Comments wiscidea has made

1. I was hoping Umbra could tell us whether it is okay to compost facial tissue. I and my wife have been wondering about this for a long time, but never acted on it. Could we put a special container in the house for "snot rags" and add the stuff to the compost pile? Will it spread human pathogens?
2. Why is the fellow in question pulling stuff out of the container?! We toss all our kitchen scraps -- including paper towel, napkins, grease, old dog kibble -- into a container next to the sink or a bucket in the garage and it starts turning into goo on day one. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot bamboo pole. I just dump it on the compost pile and mix it in a bit so lighter items don't blow away. What's he doing picking through the trash and handling each item? Eeeeeewwww.

Speaking of worms (somewhere above)...

I previously posted this comment and link...

"I grew up thinking worms were everywhere! Perfectly normal and an indication of a healthy environment. Well... they apparently did not exist in glaciated portions of North America until humans accelerated the move north. And this is a problem because ecosystems do not have time to adapt. The plants and animals dominating northern forests are not used to having worms around...

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/forest/index.html

Result? Worms rapidly consume organic matter. Northern forests contain trees and herbs dependent on a layer of organic matter for reproducing. The mature plants are still there, but they are not being replaced. All the insects, birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, et cetera dependent on those plants will eventually be gone. Entire ecosystems occupying a large part of our continent will no longer exists. Interestingly, the invading worms also reduce carbon sequestration! Ouch!"

Now I've learned that earthworms are causing other trouble...

http://www.wssa.net/WSSA/PressRoom/WSSA_Nightcrawers.htm

Earthworms are facilitating the spread of weeds!

So... one little exotic species is causing all sorts of havoc and paving the way for other invasive species. Welcome to the homogecene epoch.

Where am I going and why am I sitting in a hand basket?On NYT critiques alien biology posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 Responses

Erik!!!!

Exactly what is "the new nature writing"?On Seeking out 'the new nature writing' posted 1 year, 2 months ago 25 Responses

neutral, suffering, cruelty, loops, nonsense

neutral

The wolf feels pain when it starves to death. The wolf feels pain when it is run to exhaustion and someone puts a bullet in it. The caribous feels pain when it is killed by the wolf. The caribou feels pain when it's calf is killed. The caribou feels pain when someone puts a bullet in it. If it snows too muh there is suffering. If it snows to little there is suffering. If the climate warms there will be suffering. If the climate cools there will be suffering. It is not up to me to determine what is best for the wolf and the caribou... the simplest answer is to preserve the natural order.

suffering

I'm interested in reducing suffering where it is fairly clear what actions will reduce suffering.  However, I don't think we are wise enough to start meddling with natural cycles and ecological webs.

And, no, my goal is not to "heap guilt on mankind". Why do you accuse me of this?

Saluki asks, how is murdering a human being minimizing suffering?

You said it is okay to abort a human consisting of only a few cells, as long as there is no nervous system. I said it is not okay to abort a viable child just before birth... except to save the life of the mother. Exactly where do we disagree? Please define "murdering a human being". Your defintion seems to change with the wind and creates pointless argument.  To answer your question, killing a human being who is a serial rapist and cannot be captured would probably reduce suffering. Killing a captured criminal would not. Aborting an embryo resulting from rape or incest and consisting of just a few cells would probably reduce suffering if the mother decides to do so. Killing a viable child moments before birth though the life of the mother is not threatened would not reduce suffering.

cruelty

Saluki wrote...

"If a caribou being torn up by a wolf is not cruely, then why should I care about your silly definition of cruelty. It becomes nothing more than an artificial, baseless, human guilt concept."

Perhaps cruelty IS an artificial concept. But I would not say it is baseless or a means of heaping guilt on human beings. It is a means for human beings to define what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Define something as cruel and we communicate that it is not acceptable for intelligent human beings to behave that way. It is a code word for... don't do this, it creates pointless suffering, and really isn't good for anyone in the long run. As I suggest above... if cruelty is an absolute, how do we decide what is better... wolves starving or caribou being killed by the wolves?

loops

Saluki wrote...

"So you are approving an endless cycle of pain and cruelty in order to maintain a balanced population. But then why can't people be in the loop of balancing that population."

Yes and no. There is pain, but I don't necessarily view it as cruelty. And why would it be up to me to approve or disapprove of it?! It just IS.  It is the natural world we live in.

What about people? Saluki, please stop assuming more than I actually write. I never said I opposed hunting. We are predators. We're part of the loop you are referring to. I don't hunt, but I don't want to stop others from hunting. The moral issue, as far as I'm concerned, is the hunting, torturing, killing of an animal for entertainment, a trophy, or genocide. Hunting for food makes sense. But how many people eat wolves? They are fellow predators, not prey. A close relative, the domestic dog, evolved along side us and might have helped our species move across the globe.

nonsense

Refering to my question...

"What on Earth takes us from permitting a woman to have an abortion to contemplating means of separating predators from their natural prey?!"

Saluki wrote...

"The artificial and nosensical concept of cruelty that you want to impose on human hunting."

I did not impose such a concept on hunting. I imposed the concept of cruelty on the concept of killing for pleasure.

I would counter that you've imposed an artificial and nonsensical concept of cruelty on a clump of a few cells that do not even have a nervous system -- though it is difficult to determine what you really believe -- and that natural forces, excluding human beings, abort the majority of the time due to defects or other problems.On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 2 months ago 120 Responses

Regarding NYT Article, Part II

See other thread...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/9/143032/1416#22On Could invasive species be a good thing? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

We're Probably on the Same Page

I'd like to finish my original critique before I get too distracted, BUT...

My primary objection to the NYT article and the Grist posts (both of them) is the lack of distinction between invader, exotic, and invasive. The NYT article is the sort of thing someone opposed to controlling the spread of invasive plants could latch onto and say.. "see, even scientist disagree over whether invasive plants are a problem... cut funding for programs to preserve habitat and control invasive plants until they figure it all out... those crazy academics are always flip-flopping."

The subject of the PNAS paper (I think), the title of the NYT article, the content of the NYT article, and the discussion here is a messy amalgamation of several different topics... yet they are presented as opposing views.

It looks like the original paper really just says that of the thousands of plants introduced to New Zealand, only a few are a problem and three native plants were driven to extinction by competition. This does not sound like news or a contradiction of previous views. And it does not say there aren't other ways exotic plants might have led to the extinction of native plants or other organisms.

Only a few exotics plants, due to their aggressive growth, are obvious threats to the prairie remnant I mentioned. I plant plenty of exotic fruits and vegis around my home and I'm not worried that they will become a problem. But I often wonder what other exotic plants are doing to change the local ecology. Is that patch of red clover adding nitrogen to the soil and paving the way for a new invasion? Is the queen-anne's lace attracting pollinators that would normally visit the blazing star right now? I think these question -- yes, I have a lot of them -- should be addressed before folks go around saying "invaders" are not necessarily bad. Or someone should a least explain to the public the difference between invader, exotic, and invasive.

The NYT article SUGGESTS that the paper says more and that perhaps we don't have to worry about most exotics. However, we simply don't know and cannot evaluate which exotic will become the next problem.On NYT critiques alien biology posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 Responses

typo

I meant...

"It is difficult to REVERSE the decision to transfer a plant from one region of the globe to another."On NYT critiques alien biology posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 Responses

corn

Before someone calls me an idiot for using corn as an example of an exotic species...

It originated in Mesoamerica and was carried north and spread by humans. This makes it an "exotic" plant in North America. Not all exotics are from continents on the other side of an ocean.

There is a plant from the desert southwest of North America -- I don't recall the name -- being sold as a soil-building cover crop for other regions. It is an exotic plant in the midwest. Some ecologists consider it invasive. Others disagree. But should a company distribute it before we determine whether it will harm ecosystems? Once it is sown, it will be difficult to get rid of.On NYT critiques alien biology posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 Responses

Regarding NYT Article

Hello.

Now that I actually read the NYT article...

It is a poorly written article for essentially one reason. The title "Friendly Invaders" and much of the article suggests -- suggests -- that the new research shows invasive species are not the problem scientists thought they were. However, from the title to the end of the article, the terms "invader", "invasive", and "exotic" are used interchangeably, allowing one side to say most exotic plants are not a problem and the other to counter that invasives, including animals, are a problem. There are two different phenomena being woven together to create an artificial debate... that is, implying even scientist disagree on this issue... sound familiar?

The original paper the article is based on appears --  and I admit I have to read the PNAS paper to determine whether my assessment is accurate  -- appears to simply say that competition from the vast majority of exotic plants, which technically range from innocent tulip bulbs to aggressive kudzu, does not lead to extinction of native plant via competition. This is all. No more. In fact, it looks like the authors point out the predation by exotic predators IS a major problem. And it does not look like they thoroughly examined other ways exotic plants might displace native plants.

Considering some specific points in the NYT article, though the fuzzy definitions of terms be used really make the NYT article pretty much pointless...

Exotics have displaced only three native New Zealand plants:

Which ones? Were they keystone species? How many native invertebrates and vertebrate were dependent on those plants? What if a wimpy exotic plant that exuded a toxin that killed only Redwood trees invaded California. Would we celebrate the increase in biodiversity along the west coast? Would it be a net gain?

A scientist epxresses his dislike of the phrase "exotics are evil":

Sure. He's correct. For the most part, exotics are perfectly benign... as far as we know. One might argue that corn and soybeans -- not invasive on their own -- displaced 90-99% of an entire North American ecosystem. Most exotics appear benign. Would this same scientist, or any rational ecologist, express dislike of the phrase "invasives are evil"? The article should use consistent language to frame this debate.

Speed and stress:

If enough people read far enough. Competition between exotics and natives isn't really a problem, except when plants are moved rapidly and over long distances, combined with other threats to native plants. Ummmm... perhaps I wouldn't view exotics as potential problems if we (1) had not destroyed 90-99% of North America's grassland, (2) were not planting new exotics right next to threatend ecosystems, and (3) restored the natural fires that maintained North American ecosystems.

Competition from exotics shows little sign of causing extinction:

What about other effects? White sweet clover might not compete directly with a native plant. Sure. It occupies a bare spot of ground. But then it changes the local microenvironment and soil ecology. It creates dense shade that blocks germination of native plants. It is less combustible, so interferes with the progression of natural and prescribed fire. It adds nitrogen to the soil, which creates an environment that favors other exotics -- some invasive -- over native plants. The sweet clover alters the cover available for grassland birs. It might draw pollinators away from native flowers, preventing good seed set. There is a whole cascade of consequences beyond direct competition. And this is just one plant.

Native species might be pushed from most of their habitat, but find homes in other refuges, so don't worry:

Oy! What about other elements of that habitat that might have been dependent on the native plant? And how large are the refuges? Are they connected, or do we end up with isolated islands that cannot sustain genetic diversity? And is there an effort to protect those few islands from development or other threats?

TO BE CONTINUED...On NYT critiques alien biology posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 Responses

Erik Erik Erik...

... you're bringing tears to my eyes.

I've commented on this story over in the "In the News" section and I can assure you I'll have a lot to say about it here. You know how I feel regarding invasive species.

I'd like to zero in one what item for now, just to see what others have to say about it...

Erik wrote...

"...some introduced species like honeybees are crucially important in their new homelands..."

Correct. Honeybees are crucially important for agriculture. And we are facing serious problems, as a species, if honeybees disappear due to a combination of poor management practices, newly introduced diseases that are catching up with them, pollution, industrial agricultural practices, et cetera. I'm very concerned about this issue.

However, are European honeybees crucially important for conservation of native plants or an additional threat to those plants? Do they displace native pollinators? Were diseases that affect related native species brought over with the honeybees? Is it wise to rely on a single species to pollinate so many of our crops?

I don't know the answers to these questions.

Here's a tentative OPINION... I'm not convinced that the introduction of honeybees to North America was such a grand idea. We are now dependent on monocultures of insects to pollinate our monocultures of plants. And the honeybee has been an enabler of sorts. Because of the work done by the European honeybees, our modern agricultural system has encountered NO DETRIMENTAL FEEDBACK as it completely destroys populations of native plants that sustain native pollinators. It has  has encountered NO DETRIMENTAL FEEDBACK as it sprays chemicals over and around fields, killing native pollinators and, indirectly, plants dependent on those pollinators. The honeybees were always there, masking the some of the harm inflicted by poor agricultural practices.

And now we see the consequences... the native pollinators are declining, their habitat is declining, a lot of it is GONE. And the honeybees we introduced are now disappearing. So, the consequences of introducing honeybees might not be so positive.

We might have been better off if the farmers of North America had relied on native pollinators and adapted to them, better off if strips of wild native plants had been maintained over the centuries to ensure adequate pollination of our food crops. We'd be better off learning to live with our local flora and fauna rather than risk introducing an exotic organism that might behave in unexpected ways once released.

(Hmmm... I almost sound like a person criticizing GMOs.)

Just my opinion.On NYT critiques alien biology posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 Responses

continuing my focus on tiny critters

I saw a hoverfly on Sunday. I've probably seen them before, but never thought much about it. The adults consume nectar and/or pollen and lay their eggs near aphid colonies. The slug-like hoverfly larvae then consume the aphids. So, the hoverfly is a pollinator and beneficial insect. Groovy.

What might be more important is the reason I encountered the tiny hoverfly. While I spend a lot of time outside, I'm generally outside for a purpose or just a stroll, taking in the scenery.

For the first time I can recall, I decided to sit in one place, with a notebook, and observe for about two hours. I'm not talking about gazing at the horizon or watching birds in the trees nearby. I focused on what was happening close to the ground, within just a few feet of where I was sitting. Fascinating! I could go on about the other insects, especially the various bees, I watched -- and the thoughts that occurred -- but it would probably get a bit boring for most who read this... and this isn't a personal blog.

Anyway... what's the point?

I encourage others to try it or share their observations if they already have.

Peace.On What are you seeing out there? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 47 Responses

I suppose...

... I'll have to parse my remarks.

I wrote...

"... but I've evolved from a trollish parasite into more of a trollish symbiont. Or that's my opinion."

It is an admission of guilt and a declaration that I've changed. I think I've backed off quite a bit regarding my support for GMOs. Of course, some of you might not see this. And I admit this is just my opinion. I don't think this really warrants a scientific analysis of my comments over the past two years. So, violating my strong suggestion, I'm not going to bother presenting evidence for my behavioral change. I imagine one characteristic of a troll is that they do not recognize their trollishness.

I wrote...

"...  the disease that kills its host too quickly kills itself as well."

I honestly thought this was well known. I mean... a virus, bacterium, or parasite that kills its host quickly, before the disease organism can reproduce or the host can reproduce is going to go extinct. Seems logical. I could be wrong. Sorry... I'm not going to find a peer-reviewed paper about this.

I wrote...

"I strongly suggest modifying your [not you personally, but trollish people] behavior, discussing matters from a relatively rational position, and simply trying to be a bit more polite."

Again. This is a suggestion, not intended as a proven policy. I'm basing the remark only on experience -- how I'm treated and how I treat others. I've found that I eventually ignore people who repeat the same claim over and over and over, never giving any reason for it; they are sort of obnoxious and not very interesting to converse with.  When I realize I'm doing the same thing, I try to stop. I've also found that I eventually ignore people who a rude or vulgar. I try to avoid this behavior, though not always successfully. So, this is just advice. I don't think presenting a suggestion for successful discussion is anywhere near as trollish as some of the unsubstantiated opinions posted repeatedly by folks who appear to not really care about preserving our environment.

Steve T wrote...

"Or are you exempt from upholding your own standards of excellence?"

No. I'm not exempt. Nor am I perfect. Several of you have presented very reasonable responses to my remarks about GMOs. And once I realize I might might very well be wrong regarding something, I try to learn from the experience and modify my views. But then again... I imagine one characteristic of a troll is that they do not recognize their trollishness.

So, there you have it. Steve T asked me to say more and I have. I hope this does not lead to a long discussion. I think there are more important things to learn about and discuss than exactly what a troll is, who is a troll, and what should be done when confronted by a troll.

JUST MY OPINION... trolls are a natural inhabitant of the internet and serve a useful purpose in this interesting ecological web. Furthermore, most, if not everyone, behaves trollish at times. Really, trollishness is in the eyes of the beholder. And who among us is qualified to declare who is and who is not a troll?

Peace.

: )On I've been tuned out for a while posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

The Problem With This Particular Abortion Debate

The participants have not agreed upon the terms of the debate.

I suspect the majority of people discussing the matter here agree...

(1) That contraception and "morning after" pills are acceptable.

(2) Educating people to avoid unwanted pregnancy is good idea.

(3) It is reasonable to permit someone to have an abortion shortly after incest or rape.

(4) There is a point where abortion of the developing fetus, having a functioning nervous system, should not be permitted except to save the life of the mother.

So what exactly is the argument about?

Here's where I apparently disagree with Saluki... I believe that Sarah Palin was chosen by Christian Fundamentalists because Ms. Palin says thing like this...

"I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life."

(www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.html)

This where my interest in this topic started. I have no desire to argue with Saluki over the basic premise that abortion is a bad idea and we should do what we can to minimize it. But in the end, I think it is up to the woman to decide what is best for her and her family.

As far as I can tell from the behavior of Christian Fundamentalists, they support candidates at every level who: wish to limit access to birth control; oppose sex education; and oppose abortion restrictions that include exceptions for incest, rape, and life of mother.

There have been efforts to restrict abortion to the extent Saluki might sincerely and correctly wish it to be restricted, but conservatives generally scuttle the legislation because it does not go far enough for them. The "left" is willing to compromise; the "right" is not.

Sarah Palin could clear up this entire controversy by simply appearing in public and declaring that she believes the "morning after" pill should be available at all clinics, there should not be a ban on early abortions, and that she  wants to do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions in this country short of restricting a woman's access to abortion in the event of incest, rape, or a threat to the life of the mother.

That's all Ms. Palin has to do if Saluki's description of her views is correct.

Why doesn't she? Because it would alienate Christian Fundamentalists interested in seeing appointment of another conservative Supreme Court Justice and necessary for the election of John McCain.

It is up to Sarah Palin to clearly state her view, not for the voters to sort out which quote represents her current position and try to predict, based on conflicting report, what Sarah Palin might do if she becomes President.

Who is the REAL Sarah Palin? And why won't the Republicans allow her to share HER views?On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 2 months ago 120 Responses

I pity the fool.

I know I'm supposed to get beyond pity and actually feel some compassion -- according to my newly adopted philosophy -- but I can't help it... I really feel pity toward McCain.

He was once respectable, but he's allowed himself to be beaten into submission by the Bush administration, his fellow Republicans, and the Christian right. I really feel sorry for the guy. I certainly don't hate him.

What makes me most nervous about a McCain Presidency is that I don't know who the real McCain is. Will he return to "normal" after this? Will he throw off his shackles? I suspect not. Choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate pretty much shows that McCain is a shadow of his former independent self. He's made a pact with the devil and there's no turning back.

Sad. Very sad.On The dynamic behind the GOP's mockery of community organizing posted 1 year, 2 months ago 22 Responses

THIS IS A SIGNAL FLARE

I'm probably violating some rule of etiquette, but I really think JMGs message is more important now than ever before.

I'm intentionally posting this comment because there appears to be a lot of activity on the Grist website right now. And I'm hoping an official Grist writer will take JMGs message and bring it up to date.

We cannot permit the right-wing nutters to take over local politics. They really could use it as a jumping off point for becoming Vice President and, eventually, President of the United States.On Learn to look down the ballot --- waaaaaay down posted 1 year, 2 months ago 10 Responses

THANK YOU!

Thank you for bringing this up. It has been bugging me ever since I heard Palin make the remark. Republicans want government out of our lives and a high degree of self-reliance. but Palin then mocks people who actually take matters into there own hands to solve a problem!!!On The dynamic behind the GOP's mockery of community organizing posted 1 year, 2 months ago 22 Responses

cruel nature

saluki wrote...

"But the natural life of most species on the earth can be cruel, harsh, and short - without any interference from man."

Does this mean we cannot use our naturally evolved brain to reduce the amount of "cruelty"? I really view nature as neutral. It is up to us to create the world we want to live in. I believe the net suffering is minimized when a victim of rape and/or incest as the option of an abortion.

Perhaps you are passive and wish to be carried along by whatever "cruelty" nature throws at us. But this in certainly not natural behavior and living in harmony with the world. We have brains. We ought to try to use them to reduce suffering instead of just adding to it.On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 2 months ago 120 Responses

Sarah Palin

saluki wrote...

"I repeat, no one is advocating that women should die in the birth process."

Then perhaps there is not a problem. But the Christian Fundamentalist supporters of the current Republican Party, John McCain, and Sarah Palin... as well as Sarah Palin herself ... want to see a Supreme Court that will uphold bans on abortion even in the event of threats to the life of the mother.

I thought you were defending Palin's views, the topic of this thread, not your own. So you really don't want to see someone as extreme as Palin in a position to assume the power of appointing new Supreme Court justices?

saluki wrote...

"Rape an incest are indeed an unfortunate circumstance.  But when it comes to a choice of hardship on the one hand and loss of life on the other we have to pick hardship."

Why do we have to pick hardship? Why is this morally superior than aborting a fertilized egg that has not yet developed a nervous system?

And...

"This is a blatant attempt to remove all responsibility for sexual behavior from those who engage in it. "

No. Not all responsibility. A person currently has the option of having an abortion. I agree there should be limits. But, again, the Christian Fundamentalist supporters of the current Republican Party would like to see and end to birth control, an end to abortion just days after conception, and an end to abortion even in the event of rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother.

If Christian Fundamentalists wish to stand in the way of some of the means people have for assuming responsibility for sexual behavior -- by simply using birth control or a morning after pill -- then it is up to them to find ways of helping people prevent unwanted pregnancy or helping families find the resources to raise those children. No one is trying to avoid responsibility. They are doing what they can to cope.

It would be better to work together to ensure women never feel there is a need for an abortion than to ban the procedure. Bans have not worked in the past. They only create more suffering. Bans will not stop abortion. The only way to stop it is to make sure no one ever sees it as a necessity.On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 2 months ago 120 Responses

Thank you Storm Dragon...

