Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Friends of the Earth Urges End to 'Land Grab' for Biofuels
Charity predicts more food shortages in Africa because of EU target to produce 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020
European Union countries must drop their biofuels targets or else risk plunging more Africans into hunger and raising carbon emissions, according to Friends of the Earth (FoE).
Friends of the Earth says that biofuel crops, including sugar cane, 'are competing directly with food crops for fertile land'. (Photograph: Juan Carlos Ulate/Reuters) In
a campaign launching today, the charity accuses European companies of
land-grabbing throughout Africa to grow biofuel crops that directly
compete with food crops. Biofuel companies counter that they consult
with local governments, bring investment and jobs, and often produce
fuels for the local market.
FoE has added its voice to an NGO lobby that claims local communities are not properly consulted and that forests are being cleared in a pattern that echoes decades of exploitation of other natural resources in Africa.
In its report "Africa: Up for Grabs", the group says that the key to halting the land-grab is for EU countries to drop a goal to produce 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020.
"The amount of land being taken in Africa to meet Europe's increasing demand for biofuels is underestimated and out of control," Kirtana Chandrasekaran, food campaigner for FoE in the UK, said. "Especially in Africa, as long as there's massive demand for biofuels from the European market, it will be hard to control. If we implement the biofuels targets it will only get worse. This is just a small taste of what's to come."
A number of European companies have planted biofuel crops such as jatropha, sugar cane and palm oil in Africa and elsewhere to tap into rising demand. But the trend has coincided with soaring food prices and ignited a debate over the dangers of using agricultural land for fuel.
Producers argue they typically farm land not destined, or suitable for, food crops. But campaigners reject those claims, with FoE saying that biofuel crops, including non-edible ones such as jatropha, "are competing directly with food crops for fertile land".
ActionAid claimed this year that European biofuel targets could result in up to 100 million more hungry people, increased food prices and landlessness.
Natural disasters including floods in Pakistan and a heatwave in Russia have wiped out crops in recent weeks and intensified fears of widespread food shortages.
The United Nations has singled out biofuel demand as a factor in what it estimates will be as much as a 40% jump in food prices over the coming decade.
Estimates of how much land in Africa is being farmed by foreign companies and governments, either for food or fuel crops, vary significantly. The FoE report focuses on 11 African countries in what it sees as a rush by foreign companies to farm there. In Tanzania, for example, it says that about 40 foreign-owned companies, including some from the UK, have invested in agrofuel developments. It argues that such activities are actually raising carbon emissions in many cases because virgin forests are being cut down.
Lip service
The report concludes: "While foreign companies pay lip service to the need for 'sustainable development', agrofuel production and demand for land is resulting in the loss of pasture and forests, destroying natural habitat and probably causing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions."Sun Biofuels, a British company farming land in Mozambique and Tanzania and named in the report, criticised the charity's research as "emotional and anecdotal" and said that its time would be better spent looking into ways to develop equitable farming models in Africa.
Sun's chief executive, Richard Morgan, said his company's leasing of land in Tanzania had taken three years, during which 11 communities, comprising about 11,000 people, were consulted.
"I find it insulting from Friends of the Earth. Somehow it's indirect criticism of Mozambiquan and Tanzanian governments that they would allow this dispossession to take place," he said.
Morgan conceded that such a protracted process could raise expectations among local people of jobs and investment that could not be met, and said that it was often those negative testimonies that were collected by newspapers and NGOs. But he insisted that Sun was creating jobs where possible and that much of the biofuel production was destined for domestic markets in Africa rather than Europe.
"There's an opportunity here to get investment into local communities in an ethical way," he said.
In many cases, biofuel production was replacing or reducing illegal tree felling, Morgan added. "Tanzania has a large landless community felling forest land. If you give employment to those people as an alternative, there is a chance you can intervene commercially there in a good way."
Biofuel crops were being grown on land that was not intended for food production, he said: "Often we are growing trees on land already cut down for charcoal or in some cases tobacco. We haven't displaced anyone."
But FoE argues that "most of the foreign companies are developing agrofuels to sell on the international market". Its campaigners in Africa are demanding that African states should immediately suspend further land acquisitions and investments in agrofuels. Instead, they want to see fundamental changes in consumption habits in developed countries - be it making more use of public transport or adopting different diets.
Chandrasekaran said: "Biofuels is just a small part of what is happening. What needs to change are consumption patterns in the west. That means [eating less] meat and dairy, given more than a third of the world's agricultural land goes to feeding meat and dairy production. It also means [reducing] consumption of fuel."
