UN warns biofuels do more harm than good

The United Nations has admitted that growing crops to make “green” biofuel harms the environment and drives up food prices.

A leaked draft of a UN report condemns the widespread use of biofuels made from crops as a replacement for petrol and diesel. It says that biofuels, rather than combating the effects of global warming, could make them worse.

The draft report represents a dramatic about-turn for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Its previous assessment on climate change, in 2007, was widely condemned by environmentalists for giving the green light to large-scale biofuel production. The latest report instead puts pressure on world leaders to scrap policies promoting the use of biofuel for transport.

The summary for policymakers states: “Increasing bioenergy crop cultivation poses risks to ecosystems and biodiversity.”

Biofuels were once billed as the green alternative to fossil fuels, but environmental campaigners have voiced concern about them for some time.

They note that growing biofuel crops on a large scale requires either the conversion of agricultural land used for food crops or the destruction of forests to free up land, possibly offsetting any reduction in carbon emissions from the use of biofuels.

Other concerns include increased stress on water supplies and rising corn prices as a result of increased demand for the crop, which is fermented to produce biofuel. . .

Growing plants especially to make biofuels is an example of a supposedly environmentally   friendly practice which isn’t, and it makes food more expensive too.

Z Energy’s plans to make biofuel from beef tallow might stack up better.

Z Energy has announced plans for a $21 million biodiesel plant that will produce fuel from inedible tallow feedstock.

The listed company said the investment would be made over the 2015 financial year and would produce 20 million litres of sustainable biodiesel a year.

It would be manufactured from inedible tallow feedstock, essentially beef fat, and satisfy New Zealand and European fuel specifications.

The plant would be built in Auckland. . .

Tallow is used for making candles and soap not food.




52 Responses to UN warns biofuels do more harm than good

  1. Dave Kennedy says:

    Growing crops for fuel will only restrict the amount of land left for growing food as the worlds population grows, but biofuel can be made from lots of other sources. Venture Southland has a project that is looking at capturing the methane from dairy ponds and there are others looking at extracting liquid fuel from wood waste.

    Rather than spending tens of millions subsidising risky deep sea drilling, hoping for a big strike, we should be taking advantage of the multiple possibilities that are already waiting to be tapped. They may each be at a far smaller scale, but collectively they could be substantial and sustainable.


  2. jabba says:

    I agree with Dave .. the UN is a dead loss


  3. George says:

    Who subsidizes deep sea drilling?


  4. jabba says:

    and I would suggest that the good people of Taranaki are glad the Greens were NOT around decades ago


  5. Andrei says:

    Dave people have been dreaming of getting energy from waste products for years – methane from pig shit for example.

    The problem is it all falls over on economics, the amount of energy obtained for the cost of the plant and its maintenance that for the energy made available for other uses never stacks up when compared with fossil fuels and the whole exercise ends up costing more money than it is worth.

    If this wasn’t so, it would have happened years ago – people keep on trying and good on them maybe someone will crack a way of making it viable, a real alternative to using fossil fuels on a larger scale but as of today …….

    ….. it remains wishful thinking


  6. Mr E says:

    Actually Andrei,
    The young consultant working on the project tells me it is looking very viable.

    I am keeping my mind open on this opportunity.

    You have to keeping in mind many farmers already have the ponds just not the capture technology.


  7. Andrei says:

    Maybe it will be viable Mr E – on a small scale but it is not going to transform the world and reduce the needs for fossil fuels to any significant degree, now is it?


  8. Dave Kennedy says:

    Andrei, you have to shift your thinking from simplistic one solution approach to multiple solutions. In 20 years (the predicted time it will take for any of our off shore oil to reach the production phase) the demand for fossil fuel may not be as great. Yet if we invested the $45 million a year of subsidies for the oil industry into multiple smaller projects we could actually become almost self-sufficient in energy.

    The reason why many other options were not considered viable was because large corporates aren’t interested in smaller projects, they like dealing with large volumes. There is actually huge potential in developing technology that can be reproduced cheaply and allow farms and small businesses to manage their own waste in a productive way. As Mr E said, we are halfway there:



  9. TraceyS says:

    George at 11:22 am – he means the govt undertaking seismic surveying of the sea floor. But that’s not as emotive as “subsidizing”. So Dave prefers his terminology.


  10. TraceyS says:

    The majority of wood waste from forestry would be in the form of slash/stumps on and in the ground. How does that waste get from there to the production facility, Dave? By heavy machinery to rake and load it and trucks to transport it. What do these machines run on Dave? Sunlight?