Your list should give the Grist writers a lot to chew on. Now they can add "war" to the topic cloud and start going into more detail regarding these environmental problems. I realize much of it has been covered in some way, especially the sonar issue, but I'd really like to see a more direct discussion of war and how it affects the environment.

Perhaps it has all been covered here, but when I went to the list of topics so I could focus my reading efforts on the issue for a bit I had trouble finding it. Perhaps the Grist editors simply have to tag the articles to improve their index. I don't know.

One could also discuss the direct opposite, how ecological disasters result in wars. Again, maybe they covered this. I have not look for the information... not criticizing Grist... sort of free-associating right now. But if a brighter light was shined on the connection between environmental degradation and violent conflict, the voting public might recognize a more personal benefit of protecting Earth's ecosystems. Help people conserve their local biodiversity and ecosystem services and they might be less inclined to lash out against their neighbors.

war destroys local ecology >>> loss of local ecology leads to war >> war destroys more >> cycle repeats until globed is covered with a sheet of glass

Just babbling I suppose. I hope this issue has been covered here. Sorry if I missed it.On Rights of humans, rights of nature posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

Peer-Reviewed Studies.... from 1961!!!!!!

Mr. Bailo.

That's an interesting list of articles you present. Have you actually looked at it or any of the articles?

(1) Peter Risdon states "These articles destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" among scientists about the causes of global warming." Hmmm... so he admits there is global warming. The issue is simply what the causes are. Okay.

(2) The article publication dates range from 1961 (!!!!) to 2008. There are a large number published before 2002. Science has progressed since 1961, over 46 years ago! Those authors might have changed their minds by now. Science has progressed since 2002, over 5 years ago. The debate would have to focus on current research. Risdon might want to limit his list to relatively current research.

(3) It looks like a lot of these articles are not peer-reviewed, but editorial pieces. And they do not necessarily contradict the notion of global climate change as much as how different factors contribute to it. Scientists are still interested in other factors, even if humans are the major contributors. It is important to construct accurate models and know what sort of things we might be able to do, besides limiting CO2 emissions, to minimize the increase in temperature.

(4) Risdon should really provide abstracts. The titles alone do not reveal whether the authors dispute the consensus regarding climate change. Has Risdon even read any of these papers?!

(5) I read one of the articles, out of curiosity...  Dangers of crying wolf over risk of extinctions (Nature 428, 799, 22 April 2004) - Richard J. Ladle, Paul Jepson, Miguel B. Araújo & Robert J. Whittaker. It is a letter to the editors of Nature criticizing the publishing of press releases that do not fully explain what a given study suggests. These press releases are picked up by the press, of course, and distorted to create exiting headlines. Other outlets jump on the story and further distort the original study and sound alarmist. The author's point was not that we don't have to worry about threats to species, but that scientists should not release preliminary data, especially without fully explaining the meaning of it. To do so undermines the credibility of other, solid, research. The scientists themselves were not alarmists; the news outlets were.

(6) How many of the articles on the list are actually current and peer-reviewed disagreements with the scientific consensus? I don't think it is up  to me to wade through the stuff. If Risdon really wants to prove there is no consensus, he has to give us a list of CURRENT peer-reviewed papers and at least a brief explanation of how the papers support his view. If this is all he has (1961!!!!!), his case must be very very very weak!

I'd say Risdon's list is clear evidence that the science is settled. Climate change is real and largely the result of human activity. He would have provided the evidence against this if it was there.On Stunning interview with incoherent GOP denier running for Congress posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 Responses

Sarah Palin

I'll try to keep this short. It is very important and directly relevant to the events unfolding in the 2008 Presidential Election. Perhaps too late for this year, but something to keep in mind for future elections.

I don't know about your state, but there is a primary in Wisconsin on September 9.

Regarding the district I live in...

Our Democratic Congressional Rep is not opposed in the primary. If you don't think the Democrats are doing enough to restrain the Republicans, this would have been an opportunity to present an alternative without jeopardizing Democratic control of the House.

The Republican is not opposed in the primary for this office. If you are a social conservative or a libertarian who is tired of war and actually cares about conserving natural resources, this would have been an opportunity to share your views with the voters and perhaps run in the general election.

There are, of course, numerous local primaries -- for both major parties -- for county clerk, treasurer, district attorney, et cetera. We don't have a mayor here, but I'll bet there's a primary somewhere in the country where someone who does not care about preserving our environment will walk away unopposed.

Sarah Palin started at the local level. Mayor. Governor, Possibly VP and then President.

A primary or local election in your state, right now, might be providing the next Sarah Palin with the boost he or she needs to reach the national stage. It is critical that people take these primaries and local elections more seriously.

Environmentalism starts at home, at the local level, by participating in primaries and local elections.

Thank you, again, JMG, for trying to generate discussion of this issue.

Peace.
On Learn to look down the ballot --- waaaaaay down posted 1 year, 2 months ago 10 Responses

good point

The DMZ between north and south Korea is apparently a wildlife paradise.

As E. O. Wilson has pointed out, however, it would be relatively inexpensive to create several "DMZs" that might protect, I think, some 90% of species from extinction. Much less expensive than fighting wars.

Anyway...

I suppose there are other "advantages" of war. You've got your technological and medical advances. And I suppose it reduces population pressure on the environment. But, geez, couldn't we just invest directly in the good things?

Why are we motivated to invest in new technology and medical research -- otherwise referred to as "subsidizing businesses that can't succeed in the free market" -- only when there is an opportunity to kick some ass and kill innocent bystanders?

Hey, Republicans, wouldn't it me more cost-effective and more profitable to just invest, as a civilization, in ensuring people get adequate food, shelter, clothing, and education? Skip the war. Jump to the Marshal Plan. Lower overhead and more future customers!

What might have happened if we would have helped rebuild Afghanistan after the Russians left instead of abandoning them?

There would likely be two additional towers standing in New York, several thousand additional Americans still alive, no Bin Laden encouraging attacks on the U.S., hundreds of thousands of Iraqis still alive, a U.S. military the Russians wouldn't dare challenge, a budget surplus, tax cuts for everyone... but no excuse for builing a police state... oh... I get it.On Rights of humans, rights of nature posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

Should environmentalists jump on climate disaster?

No.

It is difficult to link a specific short-term event to global climate change, unless there is a obvious trend in a given area. And deniers can always pull some freak event out of the deep past as a counter argument, however weak their argument is, and muddy the water.

Furthermore, "climate disasters" are often a reflection of poor human decisions, like building cities on flood plains or building scattered houses in fire-prone landscapes.

Thus, jumping on every major event reduces credibility and distracts us from solving other serious problems.

It would be much more appropriate to use such events as opportunities for finding ways to live in harmony with natural cycles.

Whether climate change is real and whether it is due to human behavior is irrelevant here. We live on a changing world, no longer occupy just the relatively comfortable regions, and cannot simply move to an uninhabited area if "disaster" strikes. We have no choice but to learn to cope with extreme natural phenomena.

Just my opinion. I cannot defend it and will listen to other views.On Should environmentalists jump on climate disasters? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 15 Responses

mr eibold

By the way, I'm not here to defend Obama. Nor am I here to defend Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or any other Democrat who has held or run for office. Over the past 26 years, I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians, depending on the specific office and the behavior of the candidates. I admit, I've made a few bad decisions, but I'm not a card-carrying member of an political party.

So don't waste time dredging up other candidates or Democratic issues. Senators Obama and McCain were not my preferred choices on either ticket.

The issue on the table right down is whether Sarah Palin is qualified to lead our nation. And, unless you can provide a really good case, I would choose Obama for President, even if I preferred McCain, simply because I do not want a book-banning anti-science Christian fundamentalist who thinks it is okay to shoot wolves for entertainment a heart beat away from the Presidency. This is not a left vs. right problem. Nothing to do with communism, socialism, or hating capitalism. Nothing to do with a leftist agenda.

Our nation can no longer afford to embrace ignorance and wanton destruction of nature as virtues.On Alaskan greens say McCain's VP pick has anti-environmental record posted 1 year, 2 months ago 74 Responses

communists

mr reinbold,

After responding to the following questions...

Is banning books an American value and acceptable behavior for a leader in this country?

Is it okay to ask for details regarding Palin's experience as commander of the Alaska National Guard or do you consider that a venomous attack the crosses the line?

... could you please explain why you believe environmentalism is a home for communists? Since I'm an environmentalist, but not a communists, it is sort of important to know who I should watch out for. Thank you.

By the way, I've found that having a different opinion does not necessarily make a person a troll here. Posting hostile remarks, especially the same ones, over and over, without providing a shred of explanation or reason for your remarks might make a person a troll. Actually, I'm pretty sure it does. Are you here to discuss whether Palin is qualified for the job of VP or simply to make noise? I've asked a couple questions. Educate us.

What will Palin contribute to conserving resources for future generations?

Is banning books an American value and acceptable behavior for a leader in this country?

Is it okay to ask for details regarding Palin's experience as commander of the Alaska National Guard or do you consider that a venomous attack the crosses the line?

Is teenage pregnancy a personal matter, but marriage to someone of the same sex not a personal matter?On Alaskan greens say McCain's VP pick has anti-environmental record posted 1 year, 3 months ago 74 Responses

Furthermore...

mr reinbold,

Discussion about Palin's daughter's pregnancy and the boyfriend's comments regarding never wanting children might be inappropriate. They are personal matters.

Would you agree, then, that interfering with a person's decision to marry someone of the same sex is also a personal matter? And the government should not become involved in this by banning gay marriage?

Just trying to figure out when stuff is personal and when it is not.On Alaskan greens say McCain's VP pick has anti-environmental record posted 1 year, 3 months ago 74 Responses

ignorance is bliss, i guess

I do not understand why "ignorance" is now American value.

Regarding Madison...

I prefer to view it as 57 square miles OF reality. We actually pay attention to world events and try to understand them. We prefer to form our opinions by examining facts, rather than forcing reality to conform to an ideology.On Alaskan greens say McCain's VP pick has anti-environmental record posted 1 year, 3 months ago 74 Responses

right-wing definition of "venom"

Hello mr einbold.

It is difficult to take your comment regarding "venom" seriously when McCain views the following question as crossing the line and inappropriate harassment of their choice for VP.

CNN news anchorwoman Campbell Brown, talking with McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, asked, "Can you just tell me one decision that she made as commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard, just one?"

Bound couldn't think of one. McCain, outraged, canceled his appearance on Larry King. Geez. If you can't even ask about Palin's experience as commander of the Alaskan National Guard, when the Republican Party is touting it as very important experience, what ARE we allowed to ask about?????!!!!!On Alaskan greens say McCain's VP pick has anti-environmental record posted 1 year, 3 months ago 74 Responses

So...

The goal isn't sport... it's genocide?

The age-old hobby of eliminating the competition, even if the overall result -- regardless of the repulsive nature of the activity -- is reduced health of the elk herd and the environment humans, wolves, and the elk depend upon for survival.

Do they have any evidence that there are more elk available for humans if the wolves are slaughtered? Seems there would be a much higher probability of mass starvation of the elk herd and zero elk for humans or wolves.

Idiots. Don't they teach ecology in the schools up there? Oh... probably not covered by the Bible.On A look at Palin's preferred method of killing wolves posted 1 year, 3 months ago 30 Responses

My opinions...

"What does Palin's pregnant daughter have to do with environment?"

Nothing. But there is a tendency for Republicans to say their private lives are no one's business while they proceed to tell others how to conduct their private lives. I suspect that no one would care about Palin's daughter if Republicans did not want to ban gay marriage or abortion, even in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother. I must admit this is not an environmental issue, but simply a warning sign of other views. I have no idea why anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-gun, pro-mineral extraction, pro-war, et cetera are linked, but it appears to be the case.

"Why is it just assumed that Palin or other Republicans will destroy the environment?"

They have a rather strong track record of being interested in short-term gain and the accumulation of wealth, even if it means wiping out numerous species (whether God created them or they evolved), exploiting natural resources to the point where they are exhausted and cannot regenerate, and not investing in a long-term sustainable economy that we might all benefit from.

"Why must we destroy the economy in the name of the environment?"

We don't need to destroy the economy in the name of the environment. No one wants to destroy the economy. Without a viable economy, there would be no way to protect the environment. Our fellow humans destroy much of what's left during a last gasp for survival. On the other hand, there is no economy without a healthy environment. The economy will die, we will die, if we continue to permit degradation of the environment. My interest in preserving the environment is two-fold... I care about other species; they deserve a place to live. I care about myself; I will die if the biosphere dies. My interest might be largely selfish.

"Lastly, the whole idea of man-made global warming is a giant hoax."

There is more to preservation of the environment than worrying about global warming. Regardless of why it is happening, the best survival strategy is ensuring that as much biodiversity and natural habitat remains intact as possible. We need it for our species to adapt. Even if there is no global climate change right now, change is inevitable and our species will benefit from preserving biodiversity and natural habitat.

"The notion is being exploited for political purposes."

I disagree. People care about other creatures, clean water, clean air, et cetera. Why destroy it all for a pile of gold? Where's the gain in that?On RNC: Me, in the Twilight Zone posted 1 year, 3 months ago 19 Responses

What's the point?

Exactly what's the point of hunting wolves, especially in Alaska?

If a person is interested in the thrill of the chase, then why not play an elaborate game of laser tag in the wilderness? One guy gets the helicopter or snowmobile and the other guy tries to evade him. Winner buys the other a six pack.

Hunting using primitive weapons and very likely risking one's own life might have once demonstrated that someone was superior mating material, but supporting and participating in aerial -- or any other -- wolf hunting just demonstrates someone is a cruel heartless thug.

Hunting for the thrill of killing something, not for survival, is obscene.On A look at Palin's preferred method of killing wolves posted 1 year, 3 months ago 30 Responses

"Environment, my ass."

Protection of the environment requires intelligent, wise, and responsible leadership.

If McCain's first major decision regarding who will help him lead this country is choosing Sarah Palin for Vice President, he's shown he's shown he's not quite intelligent, wise, and responsible enough to be President.

Regarding Sarah Palin, there is a tendency for folks sharing her religious convictions and "family" values to also push policies that harm the environment.

Regarding the "leftwing agenda", could someone please forward a copy to me? I apparently missed that meeting.On RNC: Me, in the Twilight Zone posted 1 year, 3 months ago 19 Responses

Supreme Court

rc...

Ask yourself whether the current Suprem Court is upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Are their decisions protecting the environment, threatened species, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, our right to vote, several EQUAL branches of government, et cetera?

Ask yourself how each candidate would fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. There will be vacancies.

Will the court shift to the left or to the right on your political spectrum?

Remember, the next President might set the tone of the Supreme Court for the next several decades.

I believe a vote against Obama is a vote for right-wing domination of our government.On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 3 months ago 120 Responses

How many women...

... turned down McCain's offer to run as Vice President of the United States of America before one finally accepted?

Surely, Sarah Palin is not the most qualified Republican woman out there!  The consensus among potenial running mates must have been that McCain doesn't have a chance. Or no one wants to inherit the legacy of the current Republican Party. It was bad enough that Republicans couldn't find a decent candidate for President. Sad... they can't even find a decent candidate for Vice President.

I'm going to consider this a positive development...if only to help me throught the next two months... there isn't a single intelligent Republican interested in accepting ownership of the results of eight years of Republican leadership.

If they win, however, welcome to the new Dark Age. I suppose we really do have to hit bottom before we start on the road to recovery. I thought that was G. W. Bush. Yikes... never imagine the bottom was still beyond our view.

Even Condi Rice must have turned down the opportunity. I mean... she has some experience now. And her speciality is Russia, which might be important now. And she seems more interested in diplomacy than saber rattling. She seems downright perfect compared to Sarah Palin.On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 3 months ago 120 Responses

Uh oh...

Has anyone noticed that Dick Cheney hasn't been around for a while? Perhaps he found a way to move his brain into a new body.On The eco-rundown on Alaska guv Sarah Palin, John McCain's veep pick posted 1 year, 3 months ago 120 Responses

typo

If the property taxes went down as well, I WOULDN'T mind if the house dropped in value. Though I do generally support property taxes... we need schools and basic services and should be willing to pay for quality schools and quality basic services, as well as parks, libraries, et cetera. I'm just saying... when someone's house goes down in value, do states reassess and collect less taxes? Those people could probably use the money.On No schadenfreude over the death of SUVs posted 1 year, 3 months ago 59 Responses

Interesting Point

I've resorted to rolling down the windows and cranking up the stereo when I'm in deer country and there is brush close to the road... pretty much 75% of the road I regularly travel. I'm hoping a little industrial goth music will send them scampering. I've also slowed down to about 45 mph at night.

I don't know why the DOT bothers putting up those "Deer Next 5 Miles" signs in Wisconsin. The critters are EVERYWHERE.

Anyway... can you direct me to any statistics on the car/deer collision issue? I'm not questioning BioD's point or your observation. I'm not planning on buying another SUV. But given the greatest hazard I encounter happens to be deer -- though I was once surprised when I encountered two cows standing in the middle of the road as I went around a curve -- I'd like to know which cars are relatively safe under such circumstances.

Publicizing more stats about SUVs, cars, safety, et cetera might push the gas-guzzling beasts closer toward extinction.On No schadenfreude over the death of SUVs posted 1 year, 3 months ago 59 Responses

useless anecdote

Oh... I hit a deer while traveling 60 mph. Didn't have time to even consider using the brake pedal. I was not injured. The deer, of course, was killed. Food for turkey vultures and coyotes... they need to eat too. If I had been driving my car that day, the animal probably would have gone through the windshield and killed me. Perhaps that would have been a good thing according to some people, but I'm glad I was driving an SUV... so are my parents and spouse.On No schadenfreude over the death of SUVs posted 1 year, 3 months ago 59 Responses

control over genes...

... if Monsanto or any other corporation can't keep their genes in their jeans, they shouldn't have a say in what happens to them once they are released into the environment.

Go ahead, collect some plants from distant lands and clone genes. Go ahead, plant GMOs in your own fields. But once that DNA leaves the field, it is fair game for anyone who cares to propagate it and profit from it -- just as the corporations appropriate life from the natural commons and profit from it.

If a corporation wants to lay claim to a component of the natural commons and externalize the costs, they should also accept someone else laying claim to the NEW component of the natural commons and externalize the benefits.

consistency, consistency, consistencyOn U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 3 months ago 23 Responses

Mr. Forrester...

In a different thread, you wrote...

"wiscidea seems to have a problem with consulting the scientific literature and finding any papers which contradict the PR put out by the Biotech industry"

You seem to have a problem consulting the scientific literature and finding any papers which contradict the PR put out by the organic agriculture industry.

I noticed you have not responded to my questions regarding use of neem oil and other organic practices. Considering your familiarity with organic agriculture, I'm surprised you cannot readily defend every single minute aspect of the philosophy. I'm surprised you are not aware of the problems created by growing and distributing "natural" pesticides. I'm surprised you cannot quickly dismiss my concerns regarding invasive plants recommended for cover crops and building soil.

I'd like to point out once again, I do not oppose organic agriculture. This is not an either/or problem. I simply think that GMOs can help us return more  land to wildlife and eliminate ALL chemicals from agriculture. There is no reason we should have plantations devoted to growing pesticides instead of food for human beings or wildlife. There is no need to apply toxic metals or pesticides to the soil and water, even "natural" ones.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

Tom's angle... I think...

I fully agree that there should be a move toward open-source biotechnology.

Anti-GMOs people might be surprised to learn that the broad patent rights given to corporations severely interfere with research and innovation at academic institutions.

For example, the corporation that holds the patent on the "gene gun" -- whoever that might be -- also has a say in what can be produced using the "gene gun". As far as I'm concerned, this is like patenting a hammer and then claiming you own a percentage of each building constructed via hammers.

Or... a corporation-- or academic institution, actually -- can patent not only a single gene they might isolate or create, they can extend that to include all genes or the proteins coded for by those genes, similar to that gene or protein, discovered or yet to be discovered, in remotely similar species. I find this absurd.

(Mr. Forrester, I could be wrong. This is what I've heard, but cannot easily document it. I do know patents have interfered with release of plants from this lab, plants that patent holders have no interest in permitting release of because they own a competing technology.)

I would really like to see more environmentalists trying to wrestle the hammer away from the corporations, rather than ban hammers.On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 3 months ago 23 Responses

Status Report for Mr. Forrester

Hello.

Before I post my comment, I'd like to thank you for pressing me on this issue regarding Canola. I sincerely recall reading about this use of radiation and chemical mutagenesis in the creation of Canola and thought it was a well established fact. I've been digging through literature and found, for the most part, only cryptic references to "new breeding techniques". I'll clearly have to go to the original research papers. Since much of the work was done before journals were put on line, I have to set aside some time to go to the library. Thus the delay in responding.

I would like to mention the following information from "High and Low Euricic Acid Rapeseed Oils: Production, Usage, Chemistry, and Toxicological Evaluation", edited by Kramer, Sauer, and Pidgen, 1983, academic Press.

Stefansson, reviewing the status of the development of Canola in  1983, points out...

"A reduction in the linolenic acid content would improve the flavor and oxidative stabiltiy of these [canola and soybean] oils used in liquid form"

"A rapeseed oil of this type might povide an economical subsitute for olive oil."

"Screening procedures ... carried out in several countries, have been relatively ineffective in establishing genetically controlled low levels of linolenic acid in rape and turnip rape. For this reason, large-scale mutation experiments were initiated in Germany (Robbelen and Rakow, 1970) and France (morice, 1975). Levels of 3.5% linolenic acid in low-erucic acid summer rape selections from mutation experiments have been reported (Robbelen and Theis, 1980a)."

"... breeding programs aimed at reducing the linlenic content of rapeseed oil are in progress in Canada, France, Germany, and Sweded (Jonsson, 1977b). The low linolenic mutants reported by Robbelen and Theis (1980a) apparently carry deleterious effects from exposure to mutagens; therefore, the genes conditioning low linloneic acid content will have to be transferred to healthy, vigorous plants by crossing and backcorssing."

So, in the 1970s, when Canola breeding was underway, researchers were using mutagenesis and backcrossing to alter the genetic structure of rapeseed and canola and the oil content of the seeds.

The question appears to be whether this technology was used to create the earliest lines used for breeding "safe" rapeseed and Canola. I admit I might be wrong there,  would like to track down original research papers rather than accept your word on it.