- Posted in
50 Comments so far
Show AllA Key feature of Obama's Energy plan via the Kerry/Lieberman Energy Bill is Bio Fuels expansion. I have been asserting this proposition on CD since 2004 when Kerry proposed the idea of increasing bio fuels as an answer to peak oil. It does not take a genius to realize that as more land transitions to bio fuel crops, less land will be available to grow for food crops.
Did the light turn on, Yet?
It certainly should. Biofuels is and always has been on of the fashionable "answers" of the dilettantes.
"Did the light turn on, Yet?" Yea lets talk around the real problem. Huge demands create huge problems. Why the huge demand? Overpopulation. Do you techies actually think we can keep populations growing forever because we will always come up with a technological solution? "Did the light turn on, Yet?"
Expanding population is indeed a problem. But it has no current solution. We cannot even control our own population's expansion or the enviornmental damage caused by it.
So do you have an answer?
The real problem? What you just characterized only demonstrates that the Obama solution to peak oil will exponentially contribute to world wide starvation: my initial observation. What don't you understand about starvation on a massive scale? Increased population is certianly a concommitant problem. The fact is current levels of food production result in starvation now, but with less airable land it will only get exponentially worse. Speaking of lights, sounds like you are a bulb short. Did I pinch a nerve while implying your president is bought and paid for by lobbyists, CEO's, multinationals, and the military industrial establishment?
Mass starvation is one form of population control. Has the light bulb gone on yet?
Excuse me, but you left out the fact that this President is a complete idiot other than the other attributes you mentioned.
Not sure why everyone feels we need to convert food crops when cellulosic ethanol and ethanol derived from algal base stocks, or non-food crops like switchgrass are just as productive and doubly effective in many ways when byproduct CO2 is used to grow the algae.Near as I can tell it's mostly just a point for wingers to seize on to oppose the production of alternative fuels.
No matter the method, the results are pretty much the same. No gain...at best.
Alternatve fuels that are no improvement, even worse in some cases are not helpful are they?
That is not Obama's plan last time I looked. The bio industry has a very big lobby to inusre its hegemony in the future: switch grass does not.
HIGH SOCIETY -- EVIL ZOMBIES
If the rich who have always ruled our “Christian Empire” were robots, just computerized machines that functioned purely by what best maximized profit, ordering their hand-picked sheriffs and police chiefs to herd people, jail people and murder people to attain the highest possible profit, would life in America be any different then it is today?
Let's be careful here. There are many acres available for bio-fuels, acres available without cutting back on food production, but the greater danger is in the transition taking place from labor intensive, to mechanized production. the transition took place in America years ago, that's why we have 5 major agricultural commodities,(corn/bean/wheat/meat/dairy). It's far more expensive to raise food for people than commodity for commercial processing. This trend has made Americans, fat, diabetic, and hypertensive. The article is very true in that this destructive process will happen and happen very quickly in the worlds less developed areas. For those with jobs they will actually have more affordable and available processed foods, but will change the health problems of the hungry for those of the western world.
Just a thought, set a bushel limit of sale of commodity -- corn milk beef == and give offset credits for the production of fruits, vegetables, exotic meats. All the labor intensive products. The employment, the product availability and health benefits would be tremendous. Focus on the big picture. It's the money trail, not the square feet of ground.
While the article gets it right on the bad sources of biofuel and the land grabbing schemes that go into forcing them on the market, nothing is mentioned about the good biofuel sources. I'm not suggesting that we go 100% biofuels but calling all biofuel sources bad just because of carbon is extreme. How come both Big Oil and the biofuel bashers don't want to mention good biofuel sources that emit far less pollution and yet satisfy some of the energy demands? I understand that too much carbon can cause climate fluctuations to get out of hand and it's already happening but aside from conservation and fuel efficiency, changing the fuel source makes a lot of difference. We could go to wars for oil and/or keep drilling to the last drop, go electric on transportation but we would be burning more coal and using nuclear power plants unless those solar panels could be upgraded to improve the yields in energy return, or we could use a combination of biofuel, solar, and wind energy sources for cleaner energy along with improving conservation and efficiency. I also find it offensive that this article ignores the local markets and governments that usually do a better job on cleaner energy compared to the bigger governments subsidizing nuclear, oil, coal, and gas corporations.
Biofuels is another of those surface answers that have unintended consequences and in reality are worse than the problem.
When the water and resources are factored in with the reduced milage it gives, damage and early replacement of engines and emissions parts, loss of food production and its own emissions, biofuels is a huge loser as a power source.
If biofuel, solar, and wind energy were cost effective alternatives, we would be using them. They require government subsidy which will tell you a lot. Much like the Chevrolet Volt that was just introduced.
