McGuinty: "Let them eat dirt."

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, ol' JimBobby's blood's a-boilin' this mornin'. I just seen a second Mop & Pail article tellin' how Premier Dalton Ginty ain't gonna rethink Ontario's ethanol policy. The dumbass Ginty don't believe that food prices are risin' on accounta gummint support fer corn ethanol.

Premier defends Ontario's growing hunger for corn

MURRAY CAMPBELL

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

TORONTO — Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says he will not reconsider his government's program of helping ethanol producers despite concern that it is driving up food prices.

He said yesterday that the three-year-old program to support the production of ethanol - a corn-derived alcohol used as a gasoline additive - is not the dominant factor in increasing the price of corn and other commodities.

Mr. McGuinty said that energy prices have risen and that severe droughts in the world have limited crops. He also noted that an emerging middle class in China and India is seeking a better quality of food.

"A whole bunch of circumstances are driving up food prices," he told reporters after speaking to the fourth annual Agri-Food summit.

Ontario launched a 12-year, $520-million plan in 2005 after implementing a requirement that there be at least 5 per cent ethanol in all gasoline sold in the province. More than $26-million in capital grants to producers have been approved, with operational grants allocated for 485 million litres of ethanol in the next decade.

The incentives are luring investors into the ethanol business, and there are fears that production of the additive could eventually consume virtually all of the province's corn production of about 283 million bushels a year. The concern, which seems borne out by recent food riots in Asia, is that the scarcity of the commodity will push up prices for food processors dependent on corn for cereals and sweeteners and for farmers who use corn to feed their poultry.

Last year, about 2.1 million acres of land in Ontario were planted in corn, compared with 1.6 million acres the year earlier. Officials at the Ministry of Agriculture expect the acreage devoted to corn to increase significantly in the next few years.

The ministry estimates Ontario farms are providing about 350 million litres of the current demand for ethanol of 850 million litres. It anticipates that by 2012, Ontario will be producing 1.8 billion litres and will be an exporter, rather than an importer.

Mr. McGuinty said the government is convinced that Ontario's hunger for corn is not driving up prices.

"The big driver here in Ontario has not been ethanol," he told reporters. "All grain prices have gone up, not just corn."

Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky said the government has invested $7.5-million into research on ethanol production that leaves corn kernels for consumer use and derives ethanol from the husks and stalks left after harvesting.

Godammit, Ginty. Don't you understand anything about economics? Don't you know that when more corn is planted and used for fuel that less land is available for food grain production? Don't you care about anybody outside Ontario? Sure, food prices have risen in Ontario. Sure, corn ethanol, might not be the biggest factor. But, dammit, it is a factor and it's contributing to the global food crisis. People are hungry. People are starving. People are rioting for affordable food.

People are eating dirt, Mr. Premier. How much worse does it need to get?

Poor Haitians Resort to Eating Dirt

Jonathan M. Katz in Port-au-Prince, Haiti
Associated Press

January 30, 2008

It was lunchtime in one of Haiti's worst slums, and Charlene Dumas was eating mud.

With food prices rising, Haiti's poorest can't afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies.

Charlene, 16 with a month-old son, has come to rely on a traditional Haitian remedy for hunger pangs: cookies made of dried yellow dirt from the country's central plateau.

The mud has long been prized by pregnant women and children here as an antacid and source of calcium. But in places such as Cité Soleil, the oceanside slum where Charlene shares a two-room house with her baby, five siblings, and two unemployed parents, cookies made of dirt, salt, and vegetable shortening have become a regular meal.

"When my mother does not cook anything, I have to eat them three times a day," Charlene said. Her baby, named Woodson, lay still across her lap, looking even thinner than the slim 6 pounds, 3 ounces (2.7 kilograms, 85 grams) he weighed at birth.

Though she likes their buttery, salty taste, Charlene said the cookies also give her stomach pains. "When I nurse, the baby sometimes seems colicky too," she said.
(Source: National Geographic. Read more...)