I think it is safe to say, however, that current Canola varieties products -- including organically grown Canola -- are products of large-scale induced mutational breeding and my ealier questions remain... Is it safer to change hundreds of genes by irradiation for breeding purposes vs. changing a single gene? Can one really consider Canola, which first appeared in the late 1970s, a safe and organic product? Or is is an abomination of nature worse than a GMO?On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

Part of the Problem

From the report...

"According to Kader (2005) losses in the field (between planting and harvest) could be as high as 20-40 percent of the potential
harvest in developing countries due to pests and pathogens."

Hmmm... I wonder whether there is a way to prevent this loss... some sort of way to overcome the problem of pests and pathogens without resorting to expensive and toxic chemicals...
On We waste a lot of food and a lot of water, says report posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

error

B. napa! Not B. rapa!

sorryOn Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

Mr. Forrester...

"Firstly, are you aware of what promoter genes do? These are genes which, when placed in close proximity to a gene allows for much higher production of these genes."

There are promoters and there are enhancers. Promoters are precisely linked to genes and permit initiation of transcription. We often use constitutive promoters, but there are also promoters that respond to specific signals. Enhancers increase expression of nearby genes. I've never worked with constructs using enhancers. I do not know if Monsanto uses enhancers. It seems inappropriate, considering that Monsanto probably wants a predictable product. They do not want to turn genes on and off willy nilly as it might affect the agronomic value of the plant.

"They are involved in virus infection and cancer initiation. Can you argue that you are 100% certain that every time they are used they will not affect other, silent genes, or may be horizontally transferred into another organism?"

First, SOME of the promoters are involved on virus infection. They are derived from plant viruses that are already commonly found in the environment. If there is any danger of horizontal transmission of these promoters to animals, the stage was set long before the development of genetic engineering.

Second, most of the work I'm involved in uses native promoters. For example, the potato I often go on about. We took a gene from a wild relative of the cultivated potato, including its promoter and termination signal and transferred it to cultivated potato varieties to confer resistance to late blight. There were no virus promoters or cancer enhancers involved.

"Secondly, every time a new strain is made it includes an antibiotic resistance gene. You are aware that antibiotic resistance is a major problem to our health care systems?"

Yes. This is a problem. But concern is a bit hyped, since: (1) we can use antibiotics useless for fighting infections in hospitals; (2) the antibiotics are used only for selecting transformed plants, not applied to field crops where you would expect antibiotic resistant bacteria to emerge via selection; and (3) most of the resistance genes are derived from very common organisms. If pathological bacteria are going acquire these genes, it will happen with or without GMOs.

"Thirdly, during the selection process for producing safe food that we eat today one of the processes which is important is the elimination of toxins from the parent plant. An example is the creation of canola from rape. Two metabolites were removed during this transformation. We do not know how they were eliminated."

All plants should undergo this screening, including products of conventional breeding. For example, toxins can appear following conventional breeding of potatoes and celery. This is not a GMO problem.

Regarding your specific example, Canola, we do know how the genes were removed. Recall, rapeseed oil was an industrial lubricant. When the market dried up in the 40's or 50s -- I don't know exactly when -- the Canadian government funded an effort to use a combination of radiation and chemical mutagenesis to inactivate the two genes. We have no idea what additional changes to the rapeseed genome were caused by this. Perhaps Canola oil has other toxins. It really should not be consumed by human beings. Yet a person can purchase organic Canoloa seed!!!!

There are other examples of plants produce by radiation and/or chemical mutagenesis that are widely accepted by the organic farming community.

Genetic engineering by inserting single genes and identifying precisely where there are in the genome is far more precise and safer than the technology used for creating Canola, tricale, and other accepted plant varieties.

"The genes could have been completely removed, or more likely, silenced because their induction gene was silenced. What do you think might happen if a powerful promoter gene is inserted next to the silenced toxin gene?"

See above. No one should be growing or consuming Canola. And all new plant varieties should be screened for toxins because breeding, irradiation, or genetic engineering could turn on a silent gene.

"Fourthly, every time a new strain, using the same gene inserts, is created the gene inserts go to a completely random position in the genome. Thus it is false to assume that the strain BTxyz which was created last week will be identical to BTxyz created this week.

We never treat independent events as identical plants. The level of expression of a desired gene varies based on where it ends up in the genome. I don't understand why you consider this a problem.

"Fifthly, the Bt toxin created in Bt crops is not identical to the toxin produced by Bacillus thurigiensis. It is shorter. Could this be the reason that there are more allergic problems with Bt crops than with the BT product itself?"

I don't know enough qbout Bt crops or allergy problems to discuss this. I can point out that there is more to GMOs than Bt.

By the way, there are allergy problems resulting simply from the introduction of new foods from one area of the planet to another. Members of a population never exposed to a certain "natural" food can die from allergic reactions to new fruits and vegetables consumed by other populations. All new food should be checked for potential problems.

"Sixthly, post translational modification of GMO proteins will be different. Most gene products, if they have been tested at all, have been done on proteins produced by the natural host, not the new one. This can have huge allergic consequences."

Please provide more information about this. It is a rational concern.

"Check out the report on one of Monsanto's Bt corn strains which was released in Germany, but not the US. It essentially reproduced the results of Dr Arpad Pusztai. The authors spun the results by saying that the effects were due to "natural variation", even though some results were 30-40% different from controls."

Please provide a link to this report.

"In regards to the GM sweet potato, the 10 tonne per hectare was the African average."

Please provide a link to this data. It clearly undermines my view.

"The more you post the more I am convinced that you are a shill for Monsanto. Do you know Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek? Seems to me that you are all in the same business."

I am not a shill for Monsanto. And I have no idea who Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek are.
On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

"Pointy-headed professor type"?!!

This is sooooooooo depressing.

It is clear that the primary threat to the environment -- and a lot of other stuff I won't go into here -- is ant-intellectualism.

What can a person do about this?On John McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 Responses

Why?

Bud wrote...

"I don't know why I even read any thing on this site as much of it is not very well researched and like this post is shot from the hip by a person who really has no expertise in the matter and should not even be airing his views."

You probably read views posted here so you can contribute to the discussion and present a different perspective when the situation demands it.

Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge regarding this matter. We all have to try harder to separate fact from fiction and make sure our decisions are rational and not simply knee-jerk feel-good measures.
On EPA knuckleheads hide info on pesticide implicated in colony collapse disorder posted 1 year, 3 months ago 14 Responses

Hello Ms. Niles...

You wrote...

"The majority of GM crops are designed to resist herbicides and repel insects. Despite what some people may think, not a single GMO is commercially available that is designed to enhance nutrition, increase yield potential, tolerate drought, or manifest other attractive traits touted by the biotech industry."

If you have not read the book "Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Foods", by Nina Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown, please consider reading the chapter covering the African scientist who approached Monsanto for help. I do not recall the details of the story, but could provide that information later if necessary (my copy of the book is at home).

Basically, Monsanto agreed to help the African scientist. They donated lab space, materials, patent rights, technical advice. et cetera, so she could develop a yam -- I think -- that was resistant to a virus or fungus that regularly reduced crop yield by roughly 50%. This did not involve engineering the crop to produce a pesticide. This did not involve engineering the crop to resist a pesticide that the farmers wold have to spray on their plants. It actually reduced the need for chemicals and reduced input costs. Furthermore, the crop was naturally propagated vegetatively and the farmers were free to save material to plant the following year.

The African scientist's goal, supported by Monsanto, was to cut in half the area and labor needed for growing this staple crop -- by ensuring the pest did not reduce yield -- so less forest would be cleared and children could go to school instead of working in the field.  The local forests and wildlife would benefit, the farmers growing this crop would see their standard of living increase, and their children would have more opportunities.

I believe the African scientist and Monsanto succeeded, but European anti-GMO organizations blocked distribution of the engineered plants. She commented that only Europeans have the luxury of rejecting food.

How was this a net gain for the environment and subsistence farmers?

Is it possible that the GMOs, the technology, is not the problem? Rather than focus on banning a useful  technology, shouldn't we find ways to reduce corporate control over the natural commons, eliminate the notion that it is okay to patent organisms, and find ways of getting useful innovations to the people who need them?On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

Nature and Creation of New Forms of Life

Wolverine wrote...

"Notice that no one here refuted the point about only nature being competent to create forms of life or mess with its basic building blocks. That's because no refutation is possible."

There is probably no way to oppose or support GMOs from this perspective because the very definition of Nature appears subjective, but...

I believe Nature includes human beings. We are a natural force that affects the evolution of other organisms just as they affect the evolution of our species.  Hunter gatherers set fire to grasslands and selected for certain plants, insects, mammals, et cetera that would dominate continents... and also eliminated species and all those dependent on them. Further back in time, the color of ripe fruit and the structure of trees that sheltered our ancestors played a role in shaping our visual ability, our opposable thumb, and our brain that allowed us to exploit such traits. It is an endless cycle... shaping our environment and being shaped by it.

A bee chooses to pollinate a flower. The flower might be brighter or more red than others of the species; it produces more seed. Did the bee "mess" with Nature?

A beaver contructs a dam and floods hundreds of acres. A few members of a species of tree, say, tolerate or even thrive in wet soil; the others die. Did the beaver "mess" with Nature?

A herbivore feed on some species of grass. A few members of the species, by random mutation, rely on a meristem near their base to regrow; those that rely on a meristem near the top of the plant go extinct. A new species emerges. Did  the herbivore "mess" with Nature?

A chimpanzee chews on a stick to sharpen it and randomly pokes it into tree cavities, hoping to spear a another primate for dinner. This chimpanzee has an advantage and produces more offspring. Perhaps evolution eliminates the vulnerable members of the prey species and those nesting in a higher tree cavitiy prevail. Did the chimpanzee "mess" with Nature?

Genetic engineering is an extension of human evolution, though cultural rather than genetic. It is an extension of consuming appealing plants and discovering more of those plants growing around our homes and along trails. It is an extension of crossing plants with desirable traits. It is an extension of inventing tools to facilitate crossing and growing plants we prefer. Our large-scale agriculture is similar to a beaver's effort to modify hundreds of acres of dry forest so there is better habitat for producing more beavers.

Most of our tools for genetic engineering are extensions of process that occurred long before we climbed down from the trees. We use bacteria that "naturally" transfer DNA from species to species, inserting their own genes into plant cells. We use viruses that transfer DNA from one species to another. The genes that confer antibiotic or herbicide resistance are found in organisms already growing in forests and fields. The antibiotics and some of the herbicides are found in organisms that were busy competing for space and killing one another long before we started banging rocks together.

One can certainly argue that it might not be wise for us to accelerate the emergenc of new plant varieties and it is certainly not wise for us to accelerate the loss of species. But I don't see how one can argue that the entire natural world, natural laws, natural forces, the products of natural selection, events like comets and solar flares -- excluding human beings and, I assume, any other species employing tools -- has exclusive moral authority to affect the course of evolution, while Nature -- including human beings -- does not.

Where does one draw the line between Nature and non-Nature? Who decides what is natural and what is not natural? When were humans living naturally and when did we slip into another category? If humans are not a part of Nature, what about beavers and chimps?

There have been and will be numerous species that exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and alter the course of evolution. Nature takes care of the matter, with or without their consent.

This does not mean accepting fate and letting the planet go to hell or permitting species to go extinct. We can use our intelligence to stabilize, to some extent, our environment and preserve the world we evolved in and are adapted to. That would be the natural response of an intelligent species, a species capable of reading the writing on the wall and realizing natural selection might start reducing the population a bit faster than a lot of us wish.

It is natural for us to use all tools available to ensure surivival of our species and the environment we emerged from and depend on, including all existing species. And it is natural for us to discuss and debate whether GMOs are useful. But whether GMOs are natural? I don't see how one could argue that they are not.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

Nature Doesn't Make Mistakes

Just my opinion... like most of what I post...

Nature is neutral. Change occurs. Some organisms benefit and proliferate. Others are harmed and disappear.

The emergence of photosynthesis and the conversion of Earth's atmosphere from a reducing environment to an oxidizing environment wiped out a global ecosystem and permitted the rise of intelligent life. Was it a mistake?

It is absurd to suggest that Nature made a mistake by allowing humans to emerge -- Wolverine's suggestion. Though perhaps combining our intelligence with an opposable thumb will not be particularly useful for most other organisms currently residing here.

It is also absurd -- and enormously arrogant -- to suggest that humans are correcting Nature's mistakes -- Skeptico's suggestion. We are altering Nature to meet our perceived immediate needs. We are not correcting errors.

I like to use the example of sickle-cell anemia. Two copies of the "defective" gene and a person has an average life expectancy between 40 and 50  year. One  copy, and the person is resistant to malaria. Suppose someone uses genetic engineering to ensure their child does not carry the "bad" allele. Correcting a mistake? Suppose that child travels to Africa and dies from malaria... did the parents make a good decision or a bad decision?

So... I do not think it is helpful to approach this issue by saying humans, their behavior, or technology is a mistake. Nor is it helpful to claim humans are correcting and must continue to correct Nature's mistakes.

Wolverine...

I will try to respond to your comment...

"Notice that no one here refuted the point about only nature being competent to create forms of life or mess with its basic building blocks.  That's because no refutation is possible."

... later.

I believe those who see some benefit from GMOs are obligated to study, think about, and provide some opinion on this matter. I'll try, though previous exchanges revealed we have very different views of exactly what "Natural" means.

I hope I've at least communicated -- through past posts -- that I don't view every single GMO as a brilliant idea.

Peace.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

Charlie's Background...

.... inherited wealth
.... corporate sponsored rape
.... corporate shillery
.... murder of native people

I'm astonished by the power this "prince" has over the distrustful anti-GMO crowd.

His family accumulated power and wealth by means far more violent and world-shaking than anything perpetrated by Exxon, Monsanto, and Walmart. The Bristish Empire, cooperating with other empires, pitted native people against native people and exterminated the vast majority of them to take their natural resources and establish corporate control over globe. We are still dealing with the consequnces of imperialism and colonialism, which makes it very difficult to focus on preserving the natural world.

The institutions established by the British and other aristrocracies continue to plague us. That a few members of these wealthy families might try to accompish something good now is little consolation those innocent people who lost their land, their freedom, their lives, and are forgotten.

One could say that Charles' lovely organic fields have not been fertilized by cow manure, bone meal, and minerals. They've been fertilzed by lies, human corpses, and gold.

The aristocracy is a very slippery and adaptable bunch. I suspect Charles' interest in organic agriculture is more of a business decision than some sort of enlightened conversion. It is funny how we are so skeptical about Monsanto because they profit from GMOs and therefore, of course, defend the technology. Yet, here is a "prince" who has built a profitable business around organic agrculture and we are supposed to trust that he diplays no bias when he condemns modern agriculture! We are supposed to be suspicios of Monsanto's generosity. But, of course, the "prince" is displaying real generosity. We are supposed to hate corporations, but embrace a smiling "prince".

Real leadership carefully studies issues and presents an honest fact-based assessment of the problems and potential solutions. They do not try to hoodwink people and resort to fear tactics.

If Charles really wanted to save our natural world, I'd recommend heading to some of the troubled spots in the world and trying very hard to undo the damage inflicted by his ancestors. His meddling with our food supply is more likely to get us all killed than preserve what's left of native ecosystems.

Charles, George W. Bush.... they are cut from the same cloth. One chose supposedly benign tactics to win the heart of the people. The other chose ruthless suppression of the truth and use of military force. But a dictator or wanbee dictator, whether benign or evil, is till a dictator. Ineed, the benign one that carefully pretends to protect people while building a commercial empire might be more dangerous than the one who employs violence. The first is difficult to recognize and can easily woo people. The second is obviously a problem and eventually goes too far.

I don't believe either one is delivering the Truth.

Please present one good reason for trusting Charles more than Monsanto.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

It is not an either/or problem.

PBrazelton wrote...

"I know there are many GMO backers amongst the Gristmill commenting folk - what benefits do GM crops offer that outweigh sustainable farming practices?"

The benefits of GMOs do not out weigh sustainable farming practices. The benefits of GMOs enhance sustainable farming practices.

Over the past two years I've presented examples of GMOs that reduce rather than increase the use of chemicals. Others who know more about the subject have tried to engage in fact-based discussions of the benefits and hazards of GMOs. Yet I see the same complaint over and over... "GMOs only increase the use of chemicals!" "Supporters must be corporate shills!" It appears anti-GMO people don't want to have their world view threatened by information suggesting GMOs are not necessarily bad. Ignorance is bliss? More likely, ignorance is rage? Afraid that if you get to know them, it will be more difficult to hate them?

I've mentioned three books, written by intelligent people who looked at both the advantages and disadvantages of GMOs, freely admitting there are potential problems. I've summarized passages from those books showing how GMOs helped farmers in developing countries. None of the official commentators here appears interested in reading and reviewing such pro-GMO/pro-environment books. I would really like to hear an organic farmer's response to these books.

One visitor to the Grist website has set up a blog to discuss these issues,  explain how the technology works, and share her opinions regarding how to get the technology, no strings attached, into the hands of farmers. She clearly cares about the environment, farmers, and the quality of our food supply. Perhaps Grist, in the interest of presenting diverse views, could invite here to contribute to this website.

We all have to learn more about this topic so we can make informed decisions and not discard the advantages of GMOs. I'm trying to learn about organic farming practices, primarily because I don't want to use chemicals around my home or anyone else's home. But also because it would be pointless to create a GMO to solve a problem when there is a perfectly good organic practice that solves the problem.

I also want to know whether "natural" chemicals really work and whether there are hazards we should be aware of. Feel-good measures do not protect the environment. We have to know our decisions to embrace or reject certain practices really work.

Consider my recent post here...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/23/64038/8979

"Natural" pesticides are not necessarily good for total soil health. Shouldn't we be aware of this? And if a GMO can get rid of BOTH the synthetic and "natural" chemical, wouldn't the environment be better off?On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

backcasting

How does one prepare themselves for a career in backcasting. I heard about this while listening to a WPR program (Here on Earth, free podcast available somewhere) about the Natural Step movement.

Based on this post...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/14/13038/1574

... numerous industries really really need backcasters!!!!On What green careers do you want to learn more about? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Good point... wordwright.

There's marketing and environmental education, but what about basic green living education outreach? Are there jobs for people who want to educate others about natural landscaping, sustainable gardening, preserving their produce, living simply, et cetera. Where would one find such jobs? Sorry if you covered this elsewhere.

I often wonder, and have probably mentioned it several times on this website, whether people just need adequate information and they'll do what is best for conserving resources and protecting biodiversity.

 On What green careers do you want to learn more about? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Better the devil you know?

There is at least a realistic possibility of visiting a local farm and determining just how destructive their practices are. Not all non-organic operations are necessarily evil.

And, really, who can ensure that organic produce from another state, South America, or China is really free of pesticides? There is a history of large business interests taking advantage of every opportunity to stick a positive label on their product. And consider the problems we are encountering with counterfeit electronics, apparel, and drugs. Sticking an organic label on crate of pesticide drenched apples is probably easy compared to manufacturing fake drugs.

There is also the small matter of getting cash to a farmer who might hire a local person to put a new roof on their house or watch their children. Sorry, but I really want to keep my neighbors employed.

Seems like a no-brainer that local would trump organic. And in a community where people really care about the safety of their food and protection of the environment, word will get around if a farmer is not responsible... a bad reputation is bad for business.

Not a good idea to poison your neighbors. But much easier to not worry about a little chemical residue -- because even though one prefers to use organic methods, one might occassionally head out under cover of darkness and spray something a bit stonger on their crop --- on food one sells to people hundreds of miles away.

Yeah... I'm skeptical regarding imported organic food... or even producs from other parts of North America. Feel free to try to assure me everything is perfectly safe and that nobody has ever tries to stick an organic label on non-organic food.On The limits of consumption-based food movements posted 1 year, 3 months ago 35 Responses

What about restoration ecology?

Restoration ecology is not an option on the list. Is there any indication that this is a growing viable field? Worth getting a degree in ecology right now? Will it ever pay a living wage? How DOES one get into it?On What green careers do you want to learn more about? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Browsing

Not just a funny story, a very funny story. Sounds like something every single one of us should try at least once... hmmm.... I'll check the beans when I get home.On Why mow the grass when you can harvest salad greens? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

The Ignorant Masses

For us lower-class common folk, a trade deal is a trade deal and an international agreement is an international agreement. Hard to become experts on the subtle differences, various societal effects, and environmental consequences of global vs. regional agreements. Thus... skepticism and suspicion.

When someone says regional deals don't work because everyone has to be involved to make it work, I hear echoes of the suggestion that communism didn't work because not all nations embraced communism.

If our representatives can't negotiate an effective regional agreement, why should we trust them to negotiate an effective global agreement?

I guess economists are going to have to find a better marketing team for the WTO.On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 3 months ago 108 Responses

Godwin's Law

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Ah... but sometimes the comparison is appropriate.

The suggestion that the comparison is inevitable during a sufficiently long discussion does not mean the comparison is always absurd.

Sorry, but the behavior of a particular political party and a few international organizations borders on fascism and it is important for folks to realize this sooner rather than later.

That said... I admit I myself inappropriate used the term in this thread....

http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

My apologies.

But I still view the current Republican party as a bunch of fascists and I'm suspicious of any organizations -- such as the WTO -- they embrace. Again, I sound like one of those wacky anti-GMO people who view anything Monsanto has an interest in as inherently evil. So embarrassing... I ought to be ashamed.On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 3 months ago 108 Responses

GATT Article XX

Two remarks...

Can you provide a direct link to the full text of Article XX? I'm usually pretty good at finding stuff via the internet, but all can find regarding Article XX are discussions about it and portions of it. I'm even having trouble at the WTO website. Probably right in front of me. Sorry to have to ask.

Once again, I appreciate your patience in dealing with folks like me. It occurred to me that I probably sound just like several of the anti-GMO people I've encounter... I'll shut up now.On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 3 months ago 108 Responses

Loyalists

You're correct. Not productive.

But I have been wondering...

Are the modern conservatives essentially Loyalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#Factions ...)?

It seems like we're still debating the goals of the American Revolution. Clearly, men and women fought and died to preserve the values championed by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. It was their writing and their ideas that encouraged folks to fight the British.