    Your Green initiatives to raise the cost of oil artificially and prematurely will increase the cost of alternatives as well. You are chewing off your own legs. Can you not see?


  11. TraceyS says:

    Dave Kennedy at 2:17 pm

    “Andrei, you have to shift your thinking…”

    No he does not. There is nothing wrong with Andrei’s thoughts and you are arrogant to suggest that he change them to be in line with your own.


  12. TraceyS says:

    I know someone who 20+ years ago experimented with extracting gas from animal wastes. Now he’s in the forestry industry. Wonder if he’d be keen to give it another go with wood waste? Doubt it somehow. You see, Dave, such people are grounded in reality. You, sadly, are not!


  13. Ray says:

    What is generally lost among the biofuel wet-dreamers is the subject of scale. Sure you can install a biodigester at home and and create enough gas to boil the kettle for your herbal teas, but that’s about all. Nelson hospital has been using methane captured from the council owned refuse landfill since 2006. The gas produced is fired in a boiler that produces only about 60% of the hospital’s need for hot water heating and steam. An admirable use for a waste gas.
    But all the rubbish from a city of 46,000, plus 3000 tons of rubbish trucked in from Buller each month, is generating only part of the energy needs of a provincial hospital. The rest of their energy is produced by coal. The gas supply itself also relies on electricity, mainly for compression.
    So while energy from biofuels never fails to give a hard-on to those who have elevated the burning of coal, to a planet-destroying offence, apart from vague phrases such as “multiple smaller projects “, scale is forgotten.


  14. Dave Kennedy says:

    Ray, Tracey and others, a huge amount of our current account deficit is created by our demand for imported oil and even if Shell and others tap into some large reserves in 20 years time we will still have to buy it off them at commercial rates. While we will gain some minimal royalties from what is produced but it will not really offset the cost of the purchased fuel.

    As you said yourself, Ray, processing waste can substantially reduce the demand for oil, I was impressed by the 60% savings for the Nelson Hospital. Dunedin is doing similar things with wood chips from their Council owned forests.

    In 20 years we could make a huge difference in efficiencies and shifting to sustainable clean energy sources. If we could sort out the electricity companies (so that they didn’t keep inflating the cost of production and dividends weren’t used as a form of taxation) we could have more transport and industry powered by electricity as we currently have more supply than demand.

    If every farm, city and community looked seriously at their energy options and aimed for self sufficiency it would actually make a substantial difference. This is not just ‘blue skies”, ‘Fairy Land’ stuff, it is actually being done around the world, we are just a little slow of the mark.http://www.ecomagination.com/top-five-most-sustainable-cities-in-the-world


  15. TraceyS says:

    Dave, you really are mistaken if you think that I am against alternatives. But the reality is that if utilisation of reserves is limited to this supposed one-third, or whatever it is, then that will push up the price of oil. That will then push up the cost of developing and implementing alternatives. The effect will be that progress towards alternatives is slowed.

    What we really need is an effective synthetic hydrocarbon to match the properties of fossil oil. One that is carbon neutral or possibly even better. See http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/biological_sciences/e-coli-are-taking-over-the-gas-pump#.Uz5ZH_mSyFU. These can potentially be produced on a small or mass scale depending on the diverse needs of people.

    Why do you not highlight such advancements? (hint: GMO)

    Could it be that your anti-GE stance is preventing you from reaching out to technologies which could save the planet?

    If the issue is as serious as you believe, Dave, nothing should be off the table. Nothing.


    “Prohibit genetically modified and transgenic organisms that are intended for release into the environment…”


  16. JC says:


    Your five most sustainable cities also feature as having the world most expensive housing and/or world’s most expensive cities.



    These places are hardly models we need to follow with our relatively low GDP per capita and show that greenery is a rich nation’s folly.



  17. TraceyS says:

    Ray at 4:13 pm: Scale is forgotten by people who make statements such as “large corporates aren’t interested in smaller projects”.

    Of course they ARE interested in smaller projects if they are scalable. It’s just that they are not and some people refuse to believe it.

    Dave delivers that on a plate. Thanks Dave.


  18. Gravedodger says:

    Eggzakerly TracyS, the one single reason poor benighted DaveK and his equally deluded BiL totally refuse to accept their utopia will not deliver, is the Market.
    Yes that bogyman inhabited planet they have never visited.


    Sorry to shout but that is the reality.

