WASHINGTON - Globalisation, climate change, and the mass production of biofuels are pushing up food prices worldwide, which could jeopardise the livelihoods of the world's poorest, according to a report released Tuesday by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
"Food prices have been steadily decreasing since the Green Revolution, but the days of falling food prices may be over," said Joachim von Braun, lead author of the report and director general of IFPRI.
Titled, "The World Food Situation: New Driving Forces and Required Actions", the 16-page report examined how various global trends are impacting world hunger on both the supply and demand ends of the market.
"Surging demand for feed, food, and fuel have recently led to drastic price increases, which are not likely to fall in the foreseeable future," von Braun said. But "climate change will also have a negative impact on food production."
Similar findings have been reported by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation, according to IFPRI.
Researchers predict that shifting weather conditions resulting from climate change will disrupt rainfall patterns that farmers rely on to nourish their crops and water the grasslands that feed their livestock. As a result, cereal production in South Asia could drop 22 percent by 2080, while wheat production in Africa may virtually disappear by that time, the report said.
Furthermore, temperature increases of more than three degrees Celsius could in turn lift food prices by as much as 40 percent.
The production of crop-based biofuels -- renewable energy sources developed in response to climate change -- may also dramatically impact food supply, and thereby further escalate food prices.
If the countries that have already committed to biofuel production, as well as other high-potential producer countries, carry out their current investment plans, global maize prices would increase by 26 percent and oilseed prices would rise by 18 percent by 2020, according to the report. This is due to state subsidies for biofuels, as well the shift in committing scarce resources toward cultivating biofuel crops.
"As biofuels become increasingly profitable, more land, water, and capital will be diverted to their production, and the world will face more trade-offs between food and fuel," the report said.
In the U.S. alone, the use of maize for ethanol production increased by two and a half times between 2000 and 2006.
On the demand side of worldwide food production, globalisation, economic growth, and urbanisation in places such as China and India have impacted people's dietary preferences and food choices, the report noted. While demand is on the increase for processed food and high-value agricultural crops such as vegetables, fruit, meat and dairy, demand for grains and other staple crops is declining.
This shift in "tastes" represents a microcosm of the food costs issue, said IPFRI research analyst Timothy Sulser, who also contributed to the report. As wealthier populations shift to a diet full of meat, fruits, and vegetables, poorer populations will struggle to afford ever pricier food staples.
"There will be an even wider gap between affluent people and poorer people in terms of access to a nutritional diet" if trends continue, Sulser said.
With many factors threatening the world's food supply and demand, immediate action is needed in the areas of international development and global trade policy in order to avert what could be a dramatic hunger crisis, according to authors of the report.
Eliminating trade barriers and programs that set aside agriculture resources is one way that developed countries could help equip developing countries for the rising food prices.
Other suggestions include strengthening policies to promote early childhood nutrition -- thereby diminishing the risks related to limited food access -- and incorporating food and agriculture considerations into the agenda for domestic and international climate change policy.
Yet these solutions may only mitigate the effects of a global trend whose causal forces, such as globalisation and climate change, have already been set in motion, say researchers.
"The policy suggestions are intended to help minimise some of the impact of these changes," said Sulser. "It's important now to look at how we can help people adapt to the changing the situation."
© 2007 Inter Press Service
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
92 Comments so far
Show Allindeepshiitake wrote:
However, I would be interested in knowing about a non-organic practice that is considered sustainable.
OK...I'll give an example of a practice that is sustainable but not USDA ORGANIC approved.
It's called utilization of humanure for creating fertility.
http://weblife.org/humanure/chapter4_2.html
"One of the most remarkable agricultural practices adopted by any civilized people is the centuries long and well nigh universal conservation and utilization of all human waste [sic] in China, Korea and Japan, turning it to marvelous account in the maintenance of soil fertility and in the production of food. To understand this evolution it must be recognized that mineral fertilizers so extensively employed in modern Western agriculture have been a physical impossibility to all people alike until within very recent years. With this fact must be associated the very long unbroken life of these nations and the vast numbers their farmers have been compelled to feed.
When we reflect upon the depleted fertility of our own older farm lands, comparatively few of which have seen a century's service, and upon the enormous quantity of mineral fertilizers which are being applied annually to them in order to secure paying yields, it becomes evident that the time is here when profound consideration should be given to the practices the Mongolian race has maintained through many centuries, which permit it to be said of China that one-sixth of an acre of good land is ample for the maintenance of one person, and which are feeding an average of three people per acre of farm land in the three southernmost islands of Japan.
[Western humanity] is the most extravagant accelerator of waste the world has ever endured. His withering blight has fallen upon every living thing within his reach, himself not excepted; and his besom of destruction in the uncontrolled hands of a generation has swept into the sea soil fertility which only centuries of life could accumulate, and yet this fertility is the substratum of all that is living."
According to King's research, the average daily excreta of the adult human weighs in at 40 ounces. Multiplied by 250 million, a rough estimate of the current US population, Americans each year produce 1,448,575,000 pounds of nitrogen, 456,250,000 pounds of potassium, and 193,900,000 pounds of phosphorous. Almost all is discarded into the environment as a waste material or a pollutant, or as Dr. King puts it, "poured into the seas, lakes or rivers and into the underground waters."
Thank you, MeAlsoToo. NAFTA was a gift to the corporate elite and No One else. To think otherwise is to be living in La La land, which is where anyone believing Democrats will "save us" resides.
indeepshiitake, thank you for bringing that up. From Wikipedia:
Understand that being certified organic doesn't guarantee sustainable practices. What an organic label means is that the food was grown or raised without the use of synthetic chemicals (but there ARE exceptions). Organic farming, especially when carried out on a large, industrial scale, can still damage the environment and threaten public health in a variety of ways: Ecosystems can still be ruined by widespread monoculture; pesticides can still be applied; soils can still be depleted of nutrients and organic matter; pollution can still be created; and exorbitant amounts of fossil fuels can still be spent (and wasted), all under an organic label.
Become familiar with how sustainable agriculture is defined: Farming a single area so that it produces food indefinitely. In order to move in this direction, a farm has to avoid irreversible changes to the land (e.g. erosion), withdraw no resources from the environment that cannot be replenished (e.g. not using more water than can be replaced regularly by rainfall), and produce enough income to remain a farm in face of worldwide farm consolidation and infrastructure development.
Factory farms are producing "organic" milk with little nutritional value and the Organic Valley Farms Cooperative with 1100 participating farm families has in their mission statement, "sustainable agricultural practices". They also contribute 10% of their profits to their communities. It helps to know what you're buying - and supporting with your purchase dollars.
Green_disposition,
I agree that "organic" doesn't equate to "sustainable". Michael Pollen's book Omnivore's Dilemma delineated the numerous shortfalls of industrial "organic".
