biofuels, like mtbe, the kyoto treaty, gun control, raised taxes,
and how many other knee jerk non thinking reactionary steps are proof
of how liberals make decisions based on emotions and not thinking
things through with facts and reason. this is a story that we as
individuals need to push, since the media will ignore it, as another
example of liberal incompetence to make an informed decision that we
all have to suffer.

i want to hear from that scarecrow sheryl crow, because she's got that big
caravan of tour buses filled with folks with cranky ass for using only
one sheet of toilet paper, i want her wonderful insight on this now.
because obviously she had all the answers when she was pushing this
agenda only a few weeks ago. now that this topic is proving to be a lie
where is she. why isn't she speaking about this? oooooooohhh yeah i
forgot, liberals aren't held accountable like conservatives are for
their words and actions.

lunaticcringeradio

also if
sheryl crow enforces a biofuels tour, i want to see the accountability
report on the one sheet of toilet paper rule she is enforcing on her
crew also. i know it has to exist because she expected the rest of
america to follow her recommendation so i know she's setting the finest
example and it will be reenforced with accountability reports.

fact
did you know that we could curb greenhouse gases significantly enough
to completely reverse global warming in a matter of days if liberals
and socialist were to hold their breathe for 10 minutes each day. that
is if global warming really existed.

it's a quick and easy solution that i'm sure they can get behind.

For a side so convinced of their "consensus" status, there sure seems to be a lot of disputing going on in the AGW camp.

*****

"I heart famous people."

I suppose Ms Goodall will become persona non grata in the green world for this most inconvenient revelation.   On hopes this will redirect money to more promising options such as conversion of sewage into biodiesel. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html , A NZ company is doing this http://www.ecosherpa.com/green-energy/algae-biofuel-from-sewage/

When you feel you have to walk on eggshells to avoid problems with the MSM you are being codependent, the cure is to stomp on the eggshells

To New  The answer to your question is
, fairyfarts and moonbeams. Liberals only feel they don't know anything.

The problem with the above is not just Jane Goodall lying, because her focus is protecting JUNGLES AS THAT IS WHERE HER MONEY TRAIN MONOPOLY IS WITH PRIMATES........but with the comments posted here and others like this Dr. Reay which is left as fact when he is lying.

FOR THE RECORD, there is not any way emissions from transportation can rise 6 percent from bio fuels BECAUSE THE CORN AND BEANS have to be transported for livestock or refined processing in the first place. If one adds the palm and sugar cane transport, they are more than offset BECAUSE TREES PRODUCE MORE "polluting" gases than agriculture does.

Next, ships burn huge amounts of diesel transporting oil along with the burn off of refineries of propane. Dr. Reay is lying through his teeth in his "figures" as they are just as bogus as Roger Hedgecock and Rush Limbaugh's figures on bio fuels "which are from the oil industry and actually factor in the costs of production for drilling oil in the middle east to run tractors".

The family farmers who are spread from Asia to America are producing a renewable product. No bio fuels are not the answer for world fuel needs, but they are a means of stretching that fuel so wars do not arise and forcing up prices so Iran will be bankrupt as well as China who are anti American.

None of the editors posting here have apparently no idea of the market value for Americans this is stimulating. Poverty states like South Dakota, Nebraska etc... are now having jobs created from products they only had pennies before in. FOR THE RECORD, farmers and ranchers SPEND MONEY THEY MAKE. They always do as they need tax deductions in being a business and they have always invested in their communities.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO NEWSBUSTERS and those complaining here is simple:

A farmer buys local goods which are imported from your states. This fuels the local economies which causes a rise in purchasing appliances, wood for new homes, cars etc... The transportation people then have jobs and so do the service sectors all across America.

The money is no longer flowing out of the United States but turning over in the United States creating wealth. THAT IS A GOOD THING.

It is one thing for a communist earth hugger like Goodall to spew this stuff, but I have yet to see one economist nor editor here start explaining what bio fuels actually do and how it will drive the American economy FOR ALL AMERICANS and not just the select bankers. Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

I will ask Newsbusters once again to explain this or at least get informed on the Franklin economics this promotes. Just because wacko environmentalist are for bio fuels does not make it something to attack, because the oil industry and the cartel bankers are spreading the propaganda that Newsbusters is biting into.

OH AND I SUGGEST NEWSBUSTERS start checking out if bio fuels are so "bad" as the oil industry cartels and bankers are telling us........WHY IS IT THEY HAVE STARTED on the sly buying up bio fuel plants??????

The reason it is "bad" is they are monopoly controls of energy and it will be "good" when they drive out the private owners and can rape Americans again in fuel prices.

Newsbusters can check to how the oil and banking industry are deliberately driving up ethanol prices in California, Illinois etc... to make consumers believe it is more expensive "using the shipping" excuse which you notice Reay was chiming in on in lying to people.

This site usually does quite well, but in this issue it has the most uninformed and people posting repeating absolute lies.

Ask yourself why is it global greenists who are supported by banking oil cartels who support communism are the only ones against this?
Follow the money....even into conservative camps and you soon find book deals from the cartels and ad rates from the cartels all spreading the influence which spreads the lies.

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

This might be a new story for you and your readers, but it`s not. A Google search for biofuel and tropical forest turns up 631,000 results, many by enviro groups - and one of the hacks at Planet Gore just took a whack at this last month, based on this story in the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.... Perhaps it`s been uncovered in the US - but in any case, it involves a number of important issues, so you do everyone a favor by bringing it more attention.

My take on this - the developing world is a mess, to which both indigenous growth and demand from Western markets have contributed by providing incentives to further strip out resources that are not effectively owned (either by natives who cannot protect their traditional rights, or by governments, which are unwilling to protect these resources from exploitation by kleptocratic elites). It has long been well-known that corruption and lack of private property rights (backed by "states" that have been determined to benefit one ethnic group at the expense of others) are the true hindrances to development of wealth.

And you and others want to blame environmentalists for the lack of property rights in the third world? Or do you want to blame them and the EU governments for not being more paternalistic, by refusing to accept biofuels from tropical countries? So that means you are IN FAVOR of the US protectionism that puts high tariffs on Brazilian ethanol?

While no doubt new EU measures that mandate greater use of biofuels will help increase the demand for palm oil, you missed the most fundamental point - to protect a resource, it needs to have an owner whose property rights are enforceable.

You might not have perceived this, but you have in a perverse sense adopted the enviros` traditional position - that the reason why environmental destruction occurs is not because of lack of effective ownership of the resource, but simply because of demand from the capitalist countries, in which case the answer isn't to improve and enforce property rights in developing countries, the oceans or what have you
(the free market enviro position), but to save the resources that we value - like tropical forests - by "reforming capitalism" or tampering with demand in or supply to the market economies.

Like many enviros, the implication from your piece is that the best way to protect the environment in developing economies is to beggar them and make sure there is no international demand for their products.

The real solution to solving problems in the developing world has to be on stopping the kleptocracy by elites in the guise of governments by protecting traditional and private property rights.

And just how interested are you in addressing THAT problem, rather than simply bashing enviros and the press?

Sincerely, 20/20

"I do not know what is true. ... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty."
- Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.