    Talk about stupid is as stupid does around “the oil companies wont go there” because their energy policy is tied up with oil is in a very rude word bullshit, total unequivocal bullshit.
    The people who run big oil are not idiots, they see the price curve will eventually overtake the economic curve and alternatives will become the industry norm.
    For bio mass, flammable gas capture, bio fuel from food crops, they are nowhere near that point and fracking has pushed it even further away.
    That last fact is the only reason the mungbean eaters are so vehement on their opposition to hydraulic fracturing.

    Some people install solar panels to create electricity with absolutely zero understanding of the rare earths, carbon foot print, life span or any reference to sustainability.
    Similarly with airflow generation, kills bird life, rare and common with no distinction, has total disregard to noise pollution for neighbors, degradation of landscape values in the eye of others or any other presumed offence to others.

    Arrogance is not an issue, they do not see what real feet on the ground thinking people who have refused to hand their mind and reason over to the zealots see.


  19. JC says:

    “For bio mass, flammable gas capture, bio fuel from food crops, they are nowhere near that point and fracking has pushed it even further away.”

    Oh I don’t know about that.. in the UK Europe’s largest coal plant the Drax power station is well advanced in converting to wood fired power. By 2017 it will eat 7.5 million tonnes of wood per annum and require 1.2 million hectares for an ongoing feed.

    So these bright people have a contract with Canada and the US to supply the wood, put it on ships and cross the Atlantic and then transport the new wunda fuel to the site.

    There’s Green economics for you.



  20. robertguyton says:

    Gravedodger says:
    “The people who run big oil are not idiots” but he is wrong. They are indeed idiots. Only an idiot would foist a substance upon the world that will result in widespread destruction and misery. They may be clever and able marketeers, that I don’t dispute, but idiots they surely are, when viewed from the position of someone who believes the welfare of humans and the other organisms that inhabit the planet, should be valued more highly than cleverly playing the market game .
    That Gravedodger and his ilk are complicit to the behaviour of the ‘oil men’ is sad and will be viewed as more than that by future generations, struggling to cope with a tumultuous climate. What will your grandchildren think of your views then, GD?
    The IPCC are not wrong. You are.


  21. Andrei says:

    Only an idiot would foist a substance upon the world that will result in widespread destruction and misery.

    FFS Robert Guyton, you are a classic example of the decline of the West – a complete dolt who hasn’t got the wit to recognize that all the blessings that you enjoy and take for granted come from the ability to harness large amounts of energy and put it to work for us.

    I’d love to see you pushing a plow drawn with your wife and children harnessed to it to drag it through the dirt.

    You sir, are unbelievably stupid!


  22. robertguyton says:

    Thank you for your kind and gracious response, Andrei.


  23. Andrei says:

    I’m sorry if you are offended


    (1) How do you go to the supermarket and how do you bring your purchases home

    (2) How did the things you buy at the supermarket get there

    (3) How did the flour that made your daily bread get from the mill to the bakers

    (4) How was that flour milled, by a donkey turning the millstones perhaps?

    (5) How did the grain get from where it is grown get to the flour mill?

    (6) How was the grain harvested?

    (7) How was the field in which it grew prepared for planting?

    (8) How much did your loaf of bread cost –

    I just bought a loaf of sliced bread for $1.85, which works out to be just under 8 minutes work at the minimum wage

    And that, Robert Guyton, is the miracle of fossil fuels


  24. Dave Kennedy says:

    Andrei the industrial revolution was considered to have brought great progress, it was powered by coal and we realised eventually that as an energy source it created great pollution and suffering (as is currently occurring in China). The next great revolution was powered by oil and the internal combustion engine, while that brought great prosperity it has also contributed to the impending catastrophic climate change. The green and sustainable energy will power the next great revolution. You are more than welcome to cling to what you are familiar with, or you can join the Green Race 🙂



    I think I will take the lead from the IMF, the World Bank and the leading New Zealand businessmen who support Pure Advantage. Oil Companies will eventually go the way of tobacco companies and the scientists who support them, like the aging Fred Singer, are being wheeled out to support their last stand.



  25. Andrei says:

    Dave Kennedy instead of jaw jawing about “Green energy” just go and do it, if you can pull it off you will end up very rich and I will celebrate your success.