I could agree with you on most biofuel resources with the exception of hemp and algae which I have discussed in the past. As for water and resources, we're already losing out on light sweet crude oil and using more water to pump out sour crude heavy oil which I believe needs further refining thereafter. As for subsidies, a friend of mine who is self-employed contractor to the Dept of Energy told me about the actual costs of subsidization of fossil fuels vs the cleaner energy sources. Biofuels are definitely higher in subsidization costs compared to other sources of cleaner fuel but pale in comparison to the costs of subsidizing nuclear or fossil fuels and that doesn't even including the costs of going to wars for oil not to mention the fact that fossil fuels release sulfur while biofuels don't and far more carbon while biofuels release insignificant amount of carbon. I see land grabbing as a scheme for laying the ground work for "fixing" the GMO scams and giving less regular citizens their right to grow what they want. Add that up and all we're left with is urban farming which only goes so far by itself. You might be right about the mileage on biofuels but when Big Oil had fudged the design of engines to accept petroleum instead of biofuels, I don't see why we can't tweak them to accept biofuels. All said, I'm not arguing for going strictly biofuels but neither do I buy into the other extreme of writing it off completely.
Wouldn't even think of writing it off completely. Just stop the useless content. Heck, we csan buy biofuel from Brazil for less than wee can make it and it doesn't affect the food supply.
And consider the milage of a gallon of gasoline. Why not tax the SIZE of an engine rather than its milage...which is useless and fudged in any case?
Does someone in a city NEED an SUV? While rural residents can't really use a Smart Car, generally they don't need a 6 liter booger either unless they are actually farming or ranching. If an engine has 3 liters, its measurable. CAFE standards are a joke.
It needs to be repeated ad nauseum that "biofuels" -- a name steeped in greenwash -- ultimately means taking food out of poor people's mouths. In a world where at least 500 million are undernourished or starving, how does anybody justify growing crops to turn into fuel so rich Europeans or Americans can drive instead of walking or taking mass transit?
I fear that the trend towards increased "biofuel" production is prophetic of mass famine in the near future... As the poor in the global South starve, consumers in the North will be pumping corn products into SUVs. It will be tricky rationalizing THAT -- but human creativity is boundless when it comes to self-serving hypocrisy.
"ensure honest regulation." There's a laugh. Who is going to regulate honestly? The govt. officials being bought off by giant western corporations, or the greedy giant corporations themselves? Soon one third of the world population will be living in squatter camps because they have been forced off their land, not becouse they enjoy life in the squalid filth of urban slums.
There certainly is a rapid, huge land grab occuring in Africa now.
1) Just as investment; as food prices soar.
2) Carbon Offset land trusts, which have alot of corruption swirling about them.
3) Minerals, Oil etc.
4) Biofuels
5) And the horrible old standby old growth Logging.
One problem, which is nonintuitive, is that African farmer's profits do poorly when their supply is high compared to demand.
But some complain that when prices rise for their commodities due to shortages, the West is too quick to dump free food,and depress prices.
Could this be intentional, to force African farmers to sellout?
As far as biofuels, it just needs to be ensured that it is not stealing land or water from edible crops or destroying forests.
With honest regulation there is no problem.
As long as the profit motive hangs around, the people of the world will make many big mistakes in trying to cope with the problems of global warming, together with an out of control rising population.
Most experts feel that Socialism is the only answer. Unfortunately, all of the world's most powerful countries consider Socialism as a threat rather than an answer.
Biofuels would be unnecessary if unsustainable auto/truck transit were replaced with public transit and rail.
Although Europe is far ahead of the US in terms of actually
having public transit, it still has further to go, especially
the UK. Even Branson, Billionaire head of Virgin Air, concurred with a study some months ago that due to peak oil,
the UK needs to dramatically cut auto/truck transit and move to
public transit and rail freight.
Of course, as peak oil has an even worse impact on the costs of
air travel, Richard Branson's chief business, it is in his
interest to cut oil usage by autos to keep prices lower for his planes.
Biofuels is another fantasy like electric cars, ginned up to
sustain the unsustainable in existing auto / truck addictions
in the face of peak oil and Climate Change.
An amazing story came out of China this past week- the biggest traffic jam in world history:
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/08/26/china-traffic-jam-eases-but-experts-say-it-could-happen-again/
Although there is some easing of car and truck traffic at a standstill for weeks, a Chinese expert said there would be no
relief until 2012...
When the new RAIL system comes online!!
We need to transition to light-rail, commuter rail intercity rail for both freight and passengers to reduce any need for biofuels and also just to support the traffic!