Yet modern Loyalists have hijacked the term "Patriot" and would have us believe that the American Revolution served an entirely different purpose. Modern conservatives are not Patriots or patriots.

The liberals, the supporters of democracy, the supporters of representative democracy, those opposed to intervention in foreign affairs, those who believed in education, those who believed in studying history, believed in enacting laws to protect our resources, believed in changing course when the situation warrants it won the American Revolution.

The immediate results were not perfect. But the Founders recognized that rights would be extended over time and set up a means of accomplishing this. They recognized that there would be a transition period as one generation stepped aside for the next. They recognized that new problems would arise and demand new laws and institutions.

I suggest modern Loyalists accept this and let us move on to build a stronger healthier nation, ensure our democracy works, and extend rights and happiness to all of our citizens rather than a select few.

Loyalists... you LOST the debate. Game over. Get over it.On Three models for environmental analysis and planning posted 1 year, 3 months ago 25 Responses

Obama's fortitude

"The Republicans quite understandably may wonder whether Obama's campaign will hit back hard enough to regain its momentum.  Actually, I wonder that too.  Indeed, getting Democrats to question Obama's fortitude is a big added bonus, because that might reduce Democratic enthusiasm -- and thus fundraising and voter turnout."

I'm not exactly one of Obama's strongest supporters, but I must admire his ability to calmly and rationally respond to the sort of crap Republican's are throwing at him. He eloquently defends his remarks rather than try to wiggle out of the situation. This stands in sharp contrast to several previous Democratic candidates for President and will, I think, ensure he wins in November. I'm starting to like the guy and look forward to voting for him.On What's the deal with Republican attacks on the tire gauge? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 21 Responses

moral values

"With respect to the dolphin case that was ruled against the U.S. one of the issues was that dolphins were not endangered- this was not spelled out in the WTO ruling, but was likely why the WTO sided with Mexico."

Humans are not endangered, so I can't discriminate against a product if the reason is that the harvest or manufacture of the product threatens human lives?

Give me a break. If a person, organization, importer, government decides to discriminate against a product because it harms a sentient or simply beautiful organism, it really shouldn't matter whether someone rules that there are plenty of those creatures out there! That is absurd and a strike against the WTO and international trade agreements.

Why not a race for the highest common denominator? Why the race for the lowest common denominator or lowest ethical or moral principles?

That status -- abundant, threatened, endangered, et cetera -- of an affected creature is irrelevant to whether a person's or government's decision to purchase certain items should be respected... as long as those folks are consistent.On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 3 months ago 108 Responses

Imaginary imbalance?

There appears to be an enormous focus on a very small number organizations in this analysis, which might inappropriately suggest a shift toward "incrementalism" as far as strategy is concerned.

Looking at my own state, where would the following fit on the spectrum?

Clean Wisconsin (www.cleanwisconsin.org/)
The Prairie Enthusiasts (www.theprairieenthusiasts.org/)Wisconsin River Alliance (www.wisconsinrivers.org/)
Sustain Dane (www.sustaindane.org/)

These are just a few of the environmental organizations in one state. What about the combined efforts of all the other environmental organizations in Wisconsin and other states, from very local to state level? How do they affect the overall strategy?

And what about the League of Conservation Voters (www.conservationvoters.org/Public/) and the Nature Conservancy (www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wisconsin/)?

Here in SW Wisconsin, the Nature Conservancy has formed a partnership with the Wisconsin DNR and several smaller local orgnizations to preserve threatened native grassland habitat (www.swbadger.com/mrpha.html).

I think there is an enormous amount of effort going on at the grassroots level. Folks are giving up on the effectiveness of large national advocacy groups, which are not in touch with immediate environmental concerns. Just like the shop local, eat local, vacation local, et cetera movements, folks are focusing on preserving their own "neighborhood" or local ecosystems, water, and air. They study the issues and turn out to vote rather than rely on distant organizations to lobby on their behalf. And they also turn out to protest if necessary.

I don't send money to national organizations any longer. They waste it trying to get more money out of me, sending me glossy calendars, non-recycleable stickers, and other junk I don't need. I prefer to donate to and help local groups. I might as well take advantage of this moment to promote my favorite group, The Blue Mounds Area Project (www.bluemounds.org/). I know exactly what they do with their money. I've directly seen the results.On Three models for environmental analysis and planning posted 1 year, 3 months ago 25 Responses

Quick Remark Regarding Subsidies

It seems absurd that Wisconsin, with abundant water supplies and grassland suitable for dairy cows, is losing dairy farms and jobs dependent on those farms, while other states try to build dairy industries where they just aren't viable without price supports and Federal programs to ensure adequate infrastructure and water supplies.

Furthermore, restoration of some of the threatened ecosystems in Wisconsin is compatible with or actually benefits from the existence of dairy farms. Most of my neighbors' cows spend a significant amount of time grazing outside, which preserves some habitat for grassland birds. Folks are also experimenting by using oak savanna as pasture land.

Agricultural policy should promote various ag industries where the resources for supporting those industries are naturally available and native ecosystems might actually benefit.On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 4 months ago 108 Responses

But...

...a person can engineer a plant to resist a certain pest by turning the pest's own physiology against it. It is not necessary to engineer a plant to produce a pesticide.

Engineering potatoes to resist a fungus, for example, does not involve creating a potato that produces a fungicide!  We could slightly modify a plant protein that the fungus exploits to attach to the plant so it no longer serves as a route toward infection. Or we could link a receptor for the fungus on the surface of the plant to a natural defense system. Some plants are not resistant to certain fungi simply because the two organisms did not evolve side-by-side and natural selection didn't create a link between attack by the specific fungus to the plant's defense system. We can transfer that link from a resistant plant to a non-resistant plant.

As far as insects are concerned, we might increase the number of certain types of hairs on the surface of the plant so sensitive tissue is no longer vulnerable. Or make the plant a bit stickier so pest cannot easily move about. Or modify a protein the insects exploit to find the plant. There is far more to making plants resistant to insects than expressing Bt in the leaves!

As far as viruses are concerned, one strategy involves engineering the plant to express just one of the proteins the virus normally uses to assemble a new coat. Throwing off the balance of viral proteins in the infected cell interferes with the assembly and spread of new virus particles. If the virus is no longer a threat, there might be no need to spray the plants with chemicals that kill the insect that spreads the virus.

Basically, if the "frankenplants" described do not work, we can always resort to traditional forms of pest control. There is no need to engineer plants to express pyrethin, Bt, the active compounds found in Neem Tree oil, or any other natural pesticide. There is no need to employ methods that could create pests resistant to current pesticides,

All the proteins added to the plants could be found in plants we already consume for food. Perhaps environmentalists should demand restrictions on genetic engineering to ensure that all the genes moved from plant to plant come from species we already consume and reduce the use of chemicals rather than calling for a total ban on genetic engineering.

There is far more to genetic engineering of plants than RoundUp resistance and Bt expression. There are sincere efforts to find stable or easily replaced forms of pest resistance and strategies for preventing the development of new strains of pests that are resistant to currently used pesticides, natural or synthetic.On Industry report touts potential for biotech crops to combat climate change posted 1 year, 4 months ago 13 Responses

Other "Mistakes"

The evolution of photosynthesis added oxygen to Earth's atmosphere and destroyed what was probably a very diverse community of anaerobic organisms, some stranger than we might ever imagine.

Was the evolution of photosynthesis another of nature's "mistakes"? Do you view photosynthetic bacteria and plants as a "cancer" that spread across the planet wiping out the original inhabitants?

Should nature have anticipated that photosynthesis, like the opposable thumb, would result in such horror?

Photosynthesis... Nazi militarism, killing other organisms to create more living space for its own kind!!!!!!On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 4 months ago 108 Responses

So...

Earlier you declared that nature's wisdom far exceeds the collective wisdom of the human race. I happen to agree with you. The whole surely has more wisdom than the parts.

Here you declare nature made a major mistake...

"Personally, I think that evolving animals that have to depend on their overdeveloped intellects and self consciousness, along with opposable thumbs and abilities to walk and stand upright, was a major mistake, because that species becoming a cancer on the Earth is a logical conclusion."

Who is wiser? Nature or you?On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 4 months ago 108 Responses

respect for nature

Human beings are themselves products of nature. We evolved to fit a certain niche and use our brains, tools, various resources, social networks, et cetera to survive. We are products of  nature's "wisdom" and processes. Thus, it is perfectly natural for us to continue to evolve -- physiologically, socially, culturally -- and to continue to use our brains, tools, various resources, social networks, et cetera to survive.

One of our tools is genetic engineering. It is not an extension of "Nazi" science. It is an extension of selective breeding of plants that started when we first collected plants of interest and, unintentionally or intentionally, spread their seeds wherever we traveled. That turned into carefully planned breeding of plants. Then we discovered we could move the genes from plant to plant. The first tool for this was a naturally occurring bacterium that moves genes from plant to plant. We've also used naturally occurring viruses that move genes from plant to plant. Now we've found a way to do it without using bacteria or viruses. It is all evolution.

I find it arrogant to suggest that human beings are somehow not natural. I find it arrogant to suggest that we can stop being human, to discard our brains and technology, when we've been an integral part of nature for so long. We altered ecosystems the moment we crawled down from the trees. We are natural products of evolution. We belong on this planet, at this time in history. Who among us is wise enough to declare us a "mistake" or an abomination that does not belong here and should not continue to play a role in the Earth's biosphere?

This does not permit us to rape and pillage the Earth's resources. We've evolved the capacity to recognize when our destructive behavior has gone to far. We can recognize when our population might crash. We can recognize when we are soiling our nests, putting to much pressure on our food supply, or spreading disease among us. And we should use our brains, tools, various resources, social networks, et cetera to change course before we go extinct. It is natural. It is the result of evolution.

Use of reason and technology to find ways for human beings to live in harmony with the REST of the natural world is the most appropriate way to show respect for nature.

Despising one's species and throwing away perfectly useful tools, products of millions of years of evolution and natural selection, shows great disrespect for nature.On Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 4 months ago 108 Responses

If you're worried...

... about GMOs destroying ecosystems...

You should be more worried about companies like this one...

http://www.groworganic.com/item_SCL610_Crownvetch_Seed__R ...

Peaceful Valley? They're selling organic crown vetch seed!!! Their name should be "Destroyed the Valley". They should be shut down, boycotted, banned. I hope anti-GMO folks go to THEIR website and demand they stop selling invasive plant seed. I hope a few Grist contributors are willing to condemn businesses like Peaceful Valley for continuing to profit from proven environmentally destructive behavior. There's no need to wonder about the threat of crown vetch. It is well documented. How can you allow a company to distribute such seed to farmers?

google: crown vetch seed organicOn Outline for a move to a sustainable agriculture system posted 1 year, 4 months ago 108 Responses

growing the tobacco

"How do you plow, plant and tend the mine-detector tobacco without entering the minefield?"

The goal is not growing tobacco as a crop. No need to plow, plant in rows, and carefully tend it and keep it free of weeds. In fact, it was chosen because it grows taller than the weed, so it will be clearly visible.

The fine seed could be scattered over the field, where it will germinate and grow among the weeds. You'd have to ask the specific researchers whether it can cope with the competition or might require watering where this will be tried. My experience with tobacco suggests that it can pretty much take care of itself -- if you don't care about the quality of the leaves -- if you scatter the seed and water it.

Again, the goal is to use it as an indicator of where the mines are, not maximize yield and/or quality of tobacco leaves. Tall spindly plants with bug-eaten leaves would do the desired job.On Study: transgenic soy brings lower yields than conventional posted 1 year, 4 months ago 25 Responses

How about this?

From...

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/article.aspx?ID=BD4 ...

>>>

Super-Tobacco Sees Red at Land Mines  
Tamar Kahn
Science and Health Editor

CAPE TOWN -- Scientists from the University of Stellenbosch have teamed up with Danish biotechnology firm Aresa to test a genetically engineered tobacco plant that turns red when it grows near land mines, offering hope of a cheap way to help clear fields in post-conflict zones.

More than 80 countries are affected by land mines. Angola, Afghanistan, Burundi, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chechnya, Colombia, Iraq, Nepal and Sri Lanka are worst affected.

Land mines are cleared by explosives experts who put a stick in the ground to locate them, or they use remote devices or sniffer dogs, which are all costly and dangerous processes that typically involve a random check of just a fraction of the area . If the genetically engineered tobacco plants prove successful, they would offer a simple way to assess an entire field.

Aresa has already developed its "RedDetect" technology in a weed called Thales cress, which turns from green to autumnal red when it detects nitrogen dioxide leaching from mines buried in the soil.

However, scientists realised the Thales cress would not be practical because it was too small to be spotted easily from a distance, said Stellenbosch researcher Estelle Kempen.
Aresa has now turned its sights on tobacco, which grows easily in most parts of the world.

Field trials are already under way in Serbia, and researchers from Stellenbosch have applied to the registrar of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act for permission to conduct similar research.

Scientists want to assess how the genetically engineered tobacco responds to drought and extreme temperatures, Kempen said.
The trials, if approved, would be conducted at the Welgevallen experimental farm on the outskirts of Stellenbosch. The plants would be analysed and destroyed before they began flowering to minimise the risk of environmental contamination, she said.
The plant would be used solely for humanitarian purposes, and there were no plans to seek a commercial permit.

Tobacco plants usually only produce red plant pigments in their flowers, which arises from a natural compound called anthocyanin, which is found in fruit such as apples and tomatoes. The technology developed by Aresa activates anthocyanin in the tobacco plant's leaves if there is soil contamination from explosives such as land mines.

>>>

This sounds like a very useful GMO that will help people in areas  still plagued by military conflicts that ended years ago. No need to poke sticks in the ground, use sniffer dogs, or use expensive equipment to find land mines. Just look for the red tobacco plants. By helping people clear areas of land mines once and for all, this GMO will make it possible to rapidly return former agricultural land to cultivation. It also helps eliminate a general hazard to human beings and wildlife. It does not increase the use of pesticides or other chemicals.On Study: transgenic soy brings lower yields than conventional posted 1 year, 4 months ago 25 Responses

Don't Worry

" He served as national spokesman and chief communications strategist for the '08 Edwards presidential campaign, after serving a similar role on John Kerry's 2004 run."

If someone on the inside can sink industrial ag, Kornblau's the man who can do it.On If we just trust Monsanto and ADM, we can eat and drive to our heart's content posted 1 year, 4 months ago 20 Responses

The essay...

... would have been more impressive and powerful had Ms. Cummins lived up to the title, subtitle, and photo caption. As others have pointed out...

(1) Confronting your inner scavenger? Granted, not all carnivores are predators. But when a person declares they are about to confront their inner carnivore, one sort of expects them to start by staring into the eyes of an alert live creature. Not really hard to confront a clean carcass. Most of us who consume meat manage to dismantle a turkey each year without difficulty.

(2) If you're going to eat meat, you can't shy away from the whole beast? A dead beast is not a whole beast.

(3) The first photo shows pig who is ready to "meat" his maker. Sadly, the butcher-in-training did not really meet the pig. Whether the pig met his maker, we'll never know.

There was a great article in The Isthmus -- a Madison, WI, weekly alternative paper -- last year about a guy who decided to slaughter and process his own turkey for his Thanksgiving dinner.  Now THAT'S  confronting your inner carnivore.

"To Kill a Turkey: If you're going to eat animals, shouldn't you be willing to do the deed?"

Bill Lueders, Wednesday, 11/21/2007

http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=1 ...

(4) "Jamie Bissonnette shows off a hog head." What does this mean? He's proud of his ability to select a aesthetically pleasing hog head, his surgical skill, that he can hold an animal's head -- an animal as intelligent as a dog, no less -- without showing a bit of remorse? Look Mom! I'm holding a hog's head! Yahoo.On If you're going to eat meat, you can't shy away from the whole beast posted 1 year, 4 months ago 41 Responses

junk food

Hello.

Neither pizza nor "Meet The Press" is junk food.

First... we generally prepare our pizza on a whole wheat crust not containing animal fat or hydrogenated vegetable oil. Then we brush  it with olive oil, spread pesto (made from fresh basil, walnuts, olive oil, garlic, and parmesan cheese), or cover it with a home-made tomato sauce. On top of that, we usually add diced tomatoes, onions, mushrooms, chopped basil, and/or black olives, depending on what's available and what we crave. Top with a little grated cheddar or mozzarella. How is that junk food? We also prepare a southwestern version using a cilantro pesto and pepper jack cheese.

Second, I thought Tom Brokaw  was doing a pretty good job on "Meet The Press". Last week -- or the week before -- he peppered the McCain "surrogate" with a string of questions regarding McCain's pandering to the base by changing his views on a whole series of issues now that he's running for President. Brokaw essentially pointed out what a flipper-flopper McCain is... and not because of sincere informed change of perspective.

Brokaw is SUPPOSED to ask the sort of questions he did when Gore was the guest, even if informed voters and political junkies already know the answers. It is up to the guest to respond. If Gore didn't come up with a good answer, blame Gore not Brokaw.

When Brokaw stops asking tough questions, whether viewers like or dislike the guest, "Meet The Press" will be junk food.

Sort of funny...  I'm still angry at Ted Kennedy for missing several opportunities to respond to Tim Russert. The Democratic leadership misses SO MANY opportunities to communicate their views to voters! Why???!!!!!!!On Al Gore on Meet the Press posted 1 year, 4 months ago 30 Responses

fireflies

More small critters...

There've been countless fireflies appearing in the taller grass around my home and throughout the neighbor's CRP field north of us over the past week or so. Conservation of grassland appears very important from their perspective; I don't see a large number of the insects flying around the tall woody vegetation.On What are you seeing out there? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 47 Responses

Encourage Planting of Edible Fruit

Sadly, new developments actually pass regulations to restrict the planting of "messy" trees... the sort that produce delicious fruit for wildlife or human beings. Is there a way to put a stop to this?
On Urban fruit: An untapped resource posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses

ants

What about small critters?

I was pulling wild parsnip -- a noxious weed around here -- today and noticed several plants were occupied by numerous ants tending some other small insect. Aphids? I don't know. But it made it very difficult for me to destroy those particular plants. I don't know whether the observed species of ant lives on other plants. I don't know whether it lives on a Eurasion plant because the ant itself is Eurasion or the native plant it used to live on has been driven to extincton.

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to destroy vegetation for the greater good. Every individual plant is inhabited by a variety of other organisms. Destroy a plant... destroy someone's home. But the Eurasian plants are destroying someone's home! Wild parsnip is an awful exotic, degrading vast stretches of grassland desparately needed by threatened grassland birds. As heir to and beneficiary of humanity's reckless behavior, I suppose I'm also obligated to repair the damage. I just wish there were gentler ways.On What are you seeing out there? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 47 Responses

erosion

From the erosion article...

"Land erosion leads to reduced productivity, migration, food insecurity, damage to basic resources and ecosystems, loss of biodiversity and also contributes to increasing emission of heat-trapping gases, the Rome-based agency said.

"The loss of biomass and soil organic matter releases carbon into the atmosphere and affects the quality of soil and its ability to hold water and nutrients," said Parviz Koohafkan, director of FAO's Land and Water Division."

Desperate times call for desperate measures. While I'm a bit concerned about the safety of RoundUp (TM), I wonder whether it might be time for most of those concerned about our environment to withdraw their opposition to RoundUp Ready (TM) and similar technology. It could be rapidly deployed to the areas suffering the most from degradation of soil and permit broad adoption of no-till agriculture.

I think the benefits would far outweigh the risks. This plan would have to include means of providing some financial assistance to the farmers for they can afford the herbicide and dramatically reduce restrictions on their ability to save seed for use the following season. Perhaps they could save seed for personal use, give it to others, but not sell it to other farmers. The institutions owning the technology would also have to fund an independent investigation of its safety and contribute to research that addresses public concerns, real or imaginary. We might also require transfer of the technology to the public domain after, say, ten years. No more patents that last decades.On Snippets from the news posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

on the other hand...

Hi MAD MAC.

You wrote...

"It's always something with you people. Everything is bad, everything is a crisis."

I partially agree with you.

First, it is not that everything is bad. It is that a lot of stuff done excessively is bad and that can create a crisis. A bit of manure containing hormones here and a bit there would probably get "purified" by natural processes. But when you release a large amount of hormones they overwhelm natural cycles. Or... dumping excess fertilizer into the Mississipi might not create a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico if we weren't also removing all of the fish that eat algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico.

However, there does SEEM to be an excess amount of enthusiasm regarding just how awful each crisis is and how there is no means of solving it unless we ban certain technologies, return to traditional ways, and/or reduce our standard of living. I don't know whether this is true. It just seems that way.

Environmentalists... I know there are numerous exceptions to what I've described. It is not intended as a sweeping generalization. But your image in our culture is reinforced by the squeakiest of wheels, not necessarily the most rational among you, and amplified by the "far right".

[I'll regeret hitting "post"... oh well.]On How the organic movement can regain its relevance posted 1 year, 5 months ago 24 Responses

Thank you Dr. Ronald...

... for writing your book and posting your remarks on the Grist website.On How the organic movement can regain its relevance posted 1 year, 5 months ago 24 Responses

Vacation?

I'm looking forward to taking a week off to pull weeds and cut brush around my prairie remnant. Who can relax when there's "work" to do?! But I guess I'm a little odd. I find the activity very satisfying and restorative... for the tiny patch of grassland as well as my mental and physical health.

So, I won't be traveling more than 500-1000 feet from my house. I'll be traveling by foot. And my primary tools will be my hands and a lopper. It's very peaceful out there.

I have my own project, but there are plenty of conservation organizations looking for help if anyone wants to get some fresh air and exercise.On Staycation, all I ever wanted posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Thank you...

... Sam for returning my attention to the Menhaden story. I was enraged when I first learned about Omega, but dropped the ball as far as further investigation of it. I probably found something else to become enraged about. It is really hard to focus.

... Thom for mentioning Charlie Carp. It is always great to learn about efforts to protect the environment, earn money doing so, and repair damage done by the introduction of exotic species.

Is anyone aware of similar efforts in the U.S.... converting invasive fish that destroy ecosystems into wholesome organic fertilizer?On Farm animals consume 17 percent of wild-caught fish posted 1 year, 5 months ago 13 Responses

Menhaden

Hello.

