Comments MAD MAC has made

Picking Palin was a mistake

She's dumber than a box of rocks. I personally know a number of people who are obviously more intelligent than she is. She's a pandering politician even worse than the norm.

Victory in Pattani

Where are we going?

I ain't going anywhere with you guys; you depress me. I'm going to a nice little bar with live music and a fair amount of hot, sweet women who love to massage my ego. Where you guys are going I can't say, but I doubt it will be any fun.

Victory in Pattani

Jon, lending is the problem!

What people and governments need to start doing, and should have been doing all along, is investing with capital that they HAD ON HAND. Not borrowing money so they can make an investment and pay it back latter. That's OK SOMETIMES, it should not be the norm. EVERYONE and EVERY INSTITUTION should not be running around with a boatload of debt.

Victory in Pattani

Choppers don't burn much gas.

I love my chopper........ is that almost the same thing? I get my exercise hitting the heavy bag.

Victory in Pattani

But don't attack BIG

Again, the secret to a more ethical meat industry is to work to make people understand what factory farming is like. The more people are aware of it, the more they will reject it.

But don't make the mistake of attacking "Big" farming or trying to make a supposition that big farms have to be bad farms. You want to get at the specific practices that should be illegal, not the scale of farming.

On of the things I have noticed here in provincial Thailand is that while meat is consumed, it is consumed in much smaller quantities - mostly due to expense. So if you get something like "Gai Pad Prick" - a spicy chicken dish, it's mostly rice and vegetables. I have found that eating here has cut way down on my meat consumption - and I don't even like most vegetables.

Victory in Pattani

I was just having a conversation about climate

with my Thai friends yesterday. We were commenting on how nice the climate is right now.

Victory in Pattani

Poverty is never a good thing.

Poor countries may not pollute more per capita, but they also are far less innovative. The world needs the energy and dynamism of the wealthy parts of the world to improve the environment. No question about it.

Victory in Pattani

I'm sure they're concerned they need more water

"But they lose some credibility, if they do not directly address water use, and continuing immigration to their region from within the US, as their principal concerns."

I used to live in Southern Arizona and water is definitely an issue. The entire region needs a massive desalinization program to get access to adequate water.

Victory in Pattani

Ahhhh, someone tell the poster........

...... the primaries are over, and that evil Satanic woman didn't make it. TFC.

Victory in Pattani

Sez you

"Schooling is just a result of what the ruling class wants the kids to learn.  In order to transform the schools in the manner you envision, which would be exponentially if not infinitely better than what now exists for the reasons you cite, the entire society would have to change from one based on greed, materialism, and individualism, to one based on mental and spiritual evolution and ecological morality.  There are tiny examples of this, such as some Buddhist monasteries and hunter-gatherer cultures.  While they only represent a fraction of a percent of human culture, those are the societies and cultures the rest of humanity should be emulating."

I am not interested in spiratuality, I sure as hell don't want to live in a hunter-gatherer society and I like individualism and societies that foster it. So please, when you say those are the societies humanity should be emulating, please make sure you exclude me.

Victory in Pattani

Have you guys always seen the world in a......

....... negative light? Have you always hated the US government? Have you always hated the global economic system? Man, I have never seen as many negative people with negative outlooks on life in one place in my life. Your lives must really suck. Am I the only happy person on this board?

Victory in Pattani

This thread faded

But does anyone here know why Wolverine would think a Bow is a more human hunting tool than a rifle?

Victory in Pattani

Russ, I would argue it's more than housing

And as much as it's fun to blame the government for all of our problems, the fact is Americans have been consistently living beyond their means for a long time now. That is how we manage to run a trade imbalance month after month. That's not sustainable. Most Americans are deep into credit card debt spending money they don't have on luxury items.

When I was a kid my parents taught me to save my money for something, then I could buy it when I had enough. I have lived my whole life that way. I NEVER, EVER bought anything other than a car on credit (and I only did that once). Now, it's never been very realistic for a lot of people to buy a first home without a bank loan. Of course, most people took out loans after making a sizable down payment. When banks stop demanding this, and people stopped doing it, both made a big mistake that they are paying for now.

The bottom line is that people need to stop buying on credit. You either have the cash or you don't. Take your credit cards and burn 'em if you can't discipline yourself.

Bottom line: Americans as a people need to become more physically responsible. The government can't do this for them. They have to do this themselves.

What the government can (and had better) do is:

a. Increase oversight regulation to make sure that predatory mortgages are not happening.
b. That high risk mortgages are not happening (you would hope that the industry could figure this out for themselves, but since that's demonstrably not the case, the government is going to have to be involved).
c. That any bailout includes government ownership stake in the companies being bailed out. Nothing for nothing.

Victory in Pattani

Amazing, this is counter productive

Your post until your last paragraph was great. Then you land with this:

"If you will be long gone by then, maybe you just don't care?  That's the impression I get from most deniers.  It's pure selfishness that (mis)informs their cognitive decision."

First of all, environmentalists should stop using the term "denier". They are using it as a pejorative in a debate where pejoratives have no place. If you want to move people to your point of view, calling them names is not going to do it. There are people who are skeptics, and they have LEGITIMATE REASONS for being skeptics. It is fine if you don't agree with their reasons, believe that the science is clear on the critical points, and try to persuade people to that end. But instead you are choosing to attack their character because they have not reached the same conclusions you have. BIG MISTAKE. If you believe that some sort of united action has to be taken, then first and foremost you need a lot of people seeing things the way you do. Insulting them won't achieve that.

Victory in Pattani

Biodiverse, you are not being honest

It is true the the global cooling thing only lasted a few years before it faded into the background. BUT, environmentalists were all over it at the time. You need to look at these pages closer. We have Russ, who wants "an agrarian utopia". We have Wolverine, who hates any agriculture and wants a return to "hunter - gatherer societies", we have Jabilaio (excuse the spelling of this weirdos moniker) who hates modern society and hates rich people and thinks money should be eliminated and we should only barter. The environmental movement is sprinkled with these types.

"Environmentalists are striving to protect the environment, which out of necessity and by definition requires change."

The question becomes what kind of change we are talking about. Outside of the environmental movement (read the vast majority of humans) the general consensus is that man has dominion over the earth. That it is there for us to exploit. The question then becomes how can we do this sustainably.

Within the environmental movement there is much more of a consensus that man should live in harmony with nature, that nature is to preserved for nature's sake.

Now, these two paths often intermingle - no question about it. One might say that to have resources to exploit, we have to maintain bio-diversity. That's a fair arguement. But there is no getting around the fact that you are dealing with two fundamental outlooks here.

Victory in Pattani

This does not mean........

......... I want the US to turn into a socialist country. I want the US to pursue reneweables, I don't want them to turn their socio-economic system on its head.

Victory in Pattani

heka - even scientists aren't acting that way

You don't see scientists packing their stuff and heading for the hills to join the "end of the world" crowd. Or killing themselves. Or whatever one is suppose to do when the end of the world comes. That's because nothing is certain or even close to it.

Victory in Pattani

Of course he can't be honest

No candidate can talk openly about how he's going to raise taxes and inflict other pain on the people he needs to vote for him and expect to win.

Campaigning is one thing, what you do in office is another. This rule applies to all politicians at all times.

Victory in Pattani

Contempt is never a good tool for pursuasion.

And Spence, while your fundamental points are reasonable sound, the contempt drips from your post. You won't legislate squat if your opponents control the Congress. And the more you attack them, the more likely they are to do just that. A much better approach is to persuade them to your way of thinking on the ISSUES THAT COUNT. Don't threaten their faith - you don't need to do that - that's guaranteed to fail. Lots of religious people believe that we need to protect the environment. So do lots of conservatives. You need to foster relations with those people and make your camp as big as possible. The more aggressive you are, the most you are going to lose. Like the "Earth First" whackos. Nobody is EVER going to support them.

Victory in Pattani

John, did you have any serious deployments...

While in the Marines??? Because you sure are talking like you have ZERO experience.

I spent quite a bit of time in Somalia (two years in Somalia and the Ogaden) and Bosnia (One year in Sarajevo) and got to see the results of a "Revolution" up close. Most people don't realize this, but in the American Revolution we were EXTREMELY lucky in the outcome. Most revolutions end like China's did, or Cambodia's did, or the Congo, or Russia......... in all of these post Revolution scenarios some strong man takes over and promptly kills millions of his own people - or nobody takes over, you have anarchy, mass starvation and death. THAT'S WHAT YOU GET WITH A REVOLUTION.

And for the most part it isn't the rich who die. As the security situation derails, and your national security and police forces come apart, the rich higher their own private security. As the poor show up with their calloused hands they are promptly executed by well trained and equipped security forces. This is the way things went in Somalia where everyone had a gun. You think the rich are the ones there who paid the price????

And your brother Joe isn't going to eat anything of mine (certainly not a poodle since I don't own one - I had a bull terrier who would have eaten your brother before he died). First off, I'd shoot him if he tried. And secondly, I doubt he's planning a boat trip up the Mekong where I live anytime soon.

I actually didn't leave America, as I was in Germany when I retired. But I chose Thailand because my wife is Thai. We had to pick someplace, and Thailand was cheap. That doesn't mean I hate America. But since you obviously hate American government and don't have faith in it's institutions, why don't you leave? It's a free country. Pack your bags and move someplace you like.

Victory in Pattani

Taxexs

"The whole argument for lowering corporate taxes and personal taxes on the rich for decades has been that if we leave money in the pockets of the masters of the universe they will create more value than wasting it on trains, and healthcare and education, and energy infrastructure."

Gar, there is truth to this. But like all else, if the theory is run to extreme, it ends up doing more damage than good.

I am now an advocate of the flat tax rate because it's impossible to come up with a graduated rate that's fair and equitable. I don't know what the rate is, but it needs to be something like 30%. Everyone pays that rate, no write offs for anything. Either you can live within the existing budget or not and you modify your expenditures. I didn't use to feel this way, but it's become apparent that the tax incentive system doesn't do what we want it to at reasonable cost.

Victory in Pattani

Get Real

There's no "irrelevant label here". If you start talking about Agrarian Utopia's (of which there are NO historical examples) you are using the language of Pol Pot. You are talking about things as if the issues confronting us were issues of class - they are not.

Agrarian Utopia is a fantasy. Without modern medicine (not available in "agrarian utopias") life becomes, to quote my old friend Hobbs, harsh, brutish and short.

An agrarian Utopia looks like my wife's village did 30 years ago. Dusty, dirty streets. Back breaking work from dusk to dawn, usually with enough to eat, but not enough to buy real clothes (guess you wouldn't buy anything without money though anyway right? My wife had one dress, two pairs of underwear and no shoes for her first ten years of life in the agrarian utopia - her father is a farmer). If you or you wife or child get sick, hope they get better. Because medical care is not to be had. Appendicitis or pneumonia meant you were probably going to die. Ditto dengue fever, so popular in these parts.

Your posts are low on substance, not thought through, and rich on negativism for the existing socio-economic system that has served us well. You write like someone who has never lived in impoverished "agrarian utopias" to have a close up look of what that actually means.

Victory in Pattani

This guy IS a whack job.

"The central problem in the financial crises is the imposition by Liberals of centralized enslavement institutions to drain the populace of its wealth and force it to live in dense urban housing with low efficiency lifestyles rather than in agrarian or exurban bliss."

OK Chairman Mao, thank you so much for your deep insight. Thank Christ you aren't anywhere near some real power or we might end up with another version of the Khmer Rouge running the country. Their thought process was right in line with yours.

Victory in Pattani

jabailo, are you on crack?

Get rid of money? And what medium to you propose to use in its place? Cattle? That sounds unlikely. Would you prefer a barter system? "I'll give you the empire state building for 20,000 shares of stock in IBM"????? How do you propose that a modern economy function without currency?

Victory in Pattani

The old lie.....

The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. Of course it's not true. All classes have gotten wealthier. The issue that the "socialist oriented left" have with the rich getting richer is they don't think the rich should ever get richer. They think that money should go into government coffers and be spent on the poor.

"The gap between the rich and the poor has been growing for the past 30 years and the gap has been growing much faster since the Bush tax cuts."

Yes, the gap has grown, but the gap isn't a problem is it? The fact is working class America is richer now than it was 30 years ago.

"Sociologists say that we have less upward mobility today than ever before. "

Care to name the sociologists? There are plenty of people who have made good - men like Bill Gates. He wasn't born rich.

"Work hard and you get to keep working hard....but if you're born with money you get to "invest" your money instead of working and you get to have more money."

You act as if that's bad. As if everyone should be born equal. I'll let you in on a little secret. Nothing in this universe ever had an equal deal. Not a bird, not a tree, not a leaf...... the world ain't fair, and it's not the job of government to make it fair.

"Not really an economic system that appeals to my democratic principles."

Then move to Sweden - you will pay taxes through the ass, but it's probably more to your liking. I ain't moving there.

"You really can't do anything to make the economy worse for the working poor who already can't afford to live on minimum-wage or nearly minimum wage jobs."

If you have a minimum wage job and a family, you are an idiot. And you don't think things can be worse? Try the Great Depression. Or the Depression of the 1890s. It was A LOT worse. Nobody in America is starving to death - which is normal in many places in the world. Places I used to live.

"I know a lot of older folks have worked their whole lives and have their pensions and retirement tied up in this mess but I think we're really ignoring the people who have been suffering for years."

Nobody is ignoring them. All of life's ills can not be solved, and certainly not by government.

"Let the economy crash.  To my little brother who also lives in a trailer and has a baby on the way in December and works 72-hour weeks (on 12-hour night shifts) with no health insurance, if your "investments" evaporate into ethers, it makes no difference."

Sure it does. You don't think this is going to pound Joe Six Packs economic life? You don't think it can worse for your little brother? Try not being able to pay rent on the trailer, not being able to afford to buy even food when there's no job at all and no government assistance either. Make no mistake, if the economy collapses, you could see massive unemployment, lack of government ability to pay anything to anyone, and lots of starving people. Your brother could watch his family starve to death. Believe me, it can get a lot worse.

"But whatever...what I say doesn't matter because I'm not rich enough to own a lobbyist.  Basically, my understanding of government is that you should just assume that any and every action they take is designed to help out their rich friends.  Keep playing with your monopoly money..."

You get to vote for whoever you want, you can run for office, you can say whatever you want. Be happy you can. Again, I've lived in places where people can't do any of these things. They open their mouths complaining about their government like you are here and they get their brains blown out, or get to watch their wives gang raped as punishment. If you don't like you political leaders, elect different ones...... or run for office yourself. Anyone can whine.

Victory in Pattani

You are taking a simple appraoch to comlex issues

Very few Democrats are avowed atheists.

Pro-choice? It's not that simple. At least it's not that simple for a sentient human being. Ever watched a video ultra sound of an abortion? Try it sometimes.

Your hands are tied because you are an ideologue. I am not, recognize that many of these issues are very complex, and for some very emotional. You are taking the simpletons approach to complex issues here.

The worst thing that can happen in any state is where one party essentially dominates the political process. Once you reach that point, it ceases to be accountable. Without that 20%, you don't have a Democratic process. It rapidly gets undermined.

Victory in Pattani

I wonder if Amazing is working for the Republicans

"It might make a good video, a full size puppet of Palin, stuffed with meat, thrown to a Polar bear?  Could it be molded out of edible materials? Hehey.

A good way to get the point across."

No, it's not a good way to get the point across. But it is a good way to help McCain / Palin get elected.

Victory in Pattani

OK, here you go

The vote to increase minimum wage over the next two years (which is a bad move).

Federal Funding on Stem Cell research. McCain voted for it, it was opposed by his party, supported by Democrats. His position was very unpopular with his party core constituents.

Resolution 2611 Would tighten border security and establish guest worker and "path to citizenship" programs. Republican party opposed it, Democrats supported it, McCain voted for it.

There have been other more historical cases as well.

If the Green movement, and the Democrats in general try to attack John McCain (or his bimbo Palin) they are making a HUGE tactical blunder and will help him win the election. No matter how you slice it or dice it, he's a genuine war hero. He's also got a pretty good moral record for someone who's been in politics as long as he has. Start talking smack about him, and you are giving him votes.

Victory in Pattani

Pangolin, that's a sophomoric approach

And clearly you must understand that.

Gavelston GOT CLOBBERED in 1906. Was that man made too? Let's try to be a little more sophisticated here.