I think a lot of people who are proud of pasting "Biodiesel" stickers on their VWs still have some vague idea that it's all made from recycled deep-fryer grease and bacon fat. That's how biodiesel was sold in the popular press, with the idea that you'd be able to run your car off French fry drippings. I wonder how many of those who advertise to the world that they use biofuel are away that they are consuming just another cash-crop product.
INFLATE PRIDE -- HOW NOT TO DO IT?
In a democracy, High Society will always control things, for they keep 80% of wealth giving them ownership control, and pass 20% of wealth to the voting majority, the 51% most aggressive and wealthy. For democracy causes great disparity, as everything is geared toward an upward flow of wealth, with the high achievers competing to see who can gain the most wealth.
So how about a new kind of socialism, one that rewards people for passing their excessive wealth down toward those who have less wealth? One that would not inflate pride in the process, as we give people wealth they did not earn or deserve.
Even this socialism would require democracy in order to be achieved--unless a "philosopher-king" instead of the typical megalomaniac political-animal were somehow able to get control of the reins of power.
We USED to have what you're asking for, which was called the "Inheritance Tax". This year the rate is effectively zero due to the Bush-tax-cut initiative.
IMO, it should be restored--not to the 50% or so that it was previously, but to 75-90% of any amounts above $1 million transferred.
Otherwise, the heirs become the slave-masters, while those who don't inherit anything, the slaves in the "new" feudalism.
With "money" now equivalent to votes, its the end of democracy as we know (knew) it.
We need biofuels that are grown in sealed bioreactors in the desert. My personal opinion is that it won't be that hard to reach profitability.
One huge interest group, the oil companies, is dead set against anything that affects their profits. There's no entrenched interest group (the voters don't count for hardly anything!) in favor of desert biodiesel. Such an invention is going to have to be pried from the government's cold, dead hands.
I would think a hot-dry desert would be a worst-case condition for turning a profit. A far distance from the fuel raw material, a farther distance from the fuel markets, extra power lines and electricity needed to air condition things, miles and miles of pipelines to flow in and out all those fuel related things.
nonsense,
we pay farmers not to produce
we can certainly produce biofuels and food
it is the greed of multinational corporations that causes food shortages
this article feeds right into the hands to the oil companies
If you wonder why the pseudo-left is so ineffective in reigning in the godzilla of commerce it's because the pseudo-left isn't truly left.
Focusing attention on a material instead of focusing attention on the elites and their agenda is a huge problem with the pseudo-left's approach.
Such a focus greatly confuses the people, leaving them unable to contribute to the solution.
It's very likely that the pseudo-left's REAL hidden agenda is to buttress the monstrous status quo in which its members are ironically indentured to, while only pretending to compensate for it.
The glaring question we on the true left have for the pseudo-left is this: What is your suggestion for an alternative to godzilla's newest campaign of plunder?
The answer is simple: The pseudo-left doesn't have an alternative. As the pseudo-left tries to play "dear leader" while offering no alternatives, no visions of its own, the result is reinforcement of rudderless confusion among the people, and destructive pressures against the people's faith and trust in their own personal vision and power. The temptation to embrace godzilla as "dear leader" is reinforced.
The true left, in stark contrast, supports the people's vision and power, first and foremost. The true left agenda mandates framing the news in ways that are coherent with the people's focus on empowering themselves. So in the case of biofuels, the true left suggests a frame like so:
Energy independence and sustainability for the people requires they embrace the local sustainable production of, among other things, biofuels, i.e. exchange with small producers the people are able to communicate with directly to convey their market demands and see those demands met. Sustainability involves both a sustainable production method and consumption volume, the latter implying a sustainable LIFESTYLE.
Meanwhile, godzilla corporations lurch out over the globe to conquer, steal and plunder land/resources with a diabolical agenda of supplying energy in ways that create dangerously dependent, ignorant, apathetic, and gluttonous "consumers". Obviously this is unacceptable, and we will step up our campaign to enlighten/empower the people to resist the fatal temptation.
See my post (following) before you paint everyone with the same broad brush.
You, and anyone who reads this, are welcome to join-up with those of us who think the AVE may be (probably is) the solution to achieve the goals to which you claim to aspire, including solution to the global warming crisis.
AVEtec need somehow to get funding for the next scale-up of this technology. Anyone with suggestions?? (Please be sure you become acquainted first with the technology by reading material at the website, esp. FAQs).
This is all a scheme for "absentee landlords" to "farm" what otherwise should be natural wilderness, mainly for the benefit of the "rich" among them.