I've commented on this before, probably with more detail, but I can't find my original remarks. Sorry,

Anyway...

The small "useless" fish that are converted to oil, protein, and fertilizer are an essential element of the ocean food web. Larger fish that depend on Menhaden are found emaciated and diseased wherever the Menhaden have been overfished. There are huge alagal blooms wherever the Menhaden have been overfished. The huge schools that USED to move through the oceans -- before former WWII pilots found jobs as spotter for the fishing industry -- cleared the water of excess phytoplankton that might exhaust nutrients and create dead zones.

If you want to lean more, try starting here...

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/sep/featfish

and...

http://www.menhadenmatter.org/

Now, the major contributors to this problem are the animal food industry (probably THE major contributor) and the fish oil industry (including food additive and dietary supplements), so please don't take the following remarks personally.

Another contributor is the natural soil ammendment industry... fish emulsion. A lot of it is PROBABLY derived as a by-product. But none of the sources of organic fish emulsion I've looked into can assure me that it is extracted from sustainably harvested  fish.

In fact, several brag about the fact that their natural fish emulsion is derived from FRESH north atlantic fish! Or, don't worry, it is derived from BY-CATCH that would be thrown away anyway!!!!  Do they mean Menhaden or some other "useless" fish?   Should we be supporting an industry with enough by-catch, that they manufacture fertilizer from it??!!! Aren't people who purchase the fish emulsion essentially supporting an inefficient and destructive industry by giving them another way to make money off of overfishing? It's like opposing the consumption of beef, but buying a leather jacket since the animal is being killed anyway.

I'm not the only person concerned about this. It has nothing to do with other remarks I've made... I fear that a few of you will jump to that conclusion. There are several online organic gardening and vegan forums where this issue has been brought up and those posting comments have not been able to find a provider of fish emulsion that can truly claim their product is environmentally friendly if you take into consideration where the fish come from.

I hope someone can repsond by posting a specific brand that can trace the ingredients in their product to sustainably harvested fish. Those engaged in organic gardening and farming might want to find out where their fish emulsion comes from and support companies that are concerned about the environment as a whole, including our oceans. We should all dig a little deeper to make sure our environmentally friendly practices are truly environmentally friendly.

PeaceOn Farm animals consume 17 percent of wild-caught fish posted 1 year, 5 months ago 13 Responses

Howdy BobG!

Good luck taking on Mr. Bailo. He's a slippery one.

Anyway... I heard that the nylon rope industry was behind the demise of the U.S. hemp industry. They stirred up the whole anti-drug frenzy to get rid of their primary competitor. I'll bet the petrochemical companies were in on it. Until then, the U.S. government promoted, subsidized, studied, and encouraged growing hemp because our military needed it.

Do you know whether this is true?

So much for free markets. Seems too many capitalists are all for greasing the wheels of commerce, except when it effects their own pocket book. Then they absolutely adore big government.On Legalizing hemp would help environment and economy, says report posted 1 year, 5 months ago 15 Responses

local power generation

I'll third or fourth the motion. Wolverine is correct.

I'm surprised by two things.

First, how can environmentalists fall for the notion that deserts are barren landscapes devoid of unique organisms worthy of protection. Advocates of big solar sound just like the corporate shills who view the ANWR as a barren and otherwise useless landscape where no one and apparently no animals worth protecting live. Desert life is some of the most sensitive and most poorly understood on the planet. It also recovers from disturbance very very slowly.

Second, concentrated sources of energy are a national security issue. Photovoltaic systems installed on homes, hospitals, businesses, et cetera would reduce the possibility of entire grids collapsing and shutting down urban areas. Why don't environmentalists mention this when promoting alternative sources of energy? Even Dick Cheney recognizes the value of being off the grid!

Put solar where we've already destroyed the natural landscape, on roof tops! And make sure people own the systems they rely on. It is time to reduce corporate control over our lives, not reinforce it.On Feds freeze new solar projects on public land, pending review posted 1 year, 5 months ago 26 Responses

Peak Phosphorous

How much energy is used to move phosphorus from the mines to the fields?

Will phosphorus "run out" shortly after cheap oil disappears, regardless of whether there is still phosphorus to mine? And how might this affect the distribution of crops being grown?

We'll be in an awful postion, as a species, if our prime ag land is half a globe away from our prime phosphorus mines.

What should I be doing in my garden and future orchard right now to conserve phosphorous?On The costs of unsustainable agriculture posted 1 year, 5 months ago 31 Responses

snapping turtle

We observed a large snapping turtle crossing the road last week. Odd, I think, because there wasn't any water nearby. How far do they travel? We have had a lot of rain, so perhaps they're on the move.

Anyway... we turned around and parked nearby, trying to decide what to do. A large snapping turtle has surely been around a while and shouldn't die under the wheel of a car. The second time we drove by, however, complicated matters since the disturbed turtle stopped moving, right in the middle of the road! And you can't just pick those things up and move them!

While we were hesitating, another car suddenly appeared and stopped right next to the turtle. A young girl, about 12 years old, leapt out, shouting to her mother, "We can't leave it there! It will die!" She was determined to rescue it and, without concern for her bare fingers and bare toes, tried to pick it up and move it.

It is amazing how fast those critters can move if "attacked". The girl stood there, very surprised. She apparently never dealt with a snapping turtle before. She was still eager to help it, but at a loss for what she might do. By that point, I thought I had better stop thinking and start acting. Fortunately, my wife continued to think and advised me to use an ice scraper to push the turtle off the road.

She was half correct in her choice of tool and method. When I tried pushing the turtle, it attacked the ice scraper! Makes sense, but I was surprised at the time. Damn, those beasts are flexible and move fast! Turtles are often depicted hunkering down in their shells when someone or something pokes at them. Snapping turtles do not do this. They... uh... snap at you. What can I say? I watched too many cartoons when I was younger.

Then there was a moment of clarity. I poked, as gently as possible, at the turtle from the direction it was headed. It attacked the ice scraper. Yes! I nudge the turtle again. It bit down on the ice scraper a little harder and I managed to pull it a few inches before it let go. I waved the ice scraper in front of it again. This time it grabbed onto it and I was able to pull it closer to safety. I eventually, with its cooperation, pulled it off the road.

We watched the snapping turtle until it set out, once again, on its original course, headed away from the road and toward a low area in the distance.

It was an interesting experience. And now I know how to move a snapping turtle if I can just find a sturdy stick.

If the young girl had not been so determined, I wonder whether I would have actually tried to move the turtle. Left to my own devices, I probably would have hesitated and the next car might crushed it. Furthermore, neither the girl nor I seemed concerned about the fact that we were playing in the middle of the road, close to a sharp curve, speed limit 55 mph, traffic usually moving 60 mph. I wish I could find the motivation to tap into that sort of determination and compassion more often. We clearly have it as children. Why don't more of us retain it as adults?

There are probably several lessons here, but I'll leave it to anyone who's gotten this far to figure them out.

Peace.On What are you seeing out there? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 47 Responses

civil disobedience

So, you are suggesting that there might be a "slippery slope"... once we agree that arson is terrorism, it is all too probable that even non-violent civil disobedience will be labeled "terrorism"?

: )

For the record, I would not view non-violent acts of civil disobedience as terrorism.

I wonder why ELF, so confident that they occupy the moral high ground, does not march through subdivisions and university campuses protesting against sprawl and GMOs. Why don't they stage peaceful sit-ins or chain themselves to laboratory doors? Why don't they serve as witnesses, documenting the horrors of sprawl and GMOs, thereby generating public outrage and pressure on our representatives to protect the environment? Do they send thoughtful editorials to the paper? Do they stand up at public meetings and demand discussion of issues? Do they attend public meetings?

I  think there is one reason they don't employ non-violent means... pure laziness. They don't want to invest time in gathering the facts to support their views, they don't want to invest time in engaging in civil disobedience, and they don't really want to discuss the issues with anyone. It is much easier -- unless they're caught -- to claim they're right, set fire to a building, and run away.On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

I'm...

... tired of war.

... tired of violence.

... tired of bullies.

... tired of hypocrites.

... tired of the self-righteous.

... tired of manifestos.

... tired of conflict. Inherited! Not even original!

... tired of lies.

... tired of spin.

... tired of misinformation.

... tired of games.

... tired of war... oh... already mentioned that.

... tired.

HOW DO WE STOP THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE THAT IS DESTROYING OUR PLANET?????

[Ban me for being a troll if you must, Mr. Roberts, but I'm going to post remarks like this everytime the ELF thing comes up. I can't help it. Grist has still not added "violence", "war", or a similar term to its topic cloud. Yet violence and war are the greatest threats to our environment. They drain our treasury, destroy habitat, disrupt agriculture, distract us from solving serious problems, prevent us from cooperating to protect natural resources, empower ruthless corporations and despots, provide an excuse for ignoring other threats to our environment, blah, blah, blah... and what is condoned on a small scale (ELF) simply encourages the same behavior on a larger scale (Iraq).]On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

Where do we draw a line?

Where is violence called for?

Some folks here think it is okay to torch a lab that MIGHT be harboring research devoted to producing GMOs. They view GMOs, correctly or incorrectly, as threat to our environment. And they apparently don't mind that the arsonists were a bit careless in making sure they struck the correct target. Message sent. Mission accomplished.

I'll try another example, one I might have mentioned before. Sorry, but I can't find my previous comments on specific matters by using the Grist search engine, so I'll just try again. You might have read this before.

Anyway...

Based on my personal experience trying to rescue, restore, and expand a two-acre remnant of short-grass praire, my experience searching through another acre of exotic brush where I've found a variety of native prairie plants barely surviving in the shade, and what I've learned from others trying to restore midwest savanna or grassland, the threat to biodiversity is not GMOs. The threat is exotic invasive species.

More specifically, I invest a lot of time combating honey suckle and sweet clover, as well as some other noxious exotic plants. Yet, there are people selling and planting honey suckle and sweet clover!

Were I confindent enough in my view that exotic plants are EVIL, were I irritated by long days in the hot sun trying to suppress them, were I willing to bypass the legislative process and take matters into my own hands, would those supporting ELF applaud an effort to set up an organization dedicated to... torching nurseries and garden centers that sell exotic species that MIGHT be invasive, destroying fields of intentionally planted sweet clover (using natural organic herbicides or mechanical means, of course), and permanently disabling the tractors and planting machinery of farmers (conventional or organic) who refuse to stop spreading what I consider and have witnessed to be awful weeds (however useful they might be for building soil)?

The goal would be to save the Earth.

Would it be heroic or woud it be terrorism?

Do you think my fellow citizens would respond by changing their evil ways? Or would I end up in prison, one less person actually trying to protect a bit of biodviersity and my fellow citizens more hostile toward environmentalists than ever before?

[Now that I've typed this, I fear Wolverine might actually say "Go for it!" Yikes!]On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

Returning to the specific ELF act....

From the earlier Grist report...

"... authorities said the fire mostly destroyed or damaged work on endangered species, wetlands restoration, and urban forestry and gardening. Managers of an Oregon poplar nursery -- where arsonists set fires and left the spray-painted words "You cannot control what is wild" and "ELF" -- said they did not grow genetically engineered trees there, though the land used to be owned by a university genetics group."

Dear ELF supporters, do you consider this acceptable collateral damage, though no lives were threatened, in the war against GMOs. If ELF occasionally makes mistakes like this, do you really want to encourage people to take matters into their own hands to defend the Earth? Or was there a net gain for the Earth, though "the fire mostly destroyed or damaged work on endangered species, wetlands restoration, and urban forestry and gardening"?On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

whether ELF kills people

When ELF and similar organizations destroy research like I just described, research that reduces the use of chemicals, they are harming the environment, killing wildlife, threatening endangered species, and harming innocent people, most in very poor countries, who would clearly benefit from the results of that research.
On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

true colors

Wolverine wrote...

"And Wisc shows his/her true colors here, complaining about non-petroleum-based pesticides while saying nothing about the petroleum-based ones, which are exponentially more prevalent."

I've repeatedly, in this thread and other, called for elimination of ALL pesticides. synthetic and natural.

See above...

"Suppose I created and wish to distribute a GM plant that will eliminate the manufacture and use of a particularly nasty chemical, a chemical that shortens lives, causes cancer, or causes birth defects... not just to protect humans, but to protect wildlife."

"...zero use of chemicals..."

"He could grow this plant using sustainable practices... NO use of chemicals."

"Legislation to eliminate ALL toxic chemicals, synthetic and natural, does not appear to be in the works."

"...those who devote land to GROWING POISON INSTEAD OF FOOD, are not motivated to change their ways and find better means of controlling pests. They are as guilty of harming our environment as those who manufacture poison and dump it in our air and water..."

If you examine my remarks criticizing the use of chemicals for spraying urban areas for agricultural pests, you'll notice I call for the elimination of ALL toxic chemicals, natural and synthetic.

If you examine my questions about the banning of pesticides in Canada, you'll notice I support this with the caveat that it include ALL toxic chemicals, natural and synthetic. Most people I've spoken with on this matter are under the illusion that if a pesticide is natural it must be safe. Who's propagating this myth?

So, wolverine, we disagree regarding the value of GMOs. I respect you and value your opinions on this and other matters. But please don't paint me as a blind supporter of all GMOs and synthetic chemicals.

I'm very selective and do not believe GMOs, synthetic chemicals, non-GMOs, natural chemicals, or any other specific technology is a silver bullet.  I have said that repeatedly ever since I started posting comments on this website.

In my opinion, there are good GMOs and there are bad GMOs. There are good synthetic chemicals and there are bad ones. There are good organic practices and there are cases where a GMO might be even better. There are good natural pesticides and there are extremely toxic natural pesticides that should be banned this minute.

Contrary to what you've apparently concluded -- though I really don't know how -- I'm interested in using the best technology we have to reduce harm to the environment and all beings around us. I am not an industry shill. I am not focused on preserving only human life. And I'm certainly not focused on protecting property.

I wish to see the elimination of synthetic pesticides as much as you do. And I want to see the elimination of supposedly safe natural alternatives.On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

Standard Response -- part II

 For those who might consider the described arson as something for the greater good, just a small matter, and inspiration for those who truly value life, please consider the following.

Suppose I created and wish to distribute a GM plant that will eliminate the manufacture and use of a particularly nasty chemical, a chemical that shortens lives, causes cancer, or causes birth defects... not just to protect humans, but to protect wildlife.  And suppose there is an environmental organization spreading misinformation and standing in the way of release of this GM plant that will save lives and reduce suffering. Would it be okay for me to walk down to their office and lob a molotov cocktail through the front window... just as a warning? After all, the office building is just property and the goal would be to protect human and other creatures' lives.

Who needs law and order when every single one of us knows, really KNOWS, what's best for all of us and the rest of Earth's inhabitants? Right?
On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

JMG ... you're right again.

It might have worked with Passenger Pigeons, various furry critters, and now Rhinos and Elephants. But I guess it doesn't carry over to something they can easily propagate by seeds or rhizomes.

So... my revised view... do NOTHING to encourage corporations to exploit kudzu!

It would be better to start community composting projects and distribute the rich organic material to gardeners as a soil conditioner. That's what I do with the invasive weeds threatening my prairie remnant. I compost wheel barrow after wheel barrow load of sweet clover and add it to my vegetable garden.

However, I suspect the scale of the kudzu problem demands additional solutions. Hmmm... I'll have to think abut this.On Kudzu as the next biofuel source? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

rotenone

Why do I want to now exactly what is bans? I wonder whether this apparently feel-good law excludes "organic" products for controlling pests.

I went to the garden center to find a relatively safe product for controlling flea beetles on my eggplant and the guy wanted to sell me a can of rotenone POWDER! If I was a typical homeowner interested in killing everything in my garden, I probably would have bought it. However, I first asked whether I would have a problem because the wind never stops blowing around my home. His response... yeah, the slightest wind will coat everything downwind with rotenone. Yep, let's kill all the native beneficial bugs around my garden! He didn't even warn me that I shouldn't use it if there were any streams or pond nearby!

The folks selling pesticides, whether they are synthetic or natural, should be required to warn the user of potential hazards... like a pharmacist does when they hand you a bottle of pills... not just let you walk out of the store with a can of rotenone powder!

One might say... buyer beware... but what if my neighbors are dusting their landscape with the stuff? What is someone assumes it is safe because it is "organic"?

It is time to ban ALL pesticides, synthetic and natural, unless the manufacturer can prove, without doubt, that the pesticide kills ONLY known and recognized pests and NO OTHER organisms when it is used, appropriately or inappropriately.On Ontario enacts province-wide pesticide ban; fine print upsets greens posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

80 ingredients and 300 products

Can someone please direct me to a list of the 80 ingredients and 300 products?

I've tried and failed to find this information.

Thank you.On Ontario enacts province-wide pesticide ban; fine print upsets greens posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

"Victory is the Exit Strategy"

Brute...

While we'll apparently never agree on what it means to be an American and how our country should move forward into the future, I'd like to express my appreciation for your efforts to defend our nation and the principles you believe in.

While I might have the courage to speak up and demand my representatives in Washington and the state capital do their jobs without squandering lives or resources, I definitely do not have the courage to turn my life over to the Federal government and allow them to decide whether I should live or die, where I should live or die, and why I should live or die. I just don't trust them to attack the real enemy.

You, on the other hand, clearly have more confidence in our leaders in Washington. Only the bravest among us could stand up and say to the President... I will go anywhere you ask and die if necessary to protect this country and not hold it against you if you make a mistake.

We are going to desparately need more people like you over the next ten or twenty years, people willing to go to Iraq and finish a very very difficult job. And once you finish the job in Iraq, we'll be asking you to go to Afghanistan and finally defeat the terroists who attacked us on 9/11.

Basically, even if I don't believe "Victory is the Exit Strategy", I sincerely appreciate your service to the nation. I realize you probably don't want the help. But I'll be doing what I can to persuade the folks in Washington to pay our soldiers more -- I can't believe GW opposes this! -- and provide them with all the medical assistance they need when they return home -- again, I can't believe GW opposes this!

You've pointed out that no one deserves anything from anyone. But I really think those defending our nation, risking their lives, deserve far more than the are currently getting... more pay, more respect, more help when they return.

Thanks again. If you are content serving in Iraq, I certainly can't hold it against you. I certainly won't interfere with efforts to get you the equipment you need as long as you are over there. And I hope you guys and gals do win. It's just that history and the odds are not really behind you and I refuse to try to comfort you by saying I think everything will be okay.

Reality always bats last.

Peace.On Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

heirloom varieties

Hello Kurt.

Thank you for the post.

We're currently enjoying an abundant crop of strawberries from our garden. I thought they'd be difficult to grow, but then I thought alot of stuff would be difficult to grow. Anyone with a bit a patience -- since one has to wait a year to harvest the fruit -- shouldn't be afraid to try growing a few strawberry plants.

Anyway... what's my point or question? I'm wondering what your opinion is regarding the most flavorable heirloom varieties of strawberry plants a person might grow in zone 4. And where might I purchase the plants? I'm currently relying on a monoculture of some sort of super disease-resistant hybrid that tends to ripen in one fell swoop... we don't worry about the ground squirrel living in the garden because we're spared the agony of having to eat all those berries by ourselves. Uniform ripening might be good for industrial ag, but it is not good for a home gardener. I need to diversify, not only for better flavor, but to extend the season.

Regarding your recipe... can a person use frozen strawberries? We freeze those we don't eat or give away shortly after harvest.

Thank you for any suggestions.

Peace.On As storms rage on the prairie, strawberries and rhubarb bring comfort posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

A Few Questions

(1) Why is genetic engineering an affront to nature? How does it offend the values of nature?

(2) Why is the use of reason to study and understand the natural world essentially the worship of that activity?

(3) Why is the use of technology to achieve our goals essentially the worship of technology?

(4) How does Bud Dingler's remark indicate he's an "anti-environmentalist"?

(5) Exactly what makes genetic engineering "Nazi science"?On PR firm Edleman launches charm offensive for the GMO giant posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

State Rights

"In a press conference today, he tipped his hand about what that speech will include: He says he'll call for federal limits on oil and gas exploration to be lifted, in order to allow states that want to permit exploration within their boundaries to do so."

Are there Federal limits on drilling for oil on state-owned or private land, aside from laws protecting private property and the environment from pollution?

The oil under Federal land belongs to all U.S. citizens, so states alone really shouldn't be able to authorize exploration or drilling. I assume McCain -- a firm believer in property rights and capitalism -- is not advocating giving away property owned by tax-paying U.S. citizens!

Then there's that word "exploration". So, McCain wants to permit states to permit corporations (doesn't matter if they are American-owned, by the way) to look for oil. He's not actually saying "drill" for oil. Is this a slick way for McCain to say he's both against and for drilling... an audience that already favors McCain will hear what they want to. Brilliantly smarmy.On McCain emphasizes drilling and states rights in advance of big energy speech posted 1 year, 5 months ago 3 Responses

joyous laughter

JfM wrote...

"It used to be that all of us bus-riders could laugh about the price of gas and bash SUV drivers openly...now we have to self-censor."

I suggest continuing the joyous laughter regarding the price of gas. Perhaps the SUV drivers will recognize the joy of not relying on gasoline and they'll be motivated to permanently abandon their vehicles. Openly discuss the benefits of vegetarianism, recycling, et cetera as well. Consider this an opportunity to educate a community that normally insulates itself from the more progressive elements of our society. They can no longer hide in their steel cocoons.

It is, however, very kind of you and probably wise to not "bash" them openly. You should consider trying to help them by demonstrating a better way of life, not further alienate them and reinforce any bad stereotypes.On House committee hears testimony on the future of oil (hint: it's dim) posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

old idea

It's an old idea, but I don't think it is brought up enough.

A four-day work week would have numerous advantages. Not only would it reduce fuel consumption, it would reduce wear and tear on the roads, reduce the number of cars flowing into and out of areas, require less infrastructure, permit traffic to flow more quickly. I'm sure there are more benefits.

Problem... employers are probably already demanding extra hours from workers. Actually SCHEDULE them to work ten hours each day and businesses would no longer get 50 hours a week out of them. Just my opinion.On Today's gas consumption shows that price increases are only one part of the solution posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

hapa... good point

A four-day work week would not only reduce fuel consumption by 20%, but also liberate 1.5-2.0 hours of time spent driving and reduce auto maintanence expenses.

