On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bjørn Lomborg wrote: > The costs of global climate policies is running at about $1billion every > day. Wind turbines cost 10 times the estimated benefits in terms of > emissions cuts, and solar panels cost close to 100 times the benefits. Yet, > with spending on these technologies of about £136 billion annually, there > are a lot of interests in keeping the tap open. > > But opposition to the rampant proliferation of biofuels also shows the way > to a more rational climate policy. If we can stop the increase in biofuels > we can save lives, save money, and start finding better ways to help. This > is about investing in more productive agriculture that can feed more people > more cheaply while freeing up space for wildlife. >
It seems to give a fairly rational explanation of how bad mega-biofuels are..... then concludes with these two paragraphs which all of a sudden attack wind turbines and solar panels without giving any data to back up their fairly wild claims. And gives a fairly vague sentence about "more production agriculture". Does that mean urban farms, edible landscapes or more intensive chemical use and GMO crops, or what???? I was pretty on to agreeing with everything he said till the end, but now I kind of question exactly where he's coming from and what his agenda is... Z _______________________________________________ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
