Re: [Monbiot] Digest for monbiot-discuss@googlegroups.com - 3 Messages in 1 Topic
Andrew Inglis
nut productivity improvements. The National Liberal Conservatives
(read tories) in Victoria have effectively banned any wind farms
within 2 km opf the coast by giving right of veto to anyone who lives
within that distance to object (Waubra disease- do a google and you
will soon get the picture about claims of low frequency wave caused
illnesses: similar to some complaints sub-mariners have indicated
periodically).
Re Australia's much vaunted carbon tax legislation The carbon savings
due to commence in 2014, will be potentially outweighed about 100 to 1
if proposed coal export salesto asia, especially LNG gas and high
quality anthracite black coal for steeel-making for more widgets
proceed. Recent commentators here (David Spratt: Climate Code Red Blog
& many others) have indicated that the exports are being ramped up
suppossedly to help the poor starving and overworked masses of India &
China, rather tahn being lucrative intra-company, government revenues
(even with much reduced mining royalty taxes per the Gillard Labor
Government) and transglobal corporate behaviours with little longterm
atmospheric accountability. I really think a detailed share ownership
analysis of company ownerships, share investments and especially
cross-holdings or portfolios needs to be publically available in the
public domain ( a sort of share-investors ombudsman) for benefit of
pension scheme members and superannuants (here in Australia
significant amounts of money are now being invested by such fund
groups!!) to gether with the stated policies. It is the complexity and
difficulty of getting clear information that hampers getting a context
let alone formulating strategic longterm processes to deal with such
matters. Changing from coal dependency has to become a global goal
rather than just local. That Biblical conundrum "Am I my brother's
keeper?", still has moral force. BTW I enjoy the Monbiot cross topic
discussions, but it seems very Eurocentric at times.
I would also suggest much effort needs to be put into effective
longterm food storage systems especially for city areas in warm to hot
climates: urbanization triggers significant energy intensification: I
would hazard the opinion that since standby energy is about 3-5% of
most "developed" domestic energy budgets , that refrigeration ( or
thermal mass solutions eg underground wet & dry cellaring) will
compete with other scarce uses. Thjese "practical" Low Impact
technology areas still need support and perhaps direct (if pro-bono)
investment from sources like pension schemes: we have to move beyond
the "Christmas Card/ World vision" approaches to potical and economic
issues in the 3rd world.
Andrew Inglis
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 8:33 AM, <monbiot...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Today's Topic Summary
>
> Group: http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss/topics
>
> top soil and carbon. [3 Updates]
>
> top soil and carbon.
>
> Roger Priddle <roger....@gmail.com> Jan 01 05:34PM -0500
>
> Patrick:
>
> I wouldn't disagree with you at all about CO2 - we (as a species and
> society) waste so much energy (and create so much other waste) that we're
> burning ourselves into disaster. My concern with nuclear is that the waste
> from it is so long lasting (half lives of some are 25,000 years, and 10
> half lives are required for them to decay to background levels) and so
> toxic in even the smallest quantities that any tiny mistake could be
> catastrophic. CO2, on the other hand is potentially much more manageable.
>
> I keep challenging students to imagine a container that would keep the most
> toxic substance on earth absolutely safe. Given an unlimited budget, how
> long could they imagine securing this substance? (Ok, they're high school
> students, not engineering or materials specialists but I'm inviting them to
> dream on a grandiose scale.)
>
> The most optimistic response I've had so far is 1,000 years - guaranteed
> safe enough to house their (future) spouses and children with. Even then,
> most don't think they would risk the lives of their loved ones for even 100
> years.
>
> Still, we produce a waste that will kill for many, many more years.
>
> The challenge to consume less and to waste less is much easier for them to
> imagine. That's what I try to encourage - ideally, nuclear waste will be
> unnecessary and we can stop burning coal and oil.
>
> Real conservation is possible, just not politically popular. No-one makes
> money on reducing consumption. (Well, people could but not corporations.
> Or, at least, not the existing corporations...)
>
> We make choices and choices have consequences. We're just not prepared to
> look at the long term consequences seriously where they compete with
> instant gratification.
>
> Too bad for the kids.
>
>
> Roger.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
> (George Carlin)
>
> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
> you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)
>
> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can
> change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has! (Margaret
> Meade)
>
>
>
> PAdam...@aol.com Jan 02 05:43AM -0500
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I meant chestnut, not beech. It was suggested in the film that it could be
> used as a staple food.
>
> I agree that waste and over-consumption need to be addressed, but the
> challenge is to make that fit in an economic system which is driven by
> consumption, whether it be useful consumption or waste.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> In a message dated 01/01/2012 22:34:06 GMT Standard Time,
> roger....@gmail.com writes:
>
> Patrick:
>
> I wouldn't disagree with you at all about CO2 - we (as a species and
> society) waste so much energy (and create so much other waste) that we're
> burning ourselves into disaster. My concern with nuclear is that the waste
> from
> it is so long lasting (half lives of some are 25,000 years, and 10 half
> lives are required for them to decay to background levels) and so toxic in
> even the smallest quantities that any tiny mistake could be catastrophic.
> CO2, on the other hand is potentially much more manageable.
>
> I keep challenging students to imagine a container that would keep the
> most toxic substance on earth absolutely safe. Given an unlimited budget,
> how
> long could they imagine securing this substance? (Ok, they're high school
> students, not engineering or materials specialists but I'm inviting them
> to dream on a grandiose scale.)
>
> The most optimistic response I've had so far is 1,000 years - guaranteed
> safe enough to house their (future) spouses and children with. Even then,
> most don't think they would risk the lives of their loved ones for even 100
> years.
>
> Still, we produce a waste that will kill for many, many more years.
>
> The challenge to consume less and to waste less is much easier for them to
> imagine. That's what I try to encourage - ideally, nuclear waste will be
> unnecessary and we can stop burning coal and oil.
>
> Real conservation is possible, just not politically popular. No-one makes
> money on reducing consumption. (Well, people could but not corporations.
> Or, at least, not the existing corporations...)
>
> We make choices and choices have consequences. We're just not prepared to
> look at the long term consequences seriously where they compete with
> instant gratification.
>
> Too bad for the kids.
>
>
> Roger.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM, <_PAda...@aol.com_
> (mailto:PAdam...@aol.com) > wrote:
>
>
> Indeed. But, what if we want to enhance the productivity of a new food
> crop, such as beech. to make the nuts a viable high value food? We don't
> have
> the luxury of centuries of conventional selective breeding.
>
> As for nuclear, yes we must deal with waste. Less of a problem with
> Thorium reactors though. Dangerous as nuclear waste is, the waste from coal
> burning (CO2) is probably even more dangerous.
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 01/01/2012 17:41:38 GMT Standard Time,
> _roger....@gmail.com_ (mailto:roger....@gmail.com) writes:
>
> Patrick:
>
> The development of GM foods is (perhaps) fine provided that the grower can
> save the seeds for replanting. (What the long term effects of GM
> (especially transgenic) foods will be on the human body is anybody's
> guess...)
>
> But if Monsanto (for example) claims proprietary rights to the seeds, or
> produces crops that can't reproduce (either due to non-viable hybridization
> or "terminator genes"), then I believe we're all going to regret it.
> Farmers need to be able to plant next year's crop from this year's seed.
>
> As for nuclear energy, I'll be all in favour as soon as (but not until) we
> have a secure way of dealing with the radioactive waste. So far, we
> don't.
>
> Roger.
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Roger Priddle <_roger....@gmail.com_
> (mailto:roger....@gmail.com) > wrote:
>
> John:
>
> While I can't disagree with anything you're saying, I can't help but feel
> that the dominance of the current model is under serious time constraints.
> Conventional Agri-business has worked on the premise of steadily declining
> food prices making local, sustainable seem too expensive.
>
> However, whether this year, next year, or ten years hence, rising oil
> prices are going to cause increases in the price of industrial food,
> decreasing
> the gap. As the cost of imported, processed food (along with the
> increasing cost of all the rest of energy consumption) rises, the value of
> producing food "at home" (whether by the local farmer or in a community
> garden or
> the front yard) will become more and more evident.
>
> Changes in the "standard of living" will be interesting to document. Will
> people choose to continue driving inefficient vehicles, and start growing
> food? Will the accumulation of "stuff" take precedence over the hot tub
> and a 72f setting on the thermostat? For a while, these kinds of choices
> will be possible but as oil runs down (and the price continues to rise), I
> expect that the number of options will be fewer and fewer.
>
> "May you live in Interesting times."
>
> Roger.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:14 AM, john <_johncg...@yahoo.co.uk_
> (mailto:johncg...@yahoo.co.uk) > wrote:
>
> The Rebecca Hoskins film was fascinating, though very sketchy- by
> necessity, in a short film.
> It brings home the sheer strangeness of the conventional farming
> method- that is, to kill, as much as is possible, every organism
> within a defined area, then pour physical and chemical energy into
> trying to mitigate the disastrous consequenses of this. Also, what
> should be the blindingly obvious advantages of extending fertile
> acreage vertically as well as just horizontally.
>
> The problem with these techniques in the present economic model, of
> course, is precisely also one of their best attributes; that is, it
> would be hard to see how it could be profitably promoted by large
> vested interests in the way that say, GM can be. The world is run by
> and for the economically powerful elite, and it is simply not in their
> interest to see permaculture thrive. As the film made clear, it is
> inherently suited to the small-scale, and the structurally diverse.
> Feeding the world sustainably will always be, and to some extent, has
> always been, a fight against simple, top-down, mono-cultural (in both
> senses of the word) solutions. The fact is that the world is still
> moving further TOWARDS, not away from, those oil-based industrial
> methods of food-production.
>
> On Dec 27 2011, 12:15 pm, Andy Williamson
>> I first came across 'not ploughing' in Rebecca Hosking's film 'A Farm
> For The Future' - made for the BBC. You can see the whole thing here:
>
>> _http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQtwIwAQ&url=._
> (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQtwIwAQ&url=.) ..
>
>> It's a beautiful film, attempting to answer the question: Could a
> traditional farm be run without oil? She looks at all kinds of things,
> including
> permaculture and forest gardens. There are some amazing claims by some of
> the people involved. Though they come across as credible in that they don't
> seem to me to be setting out to prove anything - they're just getting on
> with it.
>
>> I was prompted to post this in response to the claim that 'no till' is
> being promoted by big Agribiz. If so, are they trying to subvert the whole
> thing? In this film, not ploughing is definitely an alternative option
> involving things like planting old varieties of grasses rather than using
> extra
> fertiliser. I'm not a farmer - just an interested observer.
>
>> Andy
>
>> Sent from phone, so apologies for brevity and any typos.
>
>> On 16 Dec 2011, at 09:50, DavidT <_graph...@tmprinting.ie_
> (mailto:graph...@tmprinting.ie) > wrote:
>
>> > Surely it's down to appropriateness? Not everyone supports big ag.
> and of course 'gardening' as opposed to 'farming' is much more productive
> per
> person hour when trying to equate jobs.
>> >> are gardening a tiny plot, you can hand weed, but you cannot farm like
>> >> that. If you really want to eliminate cultivation, well, good luck
>> >> with that, but there is no reason to prefer spreading volumes of
> plant
>> >> material over compost.
>
>> >> Roger, "no-till" is a movement promoted by big agriculture,
> convincing
>> >> flooding his fields to purge them and soften the soil.
>
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to
> _monbiot...@googlegroups.com_ (mailto:monbiot...@googlegroups.com)
> .
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> _monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com_
> (mailto:monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com)
> .
>
>> > For more options, visit this group
> athttp://_groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en_
> (http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en)
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to _monbiot...@googlegroups.com_
> (mailto:monbiot...@googlegroups.com) .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> _monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com_
> (mailto:monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com) .
> For more options, visit this group at
> _http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en_
> (http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en) .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
> (George Carlin)
>
> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
> you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)
>
> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can
> change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has! (Margaret
> Meade)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
> (George Carlin)
>
> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
> you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)
>
> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can
> change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has! (Margaret
> Meade)
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to _monbiot...@googlegroups.com_
> (mailto:monbiot...@googlegroups.com) .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> _monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com_
> (mailto:monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com) .
> For more options, visit this group at
> _http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en_
> (http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en) .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to _monbiot...@googlegroups.com_
> (mailto:monbiot...@googlegroups.com) .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> _monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com_
> (mailto:monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com) .
> For more options, visit this group at
> _http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en_
> (http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en) .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
> (George Carlin)
>
> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
> you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)
>
> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can
> change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has! (Margaret
> Meade)
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
>
>
>
> Roger Priddle <roger....@gmail.com> Jan 02 08:34AM -0500
>
> Patrick - here's a dumb question. What happens when energy costs triple?
>
> When food goes back to costing 18% of the family's annual income? When
> fuel rises from $1.20/l (in Canada) to $3.60? When the individual's
> ability to produce "surplus" from an 8 hour day is removed?
>
> Somehow I think the "economic system which is driven by consumption" may
> have to be the model that has to change, when economic growth and
> consumption are no longer possible.
>
> After all, infinite growth is not possible in a closed system of finite
> resources. And especially when some of those resources are non-renewable.
>
> Was reminded a couple of days ago of a thought experiment. Imagine a test
> tube full of nutrient, and one bacterium. Each day the bacterium doubles.
> Assuming the test tube will be absolutely full of bacteria and no resources
> left on the 30th day, when will it be half full?
>
> How full will it be 5 days before the crisis? IOW, after 25 days, if the
> bacteria all get together to discuss their situation, how much of the
> resources are already gone?
>
> And where, on a similarly finite Earth, are we?
>
> Roger.
>
>
> --
> Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
> (George Carlin)
>
> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
> you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)
>
> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can
> change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has! (Margaret
> Meade)
>
>
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
> monbiot-discuss.
> You can post via email.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
> For more options, visit this group.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.