However, I would be interested in knowing about a non-organic practice that is considered sustainable.
Are you referring to GMO?
"...and I wonder if Bill Clinton's advocacy of Nafta was rooted in an over-arching liberal view of what Americans ought to tolerate in reduction of our own living standards for benefit of the world."
PU...!!! Now THERE'S some horse-shit if ever I've heard any...PUHLEEEZE!
If that 'realist'-cum-neo-Lib/Elitist Clinton ever gave a solitary CARE about anyone outside of his 'adopted-Class' since his having been brainwashed by 'Rhodes-fellows', I'll eat your shorts...
NAFTA, FAR-far-and-away from 'doing good for our poorer-friends' did HUGELY more harm and social/economic-Destruction to Mexico than it did to the US -- literally driving millions more 'North' to Dem-friendly special-Interests... Where do you get-off spinning this Crap for a 'kinder/gentler-DLC', when Gore/Clinton's NAFTA/etc. is really one of the best-examples of America's War Against the Poor?? [Who pays you to post this crap, I hear Rove's job-slot is 'open'!]
Actually if you would read what I said I was talking about conventional farmers, not organic producers that are struggling. And you think I need to look for another job? My research is in SUSTAINABLE and ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND farming practices. There are actually alot of organic farmers who just get by with the minimum our USDA requires to be considered "organic", and these folks are definately not sustainable.
Dear Green_disposition,
Please be more specific and tell us what the myriad problems are that cannot be solved by converting to "organics". Please elaborate about the investments in new farming equipment? Are you talking about implements like basket weeders? Hoes and scythes? Also, maybe you could take a minute to read the following 2 articles and tell me where your research disagrees.
July 13, 2005
Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.htm...
Nov 22, 2007
What will we eat when the oil runs out?
http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/188
You say that organic farmers have a hard time making a living. Right now, it is not an even playing field between organic farmers and conventional farmers. Nevertheless, organics have been growing enormously in the last decade. When oil prices double and the government subsidies dry up, the only farmers that will prosper will be local organic farmers.
You may have to start looking for a new job )-: In fact, almost all of us may have to start looking for a new job.
It's easy enough for people who don't work in agriculture to sit around and say, "...we need to get rid of fertilizer, herbicides, etc...". Working in agricultural research myself, there are a myriad of problems that farmers face that cannot be solved by converting to "organics". Besides, "organics" require more land and encourage deforestation. Try leaving your job and becoming a farmer, and live on their income. Yes, the key is sustainable ag., so we need to invest more in sustainable (not the same as organic) research and help farmers out with the resources they have. It is sad situation that I know farmers who grow thousands of acres of soybeans and corn to feed us, and thousands of acres of cotton to clothe us, yet they can barely do these things for themselves. Please keep them in mind when you speak of curbing certain farming practices. Investments in new farm equipment associated with some of these changes could bankrupt many farmers.
Daniel David, I think you're giving Clinton too much credit for altruism. What's your rationale for his "welfare reform"?
Pojer's trying to peddle a bunch of skewed statistics in favor of watering down gas with the end result of more corporate welfare and the consumer stuck with a phucked up fuel system and dirty air to breathe. Rubber fuel components dissolve in the presence of any form of alcohol. No alcohol is alowed in most general aviation applications because it is deadly. This whole red herring is designed to make your current car obsolete so you have to buy another piece of junk from GM that will tolerate large volumes of alcohol in the fuel.
Obviously, these are simplistic corporate talking points. Bravo to readers for seeing through the fallacy of the "it costs nothing to distill this snake oil" argument.
I suspect Pojer works for somebody like monster ADM, who stands to profit exponentially if this corn fuel scam is shoved down our throats.
Besides, it's way too late in this Greek Tragedy called Earth to think band-aids like this are going to save mankind from 50C temps in the shade.
–just making this up (-:
So we were all-hoping...[inspired by Swift?]
COMarc December 6th, 2007 2:00 pm
The question about birth control and population is a question of whether people think with global interests in mind, or just the interests of their local family and clan.
When you think of the global situation, it makes sense to limit births.
If you think of just your family and clan, you actually want to have more children. This gives you a larger next generation to work for the good of your family. It gives you some survival room when things get tough and children die along the way. If you view competition as the way of the world, having a large family gives your clan an advantage against the other human beings you are fighting against for survival.
That is why we need to depersonalize birth...it should all be done in testtubes with surrogate birthing moms and the whole affair should be coordinated by the state and smaller groups within the state. An international agency would coordinate birthing levels from state to state.
All female babies are made infertile at birth and those who want to participate in the surrogate birthing program later in life will have their fertility restored. Surrogate mothers will not be able to hold onto their children. Children will be removed from mothers at birth and enrolled in communal child raising programs.
--just making this up (-:
maxpayne:
The ONLY candidate of the left that will shut down the drug war, no questions asked, is MIKE GRAVEL. Even Kucinich isn't totally outright about it (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Gravel would legalize marijuana, too.
"You can do more harm to yourself with a fifth of booze than a joint." TRUTH.
"Marijuana is less addictive and harmful than alcohol." TRUTH.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NbxMWfCW5ag
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3qu0C3TW3Xk
Food prices rising, and salaries not rising, is what happens in the poorest of the poor countries.
Does our country have to hit bottom before we start a 12 step program? Crook electors anonymous? "Hi, I'm Paul and it's been a year since I voted for a crook."
"There are FAR more known oil-reserves than we EVER could dare burn just within the CaspianBasin (without reducing the atmosphere to 'extinction-level'), so I really don't 'worry' overmuch about this unfair/bs "profit-taking and hidden-Taxation" —"
This, in case anyone is interested, is exactly why we have cabbaged-on to Israel's invented-of-necessity 'GWoT' in the overall-area -- as our-own since 9/11. NOT to 'steal Iraq's-oil' (which is near-worthless), but to prevent any Upstart/so-called 'Developing-world' from getting this massive-amount of Caspian cheap/easy/plentiful oil, then foolishly burning-it (like we-do, but never-mind that!) and bringing 'our'-Civilization, subsequently, to a screeching-halt if/when doing-so [and, as aside, lessening the extraordinary profit-taking our 'buddies' in the Private Energy/Defense-Industries just 'happen' to be 'earning', meanwhile -- with all their hard-work (translate to 'bribes/dividends')].
"Cheap/Plentiful-Oil" is what we are fighting-against. The 'Clash of Civilizations' is the developed-world insuring the undeveloped stay-that-way. There IS no 'oil-shortage' [sadly]. It's cheap/plentiful to draw-it-out, cheap/easy to mass-refine it into anything we need from it (or, it would-be -- if there was REALLY a 'free-market', and refineries weren't deliberately-limited). And the biggest 'danger' mankind (or highly-profitable and influential-thieves) will ever face is if the 'Truth' of that gets-out, and then the rest of the World 'demands' to live as we-do (heretofore, entirely at their-Expense).