While I'm not against producing a small amount of "synthetic" bio-fuels that might be consumed in ways that benefit the entire local society, these can and should be combined with renewable energy projects that have negligible environmental impact and can produce needed electrical power (and water) to enrich the lives of residents of areas such as Africa.
One efficient way would be to combine such a "bio-fuel" project with the Atmospheric Vortex Engine ( http://vortexengine.ca )
If ethanol or algae production were involved, the AVE would feast on the waste (aka, low-grade) heat which is INEVITABLEY produced, but would otherwise be thrown away in a non-integrated project, and turned into more electricity.
See http://scitizen.com/future-energies/the-ave-concept-a-paradigm-shift-on-how-energy-sources-are-evaluated_a-14-1338.html
>>"In its report "Africa: Up for Grabs", the group says that the key to halting the land-grab is for EU countries to drop a goal to produce 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020. "The amount of land being taken in Africa to meet Europe's increasing demand for biofuels is underestimated and out of control," Kirtana Chandrasekaran, food campaigner for FoE in the UK, said."<<
Every time I read about this friggin' target set by the EU - mandating a certain percentage of their transportation fuel to be biofuels - it makes me mad and I really have to summon all the decency I have to find printable words. I hope they drop this stupid target and get back on track to imposing carbon emission limits that make sense and that leave no room for cheating.
I have pointed out the relative "success" of the EU countries in meeting their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol even though there are some glaring defaulters. But since the targets were modest and Germany committed to meeting the bulk of the cuts, EU is on course to meeting its targets by 2012. But, like I said, the targets were extremely modest and were only meant as a start, arrived at in 1997, with greater cuts to follow, post-Kyoto. But there was no agreement at Copenhagen last year for any meaningful cuts, because some of the historically big polluters did not do their part in the last 10 years and so it was difficult to bring the emerging economies on-board.
It's as if imperialism and colonialism never ended - only the mechanism has changed - from direct rule to clever manipulations, with the result being the same: sucking up the resources from other countries while finding markets to dump the rich countries' products. So it was perhaps a bit naive of me to draw that distinction between the EU and the USA (and Canada that conveniently hides behind the USA's inaction, citing a common market and all that). There is no distinction.
However, the USA is once again the bigger culprit - something I have generally refrained from saying, and instead pointing to the other culprits so their actions do not go unnoticed. It was the USA's complete unwillingness to bring down its emissions by a modest amount below 1990 levels that have made other countries cynical - including those countries that were somewhat serious and that let themselves be pressured by the environmentalists and the scientists in the 1990's - starting from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, culminating in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Now even these countries have started backpedaling and the reason is the intransigence of the USA.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore never fought for the Kyoto Protocol (and Al Gore did not even send it to the Senate for ratification) nor for any serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions. I can never forgive Al Gore for not putting up a fight, knowing the significance of getting the process started and the limited window of opportunity, by starting with action under the Kyoto Protocol. The denial industry, though watchful, was not so active in the 1990's, the Soviet Union had collapsed, the US economy was doing OK and there was no "global" war on terror, and it was the perfect time to initiate some major change, but in a modest manner. Clinton and Gore should have fought hard for action on climate change.
I know, once again I am being naive, and that is another thing that makes me mad - to expose my naïveté by lapsing into a bunch of woulda, coulda, shoulda, forgetting the true nature of these characters. And, more importantly, that the politics in a country cannot but be a reflection of the collective values of the society - although these values can be shaped or influenced by the media. But my point is that the USA had a ***tremendously important*** role to play, post-Kyoto, and its failure to play its part is what is behind all these other stupidities and criminalities that we see today - such as the EU "target" on biofuels. If they are so damn concerned, they should stick to a cap on emissions and grow their own biofuels in their own damn land.
The target under Kyoto was to reduce **only** 5-6% of emissions below 1990 levels - something eminently achievable by some simple taxation and some modest replacement of fossil fuel-based power by renewable power. And some simple incentives for the people to use the public transport. The 1990's and later saw a lot of the manufacturing moved to other countries from the US and Canada, and yet their total emissions have **increased** in this same period. What happened?
Although it's useful to focus on one region such as Africa, as in this report by the Friends of the Earth UK, the effects of this biofuel-triggered insanity extend to other regions as well. Forests are also being cleared in Indonesia and Malaysia (and, of course the Amazon) for both biofuels and to grow animal feed, for export to the rich countries that would like to be considered "respectable" members of the world community.
From an overall efficiency point of view, this is as stupid as it gets. At every stage of processing and transportation, efficiency is lost. And finally when this fuel is burned in an internal combustion engine and when you look at what fraction of this fuel being burned actually moves the vehicle, it is mind-boggling. None of this stupidity of bio-fuel from faraway lands would be needed if only more people would use the public transport and cut down on non-essential trips. As simple as that!
