Search

The author argues that discussions about bioenergy must not focus too strongly on biofuels for transportation. Other bioenergy appraches, many small in scale, offer ways to reduce carbon emissions without threatening food security.

The author argues that biofuels are essentially a way in which rich countries try to compensate for their failure to reduce their excessive carbon emissions.

The author describes the negative, surprising reactions he sometimes encounters when making the humanitarian case for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

The author writes that bioenergy's ability to meet energy needs, mitigate climate change, and avoid adverse effects on food production depends on factors such as the technology and feedstock used and the scale of production.

Discussing humanitarian arguments in favor of disarmament, the author argues that now is not the time for more argumentation. Instead, countries that don't have nuclear weapons must exert strong, sustained pressure to disarm on nations that do have these weapons.