Given that I don't have punch in or out at a certain time, one might say it is my patriotic duty to work four ten-hour days and permit others who are less fortunate to use the gasoline.

Sounds like a suitable topic for a social marketing campaign that could significantly reduce our nation's dependence on fossil fuel very quickly. Perhaps our Federal government and a prominent environmental organization could get the ball rolling on this.

Thank you for the reminder and constructive criticism!

I very much appreciate it.On Today's gas consumption shows that price increases are only one part of the solution posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

howdy partner

EdR, I assume you are an American citizen. You and I and couple hundred million other people own the petroleum sitting under Federal land. Like all good capitalists, we should probably look at how we will directly benefit from releasing that petroleum in exchange for money. Leave everyone else out of the equation.

How will I, if I agree to sell the stuff, directly benefit? How much money will I personally make from the sale? How much will it reduce my taxes? How much will it lower the cost of gasoline and for how long?

A person cannot make a sound business decision--like selling oil and destroying pristine wilderness--without a full understanding of the benefits, the cost, and the risks.

Two specific pieces of information:

(1) Per capita revenue for the Federal government from proposed oil fields.

(2 Some sort of chart of graph that shows how much the cost of gasoline will plummet as new oil fields in North America and off the coast start producing.On Gingrich mounts campaign to support domestic oil drilling posted 1 year, 5 months ago 59 Responses

The Government

Sloben wrote...

"The Government makes nearly 10 times the profit the oil companies do, yet do absolutely nothing to get it out of the ground and to the market"

The Governemnt, also known as the American people, the citizens, the taxpayers, the voters, essentially purchased Alaska as an investment, for national security and for natural resources. Some of the land was given to or sold to private citizens. Some of the land was set aside for future use. Current citizens have inherited that investment. They devote valuable resources to protecting Alaska by maintaining military bases there or patroling the coast. They devote other resources to ensuring that resources like oil can be extracted without degrading other valuable resources, say, by damaging fisheries.

One could say The Government (see above) is entitled to maximum return on this investment. It reduces the need to collect taxes from hardworking Americans. They invest much in getting the oil out of the ground and to market.

Are you saying that the CEOs and stockholders who do nothing to physically extract natural resources, get them to market, and manufacture and distribute products, do not derserve maximum return on their investment, epecially those who simply inherit stock or property?!!!

I'm shocked. Why do you hate American taxpayers? Why do you want to deprive investors of maximum return and benefit from their investment? Sloben, are you some sort of communist who thinks 100% of wealth should be redistributed when the original owners pass way?!On Gingrich mounts campaign to support domestic oil drilling posted 1 year, 5 months ago 59 Responses

Just when...

... I was wondering whether I should get rid of the SUV!

The current potholes are already hard on the '94 sedan. It rattles so much, I'm afraid someting important will fall off. But I use the sedan -- rather than the SUV -- most of the time because it gets better mileage. Apparently I'll soon NEED the SUV  to travel over the decaying roads.

Seriously, though... our town has also decided to delay repairing roads due to the high cost of sealer, asphalt, whatever it is they use to repair the cracks and fill the potholes. I suspect milk trucks are hard on the rural highways. There was also a lot of frost heave.

Unfortunately, local tax revenue can't keep up with expenses. Or so the pro-development forces argue. It's an interesting puzzle. They want to build more houses to pay for the roads, but then there is more traffic, which is harder on the roads. And only a fool would set himself up for a long commute right now, especially if the roads are crappy! Front-end alignment for that '94 sedan last month... $90. Who wants to add that as a regular expense?

As I'v said before, in for a penny, in for a pound. I'm committed to living where I chose to live, which means continuing to commute to work via my "personal pod". But I can read the writing on the wall. I realize it is going to be a struggle and require some creativity. I do not believe I have a God-given right to drive a "personal pod". I might have to choose my "personal pod" over some other luxury. I might have to put more effort into figuring out how to earn a living without ever leaving the house.

Anyway.... I know, I'm babbling... I suspect most Americans thought higher oil prices would simply translate into higher gasoline prices... they figured they'd cut back on driving or get a more fuel-efficient vehicle. But I've been waiting to see how they react to the full implications of higher oil prices. It's a slow-motion car wreck and the drivers don't quite realize what has happened.

It doesn't look like Americans realize that construction costs are higher due to the rising cost of oil. It doesn't look like they realize that food costs are higher due to the rising cost of oil. It doesn't look like they realize our foreign policy is toally f*** up due to our addiction to oil.

Will the asphalt problem finally bring the message home? When their "pesonal pods" require more repairs, when they complain about the potholes and the guy on the other end of the line says taxes will have to go up to pay for those repairs, will Americans realize our dependence on oil is not such a good thing and that extracting a few more barrels from ANWR or invading another country will not solve our problems.

By the way, I thought someone invented a way to combine asphalt, discarded rubber, and discarded plastic to make a more-durable material for repairing roads. Whatever happened to that? Maybe Exxon Mobile bought the patent and decided sit on it so we'd have to continue repairing our roads -- over and over and over -- with plain old asphalt, thus ensuring a steady stream of revenue.On USA Today: oil prices drive up asphalt costs, derail road maintenance posted 1 year, 5 months ago 25 Responses

Cuba

By the way, Cuba, which consumes 204,000 bbl/day, is extracting no more than 72,000 bbl/day from its territory. I assume most of this is from the Gulf of Mexico. Not really "plenty of oil".On Gingrich mounts campaign to support domestic oil drilling posted 1 year, 5 months ago 59 Responses

Wondering What The Numbers Are

I realize this is discussed in another thread, but...

Top Five Consumers:

#1      United States: 20,730,000 bbl/day [and growing]
#2      China: 6,534,000 bbl/day [and growing]     
#3      Japan: 5,578,000 bbl/day     
#4      Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day    
#5      Russia: 2,500,000 bbl/day [and growing]

Global Consumption: 82,234,918 bbl/day [and growing]

Top Five Producers:

#1      Saudi Arabia: 9,475,000 bbl/day     
#2      Russia: 9,400,000 bbl/day     
#3      United States: 7,610,000 bbl/day     
#4      Iran: 3,979,000 bbl/day     
#5      China: 3,631,000 bbl/day     

Global Production: 80,247,128.09 bbl/day

Information from:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ...

and

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro-energy-oil- ...

Predicted ANWR Production: 510,000-1,450,000 bbl/day (max of 1.8% of global consumption).

How might an increase in global oil production of 1.8% scare OPEC into significantly reducing the cost of a barrel of oil?On Gingrich mounts campaign to support domestic oil drilling posted 1 year, 5 months ago 59 Responses

Short-Sighted Conservatives

Hello Short-Sighted Conservatives:

Conservatives might want to give some consideration to their philosophy as a whole rather than focusing on the bright shiny portions that help their personal bottom line.

(1) They really like global trade. Petroleum is a global commodity. Opening up areas of North America to oil extraction will NOT lower the price of gasoline for U.S. drivers. The global supply far exceeds what might be extracted here anytime soon. So price will not drop significantly. Furthermore, the oil will probably end up in China or Japan, not the lower forty-eight states. It will go to the highest bidder.

(2) Conservatives don't like nationalization of natural resources or controls on their profits. The only way drilling for oil in Alaska will help American drivers would be for the the U.S. government  to control the oil fields and sell refined products directly to American consumers, no profit margin for middlemen OR require oil companies to sell the refined products to American consumers... with a cap on the profit margin.

(3) Aren't conservatives all about maximizing profits on their investments? Shouldn't true conservatives want our Federal government to leave oil in the ground until the rest of the world essentially runs out?! Then it could be sold to the highest bidder -- those who have not invested in alternative energy -- for maximum return for the American people. Use those massive returns to fund all the tax cuts you care so much about.

(4) Conservative pretend to care about national security. Alaskan oil should stay in the ground in case the U.S. becomes isolated due to GW's various foreign policy blunders. Real Americans realize "freedom" isn't free" and we might have to pay more for gasoline now so we have oil for running our war machine later. Why do conservative hate America?!

Conservatives who say Americans will benefit from drilling for oil at home are spewing a load of crap not even suitable for enriching the soil in an organic garden.On Gingrich mounts campaign to support domestic oil drilling posted 1 year, 6 months ago 59 Responses

Speaking of labor...

Exactly how do organic farmers control weeds, expecially grass, in their strawberry beds?!

I spent six hours pulling grass, trying to get every last root, from several rows -- about 80 square feet -- of strawberry plants. Fortunately, I'm talkng about a home garden, so it is a labor of love and protects us from contaminated fruit. It is worth the effort.

But if someone paid me a reasonable wage of $20 per hour or $42,000 a year to do this sort of thing, it would cost $1.50 (+ health insurance + retirement benefits + social security) to clear the weeds from just one square foot. Is this cost effective? Is the yield high enough on an organic farm?

I cannot imagine how you folks compete with industrial ag.

(Sorry for the duplicate post... seems to fall under each topic and I couldn't decide where to post it. Peace.)On To create a truly sustainable food system, we'll have to confront the farm-labor crisis posted 1 year, 6 months ago 14 Responses

green pesticide and herbicide developers

Tom Philoptt, thank you very much for this post.

A green pesticide or herbicide is still a pesticide or herbicide. And a green developer is still a developer.

I have a couple questions for Marrone Orgnaic Innovations...

(1) Will MOI be patenting the pesticides and herbicides they develop? More specifically, if they get the chemicals from a natural source will others still be able to extract their own chemicals from those sources or will everyone using natural remedies have to pay royalties to Marrone?

(2) When MOI finds natural sources of pesticides and herbicides, will they make sure that indigenous people are compensated for the use of their natural heritage?

(3) If I'm currently using a natural pesticide or herbicide but have not patented it, will I be able to continue using it or will MOI tell me to stop?

(4) Will MOI publish an environmental and social impact statement for each natural pesticide and herbicide, including the number of acres of temperate or tropical rainforest converted to chrysanthemum, neem tree, or other plantations, how much land has been converted to growing food for local populations to growing pesticides for Europe and North America, and whether they are paying the locals a fair wage?

Just curious.

"Green" or "natural" pesticides and herbicides are not benign pesticides and herbicides. Some are even more dangerous than their synthetic counterparts. The goal of environmentalist should be to eliminate ALL chemicals from agriculture.On Are 'organic pesticides' the way forward for organic agriculture? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 16 Responses

What are GMOs good for, again?

Consider this example from...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4777561.stm

>>>>>

Scientists say they have identified a gene that will allow rice plants to survive being completely submerged in water for up to two weeks.

Most rice plants die within a week of being underwater, but the researchers hope the new gene will offer greater protection to the world's rice harvest.

Farmers in south-east Asia lose an estimated £524m ($1bn) each year from rice crops being destroyed by flooding.

The findings have been published in the science journal Nature.

The team from the University of California, Davis, US, and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) based in the Philippines says the gene, called Sub1A-1, will give the plants greater protection against damaging flooding.

They say it will also offer farmers greater crop protection, especially those who live in vulnerable areas.

Flood risks

Although rice production has doubled over the past 40 years, demand is continuing to grow. The crop is the staple food for more than three billion people around the globe.

Many rice growing regions in southern Asia are located in low-lying areas that are at risk from flooding during the monsoon season.

Plants submerged in water for longer than a few days are deprived of carbon dioxide and soon wither and die.

Dr David Mackill, from the International Rice Research Institute and one of the paper's authors, said scientists had been trying for half a century to develop a water resistant crop.

"Several traditional rice varieties have exhibited a greater tolerance to submergence, but attempts to breed that tolerance into commercially viable rice failed to generate successful varieties," he explained.

Another member of the team, Dr Pamela Ronald from the University of California, Davis, added: "Our research team anticipates that these newly developed rice varieties will help ensure a more dependable food supply for poor farmers and their families."

Takuji Sasaki, from Japan's National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, said the researchers had succeeded where others had failed.

"The particular impact of this study lies in [the] accurate and effective introduction of Sub1A-1 into local rice varieties subject to seasonal flooding."

The team members said that they were confident that "even more important" discoveries were in the pipeline.

>>>>>

The identified gene could be put into cultivated varieties preferred by farmers in various regions, preserving genetic diversity. It does not increase the use of pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals, synthetic or natural. The gene is found in food we already consume. It is a plant gene, not a fish gene! It does not raise the cost of growing food. It helps a farmer still harvest a valuable crop when there is unexpected flooding, perhaps due to global climate change.

Why can't this technology be combined with organic farming practices to reduce suffering, help farmers earn a living, and preserve our environment?On Study: transgenic soy brings lower yields than conventional posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses

The Irony

Regarding the banning of clothianidin and other neonicotinoid pesticides in Germany...

A very good idea!

However...

Nicotinoids and neonicotinoids were developed and continue to be developed to replace nicotine, a natural but VERY TOXIC pesticide that kills insects, mammals, and other organisms (http://ecsoc2.hcc.ru/ecsoc-2/dl001/insecticides.html). The nicotinoids and neonicotinoids are supposed to be more specific, preferably targeting just insects. Unfortunately, the rage against pesticides does not include ALL pesticides. Organic farmers can still use the natural but more toxic chemical, nicotine!

Shouldn't people concerned about our environment call for the elimination of ALL deadly chemicals from agriculture, synthetic and natural?On Snippets from the news posted 1 year, 6 months ago 1 Response

A couple additional questions...

According to the LA Times article...

"The Bush administration has added a controversial ingredient to the $770-million aid package it recently proposed to ease the world food crisis: language that would promote the use of genetically modified crops in food-deprived countries."

Exactly what "language" did the Bush administration add to the aid package?

Toward the middle of the article...

"It would direct the U.S. Agency for International Development to spend $150 million of the total aid package on development farming, which would include the use of genetically modified crops."

Exactly what is "development farming"? (They certainly don't mean growing houses!)

Does the language force GMOs on the people, promote GMOs, or simply include GMOs?On Federal food-aid package promotes GMOs posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

Horses

I have this vague notion lodged in my brain -- I don't know where I read about it -- but I don't believe horses are suitable for a tropical climate.

Anyone know about this?

Once again, perhaps, an example of one culture failing to think outside the box when trying to help another culture solve a problem.

And whatever happened to efforts to distribute small solar ovens to people to reduce their need for cooking fuel?On Goldman says oil 'likely' to hit $150-$200 by 2010 posted 1 year, 6 months ago 58 Responses

solar = freedom

Everyone off the grid.

Once you have your solar energy system installed you are no longer dependent on corporations for your energy. You are no longer dependent on foreign countries for you energy. You are no longer subject to sudden increases in prices that put a dent in your already battered budget.

Furthermore, it is better for national security. The "terrorists", "communists", or whatever the enemy of the day happens to be cannot blackmail a nation or arrange for widespread blackouts. There's no threat of a oil embargo. There's no need to "stabilize" certain regions to ensure a steady flow of crude, thereby alienating the rest of the world.

I think the Republican Party realizes this. Real American independence, real freedom, real ingenuity, real efforts to reduce dependence on oil undermines the whole military/industrial complex and takes away the one stick they use for rallying the party faithful... FEAR.

I wish Democrats would drive this message home to the average voter.. Real patriotic Americans who care about those willing to risk their lives to preserve our freedom invest in alternative energy, especially means of removing people from the grid, not in finding more fossil fuel. Real patriotic Americans WHO CARE ABOUT PRESERVING FAMILY VALUES invest in alternative energy.
On Goldman says oil 'likely' to hit $150-$200 by 2010 posted 1 year, 6 months ago 58 Responses

Hmmm ...

I read that the price of diesel fuel and jet fuel are rising faster.

Fortunately, there are places to cut consumption without sacrificing quality of life.

(1) We'll finally see the end of tilling--and the soil erosion that goes with it--to control weeds. Everyone can start growing herbicide-resistant GM crops. That'll reduce CO2 emissions.

(2) We'll see the rise of trains again for long-distance shipping... far more efficient. Folks will just have to be a bit more patient while waiting for their latest internet purchase to arrive.

(3) We'll see a larger interest in relying on local agriculture. No one will want to build subdivisions on agricultural land around urban areas.

(4) No more competition from China and India. We'll manufacture what we need AT HOME. Reduces CO2 emissions and raises wages. China and India, however, are screwed... no longer able to dump cheap products in America. Who will buy all the crap?

(5) When Americans are FORCED to wean themselves from oil, once and for all, our leaders will no longer have to give a damn about what goes on in the Middle East or any other oily region. There will no longer be interest in drilling in Alaska. We'll see an enormous "peace" dividend when we no longer need to project our military power abroad. All that cash can be invested in repairing our infrastructure. We will, however, have to secure our borders... more jobs here as opposed to there.

Just trying to look on  the bright side. I'm a bit concerned about how much it will cost to commute, but I imagine even more money will pour into biofuel research and the GMOs we'll need to reach our goals. Perhaps I'll get a raise!!!

Unfortunately, folks in developing countries will probably have to cut down the rest of their trees just to cook their food and stay warm. So long endangered species...

But... hey... this is just what environmentalists have been hoping for... EXPENSIVE GASOLINE to finally kill the American suburb. Yahoo.... whatever...On Goldman says oil 'likely' to hit $150-$200 by 2010 posted 1 year, 6 months ago 58 Responses

hit nail on head

I'm clearly one of those who sense a substantial amount of "contempt and disdain" regarding where I've chosen to live.

I don't read much about the issues brought up in this thread because I sense -- though I admit I could be very wrong -- that it doesn't matter how I feel, whether I'm doing other things to protect our environment, or whether I try to minimize how much my commute harms the environment. I'm just evil.

And there seems --- seems -- to be a significant number of environmentalists out there who are excited by the rising cost of energy because it will bring down a way of life they despise for a large number of reasons. There's no sign of sincere compassion for those who will be directly affected. There's little indication that the most active environmentalists want to help find ways for suburbanites to live lighter on the Earth, short of essentially asking them to pay off their mortgages, tear down their houses, and put conservation easements on the land.

As I've mentioned before... in for a penny, in for a pound. I HAVE to make suburban -- or rural or whatever you might call it -- living work. I have to commute. It is only going to get more difficult to sell a house like mine. And if I did sell it to someone else so I could return to an urban area, exactly how will that protect the environment? Obviously, I'm not the only person in such a situation. And we do not -- can't -- look forward to rising costs for energy like so many of you appear -appear -- to do. On New peak oil documentary fluffs the faithful posted 1 year, 6 months ago 29 Responses

self-awareness and wisdom

David wrote...

"Your [Turanga's] self-awareness and wisdom are to be much lauded. Would that they were more widespread."

Which part or parts?

Despising lifestyles they themselves don't find attractive or interesting; assuming their own experience is representative of how everyone should experience growing up in an urb, suburb, or exurb; and stereotyping people based on where they live?

OR

Fighting those feelings and reaching out with compassion?On New peak oil documentary fluffs the faithful posted 1 year, 6 months ago 29 Responses

Still wondering...

I composed this comment before reading Greg Greene's remark...

"The conclusion of ESCAPE has Guy Dauncey, the president of the BC Renewable Energy Association, articulate a vision of what sustainable suburbs might look like in the future.  But at the core of his massage is a passionate plea to all of us (and especially the skeptics) to find hope and build positive solutions."

... so perhaps the movie addresses the issue.

Does anyone have a realistic plan for rehabilitating suburbia?

Though I might not have much sympathy for those folks -- including myself -- who moved to suburbia more recently, the earlier inhabitants and their descendants, in my opinion, deserve some compassion from the rest of us. Those moving to suburbia in the 50s were not aware of how their collective decision would harm our environment. They were simply searching for a better life according to an earlier set of values. Their children and grandchildren were obviously not responsible, but now it's the lifestyle they are most familiar with.

Environmentalists can applaud the rising price of energy and look forward to the collapse of suburbia, the return of people to urban areas, and the rise of a relatively sustainable culture, but what can be done to ease the transition?

I suppose one option is a market solution... the price of energy and driving rises. People decide to abandon their suburban homes and automobiles. But... who is going to pay off those mortgages? Are people literally going to abandon their homes, declaring bankruptcy? How will they buy or even find money for renting new homes? And when they return to urban areas, demanding housing, will the cost of housing rise and create a cascade of unanticipated problems? If they move closer to their job, lose that job, and end up commuting in the opposite direction, how does that reduce dependency on cheap energy? Or is everyone supposed to move every time their job moves? I  guess we don't really care about building stable communities.

I believe it would be better to rehabilitate the suburbs. This means photovoltaics and other sources of energy that remove houses from the grid. Outreach programs to help people telecommute or work fewer days if they have to commute. The ongoing search for better personal transportation. Education and laws that encourage placing houses in a way that preserves contiguous wildlife habitat. Establishing native ecosystems, rather than lawns, around homes. Encouraging fruit and vegetable gardens to reduce dependence on industrial agriculture. Smaller school districts so children don't have to be bussed to school.

But then I suppose there is a bit of a dilemma. Rehabilitate suburbia and it will never die. More people will want to move there. Rehabilitation essentially enables further destructive behavior.

Is there a middle way?

It would be interesting to see the following poll and comments regarding it...

(A) Let suburbs collapse, economically, and those living there figure out how to cope with it.

(B) Federal or state tax payers purchase and recycle suburbia, convert it to farm or natural areas, and those living there decide which city to move to.

(C) Make suburbia environmentally friendly.

(D) Other.

I originally wasn't interested in the movie, but after reading Greg Greene's comment I look forward to seeing it. Sounds like he might be looking for a practical solution to this very difficult problem.On New peak oil documentary fluffs the faithful posted 1 year, 6 months ago 29 Responses

oops... double negative

Sorry about the double negative in random thought #2. Really ruins the flow of the rant. Oh well.On On the oddity of privatizing nature posted 1 year, 7 months ago 31 Responses

random thoughts

(1) Condors once ranged from the west coast to the east coast of North America. The disappearance of the condors correlates with the disappearance of large herbivores, perhaps due to humans hunting them to extinction. Imagine how many other creatures dependent on rotting carcasses have also gone extinct. For those who insist on saving only what you find immediately valuable... ecological services lost forever. More than vultures will disappear in India and humans will have to pay for and live with the consequences.