Very enjoyable post. Informative and I'm glad you found "decent" words.
Poor ole USA, blamed again. :) Just kidding! This time you are correct. Without our lead nothing will happen. (though we are noyt the flavor of the month in China right now) And the culprits you named are certainly holding a big sack of responsibility, especially Mr. Gore.
Unfortunately, thanks to Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid...there is no will to do anything at all now.
Usually, people in Europe rely more on public transportation and less on driving on their own as I witnessed early this year. From what I experienced, I do not see the need for any European nation to engage in land grabbing for biofuels. They should stick to maintaining the public transportation infrastructure and the efforts to discourage gas guzzling.
As for the remark against meat and diary, I strongly disagree. Efforts to keep agriculture local and less reliant on factory farming should remain.
JenniferBedingfield, your impression based on what you see during a visit may not be the whole reality, especially when you get down to looking at the numbers. The European countries as a whole still have very large carbon emissions - both in total and on a per-capita basis. The share of public transportation has to increase even more to make a real difference and to bring about a reduction in transportation-related emissions.
I don't understand your comment about meat and dairy. Once again, the European nations consume far too much meat and dairy, as well as fish. There is simply ***NO WAY*** to meet their requirements at current levels of consumption from within their national boundaries or their seas. Not even close. They have to import both meat and animal feed from North & South America, Australia and even countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. And they have to continue to over-exploit the fish stock from other parts of the world to meet their demand.
I try to look at the picture beyond the numbers alone. On my comment on meat and diary, I am for grass-fed meat and diary to conventional corn-fed type although I am almost a vegetarian. As for carbon emissions, yes they could do better. However, if the use were anything like Europe, I seriously doubt that the issue of carbon emissions would exist. I cannot speak for all Europeans but unlike the US, they do their best to prevent their lifestyles from slipping into that of the US. I will be glad to look up more information on importing animal feed and fish stock now that you mentioned it.
Alcyon is right about Europe and emissions and perhaps if you spent more time in Europe you might see the lifestyle you are speaking of is not universally shared.
Their lifestyles are altering as we speak in any case.
Well I did some research in addition to my experience abroad and found out that each European nation ranks low compared to the US or China. Two things to keep in mind about Europe vs the USA are the following:
1. Public transportation both in terms of buses and trains is much better than what you will find even in the big cities in the US. Why do pols in the USA lie their teeth off about not having enough money to improve our languishing public transportation infrastructure? The Democrats start out with already low funding thanks to their ties to Big Auto and the Republicans add to the mess by calling for much lower and soon it's next to nothing. But they have no problem delivering pork and gravy for Big Auto and highways to keep the congestion and carbon emissions super high !
2. The same cars in Europe getting higher gas mileage at 70 mpg will be altered in the USA to get below 40 mpg at best and will often be lower due to higher traffic congestion thanks to political efforts to derail funding any improvements or enhancements to our already languishing public transportation system. I don't see any of Europe planning on giving obscene tax breaks or loopholes to gas guzzlers unlike the US either.
3. Gas prices are higher in Europe than they are in the USA so efforts to put forth higher fuel efficiency and improve public transportation are given a high priority. Unfortunately, the cornfed electorate would scream like a bunch of brain-damaged zombies once the gas prices went up. In 2008, it looked like there might be room for fuel efficient vehicles, chances to seriously consider fixing our long broken bus and train routes, encourage people to work 4 days a week and telecommute as much as possible, etc... However, once those crude oil prices suddenly went down, all that disappeared just like that and here we are back to square one.
4. Here in the US, the so-called "cap and trade" scams are nothing more than Wall $treet giveaways and there is nothing to seriously cap those carbon emissions.
5. Even when people there do drive in Europe, at least there is more carpooling unlike the US where it is difficult to get even one's own neighbor to do so despite working at or close to the same location. I don't see any silly HOV lanes in Europe and to my knowledge, only the US has this lame HOV system. What an embarrassment !
6. More people love to walk and ride bikes to and from whereas in the US, fewer people even think of wanting to do it in the cities. That could be changing but I haven't heard of any plans to build bike lanes or improve the existing sidewalks. Why do lame brains in this country complain about tax dollars being wasted on building sidewalks and bike paths but go mum on enormous giveaways to gas guzzlers?
Add up those 6 points and it isn't to see why other nations are laughing at us. Their lifestyles may not be universally perfect but overall I see far less obesity even among guys on average. Lifestyles may change but I seriously doubt that they'll go USA all the way and certainly not for long. Taking a car to drive even one lousy block may be common in the US but extremely rare in any of Europe and not likely to change.
