Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tanks Cannot Stop This Crisis, So Let's Stop Building Them
Our brains struggle with big, painful change. The rational, least painful change is to stop wasting money building tanks
What would we be doing now if we took climate change seriously? Last week the government released a report on the likely temperature changes in the UK. It shows that life at the end of this century will bear no relationship to life at the beginning. It should have dominated the news for days. But it was too far away, too remote from current problems, too big to see.
Over the past few months Lord Giddens, one of the architects of New Labour, has been touting the hypothesis that people are reluctant to act on climate change until it becomes visible to them, by which time it will be too late. This thought, which has been common currency within the environment movement for at least 20 years, has been christened by this shrinking violet the "Giddens Paradox". It ranks among his other major discoveries, like the Giddens Postulate (people wear fewer clothes when temperatures rise) and the Giddens Effect (the Earth goes round the Sun). But despite his outrageous expropriation, the point remains a valid one. We will resist taking radical action until we have no choice, whereupon it will have no effect.
Our resistance to change is not peculiar to environmental issues. Even when confronted by crisis, we try to stick to the script. As the coaching theorist David Rock and the research psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz note, just one in nine people who have had coronary bypass surgery take their doctor's advice to lose weight and exercise more. Part of the problem, they show, is that confronting change means making use of parts of the brain which require more energy to engage.
When you drive along familiar roads, for instance, the brain's basal ganglia function as a kind of autopilot, performing routine functions without the need for conscious thought. When you go abroad, and have to drive on the other side of the road, you must make use of the prefrontal cortex, which burns more energy than the basal ganglia. We perceive high levels of energy use much as we perceive pain. For good biological reasons we seek to avoid them. We engage with change only when we have to.
That's a horribly simplified account of some very complex processes, but you get the general idea. Change is pain, a change for the worse is double pain. We pretend it's not there, up to – often beyond – the point at which it starts hammering on the door.
So environmentalists seek to persuade us that we'll love the green transition. Downshifting, voluntary simplicity, alternative hedonism – whatever they call it, it's presented as a change for the better. A new green deal will save the planet, the workforce and the economy. Energy efficiency will protect the bottom line as well as the biosphere. A less frantic life will allow us to enjoy the small wonders that surround us.
There is both exaggeration and truth in all this, but effective action also involves a change for the worse: regulation, rationing, austerity, state spending. "Little by little," the Roman historian Livy wrote 2,000 years ago, "we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them."
Everything we need to do has been made harder by debt. Net state debt now exceeds £700bn. The RBS and Lloyds shambles will add between £1 trillion and 1.5tn. National debt is likely to reach 150% of GDP next year: well beyond the point at which the IMF declares developing countries basket cases.
This introduces two environmental problems. The first is that there is no money left with which to fund a green new deal. The second is that we'll be able to pay off these debts only by resuming economic growth. Greenhouse gases grow because the economy grows. The UK's liabilities make the transition to a steady state economy, let alone a managed contraction, much harder to achieve. They appear to commit us to either growth or default for at least a generation. The debt crisis is an environmental disaster.
So we are left with only painful choices. We should be spending tens of billions a year to prevent climate breakdown, but how? Borrow the money and exacerbate the crisis? Raise taxes? Cut the health and education budgets? Any of the above would enhance public resistance to change. The least painful approach is to cut services that are of no use to anyone.
There are plenty of them. The prison building programme would yield a couple of hundred million a year if it were replaced with non-custodial schemes. The government could trim a billion or two from the Olympics budget without much tearing of cloth. The identity card scheme would be unmourned to the tune of half a billion a year. Nor would we be deafened by the gnashing of teeth if, as I suggested in May, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform were scrapped, saving £1.8bn a year. But this is still the wrong order of magnitude. Scanning the government's departmental spending limits, one figure jumps out. It accounts for 12% of state spending; a bigger budget than any department has except health and schools. Of the £38bn this office spends every year, almost all is wasted.
At the end of 2003, the Ministry of Defence observed that "there are currently no major conventional military threats to the UK or Nato … it is now clear that we no longer need to retain a capability against the re-emergence of a direct conventional strategic threat". So why is most of this ministry's budget spent on retaining a capability against the emergence of a direct conventional strategic threat?
To read the MoD's spending stats is to read the accounts of a lost world: a faraway land where threats and funds are unlimited. Its private finance initiative service charges (£1.3bn) exceed the entire budget of the department of energy and climate change. The department for international development could be funded twice over from the MoD's budget for capital charges and depreciation (£9.6bn). Property management sucks up £1.5bn a year, consultants and lawyers £470m, bullets, bombs and the like, £650m.
What does it give us? Our wars make us less safe. We would be better protected from terrorism and global instability if the UK's armed forces stopped going abroad to make trouble. No one in office can produce a coherent account of why this money is needed: the ministry's budget is sustained by the greed of contractors and nostalgia for imperium long passed. We could cut defence spending by 90% and suffer no loss to our national security. Instead, the MoD has just dropped its spending on climate change research. This accounted for a quarter of the Met Office's climate programme.
The last time we faced a crisis on the scale of the global climate crash, the rational solution was to build tanks. Now the rational, least painful solution is to stop building tanks, and use the money to address a real threat.