Go figure...
"Swift's Modest Proposal–An answer to the food shortages:"
Ah...Jonathan, the original "Swift-boater"!
Would that more of our Yahoo's would read his&similar 'essential-Wisdom'...
Swift's Modest Proposal--An answer to the food shortages:
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.
I have reckoned upon a medium that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, increaseth to 28 pounds.
I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.
Infant's flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolific diet, there are more children born in Roman Catholic countries about nine months after Lent than at any other season; therefore, reckoning a year after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of popish infants is at least three to one in this kingdom: and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of papists among us.
""Divide and Conquer"
The assault on our 'sensibilities' comes from both the Left and the Right — but don't all-of-them have the same 'source'?"
Look at the popularized/industry-touted 'Peak-Oil' farce.
Numbers can be juggled to 'make it look real', granted. And both the Left and Right grab hold of this nonsense to 'prove their viewpoints' (contradictory though their 'points' are)... But the Reality of the situation is that private oil-concerns (and 'private' Big-Oil is FAR-tinier than the overwhelmingly Nationalized Oil-Concerns worldwide -- Nationalization being, obviously, what EVERY sensible government should institute/regulate, if not hijacked by monopolies) have hoodwinked-all by reducing investment/capacity of only the monopolized 'Refinement-side' of Production, while producing-nations cooperate in limiting-production 'out of ground' [which is 'worth' only .60-per-barrel -- and do-so Willingly, to make more 'profits', or Unwillingly, through economic/political/militaristic-pressures). Peak-Oil (as in 'when consumption out-strips all production-capacity') is an absolute-joke. No matter how 'profitable' (and they were obscenely-profitable, even when gas was 0.20 in the early-'70's), the private OilCo's have learned from their original-BIG-thief [JDR] to completely control (if 'covertly') all refinement-capacity possible, while bribing/forcing those outside their 'clique', including with dreams of a big-profit -- shared.
There are FAR more known oil-reserves than we EVER could dare burn just within the CaspianBasin (without reducing the atmosphere to 'extinction-level'), so I really don't 'worry' overmuch about this unfair/bs "profit-taking and hidden-axation" -- but if BigOil was Nationalized in the neo-Lib West alone, and the necessary 'price add-on' was placed by our Governments (instead of just stolen by its 'wealthy-friends') to prevent our pigging-out and killing-ourselves, then that excess-Income could have (and still-could) balance our so-called Deficit in just-years...(and maybe some could then be appropriately-invested into cleaner-Energy? Duh...).
Several above responded to question about whether this article's author was advocating the "free trade agreements" (Nafta, Cafta, etc.) widely criticized in America for exporting American jobs. I rather think he was (whether right or wrong) , and I wonder if Bill Clinton's advocacy of Nafta was rooted in an over-arching liberal view of what Americans ought to tolerate in reduction of our own living standards for benefit of the world. There has been so much negative talk about these trade agreements, I think it's always good for those with depth of knowledge on them to jump in and contribute. The more thoughts, the better, because these are serious issues.
"You might need to go back to the books,Pojer. Your analysis all flows from your assumptions about the EROEI of agricultural biomass and corn in particular, and my research suggests your assumptions are dead wrong."
But don't-fault for books/sources he chose to believe -- we are ALL being force-fed these highly-spun and subsidized 'propaganda-campaigns' meant (and succeeding at) the production of dissonance&division. ALL, of course, paid-for and circulated by the exact-same (if 'few') special-Interests...
"Divide and Conquer"
The assault on our 'sensibilities' comes from both the Left and the Right -- but don't all-of-them have the same 'source'?
"As far as food goes, the flat roof of thousands of buildings in each city could grow a fair amount of fruits and vegetables. These would make a city more livable and our food supply infinitely safer and more stable.
Answers are all around us, some good, some not so good - "
Sorry, that one 'not so good' [for much the same logical-fallacies that enter into the 'ethanol from corn for current-fleet'...].
As a Builder, in a country which is fast-deteriorating regards infra-structure/sensible-maintenance&'close-to-line' cost-cuttings, I'd inform that MOST flat-roofed structures in-service now are BARELY holding static&live snow/water-Loads today. Place required soils/water-retention/'working-vibration' atop all these roofs (and then add occasional weather-related water/wind-stresses!), and you'd have an incredible-number of 'disasters' on your hands...
[Not to mention just how bad/poisonous 'air-quality' is for 'crops' in many urban-areas in the US]
Pojers intents/purposes regards 'lawns to gardens' is FAR more-practical (but I give you 'points' for "out-of-box thinking", kiddo...!).
PS. The blog below reaches a conclusion similar to mine, but bases it on a quite different set of calculations.
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/03/sugar-cane-vs-solar-panels.html
You might need to go back to the books,Pojer. Your analysis all flows from your assumptions about the EROEI of agricultural biomass and corn in particular, and my research suggests your assumptions are dead wrong.
This Brazilian analyst, for example, (http://www.energybulletin.net/21064.html)
declares that the ERoEI for corn ethanol is in the range of 1.3:1
And Michael Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma p.45)reports that it requires more than 1 calorie of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of corn.
By my calculations, the production of energy per acre is about 100 times better by installing 20% efficient solar collectors versus raising corn for ethanol. And therefore would require only 1/100th of the acreage.
"Swiss Cheese ... 6.99 a pound"
try going to whole foods where you can pay $11.99 and up for the same thing!
we're entering an era of a 3-tiered food (and medical) system where it's canned beans for KEM PATRICK and the rest of the world's poor (if they're lucky), and raw kentucky goat cheese at $28.99/pound for the upper 10% of incomes.
apples are selling for $3.99/pound now at my local whole foods. but that doesn't phase a certain sector of the US population. these same people will easily pay $20/gallon for gas and $4000/month water bills to water their estates when times get tough...
The only good that will come from corn based ethanol is the technology and equipment to convert a waste stream into energy. A large % of landfill material is paper. Having been in the paper industry recycling is not always possible and the fibers become degraded after a couple trips through the mill.
The sludge and unrecyclable paper, crop waste or one of thousands of other waste streams would need to be a small gain when you calculate disposal cost of the original waste stream.
The problem is the lack of regulation in our feudal economic system. If every product carried more of it's true cost, recycling would be a paying business.
As far as food goes, the flat roof of thousands of buildings in each city could grow a fair amount of fruits and vegetables. These would make a city more livable and our food supply infinitely safer and more stable.
