is unlikely to be met.

The British government's Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation requires 5% of the fuel sold at the pump by 2010 to be biofuel.

In the US, the Renewable Fuels Standard aims to double the use of biofuels in transport by 2012.

SO both the EU and the US have targets for "renewable energy".

Here at least, it is widely thought of as a green policy.

This is why Jeffrey A McNeely from the BBC starts of this article with "Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming"

The assumption being challenged is that biofuels are good for the environment.

Tu S.Tin said...

Oxfams claims, and whether biofuels are good for the environment are two separate arguments, no?
What an over load of information and contradicting opinions, but I guess thats what makes a debate.
I like how McNeely says something about the fuel to fill a range rover could feed a village .... so could the daily waste from an all you can eat buffet .... etc.
not to mention the general population is not driving range rovers.
one side says it will be home grown.. the other claims imported...blah blah blah..

the thing that caught my eye was the 5% part .... which really makes me wonder if its worth the expense and effort at all? since they just intend to mix it with gasoline not replace anything.
to be "green" it would make more sense to focus on improving existing automotive/transportation technology and the way they burn and run.
Though I am a lover of science, alot of things we know and use today came from unrelated studies of some kind, so I'm not sure the idea of "biofuels" should be completely tossed out.
I still want to know whats making gas so expensive anyway!
I did read about the use of discarded animal parts as fuel (which is gross)but why not use some other type garbage material? Maybe plants as energy just sounds cleaner to people?