And what does Ginty say?

"The big driver here in Ontario has not been ethanol," he told reporters. "All grain prices have gone up, not just corn."

Look, you dumbass, we all know that nobody's starvin' to death in Ontario. Nobody's rioting for food in Ontario. Nobody's eatin' dirt in Ontario. The food crisis threatens to destabilize poorer countries all over the world. Don't you even read the newspapers, Ginty? Are you just as uninformed that other ignoramus non-reader who also supports ethanol?

Canada needs to get off the ethanol bandwagon. Now. Not after food riots come to Canada. Not after tens of thousands perish from malnutrition and civil violence brought about by hunger. Now.

We don't live in a closed economy, Ginty. What we do here has effects in Haiti, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Ivory Coast and hundreds of other hellholes where people normally spend 75% of their income on food.

Here in Ontario, we spend between 10% and 20% of our income on food. If food prices double, like they have already done in many countries, we will spend between 20% and 40% of our income on food. Some Ontarians may have to forgo the Big Macs and a few Timmy's donuts. Some may need to resort to food banks. We'll need to tighten our belts and start gettin' back to basics like buyin' Ontario-grown produce and eatin' less processed crap and less fast food. For some, it'll be an adjustment. They'll live.

In places where they were already spending 75% of their income on basic foods, a doubling of food prices means they need 150% of their income for food. I ain't an economist, either, Ginty, but I know that spendin' 150% of yer income on food don't leave much for shelter or clothing or any of the other necessities of life.

When folks are starvin' to death, they got nothin' to lose. They blame their gummints and the rich assholes in the West. They are easily recruited to violent movements, jihads, revolutions and riots.

Ontario ain't the only guilty party. Ontario's support for ethanol may not be "the dominant factor" but, it's one of the factors and it's one over which the Ontario gummint has control.

Ontario cannot single-handedly eliminate world hunger. We don't need to contribute to it, though. The UN food program estimates a $500 million shortfall this year in its valiant effort to adequately feed 89 million poor bastards who can't afford basic sustenance. Instead of pumpin' our money into a scam that does nothing for the environment and is making wealthy commodities dealers salivate with glee over windfall profits, we could be helpin' the poor and hungry. We could lead the way.

Or, we can let them eat dirt.

JimBobby
pissed off

Lightbulbs, McGuinty and the Nanny State

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, Red Tory's got hisself a good boog story all about Ginty's idea to make compact fluorescent lightbulbs mandatory like they do in Australia an' some other places. Red's bringin' up the bit where the anti-Earthers are bitchin' that Ginty's makin' Ontariariario more of a nanny state an' they want the right to use whatever dang lightbulbs they please.

I ain't a bigass proponent of the nanny state but we got all sortsa rules an' regulations an' if we wanna save ol' Mother Earth, we're gonna need to get a little bit tuff. We got things like speed limits on the highway, laws that say you can't dump garbage anywhere you please, laws that say I gotta pick up dog shit behind ol' Spot, laws that say I gotta pay taxes so's Steve Harper can hire a primper, laws that say cars gotta meet certain standards and a blujillion other laws.

Laws are mostly there to protect society in general from anti-social elements, like wanton polluters an' mass murderers. Without some rules an' regulations, we wouldn't have a society like we do. We'd be livin' in Mad Max world.

Nannies are there to protect dumbass kids from hurtin' themselves an' to make sure they get the necessities of life an' maybe a stroller ride in the park. Some fellers an' gals probbly figger they're responsible enough an' don't need Ginty tellin' 'em what to screw in their sockets. Troublem is, from what some of 'em are sayin', it seems they are too stoopid fer their own good an' are talkin' down the CFB's themselves along with the nanny. "Aw, Mom! I don't need a babysitter anymore." Anybuddy who's had kids, knows that line an' knows it usually means that they DO need a babysitter.