Answers are all around us, some good, some not so good - we need the system that encourages us to try improvements. Instead we get corporate welfare to drill for oil etc. in increasingly unlikely locations at an ever increasing rate.
"Eliminating trade barriers and setting aside agricultural resources..." I think this means that developed countries should stop subsidizing their agricultural exports and slapping high tarriffs on imports from underdeveloped countries. I'm not sure though. My grasp of economics is not strong. Maybe someone else could expand, correct, or explain.
"I almost had a heart attack when I picked up a package of Swiss Cheese at my local supermarket. It was 6.99 a pound. Where a year ago I could get the same package for a dollar or two less."
Tyrophiles of the World, Unite!!!
Apologies, btw, to Pojer...
We well-agree on the viability of bio-fuels (and on much-else), but differ-sharply in 'who we believe' regards the choicing of corn/ethanol as additive [I'd go so-far as to join your-camp when discussing 85%-fueling, for vehicles designed for such, and we'd both likely agree on the viability of LP-conversion for passenger-vehicles 'stuck' with petro-pollutants]
Much of what you rely-upon for overall-notions of farm-production and cost-basis analysis presupposes 'ideals' -- that are-not adopted commonly (and will-not be). Also, focusing solely on nitrates/CO/etc., while ingnoring impacts of CO2 regards 'additives' is over-convenient...
Add a bit of acetone? Fine... But mandate/produce an ethanol/corn-derived additive-program?...its foolish [as we are/will-be implementing-it].
Bio-fuels are HIGHLY-desirable if/when they derive from waste-production, and if/when they are refined into oils-for-diesels. But how much of THAT do you see in the US?
What we currently waste/pollute-with is 'a shame before the Goyim', granted. But we obviously need to take real-steps towards improving the situation...not just twist-and-torture the practical&applied science/statistics/methodologies benefiting only our already-too-fat fat-cats...
Eat and drink all you can - while its still affordable.
That day is not far off when the bulk of the world's arable land will be diverted to producing crops for biofuels . To power the SUV's and the private jet fleets of the rich , the powerful and the depraved.
Any arable land that remains will be used to produce cocaine, heroin , opium and cannabis . To keep the rest of the world spaced out -till we all die of starvation.
I almost had a heart attack when I picked up a package of Swiss Cheese at my local supermarket. It was 6.99 a pound. Where a year ago I could get the same package for a dollar or two less. I didn't get a full pound of cheese for 5 something. I commented to the woman stocking the dairy counter. She commented that a lot of it was due to dairy products being shipped overseas. She seemed extremely knowledgeable on the subject. So I think she knew what she was talking about. Since he has been in office gas prices have soared, all of the major suppliers have raked in profit's in the billions every quarter and this is only mentioning two. The list is growing endless. We are being raped at the expense of these 'Robber Baron' Republican's whose bottom line is profit's. No wonder big business loves the p....! They are getting rich while the rest of pay for their wealth. When are people going to wise up and quit slitting their own throat's when they go to the polls and vote Republican???????
I admire Ron Paul a great deal for his opposition to the Iraq war and many of his libertarian views.
However, I really only agree with him on two main issues, opposing the war on drugs and the war in Iraq.
He wants to make abortion illegal again, he would eliminate Social Security and Medicare and being a Medicinal Doctor, he is only now beginning to look at alternative approaches to healthcare.
A staunch Ronald Reagan conservative republican, he would also eliminate the Dept. of Education, and has only recently opposed the death penalty.
He would also withdraw from the United Nations and voted to build the fence between the US and Mexico.
In other words he basically does not believe that we are our brothers keeper and would leave the country pretty much like it is now, every person for themselves aboard the good ship USA.
To compare Ron Paul's humanitarian approach to governance to that of Dennis Kucinich is like comparing Reagan to FDR, they have a completely different attitude as to how government can play a role in our society.
One thinks that government is the enemy while the other strongly believes that government can be a uniting helpful medium for the betterment of all.
Some have even suggested a ticket of Paul and Mckinney.
Cynthia Mckinney used to be one of my favorite representatives, until she revealed her obnoxious arrogant behavior when asked to show her ID at the entrance to the Capital building.
Badge, badge, I don't need no stickin badge, and then proceeds to assault the police officer who had the nerve to ask her for ID.
Lets get real folks; we all know that the Menace is the only candidate of any substance.
If not our main man then of course any Democrat over any Republican or Third Party throw away.
Hello Pojer,
I bookmarked your blog www.lawnstogardens.com. There is some outstanding work there; looks like your video on how you changed your lawn to a garden made the local television news station. Congratulations. Portland is leading the way again! May all those BlueBall Democrats from the South follow your footsteps! :-)
"Eliminating trade barriers and programs that set aside agriculture resources is one way that developed countries could help equip developing countries for the rising food prices."
Do readers have thoughts to expand on what that means?
I believe that refers to how NAFTA (as an example) supposedly 'opened' markets betwixt Mexico and the US 'fairly', but still allowed the extraordinary-subsidization of corn-crops, here -- which we then 'dumped' into Mexico, which resulted in destroying their subsistence/small-farming market/population/workforce there (and jacked their/our food-prices WAY-up, to-boot).
Now for my favorite rant:
[Rant On]
There is NOTHING wrong with the concept/utility of Bio-Fuels, but its INSANE how it is being 'implemented'/directed in oil/manufacturing-controlled 'developed'-countries. Mr. Diesel had a great-notion/'gift' for us with his invention of high-torque engines that were expressly _Intended_ to utilize not 'Petro-Diesel', but surplus&waste vegetable-Oils or refined/organic-waste (otherwise 'burned' or destructively 'dumped'). Without doubt (in my-mind, at-least) THAT is why the monopolist/Rothschild-minion [J.D.Rockefeller] had him killed, then ruined his family with invented 'sex-scandal', subsequently stole the control/patents, and tried to take Diesels completely 'off the market' (after Diesel had advertised his innovation as "freedom from monopolistic-abuse of JDR, and his 'BlackGold' ".
Demand in trucking/farming forced oil/manufacturing-giants to reintroduce diesels -- only, when they did, there were now 'petro-diesel' pumps all-over, and the industry has hoodwinked all of us -- ever since -- into thinking 'that was ok' as their fuel. And lately, they have done whatever is possible to make newer/'fancier'-diesels, so damn 'petro-friendly' that they no longer work-well with vegetable-based surplus/waste-oils (some, in-fact, no longer work well even with petrol-based fuels!).
There are incredible-tonnages of wasted cooking-oils, bio-masses, farm-wastes, grass-clippings, garbage, switch-grass, etc. in ALL developed-countries that could READILY and CHEAPLY be converted into bio-fuels [yes, and Hemp would work, also...] -- and pollute slightly-less than 'petro-garbage' while driving Diesels...if only one-tenth the 'vested-cash' we've commited to stupid corn-conversion were invested into appropriately-designed Refineries here -- but NO-O-O-O!! We, instead, dump public-monies and 'faith' into turning our precious and expensively-grown Food/feed-stocks into worthless 'Ethanol-additives', with underwritten and wasteful and energy-net-loss 'refinement'. And, the jackasses doing-so are selling it all to us with the obscene LIES of 'energy-independence' and 'Greening'?!
Ethanol-additives (now fast-becoming 'Mandated' -- whether they be 2%-10%), directly ROB us of about-that-much in reduced-mileage [MPG] -- for a net 'no gain, tough-luck'. But to get that 'nothing gain', we are first having to waste the gas/petrol to farm&grow the corn, then much-more to 'cook' it into ethanol (having already expended much-more petrol in required fertilizer/insecticide), and then transport and bother adding-it-in -- and THEN it screws-up and damages our 'designed for gas-only' engines [resulting in yet-more energy/cash wasted on maintenance/replacement] WHILE it pollutes even-more because "its in-there" as a so-called 'octane-booster'!!!
Who sold us this BILL OF GOODS?
Are we MAD? Or just the stupidest-population, ever?
AND, doing all this (to accomplish nothing other than to 'gift' the auto-industry and oil-sector and 'Big-AG', while actually INCREASING our so-called 'energy-dependency'), it all will ALSO hugely jack-up our already-ridiculous food-pricing?
What greater 'Lose/Lose/Lose/Lose'-Proposition could we foolishly-adopt, and so-readily? Spraying gasoline on our drought-suffering crops and then striking-a-match is the only-thing more wasteful/stupid/counter-productive that I can imagine...
[RANT OFF]
Ron Paul may be a libertarian but like Kucinich, at least he's consistent and believes in a truly FREE market, not the currently RIGGED one dubbed "free".
BTW, I'll look into the Algae idea and see if it's really valid or not.
At least we can recognise that Ron Paul and Dennis K. have integrity. Even if idealogically different they are honest and deserve our votes and support, whichever way you lean.
Great news, Americans are too fat. Oh I forgot, rising food costs will only make them fatter. They'll only be able to afford Doritos and Pepsi and will survive off vending machines from now on. The corporations will be delighted.
ALOHA !!
A corrupt monetary system is at the root of 90% of America's problems. RON PAUL is the only one that has challenged Alan Greenspan and now Ben Bernanke directly on these issues for over a decade now.
While corporations have abused and corrupted their power it is the BANKERS that have been the culprits behind the mass financial enslavement of Americans. At least a corporation produces jobs and a product. What do bankers produce? Right now their main product is FRAUD! They are essentially parasites who use OPM(Other Peoples Money)and the fraud that is a US Federal Reserve Note to exploit our productivity for their own gain. Bankers contribute nothing to resolve the multitude of problems we face here in America ...
Only RON PAUL has a plan for the elimination of the fraudulent banking system in the USA.
We have given the two party aristocracy some 90 years to improve America. What have we gotten in return for our trust? More wars and more debt and more misery and BIGGER GOVERNMENT !!!
VOTE RON PAUL !!
ALOHA !!
ALGAE OIL ...
An acre of corn produces about 20 gallons of oil per year, compared with perhaps 15,000 gallons of oil per acre of algae.
An algae farm could be located almost anywhere. It could be an incredibly versatile production plant. Importantly, an algae farm would not need to divert any cropland from food production. It could use seawater and pollutants to feed the algae, thereby doing multifaceted environmental duty.
By volume, algae can be up to 50% oil. This form of "crude" can be burned as biodiesel or converted into jet fuel, and the cost of doing so should be considerably less than that of processing contaminated oil from deep within the ground. By comparison with algae oil, most so-called sweet oil is sour.
The University of California has a proprietary strain of algae, which produces oil so pure that it can be squeezed right into an engine and burned. The remaining plant matter makes a great protein feedstock.
QUIT CHASING CORN AND HEMP AND "GO ALGAE" !!!
Google ALGAE/ALGAL FARMS ...
As Mother Earth seeks to restore her natural balance the rapidity of change and the consequences thereof will be mind numbing. Governments that are useless in times of plenty will become increasingly useless in times of scarcity. Corporations seen as central planning units will fail given their centralized decision making architecture. The dual concepts of competition and greed will fail to provide results for their adherents as they once had. Failure will become the norm for our errant belief systems. Deaths from starvation, dehydration, disease, and resulting violent crime will wreak havoc upon our society as support systems fail. Fear and panic will give rise to our base human instincts. Then and only then will a paradigm shift occur in our thinking. Reality based thinking will again require the rapid application of the values of cooperation and community. Ego's will again need to be suppressed in favor of the good of the community. Our leaders will become those who live on the least and share the most. The Family will again take on an ancient significance that correlates with survival. Blood laws will appear again guaranteeing that anyone harming another will themselves be revenged by a relative of the family member injured, as a necessary element of societal stability. Family Clans will organize and specialize in a survival based need such as gathering fuel, hunting, farming, and building. Water again will be seen as Sacred and used accordingly. Ancient spiritualities will replace the bankrupt beliefs of organized Religions. Hardships and necessity will mold our values and beliefs into a synthesis of the ancient and the modern in ways that are sustainable. In short we will again return to the value systems of the Indigenous populations of this continent that were replaced five hundred years earlier by the American Holocaust. This is called coming full circle.
Forget about biofuels. It's dollar losing value that gives rise to inflation. Recession will soon follow.
I noticed the text to the picture at the top was the harvesting of the STRAW -- that is a WASTE product of food production.
Using what could be eaten to make gas should not be allowed. Neither should land suitable for growing food be used for growing crops specifically for fuel.
True, it is not as simple to make fuel from agricultural waste as from grain or oily seeds -- but is an efficient technology all that difficult?
dcb,
I encourage you to visit www.lawnstogardens.com. It's my blog and I think you'll find it in line with reality.
: )
If we make the biofuels as a duel use material then we could guzzle it in our cars and also drink it for our daily nutrients and solve the drug problem, the meat eating problem, and just continue on our merry way.
An economist reminded me that the CPI does NOT include food or energy; no wonder it can be said that inflation is not a concern.
Hunger is also a growing concern; if we each reduced our animal and meat consumption and overall consumption for that matter, lived simply so others may simply live, we could reach the tipping point and set a different example than the one now that is not sustainable.
Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together and we should respond from that awareness.
Privatize We the People. Incorporate us before other corporations steal our public lands and treasure and enslave us.
"Surging demand for feed, food, and fuel have recently led to drastic price increases, which are not likely to fall in the foreseeable future," von Braun said. But "climate change will also have a negative impact on food production."
If you ever hope to retire, put your money in commodities.
"Turn lawns into gardens: make it a law."
Actualy, in most citys around here (Los Angeles)
It is a law.
ANY change to "your" property that negitivly efects your
neigbors "Property values" is illigal, in the sence that "Code Inforcement" WILL find your garden and start leagal action against the property "owner", starting with fines that can be garnished from any bank acount knowen by the City or County.
Food comes from licenced "SuperMarkets", frute products carry expencive plastic stickers with government permit numbers.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060507071109/www.tao.ca/~kev/
Be Subversive. Buy Local Food!
Hemp: There were 48,000 acres of HEMP grown in Canada in 2006.
Hemp is also grown for food, a super-food, containing all essential amino acids & essential fatty acids and much more. Protein and oil.
Buy Local. Don't buy food unless its grown in your bioregion!
KEM PATRICK
'houston - we have a problem'
roger that kem - over and out.
This should SHUT DOWN any misunderstanding of hemp.
Hello Pojer,
Thank you for the enlightening post on the relationships among sexual practices, population, and Peak Oil. Wasn't it Buckminster Fuller who said that as society evolves the prevalence of homosexuality will increase? To think of "alternative" sexual practices as being behaviors shaped by issues of survival is a healing one for me, especially so given the poisoned and cloistered framing of the debate in the MSM.
I wholeheartedly agree that "some nasty things [will] start happening as modern thinking meets the 4th Law of Thermodynamics."
The crux of the problem with biofuels is that topsoil, unless you are speaking in geological time, is not exactly renewable. It's too precious a resource to waste on energy when wind, solar, geothermal and hydrogen offer basically unlimited/undiminishing sources.
Maybe when beef is $80/pound, like it is in Japan, because all our food crops are being turned into fuels to keep running our cars and trucks and SUVs, then maybe the American public will rethink our relationship to the environment and to the rest of th world.
....Nah!
TruOrange--Did I say it is a problem? No, I commended people who decide to do so. In most places in the world, progeny equates to social security as culture in those societies deems it progeny's responsibility to care for its progenitor's in old age. Thus progeny is of great value economically. In what remains of my extended family, I am the caretaker, but have a very easy job because of pensions and social security. Yes, I'm quite lucky.
From a genetic POV, the "problem" would be that of a reduced gene pool. A Statist would say not providing a replacement for myself hurts the state's viability as tax revenues and GDP would decrease, that I would cause a burden for those remaining because taxes would have to increase. Those Abrahamic religion followers would say I'm going against God's dicta and deserve to rot in hell.
But self-extinction and imposed extinction are not the same. Proper family planning is a way to avoid the need to choose self-extinction. Unfortunately, such planning runs into the objectors noted above and more. Personally, I would be quite content with a one-child policy becoming the norm here in the US, but I'm not holding my breath.
I salute all those who took the risk to not procreate, an act in the US which is very counter-culture because it stands against "Tradition."
According to the USDA, the lower 48 US states is 38% forest land (750m acres), 38% livestock rangeland (750m acres), and 17% cropland (350m acres). This 17% in crop land may be split out to 15% (300m acres) in livestock feed and 2% (50m acres) in plant food for human consumption.
Livestock also consumes huge amounts of energy and water, and produces a lot of methane. Americans really load up at every meal with meat, dairy and eggs. If all Americans went vegan, we could probably feed ourselves on 5% of our land area. And at least half of that area could be our suburban lawns, and sunroom attachments to our houses for winter gardens and tropicals. Not that Americans are going vegan any time soon, but it's good to know what land use is essential and what's not.
If only the leftist will take a clear look at the food production situation today, the leftist will see the capitalist's biofuels push as a progression of plunder, the overall progression and the capitalist dogma behind it being the fundamental problem, not the individual steps. After biofuels, the capitalist will lurch off into yet another destructive plundering, so it's best to focus on the root of the problem and that is the intent that drives the grotesque machine - the capitalist's culture of greed - to maximize economic activity, instead of the responsible, logical, and just goal to maximize efficiencies and value in markets.
I don't support using food for fuel, but I do support eco-eating (www.brook.com/veg) for a healthier, happier, more peaceful, more just, and more sustainable world.
As with any major problem such as population control the answer usually lies with more education. Unfortunately, good sound sex education is still taboo or against somebody or others beliefs. Abstinance is a joke, a feel good concept for people unwilling to face reality. Abstinance does not take into consideration that hormones rage and common sense and committments to abstinance turn to mush especially in the youth who would do much better with decent sex education. I have read that the U.S. does not offer assistance with contraception to countries who do not adhere to the absinance programs. How sad is that?
karlof1 December 6th, 2007 3:02 pm "Our progeny are our immortality ... Deciding to not have progeny is to destroy one's genetic line, to make it extinct."
So? The problem with one's genetic line becoming extinct is what exactly? Please tell me precisely what that problem is.
It's apparently legal to grow hemp in Canada. Does anyone know how much acreage is devoted to growing hemp in Canada and for what it is used? I know some of it is turned into fiber. It's a travesty beyond words to not grow hemp in the US, as it has thousands of uses...the antiquated law is ridiculous. Believe me, if anyone wants to get high, they won't smoke industrial hemp. Isn't grass the first or second ranked cash crop in this country? Who is fooling who? Beside all that, hemp oil and seed is outrageously nutritious as a food source.
And in response to Karlof1:
In Stephen Baxter's novel Evolution, he explores the possibility (which, the more I though of it seemed almost a certainty) that the purpose of alternative sexual practices — other than vaginal intercourse — was to serve as birth control. Our prehistoric kin were not idiots; they knew how babies were made. When food got tight they'd just _do it_ in a way that wouldn't cause pregnancy.
When agriculture came along it enabled wealth to be concentrated. It only made sense that the rulers, who needed more workers to work the fields and feed their armies, would ban those alternative sexual practices.
You and I are monkeys that seek health and the preservation of life. We like food. Sleep. Money and the things money can buy. Life after death (for believers). The well being of our children. A feeling of importance. And sexual gratification.
No matter what your religion or sense of values, it feels good when your netherbits get tickled. I feel this is relevant to Peak Oil in that we are at the peak of population, right before some nasty things start happening as modern thinking meets the 4th Law of Thermodynamics.
While there is nothing sexy about entropy, we should keep that in mind the world now has a virtual sex machine called the Internet. Sex crimes decrease since people can find whatever they are looking for online (A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes).
Normal people, either as couples or singles, seek sexual experiences from the magical sex box. It's world wide, from India to Iraq to wherever. I'll bet there are Taliban fighters whacking off in Wi-Fi enabled caves somewhere.
The point is that we are at the point with peak oil where the Zero Sum game starts to have definite losers. Right now it is starting in the poorest countries, and people are dying. Food prices will only continue to rise, and if the Ice Shelf slips into the ocean we are all fucked, no matter how many carbon credits you buy.
As long as we continue to breed and developing countries try to keep up with the Joneses (the West), we will continue to witness a decline in living conditions. As long as we continue to be prudish and deny that we are sexual monkeys, there will be fighting over the remaining bananas.
You may think I'm trying to be funny. I'm not. As the economic collapse speeds up and more people are in their own personal dire straights, they will be freaked out and depressed. Attitude is key now as things get bad.
I believe we are entering a period of time when an intervention is needed and social programs will become overwhelmed. This Thanksgiving, food banks reported huge drops in inventory and the ability to help feed people.
Hungry, desperate people are no joke. But somehow through despair, sex always breaks through, and no matter what you have been told, God won't get mad if you take care of your needs. Do whatever you have to do to keep up a good attitude and stay positive.
It's about to become a very rough ride. Time to fire up the moonshine!
When they began pushing bio-fuels, one of my main concerns was that that would lead to hunger. Then I read an article on the new biofuel movement. It pointed out that the equipment used to heat and distill the bio-fuel put four times as much carbon into the atmosphere as the bio-fuel was supposed to eliminate.
The article also pointed out that the coal and oil industry was pouring huge amounts of money into investing in bio-fuels, because they would benefit at both ends. They were buying croplands, etc., as well as tooling up with bio-fuel distilleries. (Coal and oil fired, of course)
So, as usual, greed wins and the people starve while the rich drive their hummers. (I wish I had bookmarked that article when I read it)
All of you railing AGAINST biofuels have fallen for the bait.
I agree biodiesel is encouraging the destruction of mother earth's lungs in the Amazon. We need to stop that right now.
But you CANNOT lump Ethanol and Biodiesel together, they are completely different from one another
Before any of you spout out more poison about food VS fuel, etc. - you had better read "Alcohol Can Be A Gas" by David Blume. (www.alcoholcanbeagas.com)
Myth #1: It Takes More Energy to ÂProduce Ethanol than You Get from It!
Most ethanol research over the past 25 years has been on the topic of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). Public discussion has been dominated by the American Petroleum Institute's aggressive distribution of the work of Cornell professor David Pimentel and his numerous, deeply flawed studies. Pimentel stands virtually alone in portraying alcohol as having a negative EROEI—producing less energy than is used in its production.
In fact, it's oil that has a negative EROEI. Because oil is both the raw material and the energy source for production of gasoline, it comes out to about 20% negative. That's just common sense; some of the oil is itself used up in the process of refining and delivering it (from the Persian Gulf, a distance of 11,000 miles in tanker travel).
The most exhaustive study on ethanol's EROEI, by Isaias de Carvalho Macedo, shows an alcohol energy return of more than eight units of output for every unit of input—and this study accounts for everything right down to smelting the ore to make the steel for tractors.
But perhaps more important than EROEI is the energy return on fossil fuel input. Using this criterion, the energy returned from alcohol fuel per fossil energy input is much higher. In a system that supplies almost all of its energy from biomass, the ratio of return could be positive by hundreds to one.
Myth #2: There Isn't Enough Land to Grow Crops for Both Food and Fuel!
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. has 434,164,946 acres of "cropland"—land that is able to be worked in an industrial fashion (monoculture). This is the prime, level, and generally deep agricultural soil. In addition to cropland, the U.S. has 939,279,056 acres of "farmland." This land is also good for agriculture, but it's not as level and the soil not as deep. Additionally, there is a vast amount of acreage—swamps, arid or sloped land, even rivers, oceans, and ponds—that the USDA doesn't count as cropland or farmland, but which is still suitable for growing specialized energy crops.
Of its nearly half a billion acres of prime cropland, the U.S. uses only 72.1 million acres for corn in an average year. The land used for corn takes up only 16.6% of our prime cropland, and only 7.45% of our total agricultural land.
Even if, for alcohol production, we used only what the USDA considers prime flat cropland, we would still have to produce only 368.5 gallons of alcohol per acre to meet 100% of the demand for transportation fuel at today's levels. Corn could easily produce this level—and a wide variety of standard crops yield up to triple this. Plus, of course, the potential alcohol production from cellulose could dwarf all other crops.
Myth #3: Ethanol's an Ecological ÂNightmare!
You'd be hard-pressed to find another route that so elegantly ties the solutions to the problems as does growing our own energy. Far from destroying the land and ecology, a permaculture ethanol solution will vastly improve soil fertility each year.
The real ecological nightmare is industrial agriculture. Switching to organic-style crop rotation will cut energy use on farms by a third or more: no more petroleum-based herbicides, pesticides, or chemical fertilizers. Fertilizer needs can be served either by applying the byproducts left over from the alcohol manufacturing process directly to the soil, or by first running the byproducts through animals as feed.
Myth #4: It's Food Versus Fuel—We Should Be Growing Crops for Starving Masses, Not Cars!
Humankind has barely begun to work on designing farming as a method of harvesting solar energy for multiple uses. Given the massive potential for polyculture yields, monoculture-study dismissals of ethanol production seem silly when viewed from economic, energetic, or ecological perspectives.
Because the U.S. grows a lot of it, corn has become the primary crop used in making Âethanol here. This is supposedly Âcontroversial, since corn is identified as a staple food in poverty-stricken parts of the world. But 87% of the U.S. corn crop is fed to animals. In most years, the U.S. sends close to 20% of its corn to other countries. While it is assumed that these exports could feed most of the hungry in the world, the corn is actually sold to wealthy nations to fatten their livestock. Plus, virtually no impoverished nation will accept our corn, even when it is offered as charity, due to its being genetically modified and therefore unfit for human consumption.
Also, fermenting the corn to alcohol results in more meat than if you fed the corn directly to the cattle. We can actually increase the meat supply by first processing corn into alcohol, which only takes 28% of the starch, leaving all the protein and fat, creating a higher-quality animal feed than the original corn.
Myth #5: Big Corporations Get All Those Ethanol Subsidies, and
Taxpayers Get Nothing in Return!
Between 1968 and 2000, oil companies received subsidies of $149.6 billion, compared to ethanol's paltry $116.6 million. The subsidies alcohol did receive have worked extremely well in bringing maturity to the industry. Farmer-owned cooperatives now produce the majority of alcohol fuel in the U.S. Farmer-owners pay themselves premium prices for their corn and then pay themselves a dividend on the alcohol profit.
The increased economic activity derived from alcohol fuel production has turned out to be crucial to the survival of non-corporate farmers, and the amounts of money they spend in their communities on goods and services and taxes for schools have been much higher in areas with an ethanol plant. Plus, between $3 and $6 in tax receipts are generated for every dollar of ethanol subsidy. The rate of return can be much higher in rural communities, where re-spending within the community produces a multiplier factor of up to 22 times for each
alcohol fuel subsidy dollar.