(2) A drug might help one business -- the livestock industry -- save money, but the cost of doing business is inevitably passed onto someone. Who is going to pay for services the vultures once freely provided? If it was happening over here, businesses would complain that they have to use the drug to keep costs down and preserve jobs and no one would consider who will pay for it in the long run. This must stop. WHY DON"T ECONOMISTS PRESENT THIS IN SOME UNDERSTANDABLE FORM TO THE AVERAGE VOTER???!!!

(3) This is why it should be illegal to control rodents with poison bait. Raptors, owls, and other critters eat the toxic rodents and die. You're poisoning rare birds when you try to poison rats and mice.

(4) I had forgotten all about the compassionate Indians who respect their cows by not eating them... but don't mind using them as a source of leather for export. There is an enormous amount of animal abuse occurring over there. Funny how religious beliefs are held so dearly, except when they stand in the way of capitalism.On Wild Asian vultures going the way of the dodo posted 1 year, 7 months ago 3 Responses

another example

Our town gathered for a special meeting a few weeks ago. The question... should the town plan be ammended to permit driveways to cross agricultural land? The board will likely follow the advice of the town residents. A couple hundred people showed up, probably close to three quarters of eligible voters. A case was made for and against the ammendment, residents took turns at the microphone to express their opinions, and then...

The board passed out ballots for a straw poll. All assembled weighed the arguments and voted. The ammendment was defeated -- thereby protecting exposed ridges and woodlands from development -- and the board will likely follow the residents' collective decision.

What would have happened if no one had encouraged folks opposed to development to show up for the special meeting? What would have happened if only the regular squeaky wheels who want to grow houses and often complain that zoning laws are a violation of the U.S. Constitution showed up?

What sort of meetings are going on where you live? Who is making decisions that determine the extent of development where you live? Have you permitted development of agricultural land or natural areas by not showing up for town meetings?On Learn to look down the ballot --- waaaaaay down posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

Hey! That's not fair!

drx...

I've been very restrained as far as promoting GMOs is concerned and you decide to try to bring it up here, where we already have a perfectly enjoyable controversial topic?

Believe in one or the other?

Well, first I don't believe in a God who intervenes in human affairs or ocassionally shows up as a bush or something to communicate important laws to illiterate peasants who never seem to get the message straight when they pass it on to others.

That said, God and GMOs are not mutually exclusive.

Let's suppose we're talking about the Old Testament God. God created humans in His image. Therefore, it is quite reasonable the humans themselves would be creators and manipulators of life. I'd say the Bible directly supports use of GMOs. Like Father, like Son, like all God's children.

Let's suppose we're talking about God the Creator, the God of Deists, the God of our nation's founders. All is natural. There is no supernatural. And we are provided with all we need for survival and happiness. That includes our brains, reason, science, technology. We show our gratitude and respect for the Creator by sharing the bounty and providing for other creatures' survival and happiness. If GMOs are used to preserve the natural world, then they are okay... the Creator and GMOs are not mutually exclusive.

I now you return you to your regularly scheduled topic.On On God and gas posted 1 year, 7 months ago 29 Responses

Anyway...

One has to give Mr. Twyman credit for trying to lead by example, not by praying, but by pointing out that we must also try to solve this problem on our own... see article. He does not appear to be a right-wing nutter trying to persuade God to provide cheap gasoline for SUVs.

His precise request is...

"Instead, he says anyone who wants to follow his example should keep it simple. "God, deliver us from these high gas prices," Twyman said. "That's all they have to say.""

How might God deliver us from high gas prices?

(1) Provide a leader for our nation who will push for conservation and alternative energy?

(2) Bring on a depression that will lower gas prices because no one has a job that permits them to buy even the cheapest fuel?

(3) A conflagration in the Middle East that pretty much eliminates gasoline as a fuel and, therefore, no one will be concerned about high gas prices?

(4) Exterminate the human species by cooking us, drowning us, destroying our crops, infecting us with disease... the results of global climate change.. therefore delivering us from high gas prices?  Oh crap... his prayers have been answered!!!!

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU PRAY FOR!

Remember the episode of The Twilight Zone where a guy wishes he were leader of a small but powerful nation, a nation the will change the course of history? He finds himself transported to a bunker under Berlin just as the Russians are approaching. Ooops.On On God and gas posted 1 year, 7 months ago 29 Responses

interpretation

Ken Ward wrote...

"As things begin to go haywire, the cockamamie "End of Days" eschatology will be buttressed and made more appealing. "End of Days" believers are the folks who are looking forward to global catastrophe, which they believe signals that the time is at hand when a handful of true believers will be whisked directly to heaven."

Zeroing in on the term "cockamamie"... A significant number of people in the United States and elsewhere might be offended by the remark. But those are the people you have to win over. How does one persuade others that their interpretation of religious texts is the correct interpretation?

For the world's major religions to step in and save Creation, won't the liberal schools have to convince other schools to let go of their archaic doctrines? Is this a marketing issue? Or is Ken suggesting that the more inclusive and wholesome religious folks go it alone and ignore the so-called fundamentalists?

This sounds like a family feud of sorts. And it will have to be resolved before leaders of the worlds major religions can step in to save Creation... or decide once and for all not to get involved.

Who currently has the upper hand? Who will win? Who has the authority to decide what God really wants human beings to do?On By caring for God's creatures, we avert a second flood posted 1 year, 7 months ago 20 Responses

grip

"loss of handling and grip"

So you're saying you can get better mileage, but you might lose control and/or just fly off the road?

Statistically speaking, will CO2 emissions be lower because of improved mileage or higher because of more dispatches of EMTs, medical care, and manufacture of replacement vehicles?On Easing off the gas eases gas use posted 1 year, 7 months ago 29 Responses

rails to trails

"...except in a few areas where right of way like old railway beds are preserved..."

Emerging conflict... It looks like some of the preferred bicycle commuter routes are former rail beds. There are a couple nice trails in Dane County, WI... fairly level, direct, bridges over streams, raised bed though wetlands. But now folks are interested in trains again. Who will win?

Will certain groups resist the conversion of bike trails back to train tracks?

I suppose we could leave the bike trails alone and construct new rail beds. But then there are the issues of private property vs. public interest, as well the the destructive nature of constructing new rail lines by plowing through residential areas... sort of like the contruction of highways.On Easing off the gas eases gas use posted 1 year, 7 months ago 29 Responses

responding to fuel prices

"That's surprising to me. I mean, I don't slow down when gas prices are high; it would never occur to me. Do other folks?"

YES. I've modified my driving habits to reduce braking... anticipate stop signs and red lights, slow down before sharp curves on rural highways... no more jack-rabbit starts and stops. I get out of the way of faster vehicles. My goal is to get from point A to point B, alive, not win a NASCAR  race.

Regarding 65 vs. 75 mph, I can apparently save over $20/month driving the posted speed limit. Increasing from 65 to 75 mph, would cut only 3 minutes -- tops -- off my 38 minute commute. I waste more time than that before I leave the house or posting comments like this one. I'd rather have the $20/month or $240/year.

Also, I've calculated the cost of running an errand to the nearest "urban" area. I generally like to stay home if I don't have  to go to work. Now I know it costs about $7.00 to go to the grocery store, hardware store, post office, or library if I'm not already out for some other reason. Pay $7.00 to return an overdue book? NO WAY! I'll wait until Monday and pay the late fee.

Forcing others to slow down? That's crazy! You're more likely to find yourself dead, or find some innocent person driving nearby dead, than to impose your morality on the fool riding your bumper.On Easing off the gas eases gas use posted 1 year, 7 months ago 29 Responses

Craving

My personal theory for the fifth time -- perhaps mentioned by someone earlier, but a person can read only so many omnivore vs. vegetarian threads before they all start to present pretty much  the same arguments -- is as follows.

Our primitive ancestors, perhaps some shrew-like critters, were drawn to roasted carcasses following forest and grass fires. Quick and very easy protein when other food might be scarce. This was reinforced during our time on the African savanna. Seems pretty obvious and straight forward. Thus, we a drawn to restaurants or outdoor grills when folks are cooking meat. It is a very natural and genetically programmed response.

I guess that would make hardcore vegetarians intellectually superior because, knowing the consumption of meat depends on killing sentient beings and is currently harming Earth's ecosystems, they can override deeply rooted instincts... or vegetarians have lost those genes. I am apparently not intellectually superior, nor have I lost the hypothetical genes.

By the way, a quick way to increase traffic to your website might be posting something about eating meat. Too many people enjoying the spring weather??? It is currently snowing here.On Are you a vegetarian? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 53 Responses

Trees For The Masses

Remark inspired by my simple search for a tupelo or sassafras tree... God only knows the trouble I'll encounter when I start looking for native ironwood, hop hornbeam, and relatively rare dogwoods and hawthorns...

The local nurseries don't have much variety -- as far as appropriate native species of trees and shrubs are concerned -- for the masses. For example, the tupelo I'm searching for... I can (well, actually, CAN'T) purchase a 1.5 inch diameter tree for over $300, I can  (well, actually, CAN'T) purchase a tree in a 10-gallon pot for $99.99, or can can order a one-foot tupelo twig for $ 4.00. I really can't and don't want to spend $300 or $100 to feed the deer, and I would prefer not  waiting 20 years for a one-foot twig to grow. I'll probably end up buying a couple of one-foot specimens -- it IS the most affordable approach to planting a small woodland -- but why can't a person buy something in between, say a five-foot twig for $20? A person can buy patented five-foot fruit trees or exotic maples for $20 -$30.

Nurseries seem far too focused a basic set of urban clones or exotic ornamentals... your birches, poplars, maples, et cetera. Very difficult for a responsible person to add some appropriate diversity to the landscape.

I actually did find the in-between size I'm looking for, but only from a wholesale distributor.

This isn't right, but I don't know what to do about it. And I'm not sure why I'm complaining here. Maybe somebody knows about a nurseries (ZONE 4 or ZONE 5) that distributes affordable trees to us common folk, those without McMansions, not interested in an instant forest, but still looking for something a bit over one-foot tall to start with.

Peace.On The Forest Guild on climate change posted 1 year, 7 months ago 3 Responses

sheeple

"Sheeple"... a very good and applicable term when referring to certain groups of people. Exactly why did use of this term upset someone? It is a concise way of referring to a sort of blind following of trends or supopsedly wise people. Those upset by such a close shave with reality might want to take a deep breath and pull the stick out of their... well... you know.

If one is on the recieving end, it might be a time for some reflection and consideration of what motivates you. Do you ever behave as a "sheeple"... I don't don't know what the singular is. "Sheepson"?

"Hypocrisy"... a very good and applicable term that applies to almost everyone who posts comments, official or unofficial, on this or any other website at some point in their life.

"Double Standard"... an annoying habit displayed by almost everyone who posts comments, official or unofficial, on this or any other website at some point in their life.

I would welcome such criticisms as another opportunity for reflection.

Didn't someone once say something like, let he who has never sinned cast the first stone?

I have no idea exactly why I'm posting this, except (1) to try to communicate that I respect Pangolin's techniques for getting his/her points across and (2) I'm weary of the expectation of blind respect for anyone who has held a postion of power, written a book, or somehow grabbed the public spotlight.On Adam Werbach calls for a new movement of a billion consumers posted 1 year, 7 months ago 73 Responses

Pragmatism

Hello.

I have to admit, while I originally disliked the "BLUE" concept, I do appreciate Adam's pragmatism. It is very important for environmentalists to find approaches to preserving nature that don't rely on dramatically changing human behavior. Rather, we should find ways of exploiting human behavior. I don't believe it will be easy to override hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution; there's not enough time.

I've mentioned before the importance of marketing and appealing to greed, selfish behavior, competitive instinct, et cetera. For example, proper marketing might convince suburban home owners that they want the most diverse prairie garden on the block rather than the perfect patch of mowed Kentucky bluegrass. Or a guy might find status by bragging about how far he drove his car without recharging the battery. Kids might ask one another whether THEIR clothing was made from sustainably grown natural fibers.

Here's a question for Adam... will the BLUE movement recognize that not all genetically modified plants are bad for the environment? Does his pragmatism extend that far? It seems  the BLUE movement is supposed to be a very rational approach to preserving our natural environment, an approach focused on the net results.

What I dislike is presentation of the BLUE movement as a distinctly new approach. We could stick with the color green, stick with the gains made by  the green movement, build on the current foundation of interest in sustainability, ecology, efficiency, preservation of biodiversity. There is no need for a new movement.On Adam Werbach calls for a new movement of a billion consumers posted 1 year, 7 months ago 73 Responses

Polar bears, cougars, wolves, tigers...

Hello All.

Can someone direct me to an organization dedicated to finding ways for humans and other large predators to coexist? Or at least live near one another?

Polar bears, cougars, wolves, tigers... we can't continue killing every single one that encounters a human being. Either we back off and give them some habitat or learn to protect ourselves from aggression.On Hoppy the wolf has been killed posted 1 year, 7 months ago 4 Responses

Polar bears, cougars, wolves, tigers...

Hello All.

Can someone direct me to an organization dedicated to finding ways for humans and other large predators to coexist? Or at least live near one another?

Polar bears, cougars, wolves, tigers... we can't continue killing every single one that encounters a human being. Either we back off and give them some habitat or learn to protect ourselves from aggression.On Polar bear ventures far inland, shot to death posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

Better yet...

Plant native vegetation that minimizes water use and does not require mowing.On San Francisco gets even greener posted 1 year, 7 months ago 15 Responses

Why is this a good idea?

Shouldn't vacant land in urban areas be converted to low-cost housing so people don't move to suburban and exurban developments? Green areas surrounded by concrete are not necessarily the healthiest ecosystems. Isolating various populations of species from other populations reduces overall genetic diversity. Furthermore, a much larger amount of a space is required to sustain healthy breeding population of some of the most threatened organisms.

Instead of converting old industrial sites to green space, how about preserving existing green space outside urban areas, constructing a suitable light rail system, and encouraging people to spend time in such natural areas on the weekend?

We need more contiguous healthy natural habitat, not more and larger parks.

If people DO want more green space in urban areas, how about organic farms? Funded by government, food free for the picking.On Big urban parks sprouting across the U.S. posted 1 year, 7 months ago 5 Responses

Worthy of serious discussion?

My limited experience with culturing mammalian cells suggests that this is enormously impractical. A major ingredient of the culture medium is probably calf serum! No one has a grasp on all the nutrients necessary for this sort of thing, let alone how to manufacture from scratch everything an in vitro steak would require. It would be energy intensive and, probably, chemical and plastic intensive, making confined animal facilities look benign.

I really prefer my own idea... genetically engineer easy-to-grow zucchini so it has the taste and texture of meat! Scientists are already identifying the genes coding for enzymes that synthesize meaty flavor molecules. Vegan meat! It could even be grown organically. All you would need is sunshine, water, and good soil. No solar panels or vats or sterile labs. Every home gardener would want it. Meat, but not really meat, for everyone! There could be beef-flavored, pork-flavored, cod-flavored zucchini... perhaps rare animal flavors as well. Home gardeners might even cross different varieties and develop new heirloom meat-flavored zucchini that will be passed from friend to friend and generation to generation. The tasty zucchini would be so cheap, no one would want to bother trying to raise animals for meat. Win win win for everyone!

Hmmm... wonder what the unintended consequences might be...On Meat of the future may be grown in a lab posted 1 year, 7 months ago 14 Responses

green, blue, violet...

Why not use the current "green" label and show people how protecting the environment is good for everyone... our health and our economy? Why a new label?  Greens can grow. No need to start over.On Adam Werbach follows up 'Death of Environmentalism' with 'Birth of Blue' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 46 Responses

alienation

The new Blue movement looks like a great plan for alienating even more people and making environmentalists appear wackier than ever. Just as caring for the environment is going mainstream, with government, corporations, and individuals hopping on board, Mr. Werbach wants to raise the bar. Now it will not be sufficient to care about the environment, reducing pollution, and preserving endangered species, folks will also have to lose weight and stop smoking if they REALLY care about the Earth. Should play well in the south, eh?

There are clear labels -- if a person needs labels -- for everything Mr. Werbach wants to encourage people to do. As someone mentioned above, there are permaculture and voluntary simplicity. There are also groups interested in spiritual growth. There are progressives. There are vegetarians and vegans. There are carnivores interested in human treatment of animals. There are organizations devoted to helping a person lose weight, get more exercise, or stop smoking. And so on and so on. Why not let people pick and choose how they want to improve their lives? They'll probably embrace a lot of related and other "good" behavior as well.

There is no need to create an all encompassing MOVEMENT that links everything together into a fundamentalist cult!

What's next... precise dietary rules, guidelines for choosing appropriate brides for your sons, and stoning of people who dare suggest it is okay to cut down a tree?On Adam Werbach follows up 'Death of Environmentalism' with 'Birth of Blue' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 46 Responses

Jatakas

Hi caniscandida!

Can you recommend a book or set of books containing a collection of Jatakas? I've been searching for such a book with very limited success. It is apparently difficult to find a complete set of Jatakas in one place.

Thanks.

[I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread of discussion, which I wish more people were interested in.]On Polar bear ventures far inland, shot to death posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

"most disgusting"

Regarding the proposed contest, the most difficult aspect might be establishing the criteria for "disgusting". Should it be based on behavior, appearance, odor, niche?

For example, one might say maggots are disgusting, but consider their contribution to keeping the world free of bacteria-laden rotting corpses. It is hard to view them as disgusting when they provide such a valuable ecological service.

I might base my vote on behavior, especially behavior that inflicts an excess of pointless suffering on other animals. And the winner is?

Regarding freezing the toads, I'm uncomfortable with what must be done to restore balance to the infested habitat. Too bad the toads are not edible! Deportation seems like a good idea. Perhaps the toads are endangered where they originated. Or perhaps their natural predator is kept in a zoo somewhere? They could be collected and sent there as a special dietary treat. Anyway, I've heard that freezing a cold-blooded creature is the most humane means of euthanizing them if it must be done. They just drift off to "sleep" as their body temperature drops. Though I doubt anyone ever actually asked them whether it is really painless to drift off to oblivion by this route.On Animal-welfare group backs toad-killing in Australia posted 1 year, 8 months ago 6 Responses

Two Observations

First, it is interesting that the Guardian would choose to place a photograph of a package of rotenone--botanical pesticide, acceptable for organic agriculture--at the top of their article. This SUGGESTS that the Guardian staff is either very respectable and not at all biased, especially considering my next observation, or that the Guardian staff is not aware that rotenone is acceptable for organic agriculture, perhaps not even aware that chemicals are used in organic agriculture.

Second, the original paper the article is based on indicates there MIGHT be a link between rotenone and Parkinson's Disease, but that there is insufficient data to say this is certain at this time. Thus, the poor choice of photo at the top of the article, unnecessarily raising concerns about natural pesticides. While this research reinforces the view that synthetic pesticides are more dangerous than botanical pesticides, it also reveals there are serious questions regarding the safety of botanical pesticides used for organic agriculture -- around humans and around wildlife -- and that perhaps now might be the time to pull their "generally recognized as safe" status until further research is done.

It is time for a moratorium on ALL pesticides used for growing food, fiber, and fuel.On A roundup of news snippets posted 1 year, 8 months ago 2 Responses

from one omnivore to another

kmp wrote...

"Look at it as a bargain struck; we will raise you healthily and happily, let you forage in woods and pasture, let you roll in mud and play, feed you healthy food and give you love and attention - in return you will lay down your life, early, in order to feed us."

So, if we stick you in a fenced yard, limit your freedom to what we consider appropriate, select your mates for you, and kill you during the prime of your life, you would consider this a pretty good bargain?

While consuming animal flesh is natural for the human species, there are limits to how far one should go to justify the behavior. Just my opinion. I consume meat, but I'm not about to pretend I'm doing the animals a favor. And I find it frightening that folks can love an animal -- watching is roll in the mud and play -- and then kill it.

By the way, based on the number of feral pigs running about, it looks like the species would survive just fine without our "assistance".On 'Heart-healthy' pork from pigs with bad hearts posted 1 year, 8 months ago 33 Responses

genetic manipulation, transgenic, GMO

Hi archigeek,

It would definitely be a good idea to come to some agreement regarding the terms for what's being discussed. Might help people focus on the real concerns.

Here's my opinion...

Genetic Manipulation: any directed breeding to transfer desirable DNA from one population of organisms to another, directed breeding to eliminate undesirable genes from a population of organisms, artificial transfer of DNA from one species--or varitey of organism--to another, or the use of radiation or chemicals to alter geneomes. Very general category. I doubt anyone objects to genetic manipulation by itself. It's the means that are the problem. Borderline case... crossing two species that do not naturally cross to create a useful hybrid... plumcot anyone?

Transgenic: Artificial transfer of a gene from one species or a variety of organism to another. Moving a gene from a specific baterium to a soybeans would be covered by this. So would moving a gene from one variety of apple to another. Does anyone really care if we move genes from one variety of apple to another, or one variety of banana to another?

Radiation or Chemical Mutagenesis: Exposing an organism to radiation or chemicals, with the goal of altering genes... perhaps increasing expression, perhaps turning them off. This is apparently very common, a practical means of eliminating undesirable genes, and considered an acceptable tool for conventional breeding. I'm fascinated by the fact that canola is a product of radiation and chemical mutagenesis, randomly altering DNA to eliminate undesirable traits... now that's a Frankenplant! So is triticale. Yet one can purchase organic canola or triticale seed and products.

GMO: a genetically modified organism... apparently excludes directed breeding, creation of artificial hybrids, and products of artificial mutagenesis. I believe it should include not only organisms resulting  from artificial transfer of a gene from one organism to another, but also organisms resulting from artificial mutagenesis. Canola is a GMO, a product of the atomc age. So are a lot of other plants we consume.

Why are folks afraid of trangenic plants, but not afraid of products of radiation and chemical mutagenesis? On Recent studies: organic ag is just as productive, and better for you posted 1 year, 8 months ago 22 Responses

Chemical v. conventional

I too would like to see more accurate terms for this discussion, though probably for very different reasons. As I've pointed out far too many times before and will continue to point out, the organic vs. GMO debate fails to address other options on the spectrum ranging from pure organic (zero till, open pollinated crops where possible, free of ALL applied chemicals, and free of ALL transfer of genes from one species to another) to what I might call pure industrial (intense use of tilling or chemicals to control weeds, hybrid seed that can't be collected and used the next season, intensive use of chemicals, intensive use of genetic engineering).