This whole thing reminds me of when we switched to unleaded gasoline. Yeow! The selfsame sorta hew an' cry went up. Lo an' behold, 20 years later, we're doin' fine as far as the no-lead aspect of gasoline is concerned. How many are grumblin' about the nanny state takin' poison lead outta the gas every time they fill up the chugmobile?

Some of the drawbacks to CFB's Red Tory was on about were relevent with early CFB's but have been largely overcome. The dimmer issue is one such problem. CFB's are available that do work properly with dimmers an' 3-way switches. These bulbs, admittedly so far, are more expensive an' more difficult to find.

A commenter over t' Red's site brought up the fluorescent flickerin' causes migraines issue, this is something I don't see in the CFB's. I'm sensitive to flickerin' but it don't gimme migraines an' I ain't seen any scientific studies but... the flicker that we all seen in them commonly used 4-foot fluorescent tubes ain't happenin' with the CFB's. Leastwise, not so's it's apparent to my eye.

As far as the colour spectrum of the light itself, there were originally only "cool white" CF bulbs available. Now, the light comin' from the warmer version is pretty much identical to the spectrum emitted from conventional bulbs.

Like the anti-Earthers complain, CFB's take a little time to reach full brightness. So does my LCD monitor. So what? From my experience, I'd estimate they reach 70% brightness within 2 seconds and, except in cold outdoor conditions, they reach full brightness within a minute. Not much of a drawback considerin' they use less than one quarter the energy of regular bulbs.

Red talked about the fact that up-front costs are high with the CFB's. It's true but they last anywhere's from 5 to 7 years an' they pay fer themselves, on average, within the first year with reduced energy costs. Economy of scale will play an important part in reducing the up-front costs. When CFB's account for the bulk of lightbulb use, manufacturing and distribution will become more efficient.

Red brought up the mercury issue, it is true that CFB's do contain mercury and should be disposed of properly -- just like old paint, fuel, thinners, industrial chemicals, medical waste, batteries and a plethora of other commonly used items. We do it for those other things and we can do it for CFB's. It ain't like CFB's is spent nuclear fuel rods.

Still on the mercury issue, the increased energy demand of incandescants requires electrical generators to provide electricity that they would not need to produce if CFB's were used. Coal-burning generators emit mercury from their smokestacks. Trace amounts, just like what's in the CFB's. The difference is that while the coal-burning generators spew the mercury into the air, CFB's contain the contaminant and can be disposed of without releasing it into the air.

I ain't a hunnert percent sure that legislation is the way to go. I ain't fightin' it on accounta I believe that switchin' over to CFB's is gonna save electricity an' help save ol' Mother Earth. I reckon the gummint could probbly be just as effective if it'd lead by example.

My idea would be for the Ontario gummint to embark on a program to immediately replace its own incandescant bulbs with CFB's in each and every gummint building. I'm talkin' Queen's Park, every driver's license outlet, every courthouse, every maintenance garage, storage facility and every school and university in the province.

When they're doin' that, they should mount a bigass PR campaign explainin' how much energy their savin' an' how, even in the medium term, they're gonna save the taxpayer megatonnes of money. Ontariariarians ain't stoopid. If we see our gummint savin' money an' doin' the right thing at the same time, we'll mostly wanna get in on the benefits.

JimBobby

(P.S. Most o' this here boog story was originally posted as a comment over t' Red Tory's fine boog.)

Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

Whooee! Well friends and foes, I posted up a big comment to yesterday's post and I'm dragging it out for today's post. I got the more easily decipherable James Robert to write most of it. BigCityLib asked me if I was mostly concerned about the way nuclear's being crammed down our throats or if my objections are against nuclear, in general.

Nuclear power is not the answer to global warming.

To replace all of its current oil, gas and coal use, the world would have to build about 80,000 medium-sized reactors. It would take over 200 years to build them even at the rate of one a day, and the cost would be staggering. And common sense tells us that we must not trade one environmental problem for another.(Source)

The projected time frame for nuclear conversion in Nanticoke ranges from 8 - 14 years. Much quicker, cheaper, less-objectionable methods are available. If we put billions into nukes, we take away precious funding that could be used for a better solution.