1. Most politicians come from the womb lying.
2. I don't see any evidence of that. Our topography is different. Remember you could put all of France in a corner of my state and her population is just a few million more than ours. And the streets are middle ages in width.
3. Europe has NO real oil of her own and no refineries plus the fact that taxes are needed to pay for a much higher social service. I wouldn't give them halo's just yet.
4. Cap and Trade in Europe was an abject failure. I'd also suggest you follow European Corporations and Financial markets. You will find that they are not much different than ours and many things blamed on the US were and are the responsibility of these nations.
5. Europe has little room for HOV lanes in the first place, but remember that Europeans are far less wealthy than Americans. Many cannot afford a car. Once again, their circumstances dictate their actions. If you look behind the facade, European poverty is a real embarrasment, the homeless are not welcome on the streets, etc.
6. Europeans do indeed spend more time riding bikes and walking than we do. They have more time. Check real history from the end of WW2 and you will see that we provided much of their needs to give threm the ability for their culture. That is now changing. Some won't like that statement, but its the truth, not some ideological twaddle.
And lest you think I hate Europeans or detest their lifestyles, I don't. Europe has many good parts, good ideas and very good people in most countries. Their racism and bigotry bothers me a bit, but its not much worse than ours like in Illinois for example. It is mostly to the east. Economic bigotry is confined to Switzerland, etc.
Other nations are laughing at us because of our governance and our trasde policies. Because we spend money for their benefit to our detriment. Its a narrow bunch that do the laughing and even now its partial envy. Europe isn't quite the paradise our lounge lizards like to present it as. I have far too many friends there to believe that. I am prejudiced to the US of course, so consider that, but I've seen most of the rest of the world and know why we are a popular destination, even now.
"I'd also suggest you follow European Corporations and Financial markets. You will find that they are not much different than ours and many things blamed on the US were and are the responsibility of these nations."
There are plenty of corporations of European origin, many of them MNCs, to clobber such as Nestle, BP, etc ... The difference is what governments do to regulate corporate behavior. Regulated capitalism and in most nations a mix of socialism is what keeps them from misbehaving and if they don't like it, they find other nations with weaker labor laws for them to exploit and profit obscenely from.
"Our topography is different. Remember you could put all of France in a corner of my state and her population is just a few million more than ours. And the streets are middle ages in width."
Yes, there is a lot of empty land out in the country but a lot of the depopulation of rural America could have been averted had Big Auto and Big Oil not bought out and crushed the public transportation system a long time ago only to brainwash the electorate generation after generation into depending too much on the auto. States like Kansas and Wyoming would likely be green belt states instead of rust belt states that they are today. Instead of flying and wasting excessive amounts of fuel, the heartland could have been rock solid on more metro access points and bus stops. Imagine the wild west going urban. Instead, we're at a point where even Detroit has been failing miserably despite Big Auto's gains.
"Check real history from the end of WW2 and you will see that we provided much of their needs to give threm the ability for their culture. That is now changing."
I find that hard to believe but then again, misleaders like Dubya could shamelessly gut our public education system while pretending to call for a well established public education system in Iraq so it wouldn't completely surprise me that our society would elect misleaders ready to keep our public transportation system rotting away while paying and telling others to improve their public transportation systems as if they couldn't do it on their own.
"Europe has little room for HOV lanes in the first place, but remember that Europeans are far less wealthy than Americans. Many cannot afford a car. Once again, their circumstances dictate their actions. If you look behind the facade, European poverty is a real embarrasment, the homeless are not welcome on the streets, etc."
They may look "poor" but they are far more frugal with what they earn and they make sure that they get a fair bang for the buck. They are also far more honest about what they can and can't afford which would make most American conservatives preaching about "personal responsibility" blush. Here, most Americans are brainwashed into thinking that they can afford the unaffordable and they are seduced and deceived financially. Add to it, they get suckered into "too big to fail" hook, line, and sinker believing that they can be as "rich" as Donald Trump and fly like Peter Pan. As for the homeless, people try to help keep the homeless off the street there and they don't mistreat the unemployed unlike here.
"Because we spend money for their benefit to our detriment."
Ok fine, but why do we keep rejecting those good ideas and then count on others to buy them? I agree that no single nation in Europe is perfect and trying to keep materialism and consumption curbed as much as possible isn't easy but they are still so far ahead of us.