    The problem is for all the talk I have yet to see something really useful emerge – eg a sail powered combine harvester, a solar powered wide bodied airplane, solar panels that will provide my electricity when I actually want to use it, and don’t cost a fortune to buy and maintain etc

    I’m not against it Dave Kennedy, au contraire, but somebody has to show me and everybody else how to do it in a cheap and reliable manner


  26. robertguyton says:

    The miracle of fossil fuels, Andrei, I don’t dispute for a moment, though you pretend (straw man) that I do.
    No, I’m talking about the tragedy of fossil fuels, ie. the calamitous effects of fossil-fuel-fueled climate change. Because you don’t accept AGW, there is no way that you can talk about that, so I can expect no reasonable response from you to the question: what is your view of the harm fossil-fuel-use has caused humanity, so I’ll not ask. It was though, I believe, quite unnecessary for you to abuse me in response to my comment re. the people who run big oil. I am not offended by your calling me “unbelievably stupid”, and have grown accustomed to such abuse from people like you, Gravedodger, Jabba et al here on Ele’s blog but I do wonder if you really think it’s okay to name-call in response to comments that do not reflect your own beliefs.
    Calling some unknown oil-man “stupid” is one thing, and harmeless enough. Calling a commenter here “stupid” is quite another, though I doubt you can make the distinction, your having done just that here today.


  27. robertguyton says:

    Andrei, regarding your comment to Dave,
    “The problem is for all the talk I have yet to see something really useful emerge – eg a sail powered combine harvester…” you might enjoy reading this article on the very topic.
    Otoh, you might just as likely respond by calling me unbelievably stupid. I’d not be surprised (or offended) if you did. Par for your course, really.



  28. Dave Kennedy says:

    Andrei, sadly cost/benefit analysis is what this Government is appalling at. The shift to greener forms of operating may indeed have higher initial costs but that is because external costs and future costs aren’t factored in.

    That’s why the Hillside workshop was closed and we got a heap of badly made engines full of asbestos, that’s why dairying is being expanded and intensified with no concern about what is happening to our rivers, that’s why we are building motorways when we have dropping traffic volumes and that why we are subsidising oil exploration.

    You have obviously had lessons from Gerry Brownlee when you talk about sail powered combined harvesters, Gerry claimed that Green transport policies will see horse manure back on the streets. The Greens are probably the most technologically smart party and we tend to run very good campaigns on very little. We use the latest technology well and do it very cost effectively. Where possible we walk the talk, but we still have to operate in an environment dominated by fossil fuel.


  29. Gravedodger says:

    @ Dave K dont let the truth get in the way of your propaganda efforts will you.
    Hyperbole much
    “a heap of badly made engines full of asbestos”
    Your technical assessment of the quality details please.
    We will never know what would have come out of the 19th century works at Burnside, how much more they would have cost, how long needed to complete or any measure of the quality.

    They had some paint containing asbestos????

    However they are on the tracks moving freight that would otherwise be on the roads while the sad old Burnside works tried to clear enough space to build their first Loco.

    “dairying is being expanded and intensified with no concern about what is happening to our rivers”.
    Yes there are some problems but it is not all rivers and not even a majority of them.
    Most operators in the Dairy industry have a very responsible attitude to pollution and finding solutions. The Manawhatu River has had problems for years preceding the “dairy Boom” and the socialist controlled Palmerston Nth City Council has been a major polluter without owning a farm.

    Without respect you are shooting your own foot and the season is a month away.


  30. TraceyS says:

    Robert and Dave – it will be a very long time before machines that ‘push’ as opposed to solely ‘drive’ will be able to run on solar power. Like it or not a fair amount of pushing and loading work by machines will be necessary in order to respond to the worst of climate change predictions. That requires energy from oil. At the moment there is no alternative.

    Why will you not respond to my call not to artificially and prematurely promote an increase in the price of fossil fuels? This is in the interests of mitigating and adapting to climate change for the lowest possible price. Don’t you have the answer? I thought you guys had a ready answer for everything? Appears not.

    Why do you choose not to respond to my link on a synthetic alternative hydrocarbon? Robert instead deciding (smoke screen) to get all upset about name calling – a practise in which he is himself adept – proven at Homepaddock time upon time again.

    I suspect you would be very ‘anti’ any synthetic fuel which in processing sequesters carbon from the atmosphere. Cheap, versatile, accessible, beneficial – it would drive unprecedented progress and growth. Your real fear.


  31. TraceyS says:

    Robert, when you referred, a while back, to me as “unable to learn” is when I stopped having any respect for you. As a teacher you should know how damaging this one-liner can be. It’s OK for me – water off my back – but I can’t help but wonder how many times you might have used it on the more vulnerable.

    Now you complain about being called “stupid”?

    Pull the other one!