- Posted in
42 Comments so far
Show AllWell, at least we won't have to worry about our sun burning out in a billion years or so.
Britain still believes it's an empire (don't believe me? What do you think all the 'Sir' titles that are dished out every year mean?), and maybe secretly believes it could regain its 'glory days' - perhaps by riding piggyback on the U.S. in the interim while waiting for its collapse. If it behaves like any other nation (responsible, developed, etc.) in western Europe, that would reflect in its spending. France too has its pretensions of being a major power, being a permanent member of the UN Security Council (though their a*s had to be saved by others in World War II), legally armed (nuclear), etc.
"(don't believe me? What do you think all the 'Sir' titles that are dished out every year mean?),"
They don't mean what you think they mean. Not nowadays.
"Our wars make us less safe. We would be better protected from terrorism and global instability if the UK's armed forces stopped going abroad to make trouble. No one in office can produce a coherent account of why this money is needed: the ministry's budget is sustained by the greed of contractors and nostalgia for imperium long passed."
Imperialism has nothing to do with nostalgia. It is an inherent requirement of capitalism. As developed national capitalism runs out of markets/resources and competing capitalists seek lower costs of production (lower wages), capitalism expands its geopolitical control over other countries. In short, as long as we have a capitalist economic system, we will have imperialism as it is an essential requirement of capitalism.
Imperialism requires the building up of a strong military-industrial complex which transfers incredible amounts of state money to the private sector. The U.S. economy is totally dependent on this state interjection into the economy as failure to do so, would result in a permanent economic crisis. Capitalism in the developed world has been successful in exporting its consumer production to low wage areas of the planet, effectively destroying its own productive economy of commodity production. All that is left in productive capacity is military production, paid for by working class taxpayers in the developed economies. Of course this is an untenable situation, but so is the rest of the capitalist system, as we are witnessing daily.
Sioux Rose
STRUGGLE: I am directing this at you as I don't know if there is an answer, after all, the proposition has not yet been tried. And here it is. If the things that already exist, say the island of plastics out in the Pacific Ocean, were transformed into items that are useful, could the profit motive be satisfied, like an animal with an insatiable appetite feeding on what already IS there? There are MOUNTAINS of waste, and with human ingenuity, could not these mountains of detritus become converted into other? And that brings me to the second point. Since we, in the Western world led by America, march to the beat of Mars rules, why not declare a WAR ON CLIMATE CHANGE. Then all the military resources instead of finding poor villages to bomb, could instead direct its considerable manpower towards the GREENING of domestic infrastructure. Instead of destroying people, incarcerating youth, military units could lead community rebuilding programs. There is a lot of vacant housing that can be utilized as community homes, safe houses for battered women, half-way houses for persons learning to live without drugs, homeless veterans, etc.
In other words, we have the manpower and resources that have been erroneously cast off as waste; yet much still contains value. It's all in how things are used and perceived. Someone could make money from the efforts to transform waste products and vacant buildings. Money spent on prisons and housing those with non-violent offenses, could instead go towards training these individuals to provide basic skills to their communities. How many young men would not be able to learn basic carpentry skills, plumbing, electrical with hands-on training? Just as Americans waste so much food, and toss perfectly fine clothing for the "latest fashions," they lay too many other lands TO waste. It's this paradigm when applied to capitalism that is failing and destroying the world. I believe that some profit motive combined with a saner relationship to the natural world (and its finite resource) could alter things for the better considerably, were the will to do so engaged.
Sioux Rose, while I clearly sense the spirit behind your asking "If the things that already exist, say the island of plastics out in the Pacific Ocean, were transformed into items that are useful, could the profit motive be satisfied,...?", unfortunately what's missing from this picture is energy. It takes energy to recycle stuff, and a lot of the plastics simply cannot be recycled, because their molecular structure is so cross-linked - which is good for strength and durability, but a nightmare from an environmental point of view. Even burning them (as is being done in many municipal incinerators) produces toxic chemicals such as dioxins. Plastics seemed like a boon at first - but it's time to seriously limit their use to really critical applications. Today plastics are used for convenience and making more profits - a fast-food restaurant would have to actually employ a human being for collecting and washing dishes and glasses - if it weren't for plastics. Can you imagine that?! Just imagine how much more soda they can sell in plastic bottles and metal cans without having to worry about collecting and transporting the glass bottles back to the bottling plant. And again, no human being required for that either.
>>>I believe that some profit motive combined with a saner relationship to the natural world (and its finite resource) could alter things for the better considerably, were the will to do so engaged.
I agree. That's where humans are yet to demonstrate that they are truly intelligent. "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" is really not a cliche if you think in that order. Some European nations have started in that direction. North America, being made of essentially settler societies, is far behind. There is a distinct lack of connection to nature for the majority. I read about some municipal strike in Toronto, Canada - it's only the second day and already garbage is piling up, it seems. And Canada, despite being the second largest country and a small population, finds it necessary to ship garbage to the U.S. as some landfill in British Columbia (conveniently located in some First Nation reserve land) is nearing capacity! Maybe that's a case of poor planning - but it shows the amount of waste generated.
Plastics can be made from hemp instead of the typical crude oil and they're more durable and environmentally friendly. I would miss nylon and some plastics that are made exclusively from light sweet crude oil but oil from algae could fix that since one could get renewable petroleum that's carbon neutral.
Sioux Rose
ALCYON: I certainly would advocate FOR reuse, reduce & recycle. My analogy to the "isle of plastics" was just off the top of my head. I mean I've seen playgrounds use used tires and cut them up so the kids don't fall on hard earth, but rather a kind of rubber matting. Americans for the most part have too much stuff. What do most of us need? If we did trades with each other, we'd probably find that what someone else was ready to give away was the thing we needed, and vice versa. I seldom shop at places where things are new. I have furnished two rental properties with things gotten at upscale consignment shops; and I tend to get my clothing at such places if I have a whim for something "new." I believe the best things in life are free, or were, until private property and government revenue-making services started charging for entrance to beaches, parks, rivers, etc. And what's going on in the way of the elites seeking to privatize water is nothing short of a sin or curse.
"Today plastics are used for convenience and making more profits"
Right. Tools, materials, processes, traditions, ideas, institutions, none of these are the problem. The problem is the liberty to misuse them. Liberty is now a liability. The Statue of Liberty should be renamed the Statue of Responsibility. The pundits need to emphasize the philosophy while making the connections to the reality.
Sioux Rose
RT DRURY (and STRUGGLE, should you return to this page): On my bike ride early today I was thinking about this thread. And I still think if capitalism were curbed by sound regulation, and we did not think in terms of FINITE but rather those things that are infinite, we could possibly see a new hybrid arise. If items are passed on, recycled and repaired there is not a rabid need for more!
I realized something that Dr. Seuss tried to convey to children so that they could transcend an insidious, omnipresent allure. He fictionalized brilliantly how desires are manufactured, and turned into "needs." He called this "thneeds." This is the problem... that a mainstream media is constantly working on person's insecurities to make them think they will get the gorgeous babe, their father's respect, their mother's love, their friend's envy, (whatever else) IF... they can buy/own/have this ITEM! The fashion "industry" is a good example. Pages and pages of vanity, when most people in America already possess more clothes than then need, myself included (and I like thrift shop stuff). It's a "too muchner" society, a concept I use in my children's book on the 12 rays (= foundation Zodiac tribes), as the ants (members of Virgo, the 6th ray with its penchant for labeling things) tell the little girl how THEY regard human beings. They have noted the presence of "The Too Muchners" (one of a number of categorical references), and how this group abuses substances without showing the slightest respect or appreciation for what they already have. Yes to liberty and responsibility, but also, yes on how to enlighten persons that they realize the most precious gift is their participation in the life force on a magnificent EDEN of a planet; and IF it is to stay intact, the incessant craze (now heard round the world) for all the latest gadgets betray that hope.
Take "built in obsolescence." It's being engineered in the way the housing market was artificially inflated. One manages to get the "latest" computer gadget, and it's already rendered obsolete so the "evolution" process is being artificially sped up. Consider all the metallic garbage as a growing issue. Something needs to be done with all that STUFF in the same way I suggested the mountains of plastic might make for a memorial to our nation's greed and disrespect for Sacred Substances. Perhaps detritus can serve new uses? In summary greed and need don't mean the same thing, but advertisers have learned to seduce the public otherwise.
Sioux Rose, I cannot argue with you that production should be ultimately based on what Marx called "use value". Society and individuals have certain needs and production should be geared towards fulfilling those needs rather than being based on where the capitalist class can realize their most profits. This is THE fundamental problem of capitalist production.
What you appear to fail to understand is that the whole problem of capitalist production and its resulting imperialism is not a simple lifestyle choice. Capitalism operates under certain fundamental systemic rules that are inherent in that economic system. As Marx pointed out, capitalism was very successful at heralding in tremendous production capacity and technological change in the realm of production but at the same time it created a new world, unknown to previous economic systems. For the first time in human history, abundance results in deprivation and starvation.
Capitalism needs imperialism and more specifically its main ingredient - military terrorism (or the threat of such) to maintain the class structure of global capitalism. Capitalism requires a core military power (first it was Britain, followed by the US after WWII) to establish hegemony over the periphery (semi-developed and developing nations) to prevent any other nations from establishing or searching for an alternative to the "free market" system. When you understand this, you start to understand why military adventurers like Iraq and Afghanistan, which logically make no sense, make a lot of sense to the ruling class. You can then start looking at global events from a class analysis and understand why countries like Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are singled out for either ridicule or outright aggression by imperialism and its army of pundits, "journalists" and paid-for politicians.
Sioux Rose, you appear to have quite an inquisitive mind. I really believe that if you did study a little Marxism, this will truly help to bring clarity to what on the surface looks like such an insane world. You'll see that humankind cannot establish a real relationship with the natural world as long as it operates under capitalism and "the profit motive". Marx had much to say about this and explained why this is so. John Bellamy Foster's book is a great read, btw ...
http://monthlyreview.org/books/ecologicalrevolution.php
You might be interested in reading a basic online primer on capitalism, written by a Marxist. Here's a good place to start ...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/intromet/index.htm
Happy reading. :-)
Sioux Rose
STRUGGLE: Perhaps at some time I will read some Marx. I had a peripheral exposure in high school. I just don't think capitalism is going to end; but it definitely needs to be roped in. Reading Zinn to learn about the nation's imperialistic ventures, added to Smedley Butler and John Perkins and recently Naomi Klein, I certainly can see the correspondence between war and an insatiable profit motive via violent forms of resource acquisition. My point about the "isle of plastics" was a metaphor: that much that already exists can be put to new uses and someone can profit from that transition. I think as a society respect for conservation will grow as the dollar wanes as a global currency. This is probably inevitable. Thank you for your long and considerate response. As you probably know my forte is the mystical, but I have learned much about politics and economics from this forum. And will continue to do so.
For all his erudite posturing, I have not seen George Monbiot talk about meat consumption. This is strange, considering that he loves dealing with numbers all the time. It has been documented that meat and dairy industries contribute to a huge chunk of the greenhouse gas emissions - even more than the transportation sector. For anyone interested, please Google "Livestock's Long Shadow". So, despite being tremendously impressed with his book "Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning" and some of his other writings, I have to list Monbiot, along with Al Gore, among the climate change hypocrites. It's a shame - because they are otherwise good communicators, but their message is somehow incomplete and somewhat shallow because they don't acknowledge the unsustainable nature of meat eating.
I thought I once saw an article where Monbiot discussed how being vegetarian can help cut down on global warming. I'll see if I can find it.
Thanks Jennifer. Monbiot might have written on that subject, but I haven't seen him stressing on it anywhere. Although I've been following the climate change debate for at least 12 years now, I could still learn about a few things from Monbiot's book "Heat" - such as the energy that's lost from old, inefficient houses/buildings, the energy consumed in the manufacture of cement, the wasteful way of merchandising in supermarkets - where they leave the freezers open for shoppers' "convenience" while actually heating the building to keep people warm, the effect of flying in airplanes, and so on. Considering the amount of work that must have gone into that book, I was surprised to see ZERO mention of the effect of meat and dairy production in it. That, plus having read lots of his other articles - which cover a whole gamut of issues, including the wasteful nature of hosting the Olympic games all around the world - makes me conclude that he is one of those environmentalists/journalists that would rather preach what's convenient for them. I know some in Britain (and many in America) cannot imagine giving up meat. Britain's expansion into North America a few centuries ago was driven, among other things, by its increasing appetite for beef (Jeremy Rifkin's "Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture" is a fascinating read on the history of beef production), and I have to suspect that Monbiot might have a soft corner for this supposedly "cultural" part of British lifestyle.
Well, some not so good news. Monbiot loves the UN and the UN strongly defends Monsanto. That's not to say that Monbiot supports or defends Monsanto but I can see where his positions on meat are questionable. Maybe he knows about pasture raised meat and the fact that unlike typical processed meat coming from corn-fed animals stuffed with antibiotics and other chemicals in factory farms, pasture raised meat is actually environmentally friendly albeit more expensive due to the fact that mass producing pasture raised is not as economically feasible.
On what do you base your comment that Monbiot loves the UN? I have no idea, but I hardly think he would be so simplistic as to automatically approve of everything the UN does. It may be that the UN is in principle a good idea, but that is a far cry from your assertion.
And with regard to the issue of meat and its contribution, this is an article, not a book. Apart from which, whatever your own personal views and how correct they may be, start talking like that and eyes roll up, you instantly get labeled a loony, and all further thought on the part of the reader stops.
P_Shaw, actually I was the one who started by complaining that Monbiot seemed to ignore the effect of meat production. I agree this is "an article, not a book". But Monbiot is a well-respected journalist who has clearly decided to use his journalistic skills in drawing attention to climate change - which is great! But for someone who has such a vast sweep of knowledge - both extensive and intensive - over issues related to climate change, I find his omission of meat production disappointing and somewhat suspicious. So while everyone goes gaga over Monbiot's writings, I can't help pointing out what I perceive to be his shortcoming.
Monbiot doesn't emphasize it because, compared to electric power, transportation and manufacturing, meat production is not a big greenhouse gas producer. And the contribution of olympic games every four years is positively miniscule.
Promote vegeanism all you want, but don't expect it to be a significant greenhouse gas solution and don't make someone else promote it for you.
This peculiar requirement that a fellow activist meet all these exacting specifications for political correctness to a "T" or be dismissed or even verbally attacked needs to stop. Now.
good point, I don't want to bring up the name of Thomas Malthus, but overpopulation and exponenetial world population growth is the 900 pound gorilla no one wants to see.
If meat were consumed less and livestock were raised organically, that would drastically reduce methane, this has been well documented. Getting people to become vegans is not only not realistic, it is un necessary. The other end of the spectrum: the corresponding increase in vegetable based agriculture is also not good for the environment: just look at the amount of petroleum based fertilizers used worldwide every year.
In short, equating meat eating with climate destruction is misleading and not helpful. The big picture is more complicated. Besides hominids evolved as omnivores, not vegans. The antropological record is clear
socialist, what do you propose to do about overpopulation? Even if everyone decides to have just one child or no child, it would take a couple of generations for population to stabilize and then start decreasing. I have no doubt it will happen. Killing people to reduce population is not an option for me - as I'm sure it's not for you either. In the meantime, I happen to feel that it's important to share the resources more equitably. Why is it so difficult for you (with a screen name "socialist"?) to see that it takes far more land, water and resources to produce a pound of beef than for a pound of grains or vegetables? If you read Jeremy Rifkin's "Beyond Beef", you'll understand that a sudden increase in beef consumption a couple of centuries ago had all kinds of consequences - from colonization to genocide (of the native people in America). Climate change is only the latest consequence.
>>>In short, equating meat eating with climate destruction is misleading and not helpful.
Nope. It clearly shows that you, like so many others, want to pick and choose what you want to learn about. If you are given 5 acres of land for your family and told that you need to meet ALL your food requirements from that - no fossil fuel based- fertilizers - and only your fair share of water, there will be no question as to what you'll choose to eat - that is, if you don't grab your neighbor's plot of land by either driving him away (heard of the "enclosure movement" in Britain?) or just plain killing him and his family for land.
I think we are both emphasizing different aspects of the same problem and largely are in agreement; there are no easy answers clearly. If you read carefully what I wrote, I do not advocate the current industrial meat industry, quite the contrary. Reducing consumption of meat, especially beef, is called for. What meat we do consume should be produced organically. I would not so quickly equate the enclosures with livestock. The enclosures were more complex: theft of the commons by private interests, forcing people off of the land into the new industrial centers for quasi slave labor and in general privitisation and control.
socialist, the reasons behind enclosures might have been more complex - but land for grazing livestock was clearly at the top of the list. And what do you do with the "surplus" population driven off from their earlier homes? Ship them off to "penal colonies", of course - for petty crimes as loan defaulting, prostitution, etc. - most of which were a result of land grab and the resulting poverty in cities. It's a different matter that these colonies turned out to be "respectable" in due course - because there was lots of land for the taking, and the natives had no chance of standing up to the Europeans. Just as in the case of the Great Famine in Ireland (which some call the 'Irish Holocaust'), there are various explanations. I have read that following the Famine, there were British bankers busily acquiring land in Ireland for producing beef - because Britain never had enough land for all its beef requirements - organic or otherwise.
>>Nope. It clearly shows that you, like so many others, want to pick and choose what you want to learn about. If you are given 5 acres of land for your family and told that you need to meet ALL your food requirements from that - no fossil fuel based- fertilizers - and only your fair share of water
I think it YOU that wants to pick and chose what to to learn about.
The most efficient use of a given ecosystem for the raising of food and the promotion of life is the one that NATURE has provided us.
This includes eating of meat.
Africa has tens of millions of herd animals. These animals live on GRASS. Grass converts the energy of the sun into a form of energy these grazing animals can use for their own energy requirements. These grasses can grow in marginal soils with little in the way of rainfall. (Unlike our Food CROPS)
Man can not eat grass and convert it into usable energy. They can eat meat and do so just as the lion can and the wolf can.
When Man came to the Western Plains of the USA that soil was about the richest and most fertile on earth. It had been kept in this condition by NATURE for tens of thousands of years. This with some 70 million Bison grazing on that land and with Tribes of Native Americans living off those Bison for some 20,000 years.
Man brought the PLOW to till that soil under to grow CROPS. Crops are plants. These included Wheat and corn, potatoes and the like.
Within a few generations of man arriving to plow up that soil to grow crops, that soil was depleted of all nutrients. This required MAN using Artificial fertilizers and or genetically modified foods to grow the same crops.
Which was more destructive to that enviroment?
In Ancient Sumeria it was the ripping out of grass to grow every larger CROPS that destroyed the fertility of the soil. Crops of Barley used to yield 100 bushels per acre according to Sumerian records yet within a few generations that land was incapable of growing crops.
They ripped out grasses that helped to keep Salt from leeching into the soil and salinating it. Animals used to graze on those grasses but were "expendable" because it was easier to grow crops for food. With the grasses gone and with crop after crop grown, along with irrigation practices, that land soon became desert.
Your Cattle herds of today do not outnumber the number of herd animals that roamed the plains of Africa, the Eastern Steppes of Russia or North America centuries ago. Thus your claim that the number of cattle roaming these same planes is causing Global warming is specious.
Jeremy Rifkin seems to have no idea how nature works.
The belief that man can somehow be more ecological friendly then nature is the arrogance that got us into the mess we are in . Nature is our best teacher of what is the most "Efficient way" of promoting life and if want sustianability we must mimic nature as closely as possible and try not to remake her.
This does not mean plowing land under to grow hemp. If hemp was that ecologicaly friendly nature would have it growing everywhere.
the japanese master masanobu fukuoka showed how to grow grains (and vegetables) without fertilizer, pesticides, or plowing, by observing nature. --he also showed how to grow rice without transplanting,-which creates a strong naturally pest-resistant plant,--in his fields we could find every kind of pest and disease but it did not effect the amount harvested... on top of this his method leaves plenty of free time allowing human culture and art to also grow and develop... in a certain sense, the garden of eden has always existed,,,,around the same time frederick dolman showed how to teach a child beginning at 6 months of age, about 20 minutes a day,..with the result that the child knew several languages and advanced mathematics at four years of age,,,
>>>pjd412 wrote: Promote veganism all you want, but don't expect it to be a significant greenhouse gas solution...
Unfortunately pjd412, you are WRONG on this count. Meat production DOES contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to GHG emissions. While there have been lots of articles on this subject, the most comprehensive and authoritative report on this subject is what I referred to: "Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options" which is a UN report, released by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) by the end of 2006. The full report (in PDF) is available here:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
and here:
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf
And you can get a decent, 1-page summary here:
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm
According to this report, which is based on a life cycle analysis, "livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport." You get that? At 6.5 billion tons of CO2-equivalent gasses per year, meat production emits MORE greenhouse gases than every car, truck, plane and ship COMBINED.(http://www.thehealthyplanet.com/april09_part1.htm)
I know it will be difficult for anyone to look at one's own role in all this - it's easy to point fingers and preach to others - like I think Monbiot and Al Gore are doing.
>>>...and don't make someone else promote it for you.
Promote it for me? What do you think is in it for me? Or any of the others who are switching to a vegan diet? I am just making whatever feeble attempts I can to draw attention to the big elephant in the room, while people like Monbiot could do that more effectively if they truly care about taking urgent action.
>>>This peculiar requirement that a fellow activist meet all these exacting specifications for political correctness to a "T" or be dismissed or even verbally attacked needs to stop. Now.
So if you want to pick and choose what's convenient for you, that's fine. But where is the "political correctness" in talking about meat production? And who are you to order others to stop "Now" ??
Nice response. Carnivores hate the fact that meat eating is so damn terrible for the environment. Please, I'll drive a hybrid, I'll recycle my newspapers or whatever just don't make me quit eating animals! F'ing meat eaters. The only reason to eat meat is the taste, which is a lot like crackheads smoking shit to get high. The way meateaters turn life into a commodity is disgusting. When we have something like 97% of people treating animals like throwaway garbage its no wonder humans treat each other the same way. I think carnivores should start eating humans. Put their rapacious greed and murder to some use. Leave the world to people that can respect it's inhabitants, all of them.
Actually, I eat very little meat and virtually no red meat. Poultry or fish maybe one or two meals a week. A bison burger at this particular bar nearby for a rare treat. I like cheeses. Aside from those enclaves of arrogant anarcho-bicycle-vegans you see in US cities, most humans enjoy meat. But outside of arctic areas or Tibet, it was never intended to be the main course at every meal.
I also drink beer - are you really ready to hate me yet?
Everything in moderation.
I read the UN report, it does appear livestock production is a large producer of methane which may have a similar carbon footprint as private automobile use.
I ride electric motor scooters or use the bus, everywhere I need to go. I burn maybe 6 gallons of gasoline a month.
Did you read the report from the UN?
The report concluded that the bulk of GHG due to cattle raising was due to the burning of fossil fuels to provide hay and fodder the use of Fertilizers land use changes and the like.
Not the cattle themselves. It is farming PRACTICES such as feedlots that are centralized. These practices are also copied when raising Fruits and vegetables.
If one is to count the fuel used to ship the cattle to market (as this report does) then one has to acknowledge that Fuel is burned to ship VEGETABLES to market. If one is to count the forests cut down to raise cattle, then one has to count the forests cut down to raise Vegetables. (Btw studies have shown that prairie grasses are actually a better carbon sink then are trees)
http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/Summer%2092%20M.htm
In other words if you farm Cattle on Prairie Grasses you will be sinking more Carbon into the soil then if you got rid of those Cattle and plowed the grass up to grow vegetables. Indeed the very ACT of plowing up the grasses will release CO2 gases.(Vegetables are not a good carbon sink)
>>A more efficient carbon sink, as trees lose approximately one third of their annual dry matter accumulation when the leaves drop, with most of this carbon material being oxidized. Warm season grasses, through their enormous root systems, are more efficient than trees in accumulating carbon in soil. Carbon accumulation in soil organic matter is more important than carbon accumulation in standing biomass (i.e. above and below-ground living plant material). The richest soils in North America are those which originated from the root system of the tallgrass prairie, which can reach ten feet in depth. From a CO2 standpoint, warm season grasses have the potential of being not only a more efficient means to off-set the greenhouse effect, but cheaper than trees as well.
I would point out that the Population of North American Bison was estimated at upwards of 70 million. Thats a lot of manure. I suggest they burped farted and defecated every bit as much methane into the air as the total sum of cattle do today.
The population of other herd animals such as Elk and Cariboo was also much larger 100 years ago then today.
In summary it NOT that we consume meat that adds to warming, it the PRACTICES we use to raise that meat and those practices are very much the same that we use to grow plants. It is WHERE we grow that meat or those crops/plants and how much we try and transform the enviroment to do the same.