Has anyone considered the good side? How about Exxon Valdez and the Gulf Oil spill never happened. How about deaths from ground water contamination and BTX exposure never happened. How about the strangle hold from Middle East oil and it's support of Terrorism lifted. How about the fact that the vast majority of agriculture goes to waste when it can be recycled. How about considering a new path to energy in a world strapped for energy. How about reclaiming poor lands unusuable for anything else! Is the light on or shall we remain negative?
It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol from corn.
How do you suppose that is going to impact upon water sources?
Ssshhhhh! Thats not PC.
I'm watching the environment getting raped every day by the GM farmers rushing to devote every square inch possible towards bio-fuels, et al. It better become PC to talk about it. The aquifers here, in the mid-west, can't support it. And, that doesn't even begin to touch upon the issues of ground water contamination, habitat loss through conversion to mono-culture, et al. Let's not even begin to talk about the misplaced allocation of energy resources needed to refine/distill the end products--this is all insanity and it only serves to benefit agri-business and their sycophantic accomplices.
To paraphase Sitting Bull, I would like to be remembered as the last person in my tribe to surrender my way of life.
bio fuels = ethanol = alcohol in beer, wine, whiskey, etc.
200 proof drinking alcohol is pure alcohol
one gallon of 200 proof alcohol is very expensive, much more expensive than gasoline at current prices AND not as efficient, though less polluting.
Just my reasoning.....
It's fallacious reasoning to say that 10% biofuel will raise carbon emmissions-- because if not biofuel then it would be oil/gasoline fuel-- resulting in Carbon Emmissions as well. The forests should not be getting cut down AT ALL(!!!!)-- for either crops or fuel. This lowers the Oxygen in our atmosphere. It also causes Species Extinction. The website for The Center for Biological Diversity shows a direct correlation between HUMAN OVERPOPULATION and species extinction in our Web of Life or Food Chain. The Europeans are at fault... but mostly the Africans. There are 999 Million people in Africa now because outside countries continue to help them-- drill for water( they can't even take care of themselves ) & against disease. In the year 500 A.D. there were no problems because the law of the jungle/diseases kept the population where it should be. The animals had there land and jungle... and the people had their share. Now outside nations are giving them vaccines and helping them against malaria and bad water and there's overpopulation resulting in the destruction of other species' habitats. WE DO NOT NEED MORE PEOPLE. People who are so special they aren't even smart enough to drill for their own water? The arrogance of people thinking they have the right to increase their population-- to what, 1.5 Billion soon(?!!) to cause the extinction of many other species. There is nothing "Special" about any more extra people to come than there already are. What's more special than any extra new people yet to come are the animal species( which are dwindling in number ) which we need to protect. We need to do the opposite... start replanting forests for the animals habitat. Stop giving vaccines, let them TRY to figure out how to drill for their own water and stop helping against malaria. 999 Million people who can't take care of THEMSELVES... let alone produce and contribute anything for the rest of the world??!!! 999 Million: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! We need to leave them alone to fend for themselves... then the forests will grow back and the different species will slowly start to repopulate. The Hypocratic Oath Backfired and is probably the worst thing that has ever happened to this Planet-- causing overpopulation, deforestation, species etinction... and Ultimately Global Warming. I believe we got rid of Malaria/Anopheles(sp?) mosquito in Sri Lanka sometime ago. Then two ethnic groups overpopulated, lacked resources/food & started warring against each other( it was one of the islands south of India ). Now they've deforested almost the entire island to plant tea crops to make money to eat for all the overpopulated people on the island. Just cause they live there doesn't give them a right to do that. That's God's Forest and a resource of all the people and all the 2 Million+ species on this planet. By the way, they just found a little critter that they say is very cute in the last remaining forests of Sri Lanka. They hadn't seen it for a few years & thought it was extinct. It has red eyes & looks kind of like a Lemur( speaking of which, look at deforestation in Malaysia & fate of Lemurs ). Are we really going to let them continue & cause the extinction of AT LEAST this creature by deforestation for tea crops??!
Since people won't keep their Zippers Zipped up... or follow any rules or suggestions about birth control... my answer to overpopulation on this planet is to outlaw in every country VACCINES. Periodically let Typhoid or Small Pox go. Perhaps once a generation. Get the Population down to just below 2 Billion... then auto emmissions will be cut in half & Global Warming reversed. With Pandemics-- no individual ethnic group is targeted. Every nation will share in losses. The good news is... it's not "The Luck of the Draw". The weak/non-immune people will be culled out of the Human Gene Pool... and in the long run it will be positive and beneficial because it will make our species stronger( only the strong/immune will survive & procreate-- to have strong & immune progeny ).
As usual, Caucasians spreading misery for their comforts.