This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.9 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Sunday, 22 March 2009
GREENS DESTROY BLUE-COLLAR JOBS IN US
This article explains how an elite group of environmentalists are undermining the blue collar jobs in California by putting the needs of nature above those of humans, thus exacerbating the shortage problems that already exist.
The author celebrates wasteful and fragile "advanced" industrial agriculture, which employs a tiny fraction of the nation's workers (about 0.6% in 2004 [1]). The real question is not should we throw all available resources at a clearly unsustainable system, but what system can move to that does not have such a high burden and employs more people.
For example, why are they growing water intensive crops (e.g. cotton) and lawns (which may collectively use more resources than agriculture [2]) when water is in short supply? Are these doomed practices worth driving fish (also a food source) to extinction? Geoff Lawton has demonstrated that you can grow food in hyper-arid conditions without excessive irrigation (just a sustainable draw of the aquifer) [3]. "Jobs" are no excuse for waste of natural resources and abuse of other species. This kind of argument is emotional blackmail for ideological (libertarian) and misguided purposes.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States#Employment [2] Permaculture a designers manual, Bill Mollison, Tagari publications, 1988. [3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk
The public attitude to the environment is changing - see Tuesday's post. There seems to be a backlash against extremist green policies. The best position is to try to accommodate both man and the environment, but if there is a clash, then the extent of the damage needs to be weighed against the benefit to man. It is not right to always favour the environment. A balance needs to be made.
Should the welfare of a few fish come before the welfare of a whole community of people?
The separation of man and nature is artificial. If we decimate the environment we will suffer consequences because we are entirely dependent and a part of the Earth's biosphere. Trading the existence of a species (not merely its 'welfare') - which will have other negative consequences - for employing and feeding a few people temporarily is a Faustian bargain. The unsustainable practices will fail eventually and we'll be the poorer for it because the fish are gone, the ecosystems polluted and weakened, and there will be more people to support.
Listen to your rationale: popular opinion says it's ok, so fuck the environment! Mobs are a dangerous thing, and horrendous acts have been perpetrated in their spirit. You are not doing any weighing, or consideration of alternatives. Your matra is "existing jobs at any cost".
Working with nature instead of against it is the only way to enjoy sustainable lives.
But look closely at "nature" and what do you see? "Nature" destroys far more than humans ever did. I am not suggesting that we should destroy a species, merely that we should destroy some fish in some places in order to improve our own lives.
There is today an almost religious belief that all plants and animals are sacred. It is this extreme position that is wrong. There are environmental fanatics who are trying to prevent any new road construction, any new oil exploration, etc, simply because some plants and animals will be killed. That is a silly and extreme position. Of course we must try not to wipe out whole species, but it is a matter of balance.
"That is a silly and extreme position. Of course we must try not to wipe out whole species, but it is a matter of balance."
I agree, but you (and the author of this article) are not proposing any compromises or approaches that satisfy all; where is your balance? They are empty words. Why are you against changing the crops, farming techniques, and reducing the lawn culture? This could all be done without serious problems and would gain many benefits including insurance against further drought and improving the financial position of residents. Instead you grandstand with the headline: "GREENS DESTROY BLUE-COLLAR JOBS".
But I am proposing a compromise - some fish will have to die in order to provide enough water for irrigation. Maybe they can be caught and moved elsewhere or eaten.
That's funny, because such "radical" policies are being taken up in my country, Australia. We are prone to water shortages, and the population willingly cooperate with water rationing. As a result, water frugal gardening is becoming popular and lawns are slowly being replaced, and water tanks are supplementing town water. Queensland averted crisis by bringing the average water consumption per capita to below 140L [1]. The typical water consumption (per household) in Palm Springs, California is 1400 gallons [2] (5040L), making it about 2000L per capita.
More progress needs to be made in farming crops and practices, but there are experiments taking place in crops such as persimmons, date palms, carob, jujubes and pistachios, for example. Permaculture trial farms are continuously proving that practices appropriate to local resources are not only economical, but accessible, sustainable and beneficial [3].
If the population is so arrogant or misinformed as to ignore ecological realities, it will eventually wear the consequences. It is rather perplexing that you champion innovation, and yet you stubbornly resist it on certain issues. It seems to be an ideological bent against natural systems.
I welcome experiments that lead to progress. I am not against GM crops for example. With care these have led to much improved yields. I bet you oppose them. It is you that is stubbornly resistant. I am for progress.
I can't reconcile this with your earlier statement: "Your suggestions are too radical and will not be adopted."
"I am not against GM crops for example."
Well, this just supports my point that you are against natural systems.
"With care these have led to much improved yields."
There great claims made about the benefits of GM crops, and many of them I believe are exaggerated or simply untrue. Claims that supposed improved yields would solve world hunger have been questioned [1,2,3]. There is also much evidence that they have unintended side effects, such as corn feed making pigs sterile [4]. In any case there are serious risks involved which do not need to be taken because the whole exercise is unnecessary. They solve the wrong problem and exacerbate others such as reliance on pesticides, fertilisers, credit and powerful multinationals. It's not progress.
Genetic modification is simply a modern version of selective breeding. We are using science to speed up the natural selection process. Of course we need to be careful and test new varieties. Any new technology will be questioned and resisted. We must allow people the opportunity to consume GM or not. Acceptance will depend on confidence building. Feeding the population should be a top priority. GM crops can actually have increased disease resistance leading to lower use of pesticides. You seem to be prejudiced against them.
It is not selective breeding. Jellyfish do not breed with rabbits. The fundamental problem with GM is the misplaced belief that we can control biology. Everything points to our inability to predict and contain modified genetics, and testing is not adequate. Unidentified proteins have been discovered in GM soya [1], and what about those sterile pigs?
The problems GM purports to fix generally patch up major inadequacies of industrial agriculture. Drought tolerant crops are developed for areas where clearing has desertified the landscape. Pest/pesticide resistant crops are developed for monocultures that are susceptible to plague. Yield improvement is supposed to overcome the drawbacks of monoculture where neighbouring plants of the same species compete, whereas a polyculture with companion planting and edges would cooperate to improve overall yield much more.
Preserving nature is more important than destroying or changing is behaviour. Due to the improvements in technology there are more job openings for the green collar jobs. If genetical modification is used for good reasons then i will yield a good result in future generation
The author celebrates wasteful and fragile "advanced" industrial agriculture, which employs a tiny fraction of the nation's workers (about 0.6% in 2004 [1]). The real question is not should we throw all available resources at a clearly unsustainable system, but what system can move to that does not have such a high burden and employs more people.
ReplyDeleteFor example, why are they growing water intensive crops (e.g. cotton) and lawns (which may collectively use more resources than agriculture [2]) when water is in short supply? Are these doomed practices worth driving fish (also a food source) to extinction? Geoff Lawton has demonstrated that you can grow food in hyper-arid conditions without excessive irrigation (just a sustainable draw of the aquifer) [3]. "Jobs" are no excuse for waste of natural resources and abuse of other species. This kind of argument is emotional blackmail for ideological (libertarian) and misguided purposes.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States#Employment
[2] Permaculture a designers manual, Bill Mollison, Tagari publications, 1988.
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk
The public attitude to the environment is changing - see Tuesday's post. There seems to be a backlash against extremist green policies. The best position is to try to accommodate both man and the environment, but if there is a clash, then the extent of the damage needs to be weighed against the benefit to man. It is not right to always favour the environment. A balance needs to be made.
ReplyDeleteShould the welfare of a few fish come before the welfare of a whole community of people?
The separation of man and nature is artificial. If we decimate the environment we will suffer consequences because we are entirely dependent and a part of the Earth's biosphere. Trading the existence of a species (not merely its 'welfare') - which will have other negative consequences - for employing and feeding a few people temporarily is a Faustian bargain. The unsustainable practices will fail eventually and we'll be the poorer for it because the fish are gone, the ecosystems polluted and weakened, and there will be more people to support.
ReplyDeleteListen to your rationale: popular opinion says it's ok, so fuck the environment! Mobs are a dangerous thing, and horrendous acts have been perpetrated in their spirit. You are not doing any weighing, or consideration of alternatives. Your matra is "existing jobs at any cost".
Working with nature instead of against it is the only way to enjoy sustainable lives.
But look closely at "nature" and what do you see? "Nature" destroys far more than humans ever did. I am not suggesting that we should destroy a species, merely that we should destroy some fish in some places in order to improve our own lives.
ReplyDeleteThere is today an almost religious belief that all plants and animals are sacred. It is this extreme position that is wrong. There are environmental fanatics who are trying to prevent any new road construction, any new oil exploration, etc, simply because some plants and animals will be killed. That is a silly and extreme position. Of course we must try not to wipe out whole species, but it is a matter of balance.
"That is a silly and extreme position. Of course we must try not to wipe out whole species, but it is a matter of balance."
ReplyDeleteI agree, but you (and the author of this article) are not proposing any compromises or approaches that satisfy all; where is your balance? They are empty words. Why are you against changing the crops, farming techniques, and reducing the lawn culture? This could all be done without serious problems and would gain many benefits including insurance against further drought and improving the financial position of residents. Instead you grandstand with the headline: "GREENS DESTROY BLUE-COLLAR JOBS".
But I am proposing a compromise - some fish will have to die in order to provide enough water for irrigation. Maybe they can be caught and moved elsewhere or eaten.
ReplyDeleteThat's not a compromise. You are risking the destruction of habitat and extinction of species. What's wrong with the suggestions I put forward?
ReplyDeleteYour suggestions are too radical and will not be adopted. Mine are reasonable and have the backing of most of the population.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny, because such "radical" policies are being taken up in my country, Australia. We are prone to water shortages, and the population willingly cooperate with water rationing. As a result, water frugal gardening is becoming popular and lawns are slowly being replaced, and water tanks are supplementing town water. Queensland averted crisis by bringing the average water consumption per capita to below 140L [1]. The typical water consumption (per household) in Palm Springs, California is 1400 gallons [2] (5040L), making it about 2000L per capita.
ReplyDeleteMore progress needs to be made in farming crops and practices, but there are experiments taking place in crops such as persimmons, date palms, carob, jujubes and pistachios, for example. Permaculture trial farms are continuously proving that practices appropriate to local resources are not only economical, but accessible, sustainable and beneficial [3].
If the population is so arrogant or misinformed as to ignore ecological realities, it will eventually wear the consequences. It is rather perplexing that you champion innovation, and yet you stubbornly resist it on certain issues. It seems to be an ideological bent against natural systems.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/meanwhile-in-australia-a-global-crisis-arrives-in-the-back-yard-446504.html
[2] http://www.dwa.org/water_info/w_average_consumption.aspx
[3] http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2208413.htm
I welcome experiments that lead to progress. I am not against GM crops for example. With care these have led to much improved yields. I bet you oppose them. It is you that is stubbornly resistant. I am for progress.
ReplyDelete"I welcome experiments that lead to progress."
ReplyDeleteI can't reconcile this with your earlier statement: "Your suggestions are too radical and will not be adopted."
"I am not against GM crops for example."
Well, this just supports my point that you are against natural systems.
"With care these have led to much improved yields."
There great claims made about the benefits of GM crops, and many of them I believe are exaggerated or simply untrue. Claims that supposed improved yields would solve world hunger have been questioned [1,2,3]. There is also much evidence that they have unintended side effects, such as corn feed making pigs sterile [4]. In any case there are serious risks involved which do not need to be taken because the whole exercise is unnecessary. They solve the wrong problem and exacerbate others such as reliance on pesticides, fertilisers, credit and powerful multinationals. It's not progress.
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-503339/Scientist-claimed-GM-crops-solve-Third-World-hunger-admits-got-wrong.html
[2] http://current.com/items/89124464/the_great_gm_crop_yield_myth_exposed.htm
[3] http://permaculture.org.au/2009/03/31/india-suicides-i-want-my-father-back/
[4] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_GM_Foods:_Health_Risks
Genetic modification is simply a modern version of selective breeding. We are using science to speed up the natural selection process. Of course we need to be careful and test new varieties. Any new technology will be questioned and resisted. We must allow people the opportunity to consume GM or not. Acceptance will depend on confidence building. Feeding the population should be a top priority. GM crops can actually have increased disease resistance leading to lower use of pesticides. You seem to be prejudiced against them.
ReplyDeleteIt is not selective breeding. Jellyfish do not breed with rabbits. The fundamental problem with GM is the misplaced belief that we can control biology. Everything points to our inability to predict and contain modified genetics, and testing is not adequate. Unidentified proteins have been discovered in GM soya [1], and what about those sterile pigs?
ReplyDeleteThe problems GM purports to fix generally patch up major inadequacies of industrial agriculture. Drought tolerant crops are developed for areas where clearing has desertified the landscape. Pest/pesticide resistant crops are developed for monocultures that are susceptible to plague. Yield improvement is supposed to overcome the drawbacks of monoculture where neighbouring plants of the same species compete, whereas a polyculture with companion planting and edges would cooperate to improve overall yield much more.
[1] http://archive.greenpeace.org/geneng/highlights/gmo/RRsoycritique.PDF
Preserving nature is more important than destroying or changing is behaviour. Due to the improvements in technology there are more job openings for the green collar jobs. If genetical modification is used for good reasons then i will yield a good result in future generation
ReplyDelete