Visit iqbal.latif's column >>

IQBAL.LATIF

Searching the purpose of our existance and where do we end up?
Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 219; Links Seeded: 53
Member Since: 3/2007Last Seen: 11/22/2009

Vultures waiting for our 'children' to die should be killed now.

This photo is the "Pulitzer Prize" winning photo taken in 1994 during the Sudan famine. The picture depicts a famine stricken child crawling towards a United Nations food camp, located a kilometer away. The vulture is waiting for the child to die so that it can eat it. The internationally acclaimed photographer Kevin Carter captured this award winning shot and then chased away the vulture. The girl then resumed her trek to the UN feeding center. Afterwards, Carter told an interviewer, that he sat under a tree for a long time smoking cigarettes and crying.

This picture shocked the whole world. No one knows the fate of the girl child, including the photographer Kevin Carter who left the place as soon as the photograph was taken. 14 months after capturing that memorable scene, Carter received the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography.

"The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering," said the St Petersburg (Florida)Times, "might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene." Even some of Carter's friends wondered aloud why he had not helped the girl.Two months later he committed suicide due to depression

advertisement

Vultures waiting for our children to die should be killed. This photo is known as a ''cold dagger in the heart of human conscience;'' a debate on 'what would you have done' led to the photographer's suicide. Today, the spectre of famine raises its ugly monstrous head as we play games with ourselves in the name of global warming. We deflated Malthusian premonitions due to our ability to increase the size of the cake. Today we are reducing the size of the cake in the name of producing fuel out of our grains. This 'dumb streak to green the world' is led by the so-called 'smartest, fattest and the worst consumers amongst us.' A

Vaclav Havel says that, "Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism." "As someone who lived under communism for most of my life, I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants," said Klaus, responding to questions posed by the two lawmakers in the US congress recently.

We as humankind have an obligation to act before it is too late. Tyrannical communistic environmentalism will lead us to major human disasters. According to Poverty.com as to how do we end global hunger, one of the five key steps is awareness of what drives up food prices, and preventing this with alternative solutions.

Instead of asking what would you have done, let's do the right thing now - procure resources for staple food; let's bring global prices down and stop diverting resources to bio fuels, which are taking away acreage of staple food to produce maize-based ethanol. Ethanol production is bad science so let's stop it before mankind has to face photos like the "vulture" photo. Instead of a philosophical debate on what Carter should have done, we should act now so that those vultures may not attack another dying girl. It does cost more to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline. It has been estimated that "if every bushel of U.S. corn, wheat, rice and soybean were used to produce ethanol, it would only cover about 4% of U.S. energy needs on a net basis."1

Under the title "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming," Whistleblower tells the rest of the story the "mainstream press" will never reveal. The U.N. recently announced that global warming is leading inexorably to global catastrophe. Al Gore won the "best documentary" Oscar for his disaster film "An Inconvenient Truth." The news media beats the drum of "climate catastrophe" daily, all but ignoring scientists who say the threat is overblown or nonexistent. And across America, school children are frightened to death with tales of rising oceans, monster tornadoes, droughts and millions dying – all because of man-made global warming.

Rising food shortages and price hikes is mankind's new challenge, so act before it is too late, as greens led by Mr. Al Gore's Inconvenient Lies have encouraged and screwed up with bio fuels. Ethanol making releases far higher emissions; it is in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics that are very clear, input energy should be less than output; here we see ethanol reducing food. To avoid famine, stand up and be counted. Poverty is the worst polluter. African famine and global shortages can only be avoided if we go back to basics, respect mankind's right to live with honour and provide security of food. A man whose intake is 5000 calories a day can talk about 'environment' and global warming but someone living on less than 800 calories needs food first. Vultures waiting for our children to die should be killed.2

A.http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions&b_map=1

1.It is disputed whether ethanol as an automotive fuel results in a net energy gain or loss. As reported in "The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: an Update,"[40] the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for ethanol made from corn in the U.S. is 1.34 (it yields 34% more energy than it takes to produce it). Input energy includes natural gas based fertilizers, farm equipment, transformation from corn or other materials, and transportation. (Hosein Shapouri, James A. Duffield, and Michael Wang. The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: an Update. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on 21 May, 2007.)

If displacement cost of humans is included, other researchers report that the production of ethanol consumes more energy than it yields.("Forget the Ethanol Myth -- Avoid Biofuel Bubble: John F. Wasik", Bloomberg.com, July 23, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-07-25. )

2.World production of ethanol in 2006 was 51 billion liters, (13.5 billion gallons), with 69% of the world supply coming from Brazil and the United States.The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires that 4 billion gallons of "renewable fuel" be used in 2006 and this requirement will grow to a yearly production of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.

  • 12 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
7.6
{"commentId":1686890,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}

≡≡≡≡≡≡ How do we end World Hunger? ≡≡≡≡≡≡

1. Exposure, exposure, exposure to enlighten.
2. Donations, donations, donations towards the poor.
3. Economic development, better policies, and enlightenment of everyone to develop sustainable societies for food production, all the way to grass-roots.
4. Organizations providing cheap food, off the market, to the WFP and other humanitarian organizations.
5. Awareness of what drives up food prices, and preventing this with alternative solutions.

These 5 steps will end World Hunger. But it takes work.

Make it happen now: http://www.poverty.com/internationalaid.html

{"commentId":1686890,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:40 PM EDT
{"commentId":1687520,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}

In 'Global food crisis. US, UK, EU biofuel & CO2 threaten billions'

UK Chief Scientist Professor John Beddington FRS says "billions" are under threat from biofuel diversion; top UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock says over 6 billion will die this century due to unaddressed climate change.

{"commentId":1687520,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:38 PM EDT
{"commentId":1687537,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1730107,00.html

The idea of the starving masses driven by their desperation to take to the streets and overthrow the ancien regime has seemed impossibly quaint since capitalism triumphed so decisively in the Cold War. Since then, the spectacle of hunger sparking revolutionary violence has been the stuff of Broadway musicals rather than the real world of politics. And yet, the headlines of the past month suggest that skyrocketing food prices are threatening the stability of a growing number of governments around the world. Ironically, it may be the very success of capitalism in transforming regions previously restrained by various forms of socialism that has helped create the new crisis.

Haiti is in flames as food riots have turned into a violent challenge to the vulnerable government; Egypt's authoritarian regime faces a mounting political threat over its inability to maintain a steady supply of heavily subsidized bread to its impoverished citizens; Cote D'Ivoire, Cameroon, Mozambique, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Indonesia are among the countries that have recently seen violent food riots or demonstrations. World Bank president Robert Zoellick noted last week that world food prices had risen 80% over the past three years, and warned that at least 33 countries face social unrest as a result.

{"commentId":1687537,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:42 PM EDT
{"commentId":1687538,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
{"commentId":1687538,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
    Reply#4 - Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:42 PM EDT
    {"commentId":1687583,"authorDomain":"backroadsbubba"}

    There will be wars over water, too.

    {"commentId":1687583,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"backroadsbubba"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#5 - Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:53 PM EDT
    {"commentId":1687609,"authorDomain":"paradiso108"}

    The tremendous amount of grain that is funneled and bottlenecked through the meat industry utterly dwarfs the pittance that is being contributed to biofuels (or that ever will). I think it is a much more difficult issue, but without question the actual battleground for available grain. When I do the math, it seems to me that eating a steak is morally equivalent to watching this girl die.

    {"commentId":1687609,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"paradiso108"}
    • 2 votes
    Reply#6 - Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:04 PM EDT
    {"commentId":1687668,"authorDomain":"backroadsbubba"}

    I'd like to see the calculations which enable you to reach that conclusion.

    {"commentId":1687668,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"backroadsbubba"}
    • 1 vote
    #6.1 - Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:39 PM EDT
    {"commentId":1689716,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}

    i will..just give me few minutes

    {"commentId":1689716,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
    • 1 vote
    #6.2 - Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:08 AM EDT
    {"commentId":1690424,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
    {"commentId":1690424,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
    • 2 votes
    #6.3 - Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:47 PM EDT
    {"commentId":1691433,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}

    Burning those biofuels worsens the greenhouse gas problem. Two new studies in the journal Science (T. (Searchinger, 319:1238-40 and J. Fargione, 319: 1235-1238) point out that if the biofuels are grown on land converted from forest or grasses, the stored soil carbon gasses off into the air as CO2.