  32. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, you do jump to conclusions, I often don’t reply to you because I genuinely don’t understand all your arguments. I didn’t respond to the synthetic alternative link because it is just what it is, yet another possibility that indeed may have value but currently not much more than a possibility. I have no strong views on it what so ever. There are lots of alternatives to oil already and the French have recently designed a car that runs partly on air pressure.

    During the great depression and war years when petrol was in short supply many people made adaptions so that their vehicles could run on other things:

    Click to access Hoyer%20History%20of%20Fuel%20Options.pdf

    Grave Dodger, I guess we will always see things through different coloured spectacles. I also like the way you never let facts get in the way of an argument too. I actually agree with you regarding Burnside, a freezing works would be hopeless at building engines. As for paint containing asbestos, that’s an interesting theory 😉 The asbestos was used as sound proofing and was revealed underneath the paint: http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/asbestos-in-kiwirail-locomotives-death-sentence-5854807

    While I agree it isn’t just dairying that effects water quality, all expert advice agrees it is the major cause. I would be also interested to hear how much the majority of our rivers have improved after five years under National? I wonder if you can give me any good news about our estuaries and lagoons as all the sediment gets washed into them and now they’re eutrophying at an alarming rate.


  33. robertguyton says:

    Water off a duck’s back, Tracey?
    You’ve harped on and on about it for months, like a dog worrying a bone.
    In any case, you are wrong in your claim. If you print the full quote, I’ll prove that you have taken offence wrongly.

    “Mitigating and adapting to climate change at the lowest possible price”

    Yes, that’s terribly sensible – increase the very action that’s causing the problem. Can you give some examples where in New Zealand, fuel at a cheap price is being used as a stimulus for “mitigating and adapting to climate change”?


  34. TraceyS says:

    “I often don’t reply to you because I genuinely don’t understand all your arguments.” :

    That is understandable, I suppose, given that you are not grounded in reality. Others here seem to understand my arguments. Think about what is different between them and you.

    “I didn’t respond to the synthetic alternative link because it is just what it is, yet another possibility that indeed may have value but currently not much more than a possibility.” :

    But it is a possibility with an advantage – that of continuing to utilise pretty much the same infrastructure which a great deal of public money has already been invested in. Prevention of waste is good right! I am absolutely certain you will agree.

    “There are lots of alternatives to oil already and the French have recently designed a car that runs partly on air pressure.” :

    I know there are lots of options for cars. Haven’t you got the message yet that I’m not worried about passenger transport? My comments are about oil-consuming machines that do “work”. You have presented no potentially viable alternatives in this regard. These machines (and the oil they consume) will be necessary for people to respond successfully to climate change. Such things as building water storage, creating sheltered positions for housing, or moving infrastructure and residences away from coastal or flood prone areas.


  35. TraceyS says:

    ^ in response to Dave @ 10.22pm.


  36. TraceyS says:

    Robert at 7:35am:

    I’m not continuing to remind you of your deliberate “put down” for the reason you suggest. I wanted you to tidy up your behaviour towards others, that is all. You have somewhat. So I’m feeling pleased 🙂

    Now, Robert, you disagree with mitigating and adapting to climate change at the lowest possible price? That means you must favour a higher price. People in this country should listen hard to your message Robert – especially the poor.

    “Can you give some examples where in New Zealand, fuel at a cheap price is being used as a stimulus for “mitigating and adapting to climate change”?

    No. In case you haven’t noticed, fuel is not cheap.


  37. Dave Kennedy says:

    Oh dear, Tracey, you should be on my side, the idea that the same vehicles and machines will continue to exist yet be fueled by clean synthetics sounds wonderful. Sadly the commercial reality is that in a capitalist world machines have inbuilt obsolescence. If you could convince people to hold onto the same tractors for the next twenty years, I’m on your side. I used to drive a 1950s Massey Ferguson on one farm in the 80s and got into the odd spot of trouble because it lacked power steering, I wonder if farmers would still want to use a year 2000 tractor in 2030? We have to do a lot of work to shift peoples thinking to using old technology in clean ways. I’m happy to help you in this however 🙂


  38. TraceyS says:

    Your tractor lacked power steering maybe, Dave, but its engine worked on the same principles as the modern ones.

    Furthermore, why should you assume we are on different sides Dave? Isn’t this a little childish when we are talking about saving the planet!

    I do not agree with your one-sided view of the issues, however.


  39. TraceyS says:

    Dave, the larger the engine, the more likely it will still be in use 30 years into the future. Some big diesel locomotives are that old. They are worth rebuilding over and over. We have just spent over $60k rebuilding a 30 year old machine that is still in service. Call me backward if you like.