There are other combinations of technology.

I would like to see  (1) what I called pure organic where ever it works to meet our needs for food and fiber crops, (2) the use plants engineered for herbicide-resistance UNTIL an organic method for elimination of tilling is found, (3) elimination of hybrid seeds that farmers can't collect and plant the following year (or at least limits on corporate control of such seed), (4) ZERO tolerance for chemicals (natural or synthetic) unless necessary AND safe for facilitating zero till agriculture, and (5) use of genetic engineering to solve recalcitrant pest and disease problems UNTIL  an organic method is found. Genetic engineering would be limited to transfer of genes between closely related species or the expression of proteins that interfere with, say, virus life cycles and the new genes would be expressed only in the tissue attacked by the disease or pest. Genetic engineering would not be permitted simply for improving the appearance of food or producing pharmaceuticals in plants we cultivate for food; the hazards are too great. Finally, patent law should be reformed so that once a variety of plant, whether derived from a cutting from a prized apple tree or genetically engineered by a corporation, leaves the creator's hands, he has no control over what the buyer does with that plant.

I'm clearly somewhere between pure organic and industrial, and not ready to fully embrace organic as long as chemicals are still used, not interested promoting further dependence on chemicals, and not interested in promoting what is apparently called conventional agriculture.On Recent studies: organic ag is just as productive, and better for you posted 1 year, 8 months ago 22 Responses

I'm baaaaack.... again....

Well, the spring election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court is next week, April 1. There is a sitting justice appointed by a Democrat and his opponent, a conservative supported by organizations like "Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce" and "The Club for Growth". Gee... wonder which guy would be better for the environment.

Unfortunately, money is pouring into this race and the attack ads disgusting. Furthermore, turnout for an April election is very low. Conservatives are very organized when it comes to getting their people to the polls. They managed to get rid of a liberal justice last time. And they're out to get rid of another one. This will give them majority control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Hmmm... there might be a national parallel to this.

Anyway, this "local" race will determine how laws designed to protect the environment are interpreted, if they are enforced at all.

If you are in Wisconsin, I hope you pay attention.

What's happening in your state? Any critical local spring elections?On Learn to look down the ballot --- waaaaaay down posted 1 year, 8 months ago 10 Responses

It Is Not Their Business

This opens a whole can of interesting worms.

Suppose someone lives in one area, loses their nearby job, and has to look for a job 20 miles away? Is it fair for a company to say they can't hire them because it will increase the company's carbon emissions? It basically puts another barrier between a person who needs a job and employer who might want to hire them.

It could drive up the cost of housing around certain employers, making sure only the "right" sort of people live there.

What happens when the company does decide to move its operations to Mexico? All those people now have to commute to different places, if they're lucky to find a job at all. Or do you expect them to abandon their houses, and community, and move constantly to chase after jobs? The company wins and people get screwed.

It might be very convenient for a company to avoid certain workers by just moving the operation beyond an environmentally acceptable means of getting there. Sorry, we're not going to hire you because you live too far away... nothing to do with the fact that we just don't like your kind.

It will severely reduce opportunities for people to find good jobs and employers to find good people.

If you're going to permit a company to consider commuting as far as GHG emissions are concerned, will you also allow them to consider the rest of an employee's life style. Suppose a person commutes, but otherwise does a lot to reduce their GHG emissions... maybe they are vegetarians. Do they get to transfer that to the corporate books? I mean, a commuting vegetarian who puts photovoltaics on his house, buys organic food, and doesn't waste energy on a manicured lawn might be a better deal than the guy who lives right next to the corporate office, cranks his air conditioning down to 65F all summer, eats mostly meat, and drives 50 miles to the "country" each weekend to tear up the landscape with his four-wheeler for recreation.

Will the GHG emissions transferred to the corporation reflect the exact vehicles driven by employees? Suppose someone has an electric car powered by electricity generated by a nuclear power plant? A guess he still gets to commute to work... and will probably become a lobbyist for nuclear power.

Just a spontaneous, not very well thought out response. But it seems the unintended consequences could be rather unpleasant for everyone.On Should emissions from employee commutes be included in company GHG inventories? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 2 Responses

economics, spelunking, and funnels

"No surprise that the anthropocentric economic aspect receives due notice."

However much I believe that preserving nature just because it exists is a good enough reason for preserving it, I always appreciate recognition of economic benefits. Let's face it, there is an enormous segment of the human population that won't save anything unless they are personally affected by its loss. I'd like to see more economic arguments for the smallest creatures and supposedly most insignificant plants. I suspect there is always an economic argument for preserving a biological organism.

"Whatever it is that's killing the bats, chances are that you help the spread of it when you crawl into an afflicted cave and get the microorganism's spores (or the microorganism itself) on your skin and clothes.  Don't contaminate other caves."

Very good point. The investigators should start here. It's like carrying diseases from island to island, lake to lake, et cetera. Is it too late, or should all levels of government consider greater restrictions on transfer of material from one relatively isolated and pristine environment to another? No more... travel around the world, see new species, and sow the seeds of their destruction (see post regarding Antarctica and tourists).

"She most fears a genetic bottleneck, through which a few bats from the affected species could survive, but with their genetic variety reduced, and able to restore their numbers only slowly."

How about this? Destruction of habitat, pressure from hunting, elimination of key species of animals and plants, fragmentation of ecosystems, and reductions of populations to "acceptable" though far below historic levels have created population funnels and no populations of species are going to come out the other side in sufficient numbers to have the genetic diversity to cope with new diseases and environmental change. That is, the disease in question affecting bats is not CREATING a bottleneck... it is the RESULT of a bottleneck and there just isn't enough diversity to muster a response?

Any wildlife ecologists out there who can weigh in on this?On Mass die-off of bats in U.S. Northeast worries and puzzles researchers posted 1 year, 8 months ago 10 Responses

no need for meat in chili

I think it is tragic when meat is essentially used as filler. There is so much flavor and nutrition in a bowl of vegetarian chili, especially if served fresh bread, why sacrifice an animal to add to the meal? Furthermore, one can barely taste the meat in such a dish.

The greatest encouragement for going vegetarian has been the opportunity to enjoy foods like chili and tomato sauces free of animal flesh. Honestly, I can't eat chili containing meat or tomato sauces containing meat... say, served over pasta... the texture alone is awful.

If one does not appreciate the flavor of meat and feels it is necessary to cover it with other stronger flavors, then please consider  omitting it entirely.On Warm up over a bowl of chili -- while planning your spring vegetable patch posted 1 year, 8 months ago 12 Responses

Finding Life

I cast my vote for the beneficial aspects of finding life on another planet, even microbial life. It would be very thought provoking and perhaps nudge us out of our stone-age mentality once and for all.

Fortunately, we do not and probably will not have the power to reach them.

It would, however, be interesting the read and comment on their blogs...

Oh crap... I neglected the possibility of cultural contamination. What if they learn about someone like Barack Obama and build an entire religion around Him?!!! Or there's that Star Trek episode where explorers leave behind a book about Chicago gangsters and the locals build an entire culture around it!!!On Do humans deserve to find life on other planets? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 14 Responses

pesticides vs. herbicides

wolverine wrote...

"Second, GE crops do NOT decrease pesticide use, they increase it.  One of their main claims is that they're pesticide resistant."

Actually, those engineered to produce their own pesticides DO decrease pesticide use. The natural proteins confined to the vulnerable portions of the plants are generally less harmful than repeatedly drenching the field and nearby areas with synthetic chemicals.

Herbicide resistance is another matter. The typical ads on television mention that the corn or soybean plants are herbicide resistant, allowing the farmer to drench a field and nearby areas with synthetic chemicals, protecting his plants and killing weeds. The point here, is that some folks claim this allows farmers to use less dangerous herbicides (protecting animals, insects, fish, et cetera) and less tilling (conserving fuel and soil).

I'm not posting this comment to argue about whether herbicide resistance is a good thing. I just want to clarify that there are actually two things being discussed, one which substantially reduces the use of chemicals and one which supposedly replaces a hazardous or expensive chemical  -- or several chemicals -- with a less hazardous or less expensive one.On Mexico to allow planting of genetically modified crops posted 1 year, 8 months ago 10 Responses

redemption

Raised free from religious dogma and never compelled to enter a church, I'm not really qualified to comment on this, but such problems never stood in my way before.

"Out of the mire man made of Earth, back to the father who gave us birth." A DR original?

Is this the only way out of Iraq? Earthly death of the soul if not death of the body?

There appears to be an analogy here.

Jesus supposedly died for our sins, yet we continue to violate God's most basic laws or suggestions, and continue to invite more and more misery upon us and those innocent beings we share the Earth with.

Christians celebrate the birth of a man who advocated peace and celebrate his sacrifice for all humanity, then celebrate the ongoing "surge" in Iraq and pray for victory over a nation that did not attack us.

Now thousands of soldiers have died for our sins. Hundreds of thousands of bystanders have died for our sins. Not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the Earth and across every cultural divide. Death, voluntary and involuntary. Dying for humanity's sins year after year, decade after decade, century after century. And yet we continue to violate God's most basic laws.

There is not enough human blood on this Earth to satisfy the God of the Middle East. There is not enough blood on this Earth to sacrifice for our sins. Please stop feeding Him and focus on what one can do here and now to live free of suffering.On Out of the mire man made of Earth, back to the father who gave us birth posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

rhetoric and reality

To quote Joel Makower, who quotes Van jones...

"The next set of challenges have to do with going from rhetoric to reality."

Thank you, ruweez, for providing the link to Joel Makower's blog.On What happened and who was there? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 4 Responses

Green Jobs Are For Green Graduates

The new green jobs appear to be for two groups of people.

(1) New graduates who can devote time to an internship and/or aren't currently dependent on a relatively good salary. That is, they have not settled down and are not obligated to pay a mortgage or care for a family.

(2) Older workers who earned a high enough income during their first career and squirreled away enough cash so that they can stop working for a couple years and return to school to prepare for a completely different career.

What about an almost middle-aged person locked in a dead-end, potentially environmentally destructive job, who has to continue to work full-time to pay their bills and might have already dipped into their savings to survive substantial reductions in income and unexpected expenses? How does such a person find and prepare for a role in the new sparkling green economy?

I don't consider selling the house and jetting off to the next green economic boom town a viable option. That's the sort of behavior that has been destabilizing communities for decades.On What happened and who was there? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 4 Responses

Thank you Tom Phillpot...

... for bringing this report to our attention.

And, of course, thank you Organic Center for producing a balanced and unbiased assessment of pesticides in/on our food. I was very impressed by the examination of chemicals acceptable for organic agriculture and the potential hazards of those chemicals.

I've been searching for a list of chemicals acceptable for organic agriculturefor some time and now I finally have it. I was starting to wonder whether the industry preferred to keep a lid on their dark secret.

I look forward to more discussion of ALL the chemicals applied to our food, the hazards for human and other animals, and an exploration of exactly where all of those chemicals, synthetic and natural, come from.

I think it is time to demand elimination of ALL pesticides from agriculture. They are designed or extracted to kill insects. It is no surprise that even natural pesticides inflict collateral damage by harming insects like bees. On Conventional milk contains toxics, says the USDA posted 1 year, 8 months ago 7 Responses

Present

There is no past.

There is no future.

There is only the present.

We waste time worrying about the past and planning for the future, never taking time to live in the present.

One hundred years from now, the vast majority of us will be dead. But our decendents will be fighting over historical events... such as the Crusades, the goals of the American Revolution, the American Civil War, the establishment of Israel, global climate change, British Imperialism, American Imperialism, racism around the world...

Why must historical event outlive everyone involved?

Why do we fight the same wars our ancestors fought or did not fight?

Why do we bind ourselves to politcal parties established long before we were born?

Why don't we create our own present and our own future?

Once again... one hundred years from now... ALL new people... almost ALL old conflicts.

Now what? What now?On Observation of the day posted 1 year, 8 months ago 10 Responses

A couple questions...

But first, I would really appreciate one of these.

Our lawn is very irregular. It is primarily a rodent/fire-break around the house. There are a lot of odd curves around our slowly expanding population of trees, shrubs, and other flowering plants. And it is mostly sloped. This results in a rather convoluted mowing pattern, not at all efficient as far as time and gasoline is concerned. Furthermore, the sound and stench of a gas-powered mower ruins an otherwise very calming environment. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of "weeds" that a basic human-powered push mower can't cope with.

(1) How much does the robo-mower cost?

(2) How much area can it handle per charge?

(3) Will the power and blades tackle tough herbacious material like queen-anne's lace, alfalfa, and thistle stems, as well as the occassional small sumac shoot, the sort of "weeds" I see among the blades of grass?

(4) Can it be set to high enough to not harm toads and snakes?
On Solar-powered lawnmower cuts grass unsupervised posted 1 year, 8 months ago 5 Responses

Fascinating

So this really boils down to miscommunication once again.

Thank you, again, caniscandida, for your informative comments. I think, long ago, I indicated it would be interesting to read a compilation of expanded versions of your essays on various subjects. If you've already written something like this, I hope you might let me know about it. You have a remarkably diverse and vast amount of information at your fingertips.

[I just realized this might sound sarcastic, but that's not the intent. I really do learn a lot from your contributions to the Grist website.]

Sorry about the generalization regarding Christians and interpretation of the Bible. I should know better. It was just far too easy to post the comment regarding whales without giving it much thought.

Anyway...

If the Catholic Church would simply explain exactly what is meant by "fish" -- and perhaps purchase some ad time on TV and radio -- we might reduce the annual overconsumption of what is commonly referred to as a "fish"... the cold-blooded (unless it is tuna or one of the other "fish" recently discovered to generate heat), scalely (unless it is one of those "fish" without scales), aquatic organisms.

I wish people, including myself, could learn to use more precise language, especially when advising over one billion people (http://www.adherents.com/adh_rb.html) to follow certain instructions.

Hope someone sorts this out soon. I'm looking forward to taking advantage of the two-for-one Capybara McNugget value meal promo during Lent next year!!! Just kidding... I think.On Would Jesus eat fish during Lent? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 34 Responses

Suggestion for ELF

Perhaps going into the wetlands with a video camera and documenting the destruction of habitat, providing before and after images of the violent destruction of the ecosystem by developers would have been a better strategy.

Instead, ELf, if it exists, provided the media with a far more fascinating story to present in the newspapers, on the TV, and on the internet. The public gets to see crazy environmentalists torching houses instead of developers destroying wetlands. Not a very good use of the media.On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 9 months ago 80 Responses

Denouncement

Dear Patrick,

Can I call you Patrick?

I hereby denounce the notion of combining environmentalism and fascism. I believe the efforts to preserve the diversity of life that sustains our civilization must be conducted in a manner the takes into consideration the preservation of human rights, free speech, the dignity of each individual, et cetera. A top down approach by which a fascist government might impose protection of the environment and life in harmony with the rest of nature would not be a sustainable solution. First, there is the inevitable corruption of the elite power structure. Second, there is the inevitable arrogance of the elite power structure that prevents them from listening to knowledgeable individuals with different opinion. Third, people would eventually rebel and the result would be a far worse than what we see now.

I do not know if such an organization exists, but I think it would be a bad idea and should be discouraged.

WiscIdea (get it yet??)On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 9 months ago 80 Responses

minor distortion of my remark

bookerly wrote...

"And no, it is not okay to attack a non-existent group on the basis of a conceptual possibility that such a group might exist.  This is a dangerous path if you study some history and think about the implications. Look at the American "red scares" or the attacks on various candidates for things that never happened."

I had wrote...

"I'm not really attacking ELF, as much as the concept of ELF. Are you suggesting I can discuss the validity of an organization's behavior ONLY if the organization already exists and has engaged in violent activity?"

Notice I indicated I was attacking the CONCEPT of ELF. This is not at all similar to accusing people of being communists and rounding them for interrogation! I think the intention of my statement was quite clear. Are you really saying that unless an organization already exists and is engaged in activity we shouldn't "discuss the validity of an organization's behavior"?!

I understand why one might be confused. There are several lines of discussion in this thread...

(1) Did ELF do it?

(2) Does ELF even exist?

(3) Are there times when this sort of violence might be justified?

(4) Is ELF a government plot to discredit environmentalism?

I don't know enough... I don't think anyone knows enough... information to discuss points 1, 2, and 4. It would be almost pure speculation. I find point 3 very interesting and I am still shocked that there are intelligent environmentalists who would, if ELF exists, applaud their acts of violence and not worry if ELF occasionally strikes an inappropriate target.On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 9 months ago 80 Responses

Looks like a nice home...

... though far beyond my means and much larger than I would want to heat, keep clean, and otherwise maintain. I wonder whether the landscaping consists of native plants. That would be preferable. And I hope there isn't a neighborhood covenant that prevents the owner from growing vegetables in their yard.

I don't know why people need so much space, but it is their right to purchase it if they have the ability. I should point out that while I don't begrudge the potential buyers right now, I will not have sympathy for them if they find themselves in over their heads and not able to continue to make the payments. The supposed pleasure of owning such a large home comes with enormous risk and our society should not pity them or bail them out if they have trouble. Nor should it bail out those who finance such projects.

I suspect most McMansions will eventually become multi-family dwellings, complete with sidewalks connecting them. Economists have already recognized that when the current occupants of these houses retire, there will be no one left who can afford to buy them. The jobs just aren't there. The large houses are a dead end and "nature" will soon flex it muscles and rein in this sort of behavior. They will probably spontaneously combust shortly afterward due to shoddy construction and violations of building codes to bring them in under budget.

What do such houses communicate to me?

The root of the problem is income distribution. In a fair society, no one should be able to afford such a house while someone else cannot afford even a small house or an apartment. Torching houses will not solve this problem. Companies will build McMansions as long as there are buyers who can afford them.On Victim of Seattle arsons reaffirms commitment to green building posted 1 year, 9 months ago 9 Responses

violence and change

Regarding...

"major changes are usually effected by violent acts such as revolutions and assassinations"

Are most of those major changes positive or negative? What one builds by violence can be torn down by violence.

I guest on a radio program -- I wish I could recall his name -- pointed out that violent revolutions do no create long-term change. Slow and steady wins the race. The violent pendulum that swings to the left has enough momentum to soon wing back to the right. And it kills innocent beings as it swings back and forth.

I believe Gandhi, King, Tutu, and others have clearly demonstrated that non-violence is the most effective approach in our modern world toward stable long-term positive change.On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 9 months ago 80 Responses

Clarification

No need to answer your questions.

Let's assume I know I'm right, there are others who agree with me, and, well, it doesn't really matter whether I can defend my view. Assume I've studied the issue. I know the truth. The environmental organization does not know the truth. Heck, perhaps most people on Earth are not able to see the truth. They've been mislead by charismatic leaders or selfish desire. The action is intended to override resistance based on ignorance. So... would ELF supporters and defenders applaud my effort to protect the Earth and all of its inhabitants?

This is purely hypothetical. I've mentioned I do not approve of violence. But if ELF can resort to violence for the greater good, what stops others from employing violence to further their own views regarding the greater good? How does an individual make such a decision? What convinces others that he or she is a freedom fighter and not a terrorist?On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 9 months ago 80 Responses

eliminating carbofuran

Don't worry. There are competing interests engineering plants so they are resistant to insect pests carbofuran is commonly used against. For example, aphids. The beauty of the engineered plants is that the genes are being moved from edible plant species or varieties naturally resistant to aphids to edible species or varieties that are not resistant. No new proteins are being added to our diet.

For example, there is a rice gene that is activated when aphids damage leaves. Moved to potato, the gene operates the same way and confers resistance to aphids. Moreover, it is expressed only in the leaves and only when the leaves are damaged. Aphid eats leaf... aphid dies. This is especially important in the case of aphids because aphids carry viruses from plant to plant.

Thus, no weird plant/fish hybrids are necessary. A gene from one edible plant is moved into another edible plant. Carbofuran will be history. And millions of birds will be saved.

I would encourage environmentalists to step up the demand for transgenic plants that eliminate ALL chemicals from agriculture and our environment.On EPA attempt to ban bird-killing pesticide runs into opposition posted 1 year, 9 months ago 2 Responses

Organization

ELF doesn't need an "organization" to be a terrorist group. It could be a single person with a website who posts inspirational material, instructions for making explosives, celebrates acts of violence, and encourages coordinated activity. That makes ELF a terrorist group and all those who identify themselves as ELF activistist terrorists.

It is actually quite brilliant as far as organizing criminal activity is concerned. The person with the website can serve as leader but avoid accountability for his crimes.

However, rights come with responsibility. The leader of ELF has a right to free speech. He is also responsible for the violence it invokes. He cannot simply say he is concerned about life on Earth, the harm resulting from sprawl, post "suggestions", and then deny responsibility for what unfolds.On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 9 months ago 80 Responses

Inspiration

Regarding...

"For those of us who think that life is far more important than property, acts like this couldn't be farther from "terrorism.""

I've posted the following before, but do not recall whether someone provided a good reply. So, I'll try again. For those who might consider the described arson as something for the greater good, just a small matter, and inspiration for those who truly value life, please consider the following.

Suppose I created and wish to distribute a GM plant that will eliminate the manufacture and use of a particularly nasty chemical, a chemical that shortens lives, causes cancer, or causes birth defects... not just to protect humans, but to protect wildlife.  And suppose there is an environmental organization spreading misinformation and standing in the way of release of this GM plant that will save lives and reduce suffering. Would it be okay for me to walk down to their office and lob a molotov cocktail through the front window... just as a warning? After all, the office building is just property and the goal would be to protect human and other creatures' lives.

Who needs law and order when every single one of us knows, really KNOWS, what's best for all of us and the rest of Earth's inhabitants? Right?On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 9 months ago 80 Responses

From the AP article...

"One of the people involved in the project said the homes used "green" techniques such as water-pervious sidewalks, super-insulated walls and windows and products made with recycled materials, such carpet pads. Advertising for last summer's Street of Dreams show focused on the environmentally friendly aspects of the homes, which were smaller than some of the huge houses featured in years past."

and...

"It's very disappointing to t