    Corn Ethanol is Twice as Bad as Burning Gasoline

    As a result, I explained, corn ethanol is twice as bad for global warming as burning gasoline or diesel. And we are already using virtually all of the world's good farmland to produce food and feed. Essentially, all of the cropland for biofuels will have to come from clearing forests, plowing grasslands, or draining wetlands. This is ecologically criminal.

    Biofuels also threaten the whole future of the sustainable farming movement. A world in which food prices have tripled, in which the World Food Program can't afford to buy food for the famine-stricken, in which the orangutans and the Sumatran tiger are being displaced from their tropical forests to grow biodiesel—this is not a world asking how to grow low-yield crops without pesticides. This is a world that wants higher crop yields.

    Why did no one warn us about releasing the soil carbon before President Bush and the European Commission installed their mandates for huge amounts of corn ethanol and palm-oil-based biodiesel? Would the biofuel plants have been built if the Greens and the press had told us the whole truth? And for that matter, why did the governments allow themselves to be pressured into this black hole of higher food prices, lost forests, slaughtered endangered species?

    The Consumer Federation of America claims that biofuels are lowering gasoline prices, but oil still costs close to $100 per barrel. We've tripled the world price of grain in the past two years without making any dent in gasoline prices. When we rule out coal and nuclear energy, (thanks to the Greens) we automatically make gasoline impossibly expensive.

    Corn ethanol is showing itself to be a massive error. Now how will the governments get out of the mandate before world wildlife disappears for all time?

    http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2008/04/worst-moment-in-history-for-biofuels.html

    {"commentId":1691433,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
    • 1 vote
    #6.4 - Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:33 PM EDT
    Reply
    {"commentId":1689725,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}

    By Lawrence Solomon. 240 pages Hardcover. Richard Vigilante Books. April 2008.

    Book Description Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth? Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers)

    Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.

    Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community. No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist.

    This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.

    From the Publisher Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

    Guess he never met these guys

    Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

    Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

    Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

    Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

    Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

    Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

    Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

    Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

    Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

    Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

    Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

    Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

    Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

    Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

    Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

    And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers

    {"commentId":1689725,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
      Reply#7 - Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:09 AM EDT
      {"commentId":1692178,"authorDomain":"backroadsbubba"}

      Thanks, Iqbal. I'm wrapping up a local project that over the past six years has planted trees which, among other things, sequester carbon.

      I was unclear; I was responding to Andy's remark:

      When I do the math, it seems to me that eating a steak is morally equivalent to watching this girl die.

      I find this conclusion questionable. It, like that recent UN staffer's remark that ethanol was a crime against humanity, assumes intent.

      {"commentId":1692178,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"backroadsbubba"}
      • 1 vote
      #7.1 - Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:22 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":1693059,"authorDomain":"petercasier"}

      Iqbal,

      your article gave me inspiration for a piece on Darfur

      Thanks for the inspiration!

      P.

      {"commentId":1693059,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"petercasier"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#8 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:18 AM EDT
      {"commentId":1706154,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}

      I feel honored..

      {"commentId":1706154,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
      • 2 votes
      #8.1 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:55 AM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":1706151,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}

      Dear Ike Latif,

      Welcome to this week's edition of the Telegraph perspective. It's our take on the week's events in the world of Business, Your Money, Sport and Travel.

      This week's controversy concerns the plan to harvest ethanol plants in North America for fuel, while the poorer nations struggle to find food. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argues the moral and political dilemma of this mass diversion. We warn of the dangers of email fraudsters when banking online and as the ski season comes to a close, we look back on four months of ski resort gossip from our undercover bar girl. As always, we review the top sporting stories which this week are reported by Brian Moore and Geoffrey Boycott.

      Until next week,

      Marcus Warren
      Editor, Telegraph.co.uk

      {"commentId":1706151,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
        Reply#9 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:46 AM EDT
        {"commentId":1757067,"authorDomain":"agila"}

        Good article.

        {"commentId":1757067,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"agila"}
        • 1 vote
        Reply#10 - Fri May 2, 2008 2:00 AM EDT
        {"commentId":1766513,"authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
        {"commentId":1766513,"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738","authorDomain":"iqballatif"}
          Reply#11 - Mon May 5, 2008 4:29 AM EDT
          {"canLink":false,"threadId":"249401","isPrivate":false}
          Leave a Comment:
          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
          {"threadId":"249401","contentId":"1427738"}
          Start TrackingStart Tracking
          Stop TrackingStop Tracking