  40. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, I keep trying to promote a broader view and multiple answers to problems and many of those commenting here are determined to stick with oil and yet you accuse me of being one sided. You also appear to be disagreeing with me strongly in one comment than arguing the same side in another. Through all this you accuse me of being:
    “chewing off my own legs”
    “Anti and fearful”
    “one sided”

    One minute you are advocating keeping the price of petrol down, then you advocate for expensive synthetic alternatives that would never take on unless the cost of the fossil variety went up.

    I try to work through the angry attacking language and flip flopping views and have decided that you just like opposing most of what I say because of my political background.

    Surprisingly you also claim to be in support of the planet and yet enthusiastically support a party that is:
    -determined to do nothing about climate change until other countries do (we are already well behind most in our efforts).
    -Dismantalling the RMA http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/10-reasons-for-opposing-rma-changes.html
    -Subsidising and opening up NZ for oil drilling and coal mining at a level never seen before in our history
    -Building motorways as if there is no tomorrow ($12 billion) while seriously under-investing in public transport and safe cycling.
    -Causing us to increase our GHG emissions at an alarming rate so that our previous reduction targets are now a joke and we are amongst the worst emitters per capita in the world. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/greenhouse-gas-emissions/greenhouse-gas-emissions.pdf
    -Most countries have a target of reducing GHG by 10-20% by 2020 and New Zealand has committed to a paltry 5% (causing incredulous gasps around the world) and at the current rate even this will never be achieved. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/capital-life/the-greenist/9762184/Pure-green-NZ-a-myth-really

    There is no planned transition or strategy to cleaner alternatives under this government, according to Bill English “the market will decide” and yet every signal and subsidy given by this government is in support of fossil fuel. The Government does influence the market and this government wants our market to be one driven by fossil fuel: More roads, more cars, more oil, more coal, more emissions…and to hell with the future.

    I have a different view.


  41. TraceyS says:

    ^ You are wrong in so many of these statements I don’t know where to start.

    What is clear from this dialogue is that anyone with alternative views to your own is seen as a problem to be fixed rather than someone with value to offer.


  42. robertguyton says:

    “I try to work through the angry attacking language and flip flopping views and have decided that you just like opposing most of what I say because of my political background.”

    Perfectly expressed, Dave and entirely wasted comment. Expect more of the same ad nauseum.


  43. Paranormal says:

    And of course RG you are open and wise except when it comes to reviewing your own position. Sad you are so hidebound in your religion that you cannot see it falling apart. The latest being: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/curry-testimony-2013-il.pdf

    Your comments on oil above are a prime example. There is clearly no correlation between CO2 and climate change (17 years of CO2 increases with no increase in temperature) and yet you continue the mantra…


  44. TraceyS says:

    Robert and Dave – why does it not surprise me that you are both completely unable to recognise BALANCED views when you encounter them!

    It’s like you have no idea how to handle it. Far from making me angry – you make me laugh!


  45. Dave Kennedy says:

    “you are both completely unable to recognise BALANCED views when you encounter them”

    Tracey, balanced views shouldn’t need emotive and abusive language to support them. If you disagree with my conclusions just present the evidence to support your views like I try to do. Surely that is what intelligent discourse should always be about. Personal abuse probably reveals a lack of substance to arguments.


  46. JC says:

    “If you disagree with my conclusions just present the evidence to support your views like I try to do.”

    What you mostly do is quote yourself or other conflicted parties as evidence.. ie, not evidence at all but opinion.



  47. Dave Kennedy says:

    JC, you obviously don’t read my links. Of the ones immediately above only one linked to my blog and the post in question just linked and quoted others. Nice try 😉


  48. robertguyton says:

    Tracey, laughing.
    Helium is an inert gas.


  49. JC says:


    Oh dear, I said you *mostly* linked to yourself and other *conflicted* parties.. and you then allude to a recent post quoting yourself and “The Greenist Blog” plus one relatively independent article.

    You prove my point.



  50. jabba says:

    what Dave and Mr Guyton are doing is following the directive from the Gween HQ (possibly Heyclint) to infect as many blogs and newspapers through Letters to the Editor. On that score, they are doing well and My Guyton continues to help the cause of the centre right by his childish rants.


  51. Dave Kennedy says:

    Jabba, how dare we express different view points in public forums. It also appears that there is this mythical, all powerful green entity called Clint who dictates all behind the scenes. What an interesting world view you have 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: