Global Warming News

[2manyrocks]

I have this creeping sense that we chase endless rainbows for greener grass, only to find out we are pursuing hollow dreams. .

The entire book of Ecclesiastes discusses this.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

The more apt question is not are there more hungry people in the world but is the ratio of fed people to starving people better today or yesterday?

Another question to ask is: If food production has dramatically increased, then why are there still hungry people? It's a rabbit hole. All we are accomplishing is increasing the real number of hungry people perhaps?

Notice I did not use "well fed" since one can argue that our diet of sugar and carb consumption is not well fed.

Agreed. :licking: :ashamed:



While there are some cases of artifical shortages caused by pure politics, like N. Korea as you said, many of the conflicts you noted have their roots in disagreement over resources. I agree the level and intensity of disagreement can be amped up by religious, political, tribal or ethnic differences.

We have fights everyday over water and land resources in our own country. We use lawyers and courts, rather than AK47's and machetes, as weapons.

The difference is when we perceive the fight is over something that one side or the other doesn't really need, they just want it. We call that political, greed or whatever. It is still a fight over a resource.

Arable land and water in climate zones which support agriculture are not becoming more plentiful. It's logical to assume that as the population expands, fights over those resources will intensify. They will become literal life or death wars. It doesn't seem like a problem we can 'farm' our way out of.
Dave.

I think that you hit on the key problem that I have with the whole "Green" "AGW" mentality.
For sake of argument lets call it the "Green" movement. "Lets save the trees, ocean, air etc. Okay?
In their attempt to save these things they have invented a whole new category of a thing called `'stewardship" That we as a "community" have a "duty" to later generations "save the planet.
Agreed?
I think up to this point you will not find too many people in disagreement.
My question to you and other "Greens" would be, Do your stewardship rights take priority over my property rights?

 

[IH3444]

"The Truth is out there" Mulder

Climategate professor Phil Jones admits sending 'pretty awful emails' | Mail Online

 

[dcyrilc]

I think that you hit on the key problem that I have with the whole "Green" "AGW" mentality.
For sake of argument lets call it the "Green" movement. "Lets save the trees, ocean, air etc. Okay?
In their attempt to save these things they have invented a whole new category of a thing called `'stewardship" That we as a "community" have a "duty" to later generations "save the planet.
Agreed?
I think up to this point you will not find too many people in disagreement.
My question to you and other "Greens" would be, Do your stewardship rights take priority over my property rights?

Here's a double edged sword if I've ever seen one.

You're getting into the area of the "Green" movement where I have a problem also. If history says anything, then the answer would have to be "yes" as more and more laws are passed which hinder or omit our rights for the purpose of protecting the environment. I agree with working to improve our impact on the environment, but at what cost?

About ten years ago, the farmers here in Snohomish County got together, gathered enough signatures, and got a law voted on and passed adding a section to the Unified Building Code (UBC) stating that "Normal farming operations are exempt from the UBC". The reason for this was because the county was requiring farmers to get a "clearing & grading permit" to plow their fields stating sections of the UBC adressing bare earth exposure as the reason for requireing the permit. Not too big a deal until you find out that one of the county requirements to obtain this permit was to place 2% of their owned land into "Native Growth Protection Areas" where it cannot be touched or used every time they went to get a permit.

At the time, I was trying to get a permit to put a house on my farm. When the county came out to do the site inspection, I was sited for illegal cutting in a wetland for mowing around my fruit trees. The were threatening me with $100/day fines if I did not resolve this to the county's satisfaction. They wanted the fruit trees removed and the area placed into "Native Growth Protection" to resolve the issue and eliminate the possibility of being fined. When that law was passed, the county closed my case. However, after what I went through, there is no way that I will ever file for any type of permit again. If I have an open permit, the county has the right to enter and inspect my property. Without a permit, it's criminal tresspass. I don't want our county anywhere near my property.

I try to do my part in lowering our impact on the environment. We have a salmon stream which crosses a corner of our property. When we bought the property, 25 years ago, we fenced 15 to 25 feet off the creek to keep animals out of the creek. The were no laws requiring this at the time. We did it because we enjoy the salmon and don't want their breeding beds destroyed. I am also absolutely againt governmental control over what I can and cannot do with my property however. Zoning, in its simpler forms, makes sense as it groups areas together, IE: residentual, industrial, agricurtural, etc. The building codes, as they were origionaly developed, also make sense. They were intended to promote safe forms of construction. With where the laws are going today, I have problems with them.

I'm going to stop here as I have forgotten where I was going with this and I am beginning to simply rant and rave.

 

[Loren49]

Cyril,
I understand the frustration. I believe that all of building codes and most of the zoning laws are not related to environmental concerns. What is difficult with zoning is how it restricts us but when we're faced with a neighbor doing something with their property that seems to have a negative affect on the area we look to government to address it. If your neighbor was ruining the salmon stream you would want something done.
Did you have to move your fruit trees? I really dislike the restrictions on my property and building rights. We have nothing like what you described. I feel there is a need for some guidelines but its gone overboard!

Loren

 

[20 20]

zoning laws are nothing more then money makers. Not saying that some things need to be regulated, but the laws today are for $$$$ not environment. I have respect for anyone that does their part to live with{not against} the environment{building salmon fences, proper wood management, recycle etc...}. Paying the government $$$ for this or that permit does nothing but line their pockets.

 

[Ken45101]

The more apt question is not are there more hungry people in the world but is the ratio of fed people to starving people better today or yesterday?

In the past, most of the locations with the poorest fed populations had plenty of food at the seaports. The problem was that the local corruption prevented the food from getting to the people who needed it. Back 30 years ago when people were starving in India, food was rotting on the docks.

Look at the really sad locations today, and you see the same exact problem: food is available, but restricted by local government corruption or thieving.

The problem is not an ability of the globe to grow food, it's an issue of distribution. Many areas of starving populations used to grow their own food until corrupt leadership or civil war destroyed the farm base. It has nothing to do with global environmental issues.

 

[tallyho8]

No one has yet mentioned the effect on population growth that prosperity has. The more prosperous people become, the fewer kids they have, except where custom or religion mandates more. That's why most of Europe, the US and Japan have stable or declining populations. Until those 3rd world countries get their economic and political act together, we'll see starving kids on the tube. But the food exists, it just doesn't get to them.

At some point, if they don't learn to prosper, we could run out of our ability to supply food to the world, but prosperity is the key.

And imagine a world where prosperity is everywhere. OK, there will be a greater demand on some resources, and we'll have to learn to recycle more, but we'll have a lot more smart people, businesses and labs to help solve our problems. BTW, those solutions = technology.

Worldwide prosperity is a dream only and can not be achieved. A tribe with all Chiefs and no Indians can not exist.

If everyone were the same as in the communist ideology, everyone would be poor.

You can not be prosperous unless you are more prosperous than someone else.

The least prosperous person on earth today would probably have been considered the most prosperous person on earth a few thousand years ago.

Someone will ALWAYS have the food while others are wanting.

The only way to make the less prosperous more prosperous is to take from the more prosperous and give to the less prosperous which only makes everyone unprosperous.

I read an article that stated that the world's income divided by the world's inhabitants equals less than $5 a day. So if we were all equal, we would all get $5 a day. Would this make us prosperous?

--------------------------END OF RANT---------------------------

 

[dave1949]

I think that an atomic bomb would count as destructive rather than constructive.

Aaron Z

Yes, thanks Aaron. What I am getting at, is 99.9% of the time, we have never met a technology we didn't like.

That's not so odd since most technology is developed as a response to a perceived or created (marketing) need, but who ever looks down the road and tries to evaluate or quantify the long term consequences?

Closest I can think of is the evolving field of medical ethics in regards to cloning and gene manipulation.

Excuse me, but I have fondness for death bed jokes; they bring a lot of clarity to the thoughts and values processes. Here is one: No one ever laid on their death bed and wished they had spent more time updating their iPod.

Dave.

 

[dave1949]

In the past, most of the locations with the poorest fed populations had plenty of food at the seaports. The problem was that the local corruption prevented the food from getting to the people who needed it. Back 30 years ago when people were starving in India, food was rotting on the docks.

Look at the really sad locations today, and you see the same exact problem: food is available, but restricted by local government corruption or thieving.

The problem is not an ability of the globe to grow food, it's an issue of distribution. Many areas of starving populations used to grow their own food until corrupt leadership or civil war destroyed the farm base. It has nothing to do with global environmental issues.

In general I agree with what you are saying about shortages in the past and present.

What I find worrisome is that inorder to meet the global demand for food products, the agricultural methods being employed could be making us all sick. Please hear me out, I realize how 'out there' that sounds.

I am not a 'crunchy' person, but I follow the organic scene just to keep informed. Since well before there could have been any profit motive, organic growers have been warning us about our food. They have been saying for a long time now, the large scale ag practices of the past 5-6 decades are not healthy. Not for people, not for the soil, not for farm animals, not for the environment. That opinion correlates with medical observations of the incidence of heart disease, cancers, diabetes and high blood pressure rising among any ethnic group which adopts a 'western' (highly processed, high sugar) diet. From the Aborigines to US, the evidence is mounting.

Some firmly believe the deficiences go all the way back to the soil - that you can't just add more artificial nutrients or supplements to food and make up for the sterile soil. If that is true, large scale ag methods will have to be rethought and redeveloped. It could mean lower yields although that is not certain. It certainly will mean more foods have to be eaten in their natural state, not chemically transformed.

Poor quality food is better than no food, but the goal should be wholesome food. How much wholesome food can we produce? Bushels or tons per acre may not be the whole story. We have one of the lowest ratios of food costs - as a percentage of income - in the world. It is beginning to look like you get what you pay for.

Dave.