(Ie Building a damn to provide water for irrigation adds to Greenhouse gases)
>>A 1996 study at the University of Manitoba, described in the May 1997 issue of Environmental Science , provides evidence that, even in temperate zones, inundating wetlands changes them from net sinks to major emitters of carbon dioxide and methane gases, and increases the catalysis of methylmercury, a nerve toxin, from inorganic mercury in sediments. "The worst hydropower projects may produce more [greenhouse gases] than a coal-fired equivalent," Goodland writes.
http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/Summer%2092%20M.htm
The former British Empire is now a Jr. Partner in the modern version of the US Empire. The similarities between the UK and US are striking, the debt culture, the financial bankster culture, militarist/imperialist culture. The two-party system. All great powers rise and fall, in this case the US and UK are on the decline, a slow but sure decay: socially, politically and economically.
requiring money for sustenance dooms us...animals live free...the world does not belong to us...any of us...
Ray Berthiaume
I was hoping to read stats on tank production: quantity and cost. Sometime ago I remember reading of the tank Chrysler was making that used 2 engines: gas & diesal. 20 gallons to the mile!
Having a powerful military makes insecure men feel superior to those they already fear they are already inferior to and could not compete with on a level playing-field.
This is what militarism is really about: personal feelings of inadequacy - and that's also why most men in the military find misogyny, pornography, rape, etc, so attractive - it's a cover for their personal insecurity.
A large and powerful military is a phallic substitute for the personal insecurity of men in a world where few men are really needed for much of anything - and also why a matriarchy always delivers a better - safer, more secure, and more prosperous - society. Women don't have 'penis envy' - only men do. And only men (or closet trans-sexuals such as Condi Rice, Hillary, etc) seek to improve their own self-image by denigrating, subjugating, and murdering those who threaten their PERSONAL sense of inadequacy.
Militarism isn't about 'defending' any nation or 'protecting' the collective society - it is about bolstering the self-image of men who feel inadequate and impotent. Men who do not question their own adequacy do not feel the need for unprovoked aggression, the subjugation of others, or the denigration of women and/or even other men. My own father, grandfathers, and a lot of European men (as well as others around the world, particularly in matriarchal societies) are not addicted to the infantilized fantasy of militarism - they do not have a distorted self-image in need of major repair. Oh yeah - and militarism is NOT a cure - it never alleviates those feelings of inadequacy, which is why such men (and related women) devolve into such savagery and brutality when their military adventures do not resolve their personal problems. That's what torture and rape are all about - trying to exorcize the demons in their own minds... it never works - it can't work - because it doesn't address the REAL problem.
armybrat, you just about nailed it there on the psychology of militarism. That's so insightful - just fantastic! And what you say about not being able to compete on a level-playing field is so true - and it applies to the current version of "capitalism" and "market economy" as well. The very same people who hold forth on "competition" and "free market" turn into cry babies and wimps when faced with genuine competition and innovation from other countries and they hide behind all kinds of legal protection. They use capital in the same way as others use superior weapons. The only way such people can "compete" is when they have an overwhelming superiority in terms of technology and capital.
Yeah, my father was big on psychology - especially concerning war, since we are a military family and have to choose whether we will participate in a war or not. My grandfather - after a 7-year career - was forced to emigrate to avoid compromising his principles when his country decided to start an unprovoked war. And my own father - who had been career military - quit and told us we could not participate in the invasion and occupation of Vietnam (we were of age at that time). So there are values that even good soldiers will not compromise - but they are the few who understand the psychology behind actions, and my father made sure we always understood that side of any problem, be it militarism, poverty, greed, or any other 'human' behavior that stands to be questioned.
Nice try, but too bad about those pesky facts... that disagree completely with your Psych 100...uh..."analysis".
Let's understand... I'm a socialist and I've been talking, writing, demonstrating, etc., against militarism for a long time... likely longer than you've been on the planet, judging by the juvenile sound of your post. Of course, lots of 'proving oneself' with violence or money hoarding, etc., is likely (often fairly obviously) compensating for insecurity, and a lousy self-image.
But militarism, like other forms of violent behavior, is often very simply about grabbing something desired by people who are a picture of psychological health, in terms of feelings of personal security. To blame all greed and the violent/abusive behavior that accompanies it on "insecurity" is to grossly miss the point about life on this planet.
You said: "My own father, grandfathers, and a lot of European men (as well as others around the world, particularly in matriarchal societies) are not addicted to the infantilized fantasy of militarism - they do not have a distorted self-image in need of major repair." !!!!????????? Using Europe as an example of a place populated by men who somehow have avoided the affliction you're talking about...!!??? Were you born a few weeks ago?
Since the time when Jesus was still riding his tricycle, the people of Europe have been butchering each other with the most blood curdling horror (and regularity) possible. Over 50 million in World War II... the numbers for WWI are not as horrible, but still WWI was an indescribable bloodbath..., etc., etc., etc., etc.
And what about the horrible calamities that Europeans have perpetrated in the so-called 3rd world--genocide of native populations whenever convenient, slavery, etc., etc., etc.,
You're too naive to try to 'analyse' militarism.
