By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - McCain really impopular in Europe!

Esmoreit said:
Kasz216 said:
Articles to back up reading

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-28-03.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/business/worldbusiness/15food.html?pagewanted=print

The biofuel increase can be found on Obamas website in his energy platform document.

The arguement is that the current US and EU polcies contribute between 33% and 10% of the current problem.

That would be rather 33 Million are starving because of it or 10 million. Further increases in price are expected if the mandates are kept.

More people will starve even if ethanol subsidies are just kept in place... if they get explosivly increased like Obama wants...

There will be a lot of hunger pains felt around the world. I keep hoping someone would challenge him on it. Yet nobody does, and nobody cares because people here are inconvienced by the economic troubles.

Well, you know biofuel is more then just ethanol, right? It's made from palmoil for instance (easily replaced by oliveoil) and
manure.

Secondly, starvation is mostly combated with grains and rice. Neither ricefields nor grainfields are overtly used to produce the components for biofuels and it's doubtfull this will change as the price for both is still higher on the market then governments can subsidize against.

And as always, It'll turn out. Remember, it's not just the US who aids in combating Famine.

 

 

The perception of a problem is connected to the solution of it. Maybe the problem lies within the definition of the problem, or in what is left out of the problem formulation.



Beware, I live!
I am Sinistar!
Beware, coward!
I hunger!
Roaaaaaaaaaar!

 

 

 At least 62 million Wii sold by the end of 09 or my mario avatar will get sad
Around the Network
Esmoreit said:
Kasz216 said:
Articles to back up reading

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-28-03.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/business/worldbusiness/15food.html?pagewanted=print

The biofuel increase can be found on Obamas website in his energy platform document.

The arguement is that the current US and EU polcies contribute between 33% and 10% of the current problem.

That would be rather 33 Million are starving because of it or 10 million. Further increases in price are expected if the mandates are kept.

More people will starve even if ethanol subsidies are just kept in place... if they get explosivly increased like Obama wants...

There will be a lot of hunger pains felt around the world. I keep hoping someone would challenge him on it. Yet nobody does, and nobody cares because people here are inconvienced by the economic troubles.

Well, you know biofuel is more then just ethanol, right? It's made from palmoil for instance (easily replaced by oliveoil) and
manure.

Secondly, starvation is mostly combated with grains and rice. Neither ricefields nor grainfields are overtly used to produce the components for biofuels and it's doubtfull this will change as the price for both is still higher on the market then governments can subsidize against.

And as always, It'll turn out. Remember, it's not just the US who aids in combating Famine.

 

The UN disagrees... as do basically every expert on the subject who isn't paid by an ethanol subsidy.

Food prices go up because of the massive amounts of corn the US uses in it's biofuels program.  Obama specifically wants to triple this.

When corn prices rise it effects the prices of everything else as well as there is less food on the market in general.

 



StarcraftManiac said:
Kasz216 said:
Articles to back up reading

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-28-03.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/business/worldbusiness/15food.html?pagewanted=print

The biofuel increase can be found on Obamas website in his energy platform document.

The arguement is that the current US and EU polcies contribute between 33% and 10% of the current problem.

That would be rather 33 Million are starving because of it or 10 million. Further increases in price are expected if the mandates are kept.

More people will starve even if ethanol subsidies are just kept in place... if they get explosivly increased like Obama wants...

There will be a lot of hunger pains felt around the world. I keep hoping someone would challenge him on it. Yet nobody does, and nobody cares because people here are inconvienced by the economic troubles.

What Obama is trying to do with Biofuels could be harmfull! However, it also couldn't! Atleast, the way the US is going right now ain't good! And drilling for more oil like Palin and McCain suggest ain't a good option either!

Keep developing Biofuels is an option that has to be looked at! I actually wrote an essay on how bad biofuels COULD be when used wrong a few years back. Especially for rainforests and people that already life beneath the basic living standards in poor countries. However! There are a few easy solutions to that;

Algees (I don't know if I write it correct in English like this) are a great option if you keep them in a sack like this:

You don't have to cut down forests and don't use up really viable croplands in order to 'sow' energy! Above this, it's energy output is WAY bigger then it's input! National Geographic research even estimates an input:output-ratio of 1:250, this is because it

1: Doesn't take a lot of room and you don't need to cut forests.

2: Don't cut forests and use fotosynthetics (Again, don't know if it's called like this in English) in order to produce more Oxygen.

3: Uses solar energy to grow and you only need to tap the energy, producing an energy input:output ratio averaging at 1:250...

 

If Obama's plan is to Increase fundings by 3 times and using these kinds of ways to improve biofuels I agree with him! If the other way, then not! But Biofuels can be done like this and it has no negative side-effects! It's good for oxygen levels. It saves forests. It saves people's lives. It's a solution to petrol and gas.


I don't think you've read his plan throughly.  He wants to increase corn based ethanol times 3.  This will kill people.  It already is killing people.

He wants even more money for development of other biofuels.  However that isn't the particular problem.

Obama is in the pocket of Corn based ethanol and always has.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 



Meh, the world is overpopulated as it is...

I kid, I kid.



George Bush & hence the republicans are deeply disliked in Europe. The Uk's ex-prime minsiter (Tony Blair) was widely ridiculed as being Bush's lapdog. When Bush did a European farewell tour the only crowds that greeted him were protesters. Obama has visited European countries and been very popular. Europeans see him as a way to mend relationships between the two continents. I guess most of us Europeans just see McCain as another Bush.

Re the energy situation. I'm a supporter of using conventional nuclear power and alternatives (Solar, wind) until the nuclear fusion is a reality. A test rest reactor has been in the UK for years and a commercial prototype reactor is being built in France now.



Around the Network
Copycon said:

Half of them still live in africa, though some of them recieved their education in the US. I don't fully doubt you about Bush, and generally, at least from the people that I know, a lot of africans still distrust the former colonial powers. However, the 'washington consensus' (IMF and IBRD) are still seen as institutions working under the control of the US. On that point I don't know who would be considered to be the best president, to be honest, I have to little knowledge about their policies. Personally, McCain seems to be a decent guy that could do a somewhat decent job both internally and externally, but Palin as vice scare the shit out of me.

 

Bush has been popular in Africa for three reasons: his funding for HIV initiatives, his funding for malaria initiatives, and the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). The MCA is one of the few successful policies of Bush's administration; of course, for those who do not study international politics, it is a relatively unknown program. 

I am not surprised at Obama's popularity in Europe-especially Continental Europe (CE). I think it is a fair assessment that Obama wishes to focus more on US relations with Continental Europe-especially Berlin and Paris.

 



1. Western Europe as a whole is much more liberal than the US
2. The European press is much more liberal than the already-liberal American press, thus Obama has even more favorable coverage (if you believe he can get more favorable coverage) there



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

Kasz216 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Kasz216 said:
If you did the same in Africa.... i'd imaginge you'd find most people supporting McCain.

It's all a matter of what president would best serve the interests of their countries... not the US.

I wonder who the head of the UN supports.

On the one hand, he hates republican US military polcies.

However on the other hand, the number one issue the UN has right now is the Global Food Crisis and Obama is set to make the Global Food Crisis catastrophically worse.

You keep on saying this. Your theory has attracted my curiosity. Please explain.

The UN has stated that Biofuels are one of the leading causes of the global food crisis.  Specifially the biofuel programs of the US and EU.  It has called on a 5 year moratorium at least... to help get the food crisis under control.

They even called biofuels a "Criminal path" and a "Crime against humanity."

The US biofuel program is 2-3 times larger then the EU's at least.

Barak Obama plans to expand this program by 3 times it's current size.

vs McCain who wants to shut down the subsidiaries... which would go in line with the UN's plan to stop the global food crisis.

Tens of millions will be pushed to starvation because of it.

We ran a story today about food experts worldwide pushing spuds to end global hunger. Even poor countries could grow their own potatoes.

Experts push potatoes to end global hunger

With governments having trouble feeding the growing number of hungry poor and grain prices fluctuating wildly, food scientists are proposing a novel solution for the global food crisis: Let them eat potatoes.

Grains like wheat and rice have long been staples of diets in most of the world and the main currency of food aid. Now, a number of scientists, nutritionists and aid specialists are increasingly convinced that the humble spud should be playing a much larger role to ensure a steady supply of food in the developing world.

Poor countries could grow more potatoes, they say, to supplement or even replace grains that are most often shipped in from far away and are subject to severe market gyrations.

Even before a sharp price spike earlier this year, governments in countries from China to Peru to Malawi had begun urging both potato growing and eating as a way to ensure food security and build rural income.

Production in China rose 50 percent from 2005 to 2007, and the government has called potatoes "a way out of poverty."

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/6078166.html



*sigh* my friend hates McCain.



Kasz216 said:
Articles to back up reading

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-28-03.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/business/worldbusiness/15food.html?pagewanted=print

The biofuel increase can be found on Obamas website in his energy platform document.

The arguement is that the current US and EU polcies contribute between 33% and 10% of the current problem.

That would be rather 33 Million are starving because of it or 10 million. Further increases in price are expected if the mandates are kept.

More people will starve even if ethanol subsidies are just kept in place... if they get explosivly increased like Obama wants...

There will be a lot of hunger pains felt around the world. I keep hoping someone would challenge him on it. Yet nobody does, and nobody cares because people here are inconvienced by the economic troubles.

 

It CAN be a problem, but it is not just related to US policies on bio fuel. If the discussion is about converting american corn into ethanol, then fine, no greater harm done. With a funcional global framework on food chains and food production it can actually work out pretty well. A lot of countries in africa are having a bad agricultural output because of the (yes, I'm being a bit economically liberal here) lack of incitement to grow crops, because imports are destroying the domestic as well as the export markets.



Beware, I live!
I am Sinistar!
Beware, coward!
I hunger!
Roaaaaaaaaaar!

 

 

 At least 62 million Wii sold by the end of 09 or my mario avatar will get sad