Myth #6: Ethanol Doesn't ÂImprove Global Warming! In Fact, It ÂPollutes the Air!
Alcohol fuel has been added to gasoline to reduce virtually every class of air pollution. Adding as little as 5–10% alcohol can reduce carbon monoxide from gasoline exhaust dramatically. When using pure alcohol, the reductions in all three of the major pollutants—carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and Âhydrocarbons—are so great that, in many cases, the remaining emissions are unmeasurably small. Reductions of more than 90% over gasoline emissions in all categories have been routinely documented for straight alcohol fuel.
It is true that when certain chemicals are included in gasoline, addition of alcohol at 2–20% of the blend can cause a reaction that makes these chemicals more volatile and evaporative. But it's not the ethanol that's the problem; it's the gasoline.
Alcohol carries none of the heavy metals and sulfuric acid that gasoline and diesel exhausts do. And straight ethanol's evaporative emissions are dramatically lower than gasoline's, no more toxic than what you'd find in the air of your local bar.
As for global warming, the production and use of alcohol neither reduces nor increases the atmosphere's CO2. In a properly designed system, the amount of CO2 and water emitted during fermentation and from exhaust is precisely the amount of both chemicals that the next year's crop of fuel plants needs to make the same amount of fuel once again.
Alcohol fuel production actually lets us reduce carbon dioxide emissions, since the growing of plants ties up many times more carbon dioxide than is created in the production and use of the alcohol. Converting from a hydrocarbon to a Âcarbohydrate economy could quickly reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide.
I write about this more at www.lawnstogardens.com - come on over and learn.
I love to see an article about food prices climbing and no end in sight, or almost any other subject, from the high cost of fuel to the housing market become a political forum, pro and con for a presidential candidate. Where are those who will soon write the word IMPEACH ? ___ At least the last five letters in that word spell something to chew on.
Hey, here one came up about screwing the gals while I was editing. Now that's a subject I can dig into.
Our progeny are our immortality. Think about that for a few minutes if you don't understand. Deciding to not have progeny is to destroy one's genetic line, to make it extinct. People deciding to do this are brave souls. Of course, most people don't think about the enormity of such a decision.
Within our extended family of 5, we have produced only 3 to carry on our genetic line, instead of tha average 11-12. This was done with some active decision making, not entirely by chance.
Unfortunately, the reproductive sex act is very enjoyable and perceived as having no cost. Its true costs are seldom discussed and almost never taught in schools, aside from STD issues and the "problem" of teen pregnancy (which implies it's fine to get pregnant after high school). It's instructive to review the position of the US government versus China's one child policy to see that USG promotes overpopulation.
We have 50 million acres of switch grass that the U.S. pays farmers to grow to preserve the soil. It is continues to grow for 10 years before replanting, it is a native species requiring little water nor nutrients and all you have to do is mow it, gasify it and synthesize fuel from it to get more than 1/3 of our gasoline needs with NO use of food crops.
"I'd rather trust to people working out solutions themselves, without either government supervision or government regulation."
So, when a big corporation poisions your air and water sells you unhealthy food, and employs people in dangerous workplaces, how, exactly will you "work out this solution among yourselves"?
Well, you might:
1. Form a neighborhood comittee and equip it with guns, handcuffs, a paddy wagon, jails, judges, prisons, etc...
2. With the advice of various knowllegble people, ome up with a list of standards that any corporation in your neighborhood must meet.
3. If the corporation doesn't meet the minimum standards, pay it a visit with the above comittee and force it at gunpoint and threat of imprisonment, or extortion of money, to quit harming the people in your neighborhood and start meeting the standards developed in step 2.
Well, if you do all these things, haven't you just formed a government?
Do the maths...it's depressing but we must to get our thick heads straightened out.
Rough facts here...
America consumes roughly 1.4 billion litres of petrol a day, therefore America consumes 511 billion litres of petrol a year. Worldwide you can roughly double that number.
1 acre of bio-fuel crops equates to roughly 3800 litres of ethanol.
1 acre of land can create food for 1.5 people in a year (as per US RDA's). Reality check here...6.6 billion people live on Earth.
Ethanol contains 70% of the energy of petrol, therefore, 1.4 litres of ethanol = 1 litre of petrol.
Let's say there are about 4 billion acres of useable farmland on Earth today.
So...
511 billion of litres of petrol = how many acres?
-------------------------------------
(3800 litres of ethanol per acre x 1.4)
Equals....
96,052,631 acres of bio-crops to fuel America for a year. (150,000 square miles!)
And there is...
434 million acres of crop land in America today.
Thats a lot of corn eh?
Imagine, 1/4 of America is a corn crop that you can't eat! Now imagine this ratio beyond America's borders!
Scary how little the average person really knows about the validity of bio-fuel vs fossil fuel huh?
So what was the point anyways? Well,
A) Move closer to work and the services you need, put your car keys away and use the legs that God gave you instead, use that acre of land you call a lawn to grow some veggies.
or option 2..
B) Keep filling your SUV and prepare for war. Support mass kill offs world wide in order to support your wasteful ways.
Simple choices eh?
[Bill Hicks]:
By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you.
I agree with you, WhatToDo. Ron Paul's negatives outweigh his positives, however attractive they are.
Ron Paul wants to privatize everything. If that doesn't serve corporate interests, I am not sure what does! And he is very much Pro Life. We need not take any more steps backwords.
I thank those posters who have written about population and its (direct) relationship to many problems, including the amount/cost of food.
I am constantly amazed at what a controversial topic this is. The problem resides in the philosphy that people should be able to procreate whenever/wherever they choose. (Now I KNOW there are countries where women's reporductive habits are NOT in their control- Yet another huge issue). In the U.S. we have hundreds of thousands of women every year having children they cannot fiscally take care of--- Imagine if this didn't happen here. There are also parts of the planet that are simply not able to sustain human life (without the importing of most staple items).
When do we as a local and global population start examining what it means to be responsible?
Ps ... I assume Kucinich is too wedded to his pro-corporate Democratic party to leave and run as an independent. And even though I like Dennis, I still like Cynthia McKinney better. Sometimes you just gotta fight, and Cynthia's a fighter.
But maybe that's just because I used to live in GA and work on her campaigns.
BTW, Hemp for biofuel still has exactly this same problem as described in the article.
You take land that could be producing food, and you divert it into producing fuel. Exactly which crop is grown for fuel doesn't change the fact that you are telling people to starve to fuel the SUVs.
Why do people on the left spend most their time hating people like Ron Paul who largely agree with them?