Blairo Maggi is a powerful man in Brazil. He owns a company called Grupo Andre Maggi that runs vast soybean plantations in the state of Matto Grasso, which straddles the Amazon rainforest and what the Nature Conservancy calls "the world's most biologically rich savanna." The New York Times has called Maggi "the largest soybean grower in the world ... with 400,000 acres of his own under production."
Maggi works closely with the world's biggest soybean processors: Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill. He has received support from the World Bank for his projects. To top it all off, he's been the governor of Matto Grasso since 2002.
So it was significant when he expressed the following opinion about how to "solve" the growing food crisis:
"With the worsening of the global food crisis, the time is coming when it will be inevitable to discuss whether we preserve the environment or produce more food. There is no way to produce more food without occupying more land and taking down more trees," he declared, speaking specifically of the rainforest.
Sure, we could blot out more chunks of the "world's lungs," our biggest and most important carbon sponge. On the other hand, we could also stop converting food crops to biofuel.
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
mike365 Posted 11:09 am
28 Apr 2008
Sustainability seems like a much more difficult proposition when we are forced to choose between food and something as crucial to our long-term survival as the Amazon rain forest. I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but it might be time to start encouraging, if not enforcing, responsible population growth.
Permalink
Mike Frew Posted 11:17 am
28 Apr 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:12 pm
28 Apr 2008
Mike Frew,
Good point. Who came up with this idea that we "need" three meals a day?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Theogarver Posted 12:13 pm
28 Apr 2008
Permalink
KarenLOrr Posted 12:14 pm
28 Apr 2008
Excerpt:
The carrying capacity of planet Earth has reached its apex
The truth about all this, folks, is that the resources on our planet can only support a limited population, and I think we've over-populated the planet to a point where we're wiping out non-renewable resources at an alarming rate. This means a population correction is due. When there are too many people consuming too much food, using up too much water and burning too much oil, you can get away with a rapid expansion for a little while (a few decades, perhaps), but eventually reality kicks in and there's a global population correction that brings the population size back down to levels that can be sustained on the planet.
It's not a pretty picture. We're talking about the loss of a billion human lives, perhaps more. This is what's coming. It's as predictable as the laws of gravity. When you over-populate a planet and use up all the resources, the population eventually finds itself in a resource panic, and mass death ensues. You can observe the same thing with colonies of bacteria on a nutrient-rich petri dish: They will expand at an accelerating rate, multiplying their numbers until there's no more food left in the petri dish, and then they will experience a massive die-off. You might say that human beings are smarter than bacteria, and that's true, but as current events are clearly demonstrating, they're not much wiser! They still doom themselves to the same stupid fate by refusing to look at the long-term implications of their actions.
Humans are really good at making babies and eating food, but they're terrible at thinking even ten years ahead about the implications of their present-day decisions. That's why the global population control masterminds call people "feeders and breeders," by the way. Those are the two things human beings do extremely well: Fornicate and clean their plate. (Not necessarily in that order, though...)
The economies of our world have, sadly, been based on economic models that strongly encourage this kind of consumption and growth. We live in a "throwaway economy," where people are encouraged to consume and expend as much as possible. No corporation makes money teaching people how to use less. And so we've pushed for aggressive expansion since about the 1950's: Build more, eat more, consume more. We've turned farm lands into housing tracts, and rainforests into biofuel fields. We've over-fished the oceans, over-farmed the soils and over-extended ourselves to the point where a population correction is inevitable. We, the human race, have painted ourselves into a desperate corner, and the simple fact of the matter is that unless we quickly discover some new energy technology that provides the world with cheap, plentiful energy, we are headed straight towards a global population implosion that will leave a billion or more people dead.
And biofuels, of course, are no answer for this problem. You cannot grow enough corn to solve the problems of an expansionist, imperialistic race of beings (that's us humans) who have taken over the planet like a cancer tumor, wiped out countless species, destroyed huge swaths of natural rainforests, poisoned the oceans and rivers, polluted the skies and, at every opportunity, betrayed the very Earth that has given us a home in the first place. Humans can betray Mother Nature for a while, but in the end, we will pay a dear price for our own arrogance, greed and lack of vision. The human race is being sent back to kindergarten, where it needs to learn some basic lessons about living in harmony with the planet. Lessons like: Don't use up all the resources in a few generations. Don't think you're smarter than nature. And never forget how much Mother Nature does for us all for free! (Like pollinating the crops, producing oxygen, cleaning the air, water, etc. Read the book Mycelium Running to learn more...)
In time, we will either learn these lessons, or we will perish. It's really as simple as that. And all these suddenly-popular "save the planet" efforts we've seen by corporations recently are just a joke. We can't save the planet. The planet will be fine after we're gone, folks. What we're trying to save here is human civilization. The very idea that we think we can "save the planet" is arrogant all by itself. All we can do is respect the planet and find ways to live with it as polite guests living on a generous host.
Whether humans survive the next hundred years or not, planet Earth certainly will. And frankly, the planet will do much better without us. With humans gone, the Earth would quickly be restored to a vibrant, pristine state, full of life and abundance. The Earth doesn't need us, folks. But we, of course, certainly need the Earth. The real question is this: Can we learn to play nice and treat the Earth with respect? If not, we won't be around much longer to worry about it.
Snip
Complete article at Natural News
http://www.naturalnews.com/023091.html
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:26 pm
28 Apr 2008
by doing this he is admitting that biofuel farming is the culprit in the current food shortage. How so? His admission makes it a stark dilemna. Put the acreage now devoted to fuel, back to food or starvation and riots will continue.
Growing fuel doubles the GHG per mile of gas guzzling over oil. And it starves people. Forests remove excess GHG from the atmosphere.
Thanks, you proved our point mr big shot "farmer". When was the last time you rode a tractor? hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:44 pm
28 Apr 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/14/02133/2988#com ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:48 pm
28 Apr 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj9_FRTs8-4
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:46 pm
28 Apr 2008
Does anybody know where we are going to find the food for an extra two or three billion people? Even all of us going vegetarian and using all the grain and farmland now used for biofuels and lawns converted to food production we aren't going to have enough food.
If the population doubles again like it did twice in my mothers lifetime how will we feed all the people then? How do we feed 9 billion, 13 billion or 26 billion?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Krokodilla Posted 12:57 am
29 Apr 2008
Permalink
Galia Posted 1:38 am
29 Apr 2008
As for me, the more I see ethanol for fuel, the more horrible it looks. I decided I'd never put ethanol, which is worse for global warming than oil and helps drive up fuel prices--in my car.
What if millions and millions of people decided not to use ethanol and the whole ethanol industry collapsed. Around 2000 many people around the world protested genetically modified seeds, so profits went down and multi-nationals pulled out their investments. It really happened. So if we don't use ethanol, that industry will collapse too. We don't have to buy into the false propaganda and lies about ethanol.
By the end of World War II 40% of American produce was raised in victory gardens--what if people in 1st world nations cut consumption by growing 40% our produce? There would be plenty of food for people in 3rd world nations. Further, what if we demanded buses and bike lanes, cutting our consumption of oil. We could change the whole economic system, and knock the Maggis of the world flat on their behinds.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:59 am
29 Apr 2008
High prices may curb demand and we do need to stop using food sorces to make ethanol from. Their are so many viable options out there, food should never have been considered.
The reduction in the populations of the earth either by war, disease, starvation all the solution of the four horsemen. I know that is only three but religious fervor in the place in the world most of our energy comes from will have its place in time.
When it becomes obvious a country that can feed itself can't influence the decision making process of third world coutries when it comes to population reduction reducing exports in order to sustain one self becomes more tolerable.
Food for oil, possible but I don't like carbon fuels so I hope we can become energy independent with out oil, coal or food ethanol.
Long term solutions are possible, the time for intermediate and short term solutions is fleeting. You just have about a 20 year window once you hit peak oil, I feel we have squandered the oportunity and now will have to rely on market forces and Malthus Theory to put the energy and food crisis back in balance.
I would hope if it has to happen it would happen before we lose the rain forest, the so called lungs of the planet. I would also hope we could save Appalachia, I know our forest are decidious and only help the planet breath from spring until fall but I am kind of partial to them.
I would love to have a mountain and a valley left to sustain a forest on but we are also a back burner issue right now.
When it comes to quick decisions for the food or energy solution all the poor choices will be made first. Coal, drilling for oil anwhere it may be found, nuclear, food ethanol and trying to rely on a portion of the world where neither oil production nor transportation can be guaranteed.
Not to worry, old Malthus will step in and replace Bush as the great decider, the great stabilizer and equalizer. He will get your population down to sustainable levels for you, give you some time to make more intelligent choices in your food and energy choices.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 4:10 am
29 Apr 2008
Just like it tripled food prices in Mexico, right? LOL When are you going to quit w/ this tripe?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:08 am
29 Apr 2008
Just like it tripled food prices in Mexico, right? LOL When are you going to quit w/ this tripe?
When are you going to stop treating Michael Wang's un-peer-reviewed models as dogma?
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/01/23/more ...
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 9:09 am
29 Apr 2008
that article mentions land-use-change as the bogeyman...a far cry from "growing fuel doubles GHG"
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:45 am
29 Apr 2008
So, for everyone who doesn't want to greatly reduce or eliminate use of private motor vehicles, what do you suggest as a solution to the ecological and environmental problems caused by driving?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:18 pm
29 Apr 2008
that article mentions land-use-change as the bogeyman...a far cry from "growing fuel doubles GHG"
Well another mechanism to consider.
N2O formation primarily from nitrogen fertilizers.
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy
Corn of course uses the most nitrogen fertilizer out of any crop in the US. (Pay attention to the first bit.)
http://greyfalcon.net/woolsey
____
Another fun one to consider is that when you have organic carbon locked in the soil, without exposure to heat, or air. It doesn't decompose.
When you expose it, through cropping, you then decompose that organic carbon, and turn it into CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions.
Similar to peat decomposition. (Which is a bit more extreme on the previous lack of decomp)
http://greyfalcon.net/peat
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 2:47 pm
29 Apr 2008
I could certainly comment on sustainable farming practices that would minimize: 1) the loss of carbon stored in the soil, as well as 2) the amount of N inputs. I'd rather not blow this post out though. For the sake of preventing further erroneous blanket statements, I'm just reiterating that under normal circumstances, ethanol emits less GHG than gasoline.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:27 pm
29 Apr 2008
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 10:31 pm
29 Apr 2008
The wind belt from Texas to Canada will supply most of your electrical needs. Boone Pickins an oil man is already investing here. Run your transmission lines east and west and get off coal.
The new natural gas car, Honda has one good example is far cleaner than the traditional gasoline engine. I am not talking about conversions. A sister company is producing Natural Gas Charge stations you hook to your home natural gas supply. Fleet Nat Gas has been around for years.
Mass transit is picking back up, all the pork money spent on corn should go into mass transit. Amtrak passenger service is up 11% already and more high speed rail is needed between major cities.
Buses need to all be natural gas and more bus lines established. Inter city and Interstate. We used to have more bus lines but big oil and the auto industry destroyed them.
Natural gas is competitive with oil and cost effective. The new NGC is so low in pollution that the old pollution testing devices don't register.
This could be a transition or short term fix because nat gas is also a finite resource. It is available short term and a better solution than spending the next 50 years in energy wars.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:45 am
30 Apr 2008
We must rally to save the endangered potash, the threatened diammonium phophate, the beleaguered urea! How else will Vietnamese children grow big & strong??
Ack.
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 3:32 am
30 Apr 2008
Actually, they exist all over the world.
http://energy.gov/media/BiofuelsMythVFact.pdf
MYTH: In terms of emissions, biofuels emit the same amount as gasoline or more.
FACT: Biofuels burn cleaner than gasoline, resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and are fully biodegradable, unlike some fuel additives.
MYTH: Ethanol cannot be produced from corn in large enough quantities to make a real difference without disrupting food and feed supplies.
FACT: Corn-based ethanol is only one source of biofuel. As we address the technical hurdles associated with the efficient and cost-effective production of biofuels, ethanol will increasingly play a more significant role.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:47 am
30 Apr 2008
_
And as for the Air Quality issue.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol3
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol4
http://stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85ResptoComm.pdf ...
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85vWindSol
_
Also the premise that Corn ethanol isn't enough is obvious.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
The issue that ALL biomass isn't enough is less obvious.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 7:57 am
30 Apr 2008
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/2305/Khosla_Figure_2.JP ...
Permalink