Sioux Rose
ARMY: I agree with much that you've written, although there is also the economic engine--the desire for others' resources--that plays a role in war and militarism. We make a mistake if we only locate ONE factor. I've generally noticed that any event requires at least three motivating factors or energetic equivalents. I remember stating in this forum that all weapons were obvious phallic extensions--notable by their shapes: bullets, torpedos, missiles, bombs, rockets, etc. And JAKE NEWTON instigated quite a debate insisting the design was just the best way to shape them for engineering purposes. I then asked if he'd ever seen an exploding vagina as a basis for weapon design? That comment is always a show stopper! And as you know the influence of the Mars ethos on males and Western society is enormous. Many men are not considered men unless they pass through some baptismal ritual that involves the shedding of others' blood.
I was only commenting on the reason a great many 'men' find militarism so appealling - this wasn't about 'the military' but about 'militarism' - which are separate issues. I agree that there are various reasons the military machinery draws so many supporters, but without the individual who joins up to fulfill their own fantasy, there would be no armies to command - or at least, the resulting army would not be so pliable (or quite so vicious, brutal, and violent). Of course, economic and cultural factors have a lot to do with how a person develops, and whether or not they feel secure. A chaotic or contradictory environment (culture or circumstances) is bound to affect those coming of age under such conditions. We can observe such events throughout history - especially as Europe became overpopulated. The current economic trend - the American economic front has been pretty sick over the last 30 years, in a downward spiral - is bound to produce more insecure people, and thus the attraction for militarism (or to put it another way, militarism flourishes under such harsh and unpredictable conditions.)
It's unfortunate that there are so many infantile people now posting on this site - it's getting harder to carry on a civilized and sophisticated intellectual debate (the new 'preview' system on the site doesn't help either.) I do appreciate your insight, but you did sort of miss my point regarding 'militarism' and 'military' - and you're usually pretty sharp about catching such nuance.
Sioux Rose
ARMY: Okay! Score one for "nuance." We all see, read, and perceive through the prism of our unique perceptual attunements. And we are not arguing here at all; rather seeing the components that make for a state sponsored military machine, a/k/a monster. Today I changed my day around and biked early and what a revelation! I had the springs to myself, and to me, immersing in that enchanted aqua water IS as close to a spiritual Baptism as is possible. It creates a clearing on many levels. I do a lot of thinking when I take these bike rides, and this morning I was really seeing how and where the disproportionate emphasis on Mars truly forms the basis for so many of the cruel conditions that impact all aspects of life, the lack of universal health CARE included.
I agree about the level of discourse. I miss a number of erudite individuals who used to post but no longer do. In any case, the site still calls me and I will participate in those discussions that warrant a response. Your insights are appreciated.
Thanks! We do seem to be on much the same page, although coming from very differnt origins. Imagine how outraged I am that the US spends about a trillion dollars on wars of aggression and still refuses to supply healthcare to its population. This indeed evidence that the people have no say in how their taxes are spent, even after they see through the lies and propaganda.
to the posters above who mentioned monbiot & meat, vegetarianism, veganism, and (of all things) monsanto
1. go to monbiot's website: http://www.monbiot.com/
2.a enter search term (i.e. meat)
2.b click on tag (i.e. farming, food, genetic engineering, health)
3. read
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/04/15/the-pleasures-of-the-flesh/
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/08/24/organic-farming-will-feed-the-world/
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1998/06/04/monsanto-sells-hunger/
4. eat local, seasonal, and reduce your intake of factory-"farmed" meat to zero
Thanks darwin200 - I checked out the links. Well, it seems that Monbiot has "tried" being a vegan and feels that it didn't suit him - as far as his health was concerned. This is also the most common refrain I've heard from people who have "tried" a vegan diet for a while. What can I say? I can't argue with those who feel they "need" meat to be healthy. But I can still argue with those that think we could somehow find enough meat for everyone on the planet on a sustainable basis. Forget climate change for a moment - there's simply not enough land and resources for everyone to be a regular meat eater. Grass-fed beef is a classic lie put out by those in denial - these are people who do not want to recognize the historical fact of colonization, genocide of native population for their land, continuing deforestation for ranches, and so on - IMO. It's just plain "material balance" in engineering terms - how much goes in and how much comes out in useful form, and how much is wasted. A cow can produce only about one calf IN A YEAR - and a cow needs to be fed for at least 24 months before slaughtering it for meat...and you get...what? 500 pounds at most...of boneless meat. Anyway, these numbers are for those who really care to educate themselves. I challenge people to figure out what they can grow in a 5-acre plot - or take any reasonable size - on a sustainable basis, without fossil fuel-based fertilizers. Grains, veggies, grass, cows - it's your choice - just see how long you can sustain in a limited land for you and your family, and with only your fair share of water. That will bring out those who point to population. But I can't decide who gets to live and who doesn't, until mankind somehow stabilizes and reduces the human population (I completely agree population MUST be reduced - but it's a separate issue and it will take time). Well, I'm going to let this rest - for now. Thanks again for the references - because it just confirms what I had suspected about Monbiot. Since he obviously feels HE needs to eat meat, he doesn't want to recommend a vegan lifestyle to others - which is fair enough. But his somewhat snide remark about vegans that he found "their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey" is a dead give away that he knows little about nutrition and is just going by conventional 'wisdom' on this matter.