Nuclear power generation is not emission-free as often claimed by industry advocates and also by Diane Finley --

"...a nuclear facility with its zero emitting technology..."

Minister Finley is getting her information solely from industry advocates. The Sierra Club of Canada informs us that nuclear energy is by no means emmission free.

"Routine emissions from nuclear reactors include a number of different elements such as carbon-14 and tritium. The long half-lives of these radioactive elements (5730 years for carbon-14 and 12.3 years for tritium) allow them to accumulate in the environment and in living tissue. Over the years, leaks around nuclear reactors in Canada have raised levels of tritium, a known carcinogen, well above background levels.

Spent fuel from CANDU reactors contains over 200 deadly radioactive elements - byproducts of the fission process - including uranium, plutonium, cesium, and strontium. Plutonium, for example, has a half-life of 24,400 years. Other waste byproducts have half-lives as long as 710,000 years (uranium235) or 15.8 million years (iodine129). High-level nuclear waste will remain toxic for periods far longer than recorded human history." Sierra Club

What about the increased availability of nuke waste and fuel as contaminants in a dirty bomb or even a "clean" A-bomb?

The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.

As Dr. Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado points out, "Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power."

2 In order to get plutonium for weapons, one needs a reactor, whether it is a "research" reactor (such as the one which provided India with the fissile material for its first atomic bomb) or a commercial reactor. (Source)

Many countries have phased out or are in the process of phasing out nuclear power generators. They have proven to be too costly, too unreliable, -- several of Ontario's existing reactors are either kaput or awaiting $billion+ repairs -- too dangerous and too unpopular with citizens. I believe there are only 2 reactors being built presently in the entire world - one in Finland and one in Taiwan. These were the first new starts in something like 25-30 years. The industry spends much of its corporate energy attempting to woo governments because without massive subsidies, nuclear cannot be implemented.

Waht about the risk to nearby people and property?

Nuclear installations are, by law, free from financial liability in the case of a nuclear accident. Private property insurance specifically excludes nuclear accidents from all homeowner and farm policies. It is not purchasable at any price. In the event of an accident forcing residents to abandon their property, there is absolutely zero compensation available.

The industry has already been using "temporary" waste storage while it supposedly tries to find permanent solutions. This has been happening since the very first nuke plant went online about 50 years ago. It's an accident waiting to happen.

What about Return on Investment of taxpayer money?

Over a fifty year period (from 1953 to 2002), government subsidies to AECL Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ) totaled $17.5 billion (in 2001 dollars). Cost overruns on the last nuclear station to be built in Ontario at Darlington were in the billions of dollars. Debt incurred by Ontario Hydro (the predecessor to OPG) in the operations of its power reactors amounted to over $35 billion dollars. The public cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors and attempting to contain the waste products over extended timeframes has yet to be determined. Sierra Club

And now, McGuinty is at it again along with the support of MP Finley and presumably the federal government. The financial situation vis-a-vis Canadian investment is typical of the poor ROI experienced by other countries, like the US.

The Nanticoke coal generator is only about 35 years old. If replaced by a nuke plant, the existing plant will be totally demolished. This will cost millions. If we'd known 35 years ago what we know now, it would not have been built. We do know now all the reasons why building a multi-billion dollar nuclear facility is wrong-headed. In 50 years (the industry-projected life span of a new nuke plant), we'll be spending billions to decommission nuke plants.

About 3 years ago, a wind farm proposal came before Norfolk council and was approved. Those 70-80 windmills are already pumping out enough power for tens of thousands of homes. A multi-acre solar farm has just been announced and approved for development. It will come online before the drawings could be completed for a nuclear Nanticoke.

Reduction and energy efficiency are the real answers.

(N)uclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative -- energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion. If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient lightbulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from better responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential. (Source)

Don't forget, that's our money that Ontario is investing. We could be getting seven times better ROI.

James Robert (for JimBobby)