The Green movement wants the entire economic system turned on its head. They want an end to "consumerism" and an end to industrial production. Now some say it's just not sustainable. Others don't care whether it is or not, they just have a deconstructionist outlook. They HATE modern society. They don't want it to exist. Guys like Wolverine want mankind to function more like the Sioux did 400 years ago. Guys like Russ seem to favor a society that functions like Ancient Greece did.......

So yes, there is economic costs, and man made causes COULD (this is by no means certain) result in major economic dislocation well out of proportion with historical precedent. Very true. Hence the reason that a lot of intelligent people are concerned about it. BUT, they also realize that there is a whole lot more going on in the Green Movement that has nothing to do with concern about economic dislocation - indeed they WANT to see the system collapse.

Hence some people you call "deniers" are more of the conservative "We need to be concerned about this, but we need to be careful that the remedy isn't worse than the disease." This is not an illegitimate approach and should not be treated as such.

Victory in Pattani

M if you think that Sarah Palin is hot......

...... then you need to come out to Thailand. She's kind of fat (She's had five kids already - what do you expect), she's too white (I don't like white chicks, they almost all have attitudes), and he face isn't all that. My wife is ten times better looking than Sarah Palin and speaks three languages and two dialects.

Victory in Pattani

Government leadership yes - ownership, no

I have no problem with government steering the ship. I just don't want them to own the ship.

Victory in Pattani

I disagree

"If we are serious about phasing out fossil fuels, we need public investment - in a grid, and in deployment."

Generally speaking, the fewer business under government control, the happier I am. There is no reason this can not be accomplished via incentive to the private sector.

General rule of thumb: That done by the private sector is done better than that done by the government sector.

Victory in Pattani

One way ytou can be sure your meat....

.... is raised in a compassionate manner is to know exactly where it comes from. Unfortunately, for city dwellers, this is not a very realistic option unless you want to buy in bulk and freeze it - thus using more electricity for you freezer to do so.

Again, I am lucky here because I get my meat fresh from an open air market and know exactly where the animals are coming from and how they are raised. But my solution is not a realistic one for everyone.

Meat and poultry are intrinsic parts of our diets, but from both an ethical standpoint and an environmental standpoint the consumption of same should be kept to a minimum. Additinally, as much as I don't like government intervention, obviously some is required here to set minimum standards for the maintenance of farm animals that allows them access to free range more than 50% of their lives.

Victory in Pattani

CO2 cuts are NOT going to happen

Bob pull your head out of the sand (or somewhere else as dark) and look around. The Chinese are building more Coal Power plants every week!!!! Maybe you missed it. They are buying cars up from the global market out the gazoo. What they are not doing is investing in renewables even close to the investment in non-renewables, except to produce them to sell them to Europe.

Ditto India.

These two countries are HUGE. They alone can more than off set anything we or the Europeans do. And they are not going to change any policies in this domain anytime soon. They are just beginning to get their economic feet on the ground.

So we had better find a way to deal with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, either by minimizing the impacts or by washing it out in some sort of sink, because this problem IS NOT going to be solved by cuts. That is an unrealistic thought process.

Victory in Pattani

Another part of the problem.....

"The Green movement, rather than ignoring this, has been screaming their heads off for almost forty years on population and fuel issues. I learned about this stuff in the 70's reading Stewart Brand's magazines before he sold out."

Yes, and as often as not, the Green movement has been crying wolf. That's part of the issue.

Again, and you seem to want to ignore these facts:

a. There is an element of the Green movement which WANTS catastrophic change. It WANTS to see 80 or 90 percent of the human population die off. It WANTS MAJOR changes in societal structure FOR THE SAKE OF THAT CHANGE. Since most people would flat out reject that, it uses other more circuitous arguments. Hence you end up with "deniers" because many in the movement have not been honest.

b. Other areas of the globe CAN NOT go local. They will have to be fed - or die - from external sources. Their populations completely surpass the ability of their local area to sustain them.

Food security is better now than at any point in human history. Nevertheless, there have been issues associated with how that was achieved. But in making those arguments, and arguing for modification of same, as with all honest arguement you have to admit to the problems...... which the Green Movement doesn't want to do.

In short, the movement is simply not intellectually honest.

Victory in Pattani

Wolverine you lost me on the bow

How do you figure that hunting with a bow is more humane than with a gun? A gun is MUCH more likely to kill the targeted prey quickly. A bow is much more likely to cause a painful death. Bows are inherently less accurate and arrows carry inherently less energy to the target.

I do agree that hunting is the most humane way to consume meat - but then what to do with all the cows in the world?

Victory in Pattani

The problem with this crap........

........ is that it's helping McCain get elected. These kind of silly attacks simply create a backlash from people who think it's below the belt and develops sympathy for her.

A smart campaign focuses on how they are going to make things better for their electorate. A stupid campaign tries to demonize people who shouldn't be demonized..........

She's not the sharpest tool in the shed and somewhat of a bimbo...... so what? She's not evil. And people who don't subscribe to the Green agenda are not evil. People who don't subscribe to causes of the left are not evil. And when you try to paint them as such - either evil or stupid - you help them get elected.

Victory in Pattani

Yes Wreaken, it is

The reason why is simple: There is an agenda in the Green movement that has nothing to do at all with the environment. That is the anti-civilization movement, which we see here well expressed by Russ and Wolverine. That WANT catastrophe, because they want civilization to collapse.

Victory in Pattani

I still think it should be possible........

........ to modify the troposphere or the stratosphere in order to reduce the energy coming to the surface and thus mitigating the problem via this method.

Also, it seems we really need to put more effort into CO2 "washing" to remove CO2 that is already in the atmosphere.

These two actions could go a long way towards cooling the climate and achieving equilibrium, but I don't hear climate scientists beating the drums for them. Why not?

Truth be told, even if the west reduces its greenhouse gases, the Developing world is just going to take our place in  outputs. The oil is giong to be used until it's gone. That's pretty obvious.

Victory in Pattani

Leave it to Pangolin......

....... to make the debate about who shot John and a credibility issue.

Can we just focus on the issue and not sling darts at someone or some political orientation. Jesus Christ already.

Victory in Pattani

Russ, with your attitude

You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Anyone reading anything you post will assume Greens are idiots and ideologues and walk away. Your palpable hostility towards everything you don't agree with isn't going to win any arguments, that's for sure.

Victory in Pattani

How about my Dog

Whenever someone in our family circle was sick, the Dog would dote on him or her. My dog was extremely compassionate - to humans. Hated his own species though.

Victory in Pattani

Vakibs, I disagree on compassion

Compassion is displayed in the animal kingdom, particularly in mothers for their off spring, but also in other spheres as well.

Victory in Pattani

Russ, it's easy to put your ideology into an...

... ideological spectrum. It's called nuts. You are whacked. The only member of the Grist who's brain cells are not functioning quite as well as yours is Wolverine.

"Anyway, I'm not a "leftist". My world view can't be plotted on the standard ideological spectrum."

Victory in Pattani

Actually I think John McCain is conscious

I think he's a good man who just hasn't completely come to the correct conclusions. I like McCain. I just like Obama more.

Victory in Pattani

My technique is

I take out my .357 and steal my food from some poor slob. But it's a technique I don't need to practice. My skills in the controlled application of violence are solid.

Victory in Pattani

Jon are you sure?

"Nobody is advocating cutting off all grain trade, or even much of it, until better systems are in place."

I wonder what Wolverine would say - he wants the planets population down to around 500,000,000 humans. There's only one way to get there.

Victory in Pattani

Response for Jon and Amazing

"For instance, Egypt used to feed Rome in ancient times because of the fertility of the Nile.  That fertility has been suspended -- hopefully not destroyed -- by the Aswan Dam.  If that came down, Egypt, which now imports food, could probably feed itself -- but frankly, I don't know."

Egypt grows just as much food now as it did 2,000 yeas ago. The problem is there are MANY more Romans and, most importantly, Egyptians. The population of Egypt is bursting at the seams.

"The soils all over Africa have been depleted by colonial and now multinational corporate agricultural practices, basically mining the soil to produce cocoa and other, mostly nonessential goods for the rich countries."

And for themselves. Khat is a huge export product in Ethiopia - it's existence has nothing to do with corporations (at least not western ones) or Colonialism.

"Mad Mac, I don't know what you saw in terms of erosion in Somalia, but my bet is that that was a huge factor in that country's poverty as well."

Water, not erosion, is the number one factor in East Africa and the Middle East. There's not enough water, because there's not enough rainfall. The populations grew out of proportion for the land to feed these areas because:

a. Food was imported.
b. Modern pharmaceuticals allowed people to live who used to die.

Somalis always had large families, but most of the kids died before they reached adulthood. Now they live and breed like their parents did.

"So we really don't know how many people Africa could feed sustainably.  Again, the best source for this seems to be the Food First people."

East Africa can probably sustain about half of what it feeds now. The Middle East, about ten percent. There is no getting around it - they can't go local. They don't have the water to do so.

Victory in Pattani

RD doubtless this is true

But the inverse is also true:

Again, it's like the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Plenty of Democrats have the intelligence to understand specific facts that may run contrary to what they think, but this doesn't mean they'll make any change in position... especially if that change would require a fundamental reconsideration of their perspective on the world and human issues.

Victory in Pattani

The Green movement is its own worst enemy

Watch this video. These kind of people make the rest of us say "WTF???"

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/906397/

Victory in Pattani

Does Romm want McCain to win?

Do you want him to win the election? Keep attacking him. Keep calling him names. Who is the guy? A moron? Maybe Romm works in the McCain camp.

First of all, past history is not a predictor on future action.

Secondly, McCain is a genuine war hero. Calling him names is just going to piss people off and push them to him.

Thirdly, A lot of people identify with McCain and Palin on values issues. Attack his values, you are attacking them. What you say won't matter, you will lose at the polls.

The smart thing to do is aggressively explain why Obama is the man. The dumb thing to do is try to explain why McCain is not.

Victory in Pattani

Bob you lost me here..........

"Laudations Jo' for this wonderful "good news", it is certainly a huge improvement over recent reports that sea level rise (SLR) has been flat to negative in the last few years!  (and rather slight before that.... The ACTUAL DATA I mean)."

Is this good news because it's less than you expected, or good news because you want sea levels to rise?

Victory in Pattani

Russ is cracked.

"You mean like what we have right now. The anarchy and tyranny of Hobbesian plunder capitalism, and the creeping tyranny of technology, governments, and corporations."

No, I mean like Somalia has right now. Try going there sometimes and you can see the difference.

"I have, not "chosen", but recognized. Sure it doesn't mean anything now. All I can do is express what's in my mind's eye. What the truth is."

And the truth is that everyone who is a US citizen has just as many rights as Russ does.

"As for international politics, you again seem incapable of understanding very simple ideas. America is of course not going to enter energy descent and the collapse of the international monetary system and globalization alone. What do you think "international" and "global" mean???? It means everything is interlinked, everything is currently patched and twined and propped up together, and it means everything simplifies together."

a. That would not mean a controlled decent and some would descend (and therefore be victimized) faster than others.

b. It assumes a total collapse of the system, which is probably a false assumption.

c. If it does happen, it will truly devastate the environment and probably result in a nuclear holocaust.

"So America will hardly be in peril of being "dominated". As dilapidated as its infrastructure is, America still has more to work with than most places. And if the transformation is undertaken in an organized, systematic manner, its position will be even better."

How many times do I have to say, such a transformation is NOT POSSIBLE? What part of "not possible" are you not comprehending?

"Today the level of debt is astronomical, absolutely irremediable. The country is bankrupt; the infrastructure is falling apart. Residences, business, food delivery, and government are all laid out in such a way as to be absolutely dependent, as dependent as a newborn infant, upon the car and cheap gasoline."

This is, of course, completely wrong. They are dependent on cheap energy, so as long as cheap energy can be found, the problem is solved. And low and behold, it's already been found....... solar, wind, nuclear, coal........ all will do just fine.

"Most of all, we're running up against the Malthusian limits of fossil fuels, the foundation upon which this civilization is built. Without ever-increasing oil supplies, things fall apart."

No, they don't fall apart, they morph. And that's what's happening right now.

At any rate, if you are right (and I am sure you are wrong) it doesn't matter. You can not de-construct the system. Period. Not possible. Not even worth discussing.

"I hope so. I hope to have a role in it. But it won't be "thriving" according to your blinkered notion."

You won't have a role in it, you'll be long dead. And unless you have an extensive role in the controlled application of violence, if things do come apart, your chances or survival would be small anyway. Only the predators will survive - others will be dead or enslaved. The natural order of things.

"According to this story in today's NYTimes, all these years since Katrina and they still haven't fixed the levees. The stupid place is certainly going to get clobbered again, and again and again."

The Federal Government is actually fixing the levees - but New Orleans was built where it should not have been. So yes, it's going to get clobbered, along with every other area built around the gulf. Always did get clobbered, but now more and more people are living there, and they shouldn't. Learn the hard way.

"Now, if even right now, when America is still relatively rich, and was so full of sympathy for the city's post-Katrina plight, it still can't be bothered to fix the problem, really spending just pennies,  then how on earth do you expect it to undertake an energy revolution, something vastly more expensive and cumbersome, during energy descent and economic meltdown, when all that paper wealth has evaporated?"

It's happening right now. Private industry is working this problem hard precisely because there is money to be made in it - a lot of money.

You, sir, are a nut.

Victory in Pattani

The democractic process is beneath contempt?

"This kind of flat-earth, quantity-over-quality bean-counting is beneath contempt."

So you are right, everyone else is wrong, other opinions don't matter. Got it.

"Throughout history the majority has almost always been wrong about every real issue."

Like you are on this one?

"It's the creative and intellectual elite who have always borne the torch of insight and vision, with the hominid masses lagging hundreds, often thousands of years behind."

Don't flatter yourself. Those same "elites" have also been responsible for all kinds of heinous B.S.

"BTW, I think you meant "de facto". "De jure" means formal, official."

No, I meant de jure - in accordance with law. That's the result of this funky things called elections. You're not smarter than me, so don't try and get pedantic and make yourself look that way.

"Believe me, I was the victim of their hate for many long hard years before I started hating them back. But now I'm counterattacking."

And like Don Quixote, you are losing.

"So there are two choices - orderly retreat or absolute rout."

Orderly retreat is not an option. A simpleton can figure that out. There is no orderly way, short of bringing Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichman out of the grave and putting them to work on the problem, to cut the planets population by two thirds. Furthermore, the kind of centralized power that would have to be given to a world governing body would definitely be abused by those who controlled it. What the purpose, that would not be the ends result.

Of course, you are wrong, the collapse is not going to happen. There will be pain and reduction, but not collapse. The industrial era is not going to go backwards, but rather evolve. 500 years from now, people will not be riding horseback.

Victory in Pattani

I AM a moral relativist

You took an extreme example. An act that is indefensible in the modern context. Let's take two very good current examples:

a. Polygamy. In the Islamic tradition, it's morally correct. In our current Christian tradition, it's morally incorrect. Is there only one correct answer here? And who's answer is it?

b. Homosexuality. In the Islamic tradition a major taboo.In modern western civilization now largely (though certainly not completely) accepted. So who's interpretation is correct?

It's totally arbitrary which way you go on questions like this unless you apply an over-arching principle, which you have to accept others will not apply.

As for how this applies to political life in the US, you can howl about those things which you consider abhorrent (hunting wolves from aircraft is not for trophies - it's to keep the population in check since they are predators and eat things we don't want them eating) but in a pluralistic democracy you have to accept the outcome of the majority. If you attack the majority vociferously, you will be ignored.

Victory in Pattani

Bob, there is no fix

Even if there were zero man made emissions of anything starting today - which is, of course, impossible, the climate wouldn't make any sort of real adjustment for decades. This isn't like a sports car, it doesn't turn on a dime. So the Greenland ice sheet is going to take a beating, seas levels are going to rise.......... and nothing can change that. So learn to live with it.

Victory in Pattani

The cloning, Saxib, is not an ethical issue.

As you point out, either you eat meat or you don't. Now, I do not approve of raising animals in constraints, so that they spend their entire lives in a cage and are then killed. Animals should be raised in fields, where they can graze and do whatever the hell it is that animals like to do - before I eat them.

Victory in Pattani

Yeah, Americans are dying in droves.....

.... from unsafe foods. Hundreds of thousands of people have already died last year because the FDA has failed in its charter to ensure relative safety of the US food supply................

Who are the absolute idiots who write this drivel?

Victory in Pattani

Are any of the SOBs on Grist every positive?

McCain is a good man. Republicans are not the enemies of the people. I am voting for Obama because I believe him to be the right man at the right time. But that doesn't mean that McCain is evil personified. What's the matter with you people? Your lives must really suck.

Victory in Pattani

Steve, it's just not that easy

Even if you could get everyone to agree (and face it, we can't even get science to agree on much) on the nature of the problem, that does not mean you will get everyone to agree on the solution.

There is no world government, and if there were, it would doubtless not be altruistic in its approaches to global issues or the humanity it governed. There's no reason to assume it would at any rate.

Victory in Pattani

It doesn't matter what they say

You would disregard it. People on Grist are almost all to the far left of center.

Victory in Pattani

Robert Frost you're not

How about a more conventional headline? Good grief.On Deal to shrink roadless areas in Idaho approved by Bush admin posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

Jonas, a quick look at human history....

gives lie to this statement:

"MAD MAC, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but supporting collective interests is a far more important natural law than the pursuit of individual interests."

Humans are driven by self interest. Rarely do they put the collective ahead of self interest. Marx and Engels theorized that this would happen - that is did not is one of the many reasons for the failure of the communist ideal. People have always asked "what's in it for me" and they always will. You're deluding yourself if you think the world is going to morph into something other than what it is now, sociologically speaking.On Arctic ice in a 'death spiral' as it hits second-lowest point ever posted 1 year, 3 months ago 16 Responses

Why don't you just call him what he is?

A nutcase. Wolverine is whacked, his views have exactly zero percent possibility of ever becoming a reality.......... the boy just ain't right.

Victory in Pattani

But what to do about countries dependent ....

..... on food aide and imports? The fact is the populations of East Africa and the Middle East have far outgrown the capacity for local food producers of any sort to feed them. They can not go local, because local can't produce enough food.

Victory in Pattani

How about killing for self preservation?

"Not to mention that killing for any reason other than to eat is totally immoral, and killing is what technology does."

Killing occurs in the wild all the time, and not only for eating. Many animals kill for territorial reasons.

Victory in Pattani

Doesn't matter if it's in the dictionary

"Perhaps human solidarity is not in your dictionary, but it is in mine."

Self interest will drive the train, or the train isn't going anywhere. Natures law, not mine.On Arctic ice in a 'death spiral' as it hits second-lowest point ever posted 1 year, 3 months ago 16 Responses

Russ, agree with everything you wrote

Victory in Pattani

Yep, it's over, we're all going to die.....

........ Can you guys calm down already? How do you function when every day is a crisis in your life?On Arctic ice in a 'death spiral' as it hits second-lowest point ever posted 1 year, 3 months ago 16 Responses

Jason is of course, correct

You can't turn the clock back. Consumption is NOT going to decrease globally. It's going to increase. Does anyone, even whacko Wolverine, believe that the Chinese are suddenly going to wake up and say "Oh, that's right, we need to stop consuming stuff and go back to the way we used to be?". The way they used to be sucked, and they can still remember how it was.

We need to find environmentally sound ways to increase our energy production - because climate or not climate, animals or no animals - the increase is going to happen one way or another

Victory in Pattani

If this is true then..........

.... why are you concerned about where our power comes from? If you have "X" amount of dollars, and want to invest in energy, then you would invest in wind power. So coal would die a natural death due to market forces. Amazing, you are not making any sense in any of your recent posts. Are you off your meds or something?

"Coal is now twice the cost of wind per kwh."On Consumers express renewed interest in natural-gas vehicles posted 1 year, 3 months ago 20 Responses

Amazing, how can you not understand this?

Do you want successful development of alternative energy or not? This kind of sentiment is flat out stupid:

"We don't want you on our side."

You need everybody on your side you can get - particularly people who have access to billions of dollars which they can invest in your plan.

The Republicans still have a large base of support in this country. That is not going to change in your lifetime. So you had better figure out how to work with them and move them on issues you consider critical - or you will lose in your carbon objective.

Do you want results or not? Because you can't get them by simply declaring conservatives as "the enemy". That is a formula for failure.

Victory in Pattani

Who's ultimate goal would this be Cowboy?

"Of course, the ultimate goal should be getting back to hunting and gathering, not harming nature and natural processes by farming."

Maybe you want to be a hunter - gather with a painfully short life span, but I don't. Screw nature. You want to be a caveman, that's on you. But I'll skip the experience thank you very much.

Victory in Pattani

John, don't be a jarhead

That the time of the SUV is coming to an end is fine. That we are happy because people are going to suffer financial loss - that's ignorant.

Victory in Pattani

So it's your plan or else???

Another idiotic diatribe which is all about attack, attack, attack. Again, this is the single biggest problem with the green movement. There's another agenda at work that has NOTHING to do with the environment.

Victory in Pattani

Bud - that they should be in another line......

.. of employment?

Victory in Pattani

Why the negative assessment?

Canis, why are you so pessimistic about Obama's chances? He still leads in the national polls and he's remains a magnetic candidate. I am in discourse with two people from New York and both have a very dim view of his chances. Did the Bitch poison the waters out there that badly?

Victory in Pattani

Hillary - she's just not sincere

She said all the right thing, but it looked to me like her heart was not in it. She is faced with the problem of "I can't endorse Obama now, and run against him in 2012, which I want to do." But she has to support Obama now in order to remain politically viable within the party. Her language tone and body posture said to me "I can't believe I am having to support this uppity nigger who stole my show."

Victory in Pattani

Polar Bears need to adapt

They either get used to living on land on the northern Coast of Alaska, or they die. Because their habitat isn't going to change to make them happy.On Polar bears in open water prompt more worries about climate change posted 1 year, 3 months ago 18 Responses

Pangolin, it doesn't work very well

"I suspect organic farming, for all it's flaws in first world economics, works very well in third world economies."

No it doesn't. That's why so many third world people are malnourished, why some die of malnutrition, etc.

Obviously you have not spent a lot of time in Africa, or you would not write something so ridiculous. Without external food aide millions of Africans would die right now.

Victory in Pattani

Wolverine, you are the one practicing racism

"that "[i]ndigenous peoples of any location are not far sighted, and the ideals that are now projected upon them are laughable" couldn't be more wrong and just shows your complete ethnocentrism, if not outright racism."

The basis of everything you wrote was that some people (such as the Hopi) are somehow intrinsically in tune with nature. While others (read here white people for sure - add as necessary) are intrinsically out of tune with nature.

When you ascribe character to an entire race, that is the definition of racism.

Having said all this, again, what's your point? You know that mankind is not going to turn away from modernity. There is no mandate for that, there will never be a mandate for that. You know it as well as I. So why don't you come back to reality. Your posts are full of wishful thinking. You might as well post about talking animals.

Wolverine: "Yeah, I was talking to the spider in my bathroom today. You remember him don't you? Well, turns out his name is Zypher, and Zypher was really concerned that I wasn't leaving the bathroom window open enough. The screen was preventing flies from getting through. So last night I am getting ready to go to bed, and I hear this blood curdling scream coming from the bathroom. What happened? Well, Zypher bagged Little Jimmy, a fly who lived back by the garbage bins. I told Zypher we're just going to have to find another way to take care of his diet. I can't have this mayhem going on in the house. Zypher's anthropocentrism has really become a cause for concern. I mean, he just doesn't respect the other insects living on the property. I'd hate to have to evict him, but I can't have any more murder going on around here. Maybe the cops don't care in this case, but I do."

Victory in Pattani

Are you saying the Sun is an energy carrier?

Because I thought the sun derived it's enormous energy output from Hydrogen. Which would mean all solar energy is hydrogen energy.

Victory in Pattani

Wolverine, you are so ill-informed

"The best environmentalists are traditional indigenous people"

This kind of thinking is so wrong. Let's take a quick look at Easter Island. Here we have traditional indigenous people who completely destroyed their environment.

"Traditional Indigenous" people don't have some secret formula for protecting their environments. Most practice slash and burn agriculture. Native Americans that practiced any agriculture often used this form. What they have that appeals to your backwards ass is that they are privative. They don't have any technological capacity, not because in their wisdom they eschewed it, but because they lacked the capacity to develop it. They live lives that are harsh, brutal and short, just as our ancestors did. That's what kept their population numbers low - not because they practiced birth control and not because they didn't have sex.

Indigenous peoples of any location are not far sighted, and the ideals that are now projected upon them are laughable.

Victory in Pattani

Can't speak for them all of course

But I used to live in a place called Kh'ebri Dehar Ethiopia. The generator they used only ran six hours a day (fuel shortage). It was an old German submarine diesel engine. The thing was ancient. Anyway, we had an electrical engineer come out and look at it with an eye to replacing it. A band new diesel generator in 2004 would have been three times more efficient. The place had great wind and we looked at that as well, but it wasn't really logistically feasible. Anyway, my suspicion is in third world countries (you know, countries that are really not developing even though they're called developing countries) their generators are ancient and grossly inefficient.On Report identifies areas where natural disasters could hit hardest posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

Vakib, you're inconsistency doesn't...

... seem to occur to you.

"Unlike what you might think, environmentalism is a science. As any scientific discipline, it means we need to value things such as  objectivism, experimental validation, open debate ...

'What do you mean by "objective," that people who advocate that selfish human desires should be given equal priority with the environment should have equal say?'

No. Being objective means having no prejudice, staying neutral about which method obtains the best results. This will only be decided by experimental validation."

It is true that being objective doesn't mean people who advocate selfish human desires should be given equal priority - or more properly equal voice - but being a liberal DEFINITELY means that those people have an equal say - or more properly an equal vote.

Wolverine doesn't care what these people think. He considers their views, indeed he considers them, to be illegitimate. They should have no say, no vote. You either agree with his radical view or you don't count. Wolverine knows full way that since his view is extremely radical the only way the very few people can achieve what he wants is by bulling and killing those who don't agree. The EARTH FIRST ideal he subscribes means by definition any means to achieve it is legitimate. He also knows that for politics to get human numbers down to what he considers acceptable for the earth, and for technology to be curtailed in ways he considers acceptable, would require a mass extermination campaign that would make the Nazis look like rank amateurs. Ask him to what lengths he would be willing to go to see the "Earth First" movement succeed.

Victory in Pattani

You're rationalizing

"Warlord rule is a feudal system, not a free market system.  The local warlord owns and controls everything, including the people."

Truly spoken like someone who hasn't been there and doesn't understand the environment.

'"the US comes close, as fuel taxes are fairly low"

Do tell.  You might get an argument on that from any free marketarian.  What about the 2 dollars per gallon in oil war expenditures borrowed from China?  That will need to be payed either in tax dollars or currency degradation."

You are making a false linkage between the cost of fuel on the market and the war in Iraq impacting costs IN GENERAL (for all products) for AMERICANS.

'"I'm paying about 3.75 a gallon right now."

Didn't you claim to have gone solar?  Why no electric car yet?  Your mighty intellect is slipping oh wise one, hehey."

Because I like my chopper, it doesn't use MUCH fuel (I use about two to three gallons a month), and electric cars use a shitload of electricity, which would strain my capacity. When they make electric choppers that are chick magnets, I'll think about it.

Victory in Pattani

IDS, I gether you're a McCain supporter?

Because unless you missed it - and I'll bet you have, you have two choices, McCain or Obama.

Victory in Pattani

Wolverine, do you ever think about what you write?

"People who don't like solutions that require major changes in lifestyle and get to the roots of the problems are fond of calling those who advocate those solutions "purists" and claiming that they'll never get anything done politically.  Advocating for what needs to be done has nothing to do with ideological or any other kind of purity, it has to do with doing what needs to be done instead of what's politically feasible but won't have any significant effect.  For example, what the hell good does it do to enact a policy that will reduce atmospheric CO2 to 60% of what it now is if we know that unless it's reduced by 90% we'll have runaway global warming?  Screw what's politically feasible, we need to strongly advocate and do what's necessary!"

First of all WE DON'T KNOW that we need to make a 90% reduction. Some people SUSPECT that - that is not the same thing as KNOW.

Secondly, who is "we" kemosabe? Who gets to decide how to get to 90% by when and how? Again, without installing a dictator who has absolute power, it is impossible to do what you appear to be suggesting here. And what happens when that dictator does not act in a way that suits Wolverine? You empowered him, not you're stuck with him.

The more the environmental movement wants to treat this as a national emergency, the more it leans towards giving more and more power to the Federal Government to remedy the crisis. Yet these are the same people that are very concerned about the Federal Government expanding it's powers at the expense of the citizenry in the war on terror. You can't have it both ways. If you want uncompromising approaches to deal with environmental issues - you have to give government the power to tackle them. Once you do that, you can't take that power back. Remember, there are other competing interests out there - your views are not the only legitimate views. If you want differing views swept away to achieve your goals and opposing interests swept away as well, you have to surrender your voice to achieve that. You can't maintain civil liberties and have the kind of massive social and economic restructuring you advocate here. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Compromise - which here is being eschewed - is a part of the democratic process. If you don't want compromise, then you want to do away with the democratic process and have a dictatorial process.

Hence my previous allusion to Idi Amin Green.

Victory in Pattani

Schadenfreude is not a positive thing

":Mac, John FM is just indulging in a little schadenfreude."

Wolverine, and you deserve to be eaten alive by wild animals, given your bent for same. That way you can appreciate natures mercy, or lack thereof, up close.

Perhaps a little compassion for those who made ill-informed decisions would be in order - everywhere except of course the Grist, where tolerance is at a minimum.

I am waiting for Wolverine here to advocate the establishment of extermination camps to get the human population back down to a tolerable number like 500 million.

Victory in Pattani

Why John? Why do they "deserve" it?

You're judging what they deserve in life based on the fact that they bought SUVs at a time when gas was cheap? Sure, a lot of people predicted gas would go up. But nobody really knew when.

Now, we all make choices in our lives, and have to live with good and bad choices. On that we can agree (I think). But when someone else has misfortune, it shouldn't be making you happy.

When gas rises to 10 bucks a gallon, a lot of people are going to die. This isn't a question of some people being forced into public transportation, this is a question of those who now live on the fringe in Africa and other places not having enough money to buy food as the cost for same doubles. Are you going to be happy about that too?

It is one thing to be concerned about issues that are confronting us - like climate change and peak oil and what these issues mean to Joe Six Pack. It's another thing to be "happy" because someone made a choice you disagree with and think was foolish and now they lose a significant investment which might create personal hardship on them and their family. I don't understand why anyone would think "they deserve to lose their shirts".

Victory in Pattani

I'm not much of an altruist I'm afraid

"I would imagine that living offshore for quite awhile and fighting the many enemies of US corporate imperialism, you would be offended by our humor MAC.  No problem.  We tend to take your dangerous service for granted.  At least you volunteered, that mitigates the problem somewhat?"

I was well paid for a profession I enjoyed. My generous retirement has allowed me to live in provincial Thailand, and there are much worse fates than that!

Victory in Pattani

You were on a roll until your last sentence.

"Now we know that coal is dangerous for atmosphere, so we should stop it. It is just common sense."

You should have written "Now we have strong suspicion that rising CO2 levels very probably have negative side effects that could be extreme. Therefore, we need to curb CO2 output."

But you went from CO2 to coal - as if there is NECESSARILY a cause and effect, when you know there is not. CO2 can be sequestered. Therefore, Coal doesn't need to be stopped - the CO2 outputs across the board need to be curbed.

Victory in Pattani

Vakibs - I agree and disagree

"Scientific consensus happens only when the theory fits to the facts. Having a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere is clearly an abnormal thing, and there is sufficient evidence to prove that it does a lot of bad things to our climate."

I would argue there is sufficient evidence to say that it PROBABLY influences the temperature of the climate. There is an assumption made by almost everyone that ANY CHANGE is bad. And that assumption  is probably false. As Jared Diamond points out, there will be winners and loser in climate change.

"You don't "trust" persons in science, it is not politics nor religion. There is no question about honesty/dishonesty in this. Either you have a scientific bent of mind, or you don't. It is as simple as that."

That does not explain the dissent within the scientific community concerning climate change. And there is dissent. But on Grist, when dissent is highlighted, it is portrayed as either:

a. Ill-informed (that's the generous interpretation).

b. Malicious - that the scientists or scientific organization in question is full of bought off charlatans.

In short, while I agree that dumping a lot (although I don't really know if going from 385 PPM to 400 could be defined as "a lot" - let's be honest, a lot of scare mongering is going on here) of anything into the atmosphere or into the water supply is probably a bad idea and should be curbed, I also note that there is simply a lot of dishonesty floating around concerning this debate on both sides of the isle.

Victory in Pattani

Hick, the reason is simple

The sicentific community has a history of being dishonest concerning climate change. More importantly, there are reputable scientists who dispute the fundings - but they are always labeled as being in someone's pockets. That means you can't really trust anyone in this debate - scientist or otherwise - because hidden agendas are at work on every side of the debate.

Victory in Pattani

Vakib, you are ignoring a few things

a. There are jobs associated with Coal. If you shut down the plants, you shut down the mines. So the employees of both hit the streets. Those employees have political representatives who are not going to be too keen to tell their constituents "oh well."

b. You can't shut down plants RIGHT NOW. You have to replace the power they are generating with something else.

I agree that new new plants should be required to have sequestion and in order to get an operating license, and I agree that coal should move to the background as a fuel for producing electricity. but again, this is something that should be phased.

Lastly, in your other post you spoke of incentives. Shutting down coal is not an incentive. Tax shelters and the like are incentives. Things are changing, there is a slow but sure wave of change that is palpable - if the Green movement doesn't engineer something so radical that the voting public comes to the conclusion that the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Again, I am highly suspicious of ulterior motives in the movement.

Victory in Pattani

No one running for public office....

... would ever say something like "We need to look at completely changing how we live, how we generate revenue, how we provide food and clothing for ourselves, etc. etc. etc."

Not if he wants to get elected. There is NO mandate for a radical makeover. People expect the government to orchestrate a transition - not so thoroughly intervene in their lives and ambitions that it becomes totally disruptive. There is no reason to believe that ANY government can do what is suggested in the below link without totally trashing the society it tries to do it with.

Victory in Pattani

An inconvenient truth

I guess raising questions about how to achieve population reductions without whole sale slaughter are uncomfortable and that the idea that it is not possible is something Grist members don't want to admit or face.

Victory in Pattani

Wolverine, I find this curious

"The idea for wind farms atop bridges and skyscrapers is a good idea and should be done.  However, despoiling the oceans with that crap is just more destruction of the natural world and should be avoided.

And BTW, for all of you who support offshore wind, just how is the electricity supposed to get back to users?  Do you propose massive underwater cables?  Powerlines in the ocean that will further degrade it?"

If you know that mankind is going to have large energy demands, and you know that those demands are not going to go away, then you have to make choices. One of the choices that might make you happy, but WILL NEVER HAPPEN, is that people are going to suddenly just throw up their hands and say "well, there's too many of us, and we shouldn't be using power at all". So, if the power has to come from somewhere, and you object to it coming from off shore wind farms, then you should logically offer an alternative.On Mayor has big clean-energy goals for NYC posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

Autie, your post begs the question...

Who needs to ask these questions?

"We really need to ask, "What are people for?" In the context of what life does in all cases except humanity. That means, we need to contribute more usefulness to our children than we consume in resources. Pretty simple."

The question is simple enough, but who is "suppose to ask it" and, more importantly, who do you expect to answer it?

"The complicated parts come in when we ask, "How many of us do we need to accomplish this?"

No, the complicated part comes in when we expect someone to answer this.

"How many people can the various regions of the earth support permanently?"

Which of course begs the question, what do you do with the excess Herr Himmler?

"Can we work to improve those numbers to reasonably support the numbers of people we currently have spawned onto the planet?"

Not without killing off the "excess" we can't. So who's planning on being first into the gas chamber?

"If any particular region turns out to be unsustainable (most populous countries are actually in better shape Net Creative-wise than the industrial ones.), then cooperative actions need to be taken to improve the situation."

It's the cooperative actions part that concerns me. The only historical examples I know of where "cooperative actions" were taken in order to reduce populations were ethnic exterminations and mass murder. Global thermal nuclear war might do the trick. It's easy to say that large populations are a problem, straining global resources, it's another to suggest what might be done about them.

"If we don't, the randomness of nature will change the numbers FOR us."

My vote goes to the randomness of nature, because I sure as hell don't trust environmentalist to get such a question right.

Victory in Pattani

Bart you missed the point

If the industrial food production chain becomes unable to provide food for export to non-food growing regions, and if Organic food growing processes can not replace that, then the people who live in East Africa, the Middle East, North Africa and other water poor regions of the world will die by the hundreds of millions. They CAN'T go local.

Victory in Pattani

It's not either or...........

Ladies, Gentlemen
This is not an either or issue. You can have nuclear and wind. You can have nuclear and solar. You can have solar and wind. You can have hydro and Solar........ or any other combination of anything.

In certain areas one type of power generation may make more sense than in other areas. This doesn't have to be an all or nothing question.

As for the original question - why do men tend to favor nuclear in greater proportion than women, I would answer "irrelevant". Who cares why? It doesn't matter.

Victory in Pattani

I wish this had an edit feature...

This should read:

It's not changing to make you happy

Which is what I am sure I typed.......

Victory in Pattani

GRL

McCarthur River Mine - Zilch. Never heard of it.

Alberta Tar Patch - Can I use a little more than ten words? Significant potential convertable oil resources there the exploitation of which is somewhat controversial.

Why do you ask?

Victory in Pattani

Bob nuclear has other advantages not associated

with Cost.

That is, it doesn't require oil and the technology to do it is here right now.

I like nuclear, I also like Wind and Solar.

My point on the other post is, it is foolish to make sweeping statements about gender and this is usually done by those with another agenda on the table.

I despise feminists and I despise Misogynists. They are ideologues in one version or another. I have worked for some great women and I have worked for some terrible women. I have met some really bright women and I've met women who are morons. The whole "Mars and Venus" act has worn thin.

Victory in Pattani

You are living on Planet Russ

"In other words, every time thugs wanted to attack they would need their victims' permission."

No, that would be assault - against the law. But what you obviously want to do is make requirements for techonological development and entrepreneurship even more constrained than they are now - and that's simply going to discourage development.

"You know, it occurs to me, apropos of the dustup you and drx had over some term, that I've heard some nasty stories about the Thai sex trade.""

You've "heard some nasty stories"? Isn't that nice. But you've never been here. This is like Wolverine who started commenting on US involvement in Somalia which he wisely dropped since I lived there for two years and was considered an area expert by the US military. My Somali nickname was "the white Somali - or Somali Caadan. Prostitution has been a normal part of the Thai social structure for about 150 years. It functions completely differently from back home. Trying to put a western moral spin on what happens here, or in Africa, is a collosal waste of time - they don't give a shit what you think of their culture.

"By that of course you mean, it's up to the coercive mass to impose itself upon the individual."

No I mean exactly the opposite. Did I write in Chinese or something?

"It's unfortunate that reading comprehension has become so poor. By "where" I of course meant, what's the point of a materialistic lifestyle, and why is it suddenly so important for all this scum to go jetting around the world, where for tens of thousands of years man did just fine without it?"

It's unfortunate that elitist pricks don't write what they mean........ When talking in the context of transportation, where would tend to refer to geography. What's the point of a materialistic lifestyle? It's comfortable. My father in law did not have a materialistic lifestyle. I lived in his home for two months - along with a host of vermin because his home was not "materialistic". What's the point in any lifestyle? Again, it's a bullshit, loaded question. It comes down to "what's the point of life" which no one can answer.

"global warming holocaust"

Now it's not just an ecological issue that has to be confronted because it could have severe impacts - it's a holocaust.

"As for man's population, I'm the one who's trying to figure out how to ameliorate the necessary retrenchment to 2 billion or so, what's estimated as the non-fossil fuel carrying capacity of the Earth."

The only way to "retrench" to two billion is to kill four billion plus. Even China's one child policy (in a state which is essentially an oligarchy with enormous state control over the individual) could not stop population growth there.

"You're the one who wants to do nothing until nature forces the crash, which will probably send population plummetting way below that."

I did not say "do nothing". What I said is that the market and technology are going to find new energy sources to replace fossil fuel.

You want MASSIVE political, social and economic reorganization of ostensibly the country and the planet. Grand political and economic reorganization has NEVER happened in world history without serious bloodshed. The kind of reorganization you are talking about could only be wrought via world war.

Victory in Pattani

Russ, I didn't call you stupid

I said what you wrote was stupid - because it was.

America (and Thailand, where I live) ARE essentially free market societies. Look at my place - I bought my house, free enterprise at work. I opened a Cafe and a dance studio - free enterprise at work.

No society runs a totally free market except Somalia. There are socialist elements in all societies.

"I'll grant you the food security - of course only for the economic elite, even in so fat a country as America."

Where I live too. There are poor people here, there are no starving people here.

"Rapid transportation" - to go WHERE? To do WHAT?"

To go wherever you want, and do whatever you want.

"Life expectancies are FAR longer than they were historically." - Life expectancies to do WHAT?"

Whatever you want. I think Jefferson articulated it best when he described it as "the pursuit of happiness" which I, unlike the members of the Grist, have managed to enjoy.

"Modern communications" - to communicate about WHAT? Given your tone, I'm picturing you as one of these idiots with a cell phone as an appendage to his head (or, more accurately, you are the appendage of the phone), even as none of your "conversations" have any significance at all."

Actually I don't like phones all that much. BUT, note your condescension. People who like to use cell phones to talk and text - perhaps about the trivial - are now idiots. As if every issue has to be big politics or heart surgery. This is a typical elitist attitude that considers what the average Joe desires to be beneath him, unimportant  and not worthy. "Serious people" and "Activists" are important, their views must be considered, their desires are important. But Joe Six Pack - he's worthy only of contempt. Right.

"I'm sure these questions are way over your head."

Why do you think it's over my head? You think you're more intelligent than I am? Well of course you do. Almost all environmentalist are condescending by nature to those who have differing views. They can't help it.

"It's just my silly morality which demands of me a question, if man has to be such a radically disruptive, destructive force on this planet, then there better be a radically transcendent point to it all."

Ask away. People have been asking mans purpose since the beginning of time. If you ever get the answer, let us all know.

"The arts are flourishing" - You already said you despise the arts [on the agricultural Waterloo thread, for anyone who wants to check], so I can't imagine upon what knowledge you say this."

Actually I despise artists - because they too are condescending losers who think they have some special knowledge to impart on the rest of us. And I hate to use broad labels, so I probably should classify that with "most" - there are always exceptions.

"I certainly don't see any point. But then, I don't want the destruction to continue. I want devolution, stewardship, simplicity."

And I want a harem - but we just don't all get what we want in life do we? Welcome to the real world.

"And never mind that the energy for this is running out.
Which brings me back to this - mac, I remind you, you didn't tell me where the energy is going to come from to continue your vaunted "gluttony"."

It's your vaunted gluttony. I used solar to power my place because of concerns about the increase in expense of power. Where will major societies at large get power from? Nuclear, solar, wind..... give it a little time and there will be more sources at well. You grossly underestimate mans resourcefulness.

Lastly, you didn't answer my question:

What historical example of a wonderful society are you using for your model and how do you think it's possible to get there from here?

Also have you thought about dentistry in your model.

Victory in Pattani

This will be great for shipping

During Ice free months, shipping will be able to transit via the north pole, in some cases reaching its destination much faster than otherwise.

Victory in Pattani

Do you know even a little bit about this conflict?

"The U.S. is also fighting a proxy war in Somalia and Ethiopia as it did when the Soviet Union existed, but now the U.S. is having its way there because there is no counter to its power, whereas before each side took turns arming Somalia and Ethiopia, which switched sides at one point."

I fought in this conflict, left just two plus years ago. I speak Somali. Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about here? Obviously NOT.

Victory in Pattani

Two thirds of all women are ill informed

Roughly two thirds of all women are poorly informed.  

They aren't up to speed as to what new nuclear would really cost.  If they knew they wouldn't be willing to waste their tax dollars.  

Goodness knows private money isn't going to build any more wind turbines.  Just as uber-left Diane Feinstein doesn't put her personal money into them.

Victory in Pattani

You mean like the rest of the world?

"This is a reflection of the fact that we still live under a ridiculously partarchic society."

Try living ANYWHERE in the Middle East if you want to see a patriarchal society. The US is roughly equivalent to Germany in this area - a bastion of feminism if there ever was one.

Victory in Pattani

What I WANT doesn't matter

"So government is not going to direct any "Manhattan project" or "Apollo program" or WW2 or New Deal or any analogy anyone chooses.
And as has become abundantly clear, private enterprise isn't going to do it either, not without massive government assistance which is not going to be forthcoming."

First of all, the world is bigger than the United States. What is successful in one place, will be emulated in others, for obvious reasons.

"But what either of us wants is irrelevant. Nature is going to devolve us, downsize us, localize us whether we want it or not."

"Us" being the South Americans and Africans, for sure. They are already bloated WAY beyond their capacity for sustainment.

The rest of "us" don't be so quick kemosabe.

This will be a blip on the historical radar screen. There might be a decade or two of really difficult times, and some mass death and warfare, before the transition is made. But it will be made.

Victory in Pattani

Russ, I'm afriad you are mistaken here

"As I said in my earlier comment, the post-fossil fuel era will be one of decentralization, scaling down, and localization. Wide distribution networks will be untenable, and large structures will collapse. So anyone who wants energy descent to be a controlled descent rather than a chaotic plummet must seek to foster devolution and localization now"

Large structures will prevail. Post fossil fuel era will simply replace fossil fuels with other means to support power and transportation needs. I know you WANT things to become more local, but it will never happen again.

Victory in Pattani

Amazing, this looks like something written

by a reincarnation of V.I. Lenin:

"Good news Canis.  I wonder if any of the growers are using gardens built right in the city?  Like the old elevated train line gardens or rooftop gardens.

Why not let non-profit coops help small capitalists, farmers, compete with mega-corporate agribizz/food chain stores?  This is a great trend.  Are monopoly multinational corporations like walmart really capitalist or are they really a dictatorship of the proletariat?

A cooperative of real capitalists beats that dictatorship in terms of real market efficiency.  Corporate libertarian economists are wrong on the true nature of capitalism.  

They are backing a form of feudalism, with the corporations the fuedal ruling class and the farmers and food industry workers the serfs.  For real free markets to truly respond efficiently to consumer demand (for safe, nutritious, good tasting, economical food) and supply side constrictions (like high fuel and fertilizer prices), the monopoly control that multinationals exert needs to be removed."

Victory in Pattani

It's not clear what the desired outcome is

"I think the key change was when the feds became involved in organic certification and industrial agriculture moved into the organics market.  

The problem was not with consumers, but with the fact that organics became co-opted.  

I think the change in emphasis to Local is positive -- it will be harder for industrial ag to co-opt this label.  It brings up other ideas that were neglected by a straight organics  approach (e.g. local and traditional cuisines)."

The people involved in industrial agriculture are not going to just go away. They are going to continue to be involved in agriculture. So is the organic food movement trying to move industrial agiculture towards organic processes and co-opt it or what?

Victory in Pattani

I smell a rat

"McCain, like virtually all conservatives, has consistently voted against efforts to advance renewable electricity."

Here we go again - only the Democrats or the Green party can save us.............

Conservatives will destroy the planet..... I can hear it all yet again.

Victory in Pattani

Speak for yourself Ace.

"August in Iowa may be unbearable for humans"

I love the heat. 100, 110, 120....... I've lived in some really hot places, and live in a tropical climate right now and wouldn't have it any other way.On The dog days of summer mean bountiful farm stands and spicy salsas posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

Bush isn't a war criminal

The action in Iraq was authorized by congress, that's the definition of legal. Whether you think it should have happened doesn't matter from a legal stand point.

This is a constant problem with the left, who love to label those with different ideas in negative ways. It's almost as if people who don't agree with you, or have agendas differing from yours, are inherently evil and must be classified as such. I have always found it interesting that the most intolerant people I have ever associated with have been from the political left.

Hugo Chavez is the latest, greatest, example of this.

Victory in Pattani

I'm with you Ron

Here's a statement devoid of true substance or value:

"You are in the minority opinion here and in the general population of the world. Corporatist ruled monopoly trade is far from free or positive for people or the environment. It is only positive for multinational corporate power."

People who write mindless crap like this are ideologues. This is simpleton thought at it's best - big business bad, small good.

You can't have a meaningful discussion with people who think like this - because they are not thinking.

Victory in Pattani

Bart, I don't hyperventilate

None of this affects me all that much. I live in a small provincial capital on the Mekong river. I bought a house and paid for it in cash. I live a comfortable lifestyle here that would only be threated if there were a global economic crash in excess of what we saw in the 30s.

I am just pointing out the obvious really.

Victory in Pattani

I think Jon Rynn cuts to the nub with this

"Mad Mac, you seem to be bringing up this conservative theme of assuming what people's feelings are.  I feel like I'm in a Barbara Walters or Oprah interview, "but what were your feelings".  We're discussing how to avoid/ameliorate crises here.  What somebody wants is beside the point."

In order to completely reorder our infrastructure in the way that many here want done, the ONLY way that's going to happen is through coercion.

Markets respond to what people WANT. That's how they make money. To eliminate our existing infrastructure would be incredibly costly. It could only done through force.

Now, some here have mentioned not eliminating existing housing, but rather put more emphasis on quality inner city housing and infrastructure, and put mass transit systems to service the suburbs. Indeed I think the oil situation is going to compell this course of action. But again, that's market forces driving solutions, not a government run by Idi Amin Green making it happen.

Victory in Pattani

Bart, in real terms, it is either or.

"You say either we have to choose between big business corruption or a directed economy. And of the two, we now live in "the best of all possible worlds."

But wait a minute! There are more than two choices! We can think, discuss, choose -- we don't have to be puppets either of Big Business or of Centralized Rule.

It isn't an either/or choice.  

It is possible to put brakes on special interests when they threaten the common good. And to encourage markets where they make sense."

Where we can discuss things is with the eaches. Policy "X" is bad, policy "Y" is good - although I am challenged to find quotes about much good here on the Grist. But yes, no problem there. But the direction much of these threads takes is one in which many people here want out entire politico - economic system thrown out the window. Nobody comes right out and says it, but they all hate big business, without which there would be precious few jobs, and many other extremely negative consequences. Big business MUST be the solution to environmental issues. If it is simply attacked constantly as an enemy, it will be tone deaf and not respond to the desires of environmentalists. Ditto the population at large, which is getting sick of hearing "the end is coming now".

In other words we've got to think, rather than rely on dogma.

Victory in Pattani

There are MAJOR flaws with the thought....

.... processes here.

"Since the end of World War II, government policy has funded and encouraged the suburban lifestyle, subsidizing highways while starving mass transit and keeping gas taxes much lower than in some other countries."

Suburbia was not "subsidized". The interstate highway system was going to be built regardless of whether or not suburbia was. It was quite clear in 1945 that the truck and automobile were the transport of the future. This isn't a big buisiness conspiracy like you crazy people here make it out to be. This was the logical market response to the demands of the market. Anyone who thinks Americans didn't REALLY want cars, and would have preferred "walkable" cities if the option were available, is smoking too much weed. There is ZERO reason to believe this.

"Just finished talking with a Thai woman about Bangkok -- traffic jams aren't considered serious unless traffic has been stopped for at least an hour. Problem is so bad that some policemen are now trained in delivering babies (for women undergoing childbirth and stuck in traffic).  I haven't been to Bangkok, but these details flesh out MM's rosy view.  The traditional settlement patterns in Thailand sound appealing though.  The best thing about Bangkok seems to be the Thais, rather than their urban planning, or lack thereof"

I haven't just "seen" Bangkok, I've been there many, many times - as I live in Thailand. Bangkok is insane. The air quality sucks, the traffic is horrible, there's a serious problem with crime.......... but it's still a hell of a lot of fun. There is NOTHING you can't do in Bangkok - OK you can't go on a nature hike, there's no nature. But everything else is available there. I am not saying we should work to transform New York City and LA into Bangkok, but it does point out how cities like this can be great places and they are not walkable in the slightest (in fact, the sidewalks are horrible - crowded with vendors).

"In sum: MM ignores corporate pressures and vilifies government - the net effect is to dis-empower popular political action and let big business have its way. This gambit is an intellectually dishonest cornerstone of modern  conservative propaganda. If you want to bitch about interference in market processes, fine -- but be honest about it -- look at how businesses and industry dominate policy and interfere in the market."

Business responds to the market to make money. You can live with Big business and it's influence in the political sphere, or you can have a directed economy. They suck and still trash the environment. The current model you see if the best out there - both from an environmental perspective and a political one - warts and all. You guys want what doesn't exist.

"The world loves the US (or does it?).  It would be reassuring to think that we're such a lovable country and it's only those snooty Europeans that get in the way of our getting the unstinting admiration we so richly deserve."

I'm not saying that at all. I am simply saying that Europeans aren't any better than Americans and that Europe isn't any better than America. Both have plusses and minuses. I was responding to the "go look at Europe" quote (as if living there for 16 years - 17 if you count Bosnia - isn't enough).

Victory in Pattani

Russ, YOUR opinion isn't the only one tht counts

"Of course, it should be "painfully obvious" to anyone who reads what I wrote that I do not consider size to be a value, that indeed among man's structures I despise anything "large-scale" or "massive", on both philosophical and aesthetic grounds."

Just because you despise anything on a large or massive scale doesn't mean the rest of us do. The Pyramids are awe inspiring for MOST of us. The golden Gate bridge was a remarkable architectural achievement. Major pharmaceutical breakthroughs were done by massive funding investments that have been life saving achievements. The "Arts" are very low on my particular priority list, mostly because artists tend to think they are smarter than the rest of us, when they're not.

"In economics, politics, society, far from being a value, large size is a pure evil, the source of all man-made evils. The great hope that Peak Oil and energy descent holds out for humanity is that it will sweep away all large structures, as if it were an ethical whirlwind."

What you may consider "vulgar" someone else might consider "grand". Just because you think large scale is "pure evil" doesn't make it so.

And the energy descent if peak oil arrives also means death for a couple of billion people and quite possibly a third world war - on a grander scale than anything seen heretofore.

Be careful what you wish for.

Victory in Pattani

Now, when reported in parts per million........

385 doesn't sound like a whole lot. But when reported in Billions of tons, it does.

It's all smoke and mirrors. It seems probable that generating as much CO2 as we do isn't such a good idea. We probably should reduce that.

Is it an "emergency"? For environmentalists everything is an emergency. Their natural global outlook is negative.On Umbra on calculating CO2 weight posted 1 year, 3 months ago 19 Responses

Enki, I wouldn't get carried away

Where is a farmer going to find farm machinery that runs on methane? How is he going to capture the methane produced by his livestock in order to harness it?

There are limits to the notion of "going local" in total independence from the economic systems around you.

However, if people would start investing their own wealth into solar and wind generating systems (or others - whichever make the most sense for where they live) then they could generate their own power independent of a power grid - or largely independent of it.

Lastly, it's fine to oppose the negative aspects of corporate globilazation with opposing the positive aspects thereof. We want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Victory in Pattani

Ken - a few points

"We're spending billions now and have thousands of full time staff working on completely independent organization by organization projects. That won't work. Coordination may be stumbling, but we can't do without it."

There is no way around independent organizations and independent finances. All environmentalists don't support all of the same ideas. Therefore, some people will be willing to donate to some issues and not others. You can't avoid that.

"Is it not the case that, generally speaking, nations that are secure, provide a comfortable - not necessarily rich - way of life, have personal and political freedom, and are dynamic (not necessarily in terms of economic growth), experience significant population decline?"

Can you cite specific examples.

Victory in Pattani

Being negative is part of being Green

"Well, maybe the births of my sons called forth such feeling, but I'm not usually full of exultant joy, particularly when I think about global crises."

Neither are about 90% of the people on this list. They are all doom and gloom. I have come to the conclusion that their lives must really suck, they don't know how to seize the day, they are like the little guy in the Gullivers Travels cartoon who always moaned "we're never going to make it."

Victory in Pattani

But Wolverine, that's due mostly to immigration

The US population is growing mostly because we continue to allow mass immigration (both legal and otherwise). In Germany population growth has all but stopped, which creates other social security issues that they will have to deal with.

It is not growing due to high birth rates.

The wealthier a country becomes, the lower it's birth rates, no question.

Victory in Pattani

LBFM is not really a slur.............

.......... but Wikipedia thinks it is.

Had you spent time living in the parts of the world I have, you would realize that some terms are used routinely and even in a positive context. I was a professional soldier for 23 years, and in that time lived in the US less that three of those years. Tends to change your outlook on certain things.

For example, in Somalia I am a Gaal - a term meant to be deeply derogatory. I never took offense though, cause I just didn't care.

Since I married a Thai, who also happens to be quite petite, it's improbable that I hold Southeast Asians in any sort of disdain.

Now Nigger, Kike, Slope, Spic......... those are real slurs. I don't use those terms.

Victory in Pattani

Canis, this is what I have been trying to say

But clearly lacked your eloquence and technical supporting charts.

You can be a social conservative on issues such as gay marriage or abortion, and be a supporter of environmental causes.

Victory in Pattani

I don't kill animals for fun, it's a job

"No wait, that didn't sound right"
"You're a sociopath"
"No, no, no. Sociopaths kill for no reason. I kill for money, it's a job. No wait, that didn't sound right. Look pilots bomb cities, police shoot demonstrators, that's indiscriminate, I don't do that. Look I've lost my taste for it completely."On Getting to the meat of the matter with Boston chef Jamie Bissonnette posted 1 year, 3 months ago 21 Responses

People don't make friends with spiders

Let's be real here. Are you talking to the spider now? Did he tell you his name? That you consider yourself to be better friends with a spider "you just met" as opposed to "most humans" says volumes, and I am afraid what those volumes are saying is not particularly complimentary.

Wolverine, what you seem to have a great deal of trouble coming to terms with is that your viewpoint is by far a minority one. Not only that, but it also seems you refuse to consider the possibility that maybe other viewpoints are just as legitimate as yours or more so.

Being a supporter of existing governmental and international institutions, however flawed they may be, does not make one an enemy of the environment. Believe it or not, there are political conservatives who want to protect the environment, they just don't take your self admittedly extreme viewpoint on the subject.

Victory in Pattani

A good burger

Ate a tasty burger today. I don't usually get to eat 'em, because my girlfriend is a vegetarian, which pretty much makes me a vegetarian. But I do love the taste of a good burger. On Getting to the meat of the matter with Boston chef Jamie Bissonnette posted 1 year, 3 months ago 21 Responses

Didn't Kevin Costner star in a cool movie about ..

this?

The oceans rising hundreds of meters, giant oil tankers powered by oars........... Ok so the movie wasn't all that good.

Victory in Pattani

I am planting Jatropha right now

I have three Rai of unused land that's sitting empty   - there's one tree on it. That land can take on probably over 400 Jatropha trees which will both function as a carbon sink (I earn no money from that) but also generate fuel - I do earn money from that. A friend of mine here buys the oil, refines it, and sells it to a distributor. It's labor intensive, but my mother in law has nothing better to do anyway, and she needs the money. Whether this becomes a big industry or not, there will always be a market for the oil.

Victory in Pattani

What you guys don't seem to understand...

... perhaps because you don't want to, is that what the political Right has done well in the past - not so well in recent times - is leave people alone and keep tax rates down. Most people don't like government. They don't like bureaucrats telling them what to do. The Republican theme of Democratic government is more government was a theme that resonated, because most people don't want more government, they want less. They don't want bigger government institutions, they want smaller ones.

Now, unfortunately, the Republican movement has over the last two decades largely been hijacked by the the religious right. The religious right wants government intervention based on a Leave it to Beaver world view which has Ward and June Cleaver, with two happy kids getting into a little mischief. Everyone goes to church on Sunday, etc. This is an obsolete world view, but one they cling to tenaciously and wish to legislate as well.

The American left is also guilty of this, but with a different world view. They too want legislation to encourage their societal outlook, which ostensibly would be one in which everyone is left alone, but in fact is one which ignores legitimate questions concerning such key social issues as immigration, abortion, language issues, etc. Most importantly, and where the Democrats lose their most ground, is concerning the issue of taxation and how large government should be. Essentially they tend toward larger government and higher taxes, two things most people despise.

Now these are broad, sweeping observations. There are plenty of people in the Republican party who do lean towards the libertarian (the parties original roots). There are also plenty of democrats who remain aware of the American voters concern about big government and high taxes.

As for cynical power politics, the Republicans are not the masters of this. All parties are guilty. Morality doesn't play a big role in politics. Never did, never will - anywhere on earth. You don't have to like it, but it ain't going to change. Politicians are interested in accruing power........ all of them. Don't expect them to actually have your interests at heart. That's a rare thing indeed.

Victory in Pattani

There's plenty of airspace out there

So there's no reason why, with reasonable airspace management, the aviation industry would have a problem with this.

But I honestly don't see 30,000 foot tethers as realistic.....

Victory in Pattani

It's not going to go away.

"If we can't break the military-industrial-corporate-media web in the next four years, I think our republic will be over soon."

A. This WON'T happen in four years.

B. The Republic is not threatened by it's existence. If it were, this would have been a major problem long before now. There's nothing special about the next four years.

"Not that we really have representative democracy "
right now anyways...a single lobbyist can walk into the White House and overrule the will of millions of citizens."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it acts as if special interests are not legitimate interests. That line of thought is completely wrong.

Additionally, it insinuates (very often the case in liberal circles of thought) that in a democratic system of governance everyone gets an equal voice and money should not buy influence. This is a ridiculous notion never intended by the framers of our constitution or any other. Obviously people who control wealth amass a certain amount of power. Power is going to be amassed disproportionately in any event. It is not possible to create a completely egalitarian society because fundamentally people are not equal.

"I say we work to reduce the size of the military to about 1/5th it's current size."

A reduction of 50% is completely possible over the course of the next decade. More than that is unrealistic. Right now, however, there is not a general consensus that this should happen.

"Since they are the biggest polluters in the world, I say we give DoD the mission to rehab all of their superfund sites."

If you give DoD the requirement to rehab their sites, they are going to want money to do so. That's fine if you want to pay for it. But what you want to do is move money from weapons acquisitions, R&D and so forth and reallocate that. I am sure you would also prefer to terminate the GWOT campaign and eliminate all of our overseas presence. There is nothing approaching a consensus in the US to pursue this course of action.

What most people here on this list do is maintain a condescending attitude toward the American electorate, the American political system, and it's body politic in general. It is an interesting phenomenon of the far left (not only in America, but in most places in the world) that they consider differing political views illegitimate and are highly intolerant of them. Interesting, consider they often preach tolerance.

Victory in Pattani

How hot was it in 1820?

I don't know. I wasn't there in 1820. Who cares how hot Djibouti was in 1820 - certainly not me.

Victory in Pattani

I've gone too far???

Have you been reading the posts here??? Everyone here is about to swallow cyanide by the looks of it.

Victory in Pattani

There's no bottle deposit here at all

But someone is making money off of them. The reason this city is so clean is because everything is being recycled - not by the government, but by your average Joe.

Now, across the river in Laos, this is not happening. Damn if I know why. But here, the trash gets emptied before it gets emptied, every day. Not much makes it to the dump. Basically the only thing that makes it through is garbage - food and plant waste. And there isn't much of that because the food waste usually goes to the pigs to eat.

Victory in Pattani

In Thailand recycling is done to make money

There are people here who make their living going from trash can to trash can removing all plastic, glass, cardboard and paper. My entire street is serviced by two trash cans and every day these guy come by with pedal carts and empty them. My wife tells me there are private industry places here that buy their waste product and recycle it for profit. They don't make a lot of money, but unskilled labor here doesn't make a lot of money. They make enough to eat OK.

Victory in Pattani

Sounds like Djibouti

When I lived there, it got blistering hot...... not a big deal though. Just stay out of the sun as much as possible. I was humping 50 pound rucks in temps in excess of 130 Farenheit and it wasn't a problem.

Victory in Pattani

Jonas you should be right at home

"I'm pessimistic. Economic rationality is cruel, and good intentions are no threat to it."

Everyone on this list is pretty pessimistic about everything. I don't know why most of them haven't killed themselves already.

Victory in Pattani

We are getting off topic, but......

........ Obviously Obama is not going to come on line and say "America is a deeply racist society and whites are to blame for all of the social problems befalling blacks." He's trying to win an election in which he needs a sizable number of whites to vote for him. He is a politician - his job is not to tell the truth.

As for blacks in America and the judicial system, I suspect there's some of both. Blacks commit far more crime, for historical and socio-economic reasons, and they are also punished more severely by the judicial system which is biased against them.

Victory in Pattani

Alas, here in Thailand, gas prices dropped

Which was nice to see. I filled up my bike for under ten bucks again. I normally need one tank a month, but my son has been here on vacation and driving the crap out of it. So I needed two.On Hurricane Dolly hits land, skirts oil and gas facilities posted 1 year, 4 months ago 2 Responses

Bart, sometimes you don't have time to...

...."put the effort into preparing the food."

when I was in the Army I worked long hours, and had neither the time nor energy to do meaningful food preparation at home. When I was in the field, obviously I didn't even get to decide what to eat.

Sometimes the whole organic movement just isn't realistic about feasible options.

Victory in Pattani

Devastating the Australian environment?

The environment in Australia is already devastated. Most of it is one, big crappy desert. Who cares about the "eco systems" there? Certainly not me. There's not much you can do to a desert to make it worse. I've lived in them before, and they suck.

Victory in Pattani

Because animals are not human

And in the Christian - Judeo morality, obviously rejected by animal rights activists, eating animals is not taboo. Indeed in that tradition there are often details of how the animals should properly be slaughtered.

Frankly I don't care. I am not a moralist, and I eat meat because it tastes good and will continue to do so.

Victory in Pattani

josullivan, if Shell is pushing it......

....... then it must be a bad idea right? The truth is, a fair amount of people in the green movement oppose sequestering because their objective has nothing to do with climate change, but social change. They just aren't honest about it.

Victory in Pattani

What are the sources of power?

Gar
If it is decarbonized, and you exclude nuclear, what are your power sources. Clearly wind and solar, but also clearly a lot of other electric power sources. Can you elaborate.

Victory in Pattani

Wolverine, are you going to pay for it?

Because playing strictly day games will cost massive amounts of revenue. Why do you think baseball teams are playing at night now? Because they like the electric bills?

This is a typical environmentalist though. An industry announces the things they are going to do to become more environmentally friendly and instead of environmentalists applauding that, they say "it's not enough". And you know what, they will ALWAYS say that.

As soon as night games were gone, Wolverine would be decrying travel - teams used to take the train. Yeah, the Bosox are going to take the train from Boston to LA.

I can hear it already.On Major League Baseball going, going, green! posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

I can't speak for Europe

But the US educational system is FAR, FAR, FAR superior to the German one which I was so heavily exposed to (and which my son had to suffer through).

I have read a fair amount of European literature and watched a fair amount of European art house crap in German movie theaters and there is a fairly consistent theme of self loathing for the human condition that is sanctimonious and annoying espoused by people of inferior intellect to myself who think they are highly intelligent. A very annoying penchant I was forced to frequently suffer through in my quest to sleep with college women in Germany.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

Suicide is painless

It brings on many changes.
And I can take or leave it if I please.

try to find a way to make

all our little joys relate

without that ever-present hate

but now I know that it's too late

but suicide is painless

It brings on many changes

And I can take or leave if I pleaseOn If you're going to eat meat, you can't shy away from the whole beast posted 1 year, 4 months ago 41 Responses

So everyone who isn't Vegan is thoughtless?

And Clueless?

What is it with environmentalists? Not only are they a depressing lot, but they're arrogant pricks as well.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

I had an offer from Blackwater

And the money was good. But not good enough to make me leave my FAT life in Thailand.

Victory in Pattani

Nature sure isn't your friend

It doesn't care if you live or die.

Animals get along just fine with nature??? Actually, not. Nature kills animals just like it kills people.

Now, I am not saying because it is your enemy you have to kill it. But understand that working to preserve the environment needs to be done so we can exploit it and sustain that exploitation, not because it's some sort of "friend".

Victory in Pattani

Wolverine, you want to..........

rebuild every community in the world so it's more walkable and more bikeable? Any idea what that might cost (in dollars and Carbon emissions?)

Victory in Pattani

Yeah, but meat tastes good!

Pork Chops taste good. Steak tastes good.

Victory in Pattani

Green Tech

Very good post.

Victory in Pattani

The US government and hence taxpayer

is paying for the Iraq war.

My question was, who is paying for YOUR plan? Or is this another "My good idea, now I want someone else to pay for it?"

Victory in Pattani

I would prefer to conquer the world

Remember, nature is your enemy. It is always trying to kill you. From the climate to insects, to snakes and bacteria - nature is not your friend.

Victory in Pattani

Bart - this is simple

You point out the current economic challenges - fine. This is a low point in our economy since the great depression. Yet the American people, even now, are living FAR, FAR, FAR better than any people EVER did in ANY communist society. More economic freedom, more wealth, more personal liberty - and a superior environment.

There is no third way. Either the economy is directed or it's not and it's a free market economy.  To be sure in both systems there are elements of the other. Public fire and police, public education, etc. are all elements of a communist (socialist) society. But we are talking about basic general principals here, not tweaking.

So you have one of two choices.

Rag on capitalism all you want, but it beats the alternative. Sort of like Democracy. Flawed as it is, it beats the alternative.

Victory in Pattani

So why don't we develop our own

forcing agents? If we can artificially increase global temperature, which we are doing now with CO2 (in theory anyway) why not do something which counters that by artificially doing something which would have a cooling effect? Especially is we know what causes both?

Victory in Pattani

Hate to say it but............

....... Betsy needs a makeover. She looks about as plain Jane as humanely possibly. Almost as though she cultivated that look. On How author Betsy Block convinced her finicky family to mend their dietary ways posted 1 year, 4 months ago 25 Responses

Interesting gragh

I does beg the question, though, why was it so much colder at the turn of last century? There appears to have been a cycle that lasted quite a while where the temperatures were dropping almost, not quite, as fast as they are rising right now. I would be curious as to what the cause of that was.

I do believe that flooding the atmosphere with CO2 and pollutants can't be a good thing and we should work to reduce them. However, I am not of the camp that says doom is imminent and imminent now if we don't radically change our entire socio-economic system. This problem requires a measured approach that is well thought out.

Victory in Pattani

I'm making it just fine........

........ and have every intention of continuing to do so.

You guys remind me of that Lilliputian character on the Gullivers Travels Cartoon. The one that was always saying "We're never going to make it."

I guess if you want to be an environmentalist you have to be a self-loathing, depressed, pessimistic schmuck.

Victory in Pattani

Death is inevitable

But does that mean that everything is withering and dying? Well, over the long term, yes. But I suspect getting on to "what's the point of life?" is beyond the boundaries of this dicussion.

You staying out of trouble?

Victory in Pattani

I don't disagree with that

Timing is everything. But it's going to take about five years to exploit those reserves, given their location. So, if we start within a year, we will have access about the time we need it. The SUVs are about to become a thing of the past - there won't be many kicking around in five years. Those that are, won't be driving much. Frankly,  I am surprised they survived as long as they did.

Victory in Pattani

I think we should assume energy demands

will increase, not decrease. Therefore, new power grids should be designed with this expectation in mind.

For sure, some technologies will improve energy efficiencies. But others (like wide screen TVs) use a lot more energy than those they replaced.

So for planning purposes, planners should assume and increase, not a decrease, in demand and plan accordingly.

Now, if the price of power, based on supply availability, increases, that will force a decrease in consumption. No question there. But an increase in energy cost will have an inflationary impact across the board that will hurt every sector of economic growth. That has to be considered when discussing any energy planning.

Environmentalist have a single objective in mind - the environment. But energy planners have to look at not only the environment but also other requirements, especially economic impacts.

In my view, if attacked aggressively, the environment could actually be a great engine to spur economic growth. Within the United States Federal dollars could be directed towards environmentally friendly, sustainable energy sources. Once money is in the game, all kinds of smart people will be in the hunt to get it. People like money - this should be exploited, not spurned.

Victory in Pattani

Bari is a hole.

Canis, Bari is over-crowded and dirty. Way over-rated. Now Milan - that's a pretty cool place. At least as Italy goes. Theft is a major problem there. As a Somali friend once told me "The Italians will steal from you while you're looking at them." My Italian friends also tell me the same thing. On Three guidebooks for a dream vacation at your dining-room table posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

Who cares about what lives in a Desert?

It ain't much. No water, no life.

We need a new source of cheap power NOW. Maybe you missed it, but the world is going through an energy crisis. OK, you don't care. But what you are too obtuse to pay attention to is that if there is a global economic collapse, humans will devour EVERYTHING in their path voraciously in order to survive. Think about that for a minute.On BLM reverses stance on solar-project moratorium posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses

Wolverine

For once you and I agree on something.

Victory in Pattani

Predictions have nothing to do with desires

Hey Wolverine, I thought you were dead.

What I desire doesn't matter a whit. I left the US and live in a remote province of Thailand. How the US changes it's agriculture or living standards doesn't mean a thing to me personally. I'm gone, I'm not going back.

I am telling you what is realistic and what is not. It doesn't matter if people like it.

Victory in Pattani

The "Rich countries" aren't all

that rich anymore. They are having a very difficult time maintaining their economic well beings. Standards of living are already starting to slip into decline. World-wide you see inflation striking everywhere.

The days of the US being able to pull off a Marshal Plan are about to come to an abrupt end. The increasing cost of oil is going to be devastating to the global economy.

Victory in Pattani

You are not paying attention

The developed world is NOT going to alter it's standard of living in order to improve the standard of living for the developing world. Therefore, any solutions have to start with that fundamental. Because it's a fact of life and anyone who won't accept that also won't matter.

Reducing CO2 emissions is going to cost and cost big. That money has to come from something. The first places to get hit will be aide money.

Large scale agriculture is NOT going to go away. Regardless of who thinks it should, that's irrelevant.

You have to think about what is in the realm of the doable within the political construct you are discussing. To make the changes you are suggesting  is not possible with all the competing factors in our government and economy today.

The global economy is under massive stress right now. Oil resources are getting tighter and tighter, and there is little reason to expect this to change. Thus additional burdens on it - such as shutting down coal fired power plants, are not feasible right now.

Bottom line: That which hurts the major economies and that which hurts G8 corporate interests directly impacts on the poor of the world. There is no way to avoid this. And yes, even without the issues associated with the environment, a good one billion people will be at risk in the next decade.

Victory in Pattani

Yep, we're all going to die

The game is over. Buy a gun, go shoot yourself, there's no point to living.

Another environmentalist who sees only doom and gloom. It's been that way my whole life and I am living GOOD.

Victory in Pattani

Australia is in the middle of a draught

But there is no way to attribute climate change to it. Climate change is being attributed to every weather phenomenon now. Anything slightly out of the ordinary and you hear "climate change".

Victory in Pattani

I knew there was a reason

that I put solar panels on my roof. It must have been that I was tired of paying electric bills......

Victory in Pattani

Then why would corporate farms but them?

"The reason for industrial "farming" is just pure profit motives for the corpo-rape-tions selling the inputs."

Are you telling me that someone smart enough to invest huge amounts of capital to purchase the land and machinery and run massive farms is too stupid to understand which type of farming grants the largest yields? Can you explain that? Because your explanation makes zero sense.

People farm to make money. Not because it's fun - it isn't. My father in law is a farmer, and it's back breaking work.

Note the following:

mproving seeds through experimentation is what people have been up to
since the beginning of agriculture, but the term "Green Revolution" was
coined in the 1960s to highlight a particularly striking breakthrough. In
test plots in northwest Mexico, improved varieties of wheat dramatically
increased yields. Much of the reason why these "modern varieties"
produced more than traditional varieties was that they were more
responsive to controlled irrigation and to petrochemical fertilizers,
allowing for much more efficient conversion of industrial inputs into
food. With a big boost from the International Agricultural Research
Centers created by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the "miracle"
seeds quickly spread to Asia, and soon new strains of rice and corn were
developed as well.

By the 1970s, the term "revolution" was well deserved, for the new
seeds-accompanied by chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and, for the most
part, irrigation-had replaced the traditional farming practices of
millions of Third World farmers. By the 1990s, almost 75 percent of Asian
rice areas were sown with these new varieties. The same was true for
almost half of the wheat planted in Africa and more than half of that in
Latin America and Asia, and about 70 percent of the world's corn as well.
Overall, it was estimated that 40 percent of all farmers in the Third
World were using Green Revolution seeds, with the greatest use found in
Asia, followed by Latin America.

Clearly, the production advances of the Green Revolution are no myth.
Thanks to the new seeds, tens of millions of extra tons of grain a year
are being harvested.

Victory in Pattani

It is NOT a valid analogy

I can say with 100% certainty, that this January will be colder in Boston than this June. 100%. Not 99.9%, no, 100%.

We can not say with any certainty whether the global climate will, in fact, be warmer in ten years from now, nor can we say with any degree of certainty how much warmer if so. Why? We have no historical record to follow and there are FAR too many variables.

Climate change is a THEORY - one that has a lot of proponents, and one in which the science seems very sound, but nevertheless a THEORY.

Seasonal weather change is a FACT.

Anyone trying to equate the two is simply not being intellectually honest.

Victory in Pattani

Funny you should mention Jatropha

I have a couple of aces of land in northeast Thailand and have just planted more than four hundred Jatropha trees. Bought the seedlings for a song and a dance, and the ground was just an open field anyway - not being used for anything. My mother in law is going to tend the plants and harvest the oil.

Victory in Pattani

Jesus Bob, this makes sense

That's why I can see most of the environmentalists on this page ignoring it. they are against anything and everything....... full of negativism.

"If we want equal (or better than equal ;o) access to Obama's ear then we need to continue doing what we've done so far.  Contribute to his campaign, show up at his rallies, and when the time comes vote for him."

Victory in Pattani

Food trading is OPTIMAL

Hoarding Nations Drive Food Costs Ever Higher
Monday June 30, 9:35 am ET
By KEITH BRADSHER and ANDREW MARTIN

BANGKOK -- At least 29 countries have sharply curbed food exports in recent months, to ensure that their own people have enough to eat, at affordable prices.

When it comes to rice, India, Vietnam, China and 11 other countries have limited or banned exports. Fifteen countries, including Pakistan and Bolivia, have capped or halted wheat exports. More than a dozen have limited corn exports. Kazakhstan has restricted exports of sunflower seeds.

ADVERTISEMENT
The restrictions are making it harder for impoverished importing countries to afford the food they need. The export limits are forcing some of the most vulnerable people, those who rely on relief agencies, to go hungry.

"It's obvious that these export restrictions fuel the fire of price increases," said Pascal Lamy, the director general of the World Trade Organization.

And by increasing perceptions of shortages, the restrictions have led to hoarding around the world, by farmers, traders and consumers.

"People are in a panic, so they are buying more and more -- at least, those who have money are buying," said Conching Vasquez, a 56-year-old rice vendor who sat one recent morning among piles of rice at her large stall in Los Baños, in the Philippines, the world's largest rice importer. Her customers buy 8,000 pounds of rice a day, up from 5,500 pounds a year ago.

The new restrictions are just an acute symptom of a chronic condition. Since 1980, even as trade in services and in manufactured goods has tripled, adjusting for inflation, trade in food has barely increased. Instead, for decades, food has been a convoluted tangle of restrictive rules, in the form of tariffs, quotas and subsidies.

Now, with Australia's farm sector crippled by drought and Argentina suffering a series of strikes and other disruptions, the world is increasingly dependent on a handful of countries like Thailand, Brazil, Canada and the United States that are still exporting large quantities of food.

On a recent morning here in Bangkok, sweaty and heavily tattooed dock workers took turns grabbing 120-pound sacks of rice from a conveyor belt and carrying them on their heads to cranes that whisked the sacks deep into the hold of a freighter bound for the Philippines. Most of the one million tons of rice that leaves the dock here each year follows the same spine-crushing routine.

"I've been here 28 years," said the assistant port manager, Suchart Wuthiwaropas. "This is the busiest ever."

Powerful lobbies in affluent countries across the northern hemisphere, from Japan to Western Europe to the United States, have long protected farmers in ways factory workers in Detroit could only dream of.

The Japanese protect their rice industry by making it nearly impossible for imported rice to compete. The European Union severely limits beef and poultry imports, and Poland goes further, barring soybean imports as well.

Negotiators have been working for years to free trade in farm goods, but today's crisis actually makes that more difficult for them. Food protests in places like Haiti and Indonesia that rely heavily on imported food have convinced many nations that it is more important than ever that they grow, and keep, the food their citizens need.

"Every country must first ensure its own food security," said Kamal Nath, the minister of commerce and industry in India, which has barred exports of vegetable oils and all but the most expensive grades of rice.

But as the United States trade representative, Susan C. Schwab, noted in a telephone interview, "One country's act to promote food security is another country's food insecurity."

International relief groups are trying to help people who can no longer afford food at today's higher prices, but it is not easy. "We're having trouble buying the stocks we need for emergency operations," said Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Program in Rome.

Restrictions have delayed efforts to ramp up feeding programs in Somalia and Afghanistan. The food program had long purchased grain from Pakistani traders or national stocks. When Pakistan imposed a ban on most wheat exports this spring, the food program was forced to find a new supplier, creating months-long delays.

"We had to slow down the scale-up of our operation as a result of having to redesign our supply lines," said Ramiro Lopes da Silva, director of transport and procurement. "That means on the ground there were beneficiaries that went without rations or went without full rations for a portion of time. In the case of Afghanistan, some didn't get into the program."

The current dispute over food exports highlights choices that nations have confronted for centuries.

One relates directly to trade: Is it best to specialize in whatever food grows best in a country's soil, and trade it for all other food needs -- or even, perhaps, specialize in services or manufacturing, and trade those for food?

Or is it best to seek self-sufficiency in every type of food that will, weather permitting, grow within a country's borders?

The usual answer from economists, and the United States' position for decades, is that the world benefits most if every country specializes in growing (or servicing or making) what it can most efficiently, and trading for the rest.

Rainfall and other limits make it prohibitively difficult for some countries to grow all their own food. "If Egypt had to be self-sufficient in food, there would be no water left in the Nile," Mr. Lamy said in a telephone interview.

"If every country in the world decided it wanted to produce its own food for consumption," Ms. Schwab said, "there would be less food in the world, and more people would be hungry."

But relying on food imports becomes much dicier if other countries are prepared to shut off the tap.

An obscure rule of the World Trade Organization requires members to notify the agency when they restrict food exports. But there are no penalties for ignoring the rule, and not one of the countries that has imposed restrictions in the past year has complied, according to the W.T.O.

Japan and Switzerland are leading a group of food-importing nations so alarmed by restrictions that they are seeking an international agreement preventing countries from unilaterally limiting food exports. The agreement would be part of the current, already-rocky Doha round of trade talks, named for the city in Qatar where negotiations began.

But the proposal ran into a procedural snag right off: food export restrictions are such a new issue that they are only tangentially mentioned as part of the Doha round agenda, which is not easily modified.

In some of the nations concerned about shortages now, past policies have discouraged farming. From Indonesia to West Africa to the Caribbean and Central America, poor countries have frequently cut farm assistance programs and lowered tariffs to balance budgets and avoid charging high prices to urban consumers. But they have found that their farmers cannot compete with imports from rich countries -- imports that are heavily subsidized.

As a result, steps that could have taken place decades ago, resulting in more food for the world today, were abandoned. These included changes like irrigation schemes and new crop varieties.

"The subsidies given by developed countries to their farmers have led to lack of investment in agriculture in developing countries" in Africa and elsewhere, Mr. Nath said.

To make matters worse, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund frequently pressured poor countries in the 1980s and 1990s to lower tariffs and to cut farm support programs, mostly to reduce budget deficits.

Indeed, the World Bank concluded in 2006 that not enough attention had been paid to the negative effects of its policy prescriptions on farmers in developing countries.

The current export restrictions, which mainly help urban consumers in poor countries, are the latest blow to farmers in the developing world.

Arfa Tantaway Mohamed, who grows rice on three-quarters of an acre outside the bustling town of Aga in northern Egypt, is frustrated at Egypt's export ban, which is suppressing rice prices.

"For sure it has a negative impact," said Mr. Mohamed, 50, as he smoked a Cleopatra brand cigarette during a break from working his fields, while 18 members of his extended family labored nearby.

Some countries reject the notion that restricting exports has pushed up prices on the world market, and point instead to higher prices for fertilizer, diesel and other farm expenses. India takes that position, but so does Thailand, in defending sharp markups in prices set by its Rice Exporters Association.

"The main cause of rising rice prices is the rising cost of rice planting," said Surapong Suebwonglee, the finance minister of Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter.

India and other countries, as well as some nonprofit groups, are quick to point out that economic arguments -- that countries specialize in the production of whatever they can make most efficiently -- are unconvincing, as long as rich countries heavily subsidize their farmers.

In fact, negotiators have a rough framework for a possible compromise on agriculture in the Doha round talks, including deep cuts in farm subsidies.

One possible compromise not being discussed in the Doha round may be for countries to continue relying on trade for most food imports, but hold bigger reserves in case of crises. World rice reserves, for example, have plunged to 9 weeks' worth of consumption, from 19 as recently as 2001.

But United Nations officials are wary.

"I would not object to building up reserves," said Supachai Panitchpakdi, the secretary general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. "But like foreign exchange reserves, some countries go to huge extremes."

Victory in Pattani

Kind of hard...

.......... to pick your house up and move it so its pointing in the right direction though.

Victory in Pattani

As oppossed to a directed economy

Where being big meant being good??? Yeah, that's why everyone trapped in that system was trying to get the hell out and they built walls to force people to stay.

You guys use the word "big" as if it's synonymous with being bad. Not that that matters at all. All you folks do here is talk out your collective asses. You don't DO anything big. Just talk trash about everyone else. You spend all your time talking about what other people should do, but you don't spend your time producing things that will make a difference.

Victory in Pattani

Where in Europe were you????

"Well, even Portland has a long ways to go. European cities are far nicer to visit and I suspect to live in due to the fact that they are not infested with automobiles like American cities."

I lived in Germany for 16 years. German traffic DWARFS American traffic. Cities are clogged with cars, you can't find a space to park...... it's burtal. Every German highway has a "stau" (traffic jam) every day. Many are 15, 20 miles long or longer. German traffic reports report Stau after Stau every hour. I all but gave up highway driving there - it was WAY to painful - back in the 90s.

European cities have beautiful architecture, but that's where their beauty begins and ends.

Victory in Pattani

So Erik, are we going to have....

..... slave laborerers working collective farms? The US is NOT, NOT going to go back to small farms unless there's an economic collapse and world war. You can't go backwards.

Victory in Pattani

Where is small coal and small oil?

First it was big oil, now it's big coal. Are there any industries in the world that are small? Does anyone talk about them. Is being "big" mean being "bad".

Victory in Pattani

More, not less, rain falls if the climate gets...

...hotter. So where is the extra rain falling?

Victory in Pattani

So who dies?

Because without modern farming techniques, there's no way to feed 7 billion people.

Victory in Pattani

"The Charismatic bears"????

Polar bears are the most dangerous species of bear on the planet and will kill you without hesitation if given the opportunity.

Well, given that the Arctic is going the way of the dinasour, I'd better get a polar bear hunt in soon before it's protected and then they're all dead.On Green groups sue feds to protect polar bears from oil-drilling effects posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses

OK Grey, so where does the power come from?

We are going to need more in the next decade, not less. If you turn away from coal as a source, then what? Wind and solar won't cut it. Hydro is controversial in its own right. None of These are sufficient for the mass production of energy.

You're realistic choices for the next decade are:

Nuclear
Oil
Coal

Victory in Pattani

I don't care

if people think I am self-indulgent or not. I don't like vegeatables, and I don't intend to ever become a vegetarian. Yes, people are omnivores. It means they eat both, not one or the other. Can people lead healthy lives eating Vegetarian? Sure. Many do. Can they lead healthy lives eating both? Sure, many do.

Do I agree with Canis that factory farming animals is wrong? Yes. Do I agree with the rest of the left wing nitwit crowd that believes that meat consumption is bad morals and bad for the planet? No. In my view eating free range meat is fine. And I fully intend to do it with apologies to no one.

Victory in Pattani

Today the US produces FAR, FAR

Far more food than it ever did in the past.

What do we have here, another day dreamer dreaming of agricultural utopia?

Get off the crack and wake up. The world can no longer function without modern agriculture. Half the population would starve to death.On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

What some people consider doesn't matter

Terrorist commit acts of violence for political purposes outside the realm of government. Those entities that are outside the control of state which employ violence are terrorists. You (and I) may not like certain policies of Monsanto, but that doesn't make them terrorists.

Now, you can happily use your own twisted logic and make up your own labels for people and companies, and by doing so you join the ranks of wolverine, who has ZERO credibility in any discussion.

Now, if you "poured" acid rain on a statue, a drop at a time, yes that would be violence. It is deliberate in nature. If it's not deliberate, then that's another story. Just as if I am hunting and I shoot at a bear and miss, but 500 yards further down range the bullet strikes and kills someone I couldn't see.......... then that's not an act of violence.

And without a doubt, the .50 cal has killed a lot more people than Agent Orange. But Agent Orange was a defoliant used in wartime. Concerns about secondary effects took a back seat to combat concerns. Welcome to the real world kid.On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

There is more wrong here..........

.......... than right.

Yes, Germany has invest heavily in renewables. At huge cost however. As the author points out Germany's investment in renewable sources of energy has been very expensive. They are hoping to recoup this when renewables increase in demand. In the meanwhile, though, it's the German citizenry that absorb the higher costs. I lived in Germany 16 years, just left last year to move to Thailand. Tax rates are brutal, and Germany foolishly went down the road of decommissioning their nuclear power plants. The result? Germany is now building the largest coal fueled power plant in the world (by a good margin) and it does not have the capacity to sink the CO2 produced.

The US military budget is very large, but the author ignores the fact that the US economy is very large and that the US has global military commitments (which is the heart of the issue the author ignores but which is the true agenda in the paragraph). The pacman eating the US budget isn't the military, but rather medicare. That's eating us alive.

Furthermore, numbers can be twisted anyway you want. For example:

"The United States spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[9] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001)."

The US is at war, France is not.

Victory in Pattani

How about if we stick to the dictionary?

Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.[1][2][3][4][5]

Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as among its integral parts: nationalism, militarism, anti-communism, totalitarianism, statism, dictatorship, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to classic political and economic liberalism.

Victory in Pattani

Neither is "be vegetarian or be

against the the environment", which is the argument you are making.

My eating habits don't leave nearly the CO2 footprint that yours do. Do you know why? because I am living in a place VERY close to where my food is produced and that food is not being produced in a CAFO or anything else industrialized.

People eat meat. People have always eaten meat. Eating meat is a natural state for people to be in. Eating meat is not bad for the climate or the environment. It's not an honest arguement.

Victory in Pattani

This is too weird

But I would like to see the rack of the girl who claims here tits are 100% natural.On Catching up with our favorite European eco-porn activists posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

This is simply not true.

"Organic scares you and your corporate clients because it's more nutritious and produces just as well if not better but isn't profitable to those in the suits who sit at tables collecting profits from value-added patented seeds that require buying particular chemicals from those same companies adding to Wall Street's fat bottom-line."

If it produced just as well, then it would be the norm and that is what industrial sized farms would be doing. They use fertilizers and insecticides for a reason - because they allow for greater production.

There is something to be said for the health and environmental advantages of organic farming, but remember it IS a trade off as concerns quantity. If it wasn't, everyone would be doing it as you could save costs on fertilizer and insecticide and enhancing your bottom line........

Victory in Pattani

If you're smart and you're a foreigner.....

.... and you're living in Thailand you keep your mouth shut. And whatever you do, you don't criticize the King. Bad juju, with a ten year prison sentence. As foreigners we are outside the social system, so mind your own business here, and you can live fat. But start trying to tell people here how to live and debating what's wrong with Thai society and you are asking for trouble. There are limits here to freedom of speech, even more so if you are not Thai. I have no problem with that. I'm a guest here. You don't go into a guests house and start telling them what's what.

I don't like to fly period. Regulated or not.

I have my own solar power for my house, and I don't own a car (have a motorcycle, doesn't need squat for gas) so energy prices really only impact me when it comes to imported items. My food comes from local sources, so no serious impact there to date. Production of the local food is done mostly by manual labor.......

The United States and Europe don't have "some" regulation, they are regulated to death. I could NEVER do there what I am doing here. That's why I live here and not there. On U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Does this mean that the US will....

.... become more like Thailand? It's hot here - with prolonged periods of extreme heat, when it rains, it rains in buckets. Last year we had five continuous days of torrential downpour. Typhoons come roaring in off the Indian Ocean (mostly blasting Burma though). If the US can become like this place, maybe  I'd move back - would have to be a lot cheaper though. I bought my four story Chinese shop house for 65,000. Paid cash - would have to see a serious decline in real estate prices for me to go back. And no more BS regulation either. This place is largely unregulated, meaning I can do whatever I want.On U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

How do you get "fresh" tomotoes

grown in your region when they don't grow in your region in the late fall or Winter?

If you live in the Northeast, in some way shape or fashion you have to preserve your food cause it doesn't grow all year around.

Victory in Pattani

Stereotypes are true

Think about it? The reason people entertain stereotypes is most of them are based in fact. WOMEN DO like to shop more, and the author supported that statistically. Yet you try and berate it with the term "stereotype". On Can your pocketbook save the planet? The author of Big Green Purse says yes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Who is "we" kemosabe?

"From studying the industrial-food system, as I do, it's easy to conclude that we live in a brutal culture: content to destroy the ecosystem, exploit labor, and torture animals to produce unhealthy but profitable food."

I would say "we" includes every country in the world.

Man, what I would give now for a good burger.

Victory in Pattani

Amazing, don't get weird on me......

At the end of the day we're talking cooking and dining here, not sex.

Victory in Pattani

Yeah, there's nothing left.......

Right. I guess all these trees and this tropical jungle I am observing out my window are an illusion. The Mekong river flowing by with huge fish in it (which I have seen caught) isn't really there at all. There's no water, there's no wildlife....... except of course for the snake that almost bit me three days ago. Yep, the earths been destroyed. We're aren't actually living here at all........

Victory in Pattani

But Tom, why do they live in Slums?

Why don't they stay on their "ancestral" lands and continue to farm? Could it be because for centuries that way of life was precarious? Could it be that they are looking for stable work and don't want to be dependent on the outcomes of the weather for their sustenance?

There are plenty of urban poor in Africa - there are MORE rural poor. A lot more. Go live and check it out. I found it most enlightening.

Food production techniques are NOT - NOT the problem. The green revolution ensured ample food. the problem is there are too many people. Third world people continue to breed in excess of what they can support. It's that simple.On As corn and soy fields drown in rainwater, the food crisis deepens posted 1 year, 5 months ago 19 Responses

She's a freak

Who can't even spell her own name properly.

Man, couscous with rice and lamb.......... God I'd give anything to eat that right now!!!!

Victory in Pattani

The case against DDT isn't clear AT ALL.

"Incidentally, the number of cancer, neural disorders, and stillborn rates skyrocketed."

No, they didn't. Where did you get that from. Pull it out of your fourth point of contact? Prior to DDT in Sri Lanka there were an average of 55,000 cases of malaria annually. Do you know how many people that was killing? There is no question that in places where malaria or dengue are prevalent, mosquitoes have to be controlled or they will kill a LOT of people. I live in a dengue zone, and they have been using DDT derivatives here in limited quantities. So I did a little research into it. Turns out the half life in water (they primarily spray the breeding areas in the sewers) is 15 days. The link to cancer in humans is tenuous AND the tests always are given in gross quantities. It is much less clear whether small amounts of exposure are harmful at all.

Dengue and Malaria are killing hundreds of thousands of people every year, and immobilizing millions more.

Nature is trying to kill you all the time. Remember that.On Icky disease afflicting Alaskan salmon posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Jonas you are right but.........

............. 15% of millions of tons is a lot of wheat.

Same with rice. 5% of hundreds of millions of tons of rice produced in southeast Asia is still a lot of rice.

Percentages can sometimes be deceptive.

But you are absolutely correct in your notion that the people getting hammered by food shortages are subsistence farmers who just can't produce enough to subsist because of a shortage of land, shortage of water, etc. Subsistence farming has always been a lousy way to make a living. Most people who do it do so because they have to. Family farms that run at a real profit - those are rare things. On As corn and soy fields drown in rainwater, the food crisis deepens posted 1 year, 5 months ago 19 Responses

Sean, again, excellent

Superb material. I am really impressed with your thought processes. You need to somehow get this injected into the political process. I would send a copy of the entire thing to both the McCain and Obama campaigns. It's better thought out than anything I have read to date. Simple, concise, and I think correct on the key points.

Victory in Pattani

Are you on crack?

No, I am not an "environmentalist". Environmentalists tilt, like politicians, too far to the intellectually dishonest for me ever to want such a label.

Concerning meat, the meat I eat grazes naturally. One steak does not require one thousand gallons of water. Where did you get that from? Not that it matters, because I live in a place that is VERY well watered. The animals here are not taking water away from anyone.

Secondly, they don't require ANY fossil fuel as well. Once they are butchered, the delivery to the market might require minimal transport costs - just like the Lentils (which I can't buy here) would.

If you said that your drove a HMMWV I would question your taste in motor vehicles.

I don't believe in "protecting the earth." I believe in making sure that our capacity to exploit it is sustainable.

Victory in Pattani

Population, not food production, is the issue.

John
Well, Rwanda disposed of much of its excess population in 1994. Might do the same again next decade too.

If you grow without herbicides or pesticides, your crop is very vulnerable to being wiped out. Don't fool yourself, nature is trying to kill you all the time.

Those same farmers you are talking about are a drought or a flood away from going hungary. You can't just "eat local" and sustain that. Eventual, the local conditions won't be sufficient. In places like Somalia, where life is always precarious because of a lack of water, a couple of bad years and it's over unless there is connections to food sources outside the region.

In my view, the issue is not how food is produced, it's overpopulation. There are too many people in parts of the world that can't sustain them. On As corn and soy fields drown in rainwater, the food crisis deepens posted 1 year, 5 months ago 19 Responses

I hate to be the stick in the mud

But race is irrelevant. The issues confront us all equally regardless of race. If you were being actively kept out of the movement because of your race, I would agree. But this is sort of like the baseball / basketball race issue. Basketball is overwhelming represented by "African Americans." Baseball, by Latinos and "European Americans." Does this mean that there is some sort of latent racism in both sports keeping the other race out? No, it's culture.

If there's an issue here, it is one in which blacks need to gain more awareness (and this is doubtless tied to educational opportunities - but then we can go down an entire sociological history of the country which is pointless isn't it?) of how environmental issue are and will impact on them and why they need to take an interest in this issue as much as yuppie whites have.On Reflecting on his daughter's future, a father says the green movement must diversify posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

If temperature were your only variable that....

.... might be true. But mass is another variable. And the more H2O you put into the sea, the higher the sea level.............

Victory in Pattani

I said humans are not the only thing changing...

the ecology.

Let's talk about DDT for a minute. In Sri Lanka, at the height of DDT spraying, Malaria cases dropped to 19 for one year. NINTEEN. When the spraying was terminated, the numbers skyrocketed incredibly up into the 50,000 range. Ever had malaria Wolverine? It sucks. Take my word for it. It also killed MILLIONS of people a year. Of course, since you don't like people, you don't care when they die. So if mayb eight or nine hundred thousand children die annually from malaria, so much the better. They can't grow up to have a big carbon footprint right?

Like I said before. You have ZERO credibility.On Icky disease afflicting Alaskan salmon posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Brute, I am not sure I agree

I think the issue of the nature of climate change and our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere (as well as other gases like methane) is not something we should ignore and just shrug off. However, of equal concern is the Green movements agenda - which is clearly using climate change as an engine for other changes that it wants to see. This is intellectually dishonest. The Green movement will use any scare tactic to change lifestyles which they disagree with in principal, regardless of whether or not they are valid environmental issues. Of course, for whack jobs like Wolverine everything is a valid environmental issue because in his world view we are just another species and a bad one at that. He thinks humans should basically be eliminated.

Victory in Pattani

Well, there is exactly ONE Vegetarian......

.... restaurant in the city where I live. There is NO Soy Delicious ice cream. And I don't like vegetables much at all. Used to be a constant source of conflict between my mother and I. So, it doesn't look like the kid will be seeking the "Vegan lifestyle."

Victory in Pattani

Not in Germany

"When it's their own posteriors on the line, green movers seem to understand that nuclear energy is safe and clean"

In Germany the Greens, when they formed part of the governing coalition, insisted that all nuclear power plants be decommissioned. That is happening now while Germany constructs the largest coal fired power plant ever that will completely eliminate their CO2 gains.

Victory in Pattani

I have a close friend who's a Green party member

And long ago I had a debate with her about the Green party's foolish opposition to the current nuclear infrastructure. I told her the only way for Germany to eliminate it's nuclear program was to invest heavily in coal, one of the dirtiest sources of power. Her response back on the issue of nuclear waste didn't seem to want to acknowledge the issues surrounding coal. These kinds of issues can't be flipped on and off like a switch. The investment is huge, so once you go down the road, you can't turn back for decades......

Victory in Pattani

Brute - good post

While I disagree with you on Iraq for Machiavellian reasons, I basically agree with most of what you wrote. The defeatists and whiners posting here are pathetic.

Victory in Pattani

The one I saved that then found it's way onto my..

dinner plate I did not get along with. But usually I get along with them well.

Yes, you have to decide if it's for eating or for working. In most cases, since Thais have an aversion to beef for religious reasons, they are used for work.

Victory in Pattani

As usual Woverine, you are wrong

Partisan bickering is a term for political arguments that don't revolve around the merits of the arguments themselves, but rather are being pursued along party lines for reasons that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

And no, there's no hidden hand running things. Another fantasy by left wing whackos.

Victory in Pattani

God damn Indians..... couldn't even keep good...

..records. So here we are trying to trace weather back five or six hundred years, and there aren't any records to do it with.

Victory in Pattani

But Klare is wrong.

The truth is, the Iranians were attacking oil supplies in the 80s in the gulf. The idea that our guarding them increases the threat is ridiculous. That the invasion of Iraq might have added to the threat is another question altogether. But the invasion of Iraq was not tied to guarding oil supplies.

As for dealing with regimes which are not humanitarian, what's your choice? There is none.

Victory in Pattani

One last point here

Another thing environmentalists are loathe to admit is that there will be winners with climate change. Some places that are dry will get more rain. Some places that are cold will get warmer. The issue is, since our infrastructure is already built, and in many areas strained, what do you do if the American southwest starts to get even less water than it already does?

Then there's the bigger issues like rising seas, or runaway global warming.

These are valid issues, even if the latter isn't quite proveable.

Therefore it behoves us to move on this threat. But this has to be undertaken in a measured manner, less we do more damage than good in totally disrupting the global economy.

Victory in Pattani

For now, the straits have to be guarded

Remember, that Dar al Islam is seeking to force the entire world to submit to Islamic rule. That is, and always has been, a goal of Islam. Most Muslims would agree that Islam will rule the world, and that Muslims should work towards that end (the big disagreement is in how - most reject the idea of using violence to achieve this end).

Now, let's say the US military did not guarantee Gulf Oil. And let's say that Ahmedinijad and the Mullahs who control Iran decided that they really could get us over a barrel - so to speak - if they cut supplies. They'd have the world by the balls, and they know it. The global economy would collapse without oil right now. BILLIONS would die.

So yes, the US needs to become energy independent. No question. Yes, the government should be providing the private sector with every incentive to get there from here as fast as possible (preferably before there isn't any oil left). But no, policy at this time should not be changed. The US military must guarantee the oil flows.

By the way, the article is wrong in assuming that the oil would flow anyway, without US military involvement. You can't prove a negative.

Victory in Pattani

I don't think they should keep their mouths....

... closed. There's nothing wrong with stating theory. As long as you are clear that it is theory. Where a lot of environmentalists go wrong (like the BBC) is to simply say that "x" phenomenon is due to climate change caused by man made factors. It's one thing to speculate, even better to demonstrate facts that support such arguments. No problem there. It's when such speculation is portrayed as fact. Then, when the public finds out it's not fact, enormous credibility is lost (and support for difficult measures).

Victory in Pattani

All of you have no problem with complaining

about different environmental issues, but none of you are big on REALISTIC solutions. Instead, you harp ceaselessly about "lifestyle changes" and other B.S. Focus on realistic techonological solutions, because lifestyles will only change if the market forces it, not because environmentalists think it should.

Victory in Pattani

Gornsby, not to worry

I've lived outside the US almost continuously since 1985 and the rest of the world is just as clueless, they just don't realize it. On Protests erupt worldwide over fuel prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 25 Responses

Hapa

But then there's the inverse:

We close the border (using Draconian measures, which is the only way to do it) with an iron fist.

Those jobs which Americans won't do at global competitive wages just don't get done. So fruit doesn't get picked, etc. The immigrants, who don't get in or get killed trying, don't get to earn any hard cash because the economy sucks where they are. So they earn nothing, while our fruit rots. Thus the cost of fruit goes up, the trade deficit goes up because we have to import more food products (which, of course, leads to higher CO2 emissions from the transport bringing in the additional food items) and all parties are poorer as a result.

So you see the problem as essentially one of inequality. Which it is. I'll let you in on a little secret. The world isn't an equal place. Never was, never will be. Not in nature, not in human relations. Some are born smarter, some are born tougher, some are born more ruthless, some are born stronger - all the while some are born dumber, some are born weaker, some are gentle in nature, some......... well, you get the picture. Life ain't fair. Live with it.

Victory in Pattani

Gas tax holiday is a stupid idea....

which explains why politicians have embraced it so often lately.

The market is telling consumers "find new energy sources you knuckleheads" and it's up to the consumers and producers to listen.

The day of the SUV is over. It's time to find new means of transportation that do not require fossil fuels, because we just aren't going to have that option anymore.On McCain and Obama tout very different energy policies posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Anyone who has lived in Africa can tell you

that Africans are the ones destroying their environment. They kill anything and everything. Ridiculous ideas of "African Shamans" who are in tune with nature and other such B.S. are just that, B.S. Africans kill each other with abandon, and it has nothing to do with the West or any other part of the world. They have ALWAYS been killing each other with abandon. The only reason Africa has not been trashed more than it is is because Africans haven't figured out a more efficient way to do it.

I lived in East Africa for two years, and it was obvious that at least there, the African capacity for destruction of anything and everything was prodigious.On Climate change, deforestation, erosion take toll on African landscape posted 1 year, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Can always count on the Grist..........

......... to make sweeping, poorly thought out statements.

First, let's talk about immigration. Why do people immigrate to the US? Grist members will be surprised to find out that not everyone else in the world believes that America is a disaster area or a repressive sh!thole. No, some people believe it is a land of opportunity.

Immigrants come here to find work. Most are honest, hard working people doing jobs at wages which native born Americans would not. This is particularly true in the certain types of agriculture which does not lend itself to machine farming (which you people hate anyway). Whether or not America wishes to close its borders to immigration, short of some very draconian measures this is probably not possible. We can limit immigration, but we can't stop it without shooting people. I doubt anyone here advocates that kind of action.

As for overpopulation - the US isn't even close to being overpopulated. There are massive, well watered areas in the US (like upstate Maine) that have hardly any people living there. The question is, does it make sense to allow the countries population to expand, and what measures are we willing to implement to do something about it? Given our relatively low birth rates, immigrants are key contributors to the economy as our population ages.

The truth is there are no easy solutions to problems like these. America is a land of immigrants. Ever since the US was founded immigrants have been coming here seeking a better life. Do we want to end that tradition, and at what expense are we willing to do so?

Victory in Pattani

In Thai all animals are "it"

You do not refer to animals in Thailand as he or she.

Yeah we made peace because it was dead. Pretty tasty too, although we sold most of the meat. We paid 8,000 baht for the buffalo and sold the meat two years latter for 22,000. It grazed wild, so it didn't really cost us anything to maintain.

Victory in Pattani

My father in law had two water buffalo

which I had bought for him. My wife had begged me to buy the first to spare it from the butcher. It got pregnant, we had two. It was the most obnoxious buffalo I have ever encountered. Always trying to gore me, always difficult. We ended up eating it.

Victory in Pattani

Wolverine, I was a professional soldier for 27

years. I am not a pacifist. Obviously I admire McCains military record. I am not a radical whack job looking to gut civilization from one end to the other.

Victory in Pattani

Clinton

"So you would vote for a woman in theory, but all the actual women available are "annoying" and "power hungry." If only a demure woman who knew her place would run for high office! Then you should show how unafraid of women you are."

Demure and running for high office? No. Just not a raging a#$hole.

I really liked Jean Kilpatrick. I had always hoped Reagan would pick her as a running mate.

I like Caroline Kennedy and wish she would run for elected office.

I like Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

I always liked Olympia Snow.

I like the early reviews of Amy Klobuchar.

Did I mention Diane Feinstein? Add her to the incredibly obnoxious personalites on the list with the Clinton crew.

Victory in Pattani

Here's my rationalization

Meat tastes good; vegetables don't!

Victory in Pattani

Amazing, you must be tight with Ghost.....

You both seem to have a very nihilistic outlook on life.

Victory in Pattani

Wolverine

I am just curious, which political leaders who have won elected office in, say, the last decade, do you support?

Funny how people think "indigenous people" should more or less be left isolated, like animals in a nature reserve. Did it ever occur to anyone that isolated indigenous peoples die horrible deaths from easily preventable diseases? That they suffer incredibly high rates of infant mortality?

For those who think living like that is some sort of paradise, allow me one word on the subject: Dentistry.On Vermont-sized area of Amazon may be protected posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

Bison and Lions

"Bison grazing on natural prairie would be carbon neutral maybe.  A great argument for a Prairie National Park."

But then there's the carbon released when my 30-06 discharges it's bullet to kill the Bison. Then I have to transport it's carcass back home - using fossil fuels for the pickup to do so. Then I have to use an electric saw to efficiently carve it up. Then I have to use more electricity for the freezer to preserve the meat. So it's not exactly carbon neutral.

Canis
How are you going to get lions and other carnivores to buy into your plan?

Victory in Pattani

Bill this is exactly what is wrong with Greens...

"NOT WITH THESE FOLKS.
I can stand aside and watch but not get behind them or their ilk."

People start saying they want to make their products more environmentally friendly. That they want to seek out better ways of stewardship. And what do you say? "f#$# off. We aren't interested in your help. It's just a smoke screen."

Well hombre, the Green movement doesn't have the political muscle to twist their arms to accomplish your goals. And I'll let you in on a little secret. It never will. You need the power of persuasion and you need to get major corporations, Big Oil (and small oil too)..... corporate America, on board. You fail to do that, and you can kiss any progress good-bye.

You want perfection now. When has that ever happened with any movement? So instead of supporting these guys and then simply pointing out when they come up short (but also lauding when they are doing something positive) you would prefer to just say "these guys aren't serious and never will be." An utterly counter-productive position.On New climate campaign aimed at U.S. consumers posted 1 year, 5 months ago 3 Responses

Jon, the world isn't copying the US

Southeast Asia has, for a long time (at least centuries) had very stratified societies. This is well reflected in language as well. They are not, and seemingly never have been, egalitarian. Thus Asians seek status symbols even more than we do, because status is an ingrained part of their culture. It didn't come from us. You being to perceive this better when you live here (I sure did).

Take the Wai for example. Westerners mistakenly take this greeting to be an Asian form of shaking hands. It's is, but it's also more than that. Lower Wai's higher. Thus when two Thais meet, they will quickly suss out who is higher in the social strata. At that point, their language changes and one becomes deferential in word selection. Also, the titles for you change based on where someone is in the pecking order. Money is a huge factor in determining where you sit. So a visible sign of wealth means status. This tradition has nothing to do with us.

As for this:

"...I don't think the US or any other country will have any choice but to shift their economies away from, first, oil, then natural gas, then coal."

I absolutely agree. I think any sentient being would agree. These are limited, non-renewable resources. We have to move away from them.

Having said that, most Greens want to move in radical directions. Let's take suburbia. Now, I hate the suburbs. Doesn't have the advantages of the city or the country.... too many negatives for me. But they are hugely popular with most people. Therefore, practical solutions should take this into account. Suburbs mean people need independent transport modes...... Tens of millions of people live in Suburbs, so generating quality housing for tens of millions (which of course could only be done with large amounts of carbon emissions in the construction process) isn't going to happen either. You know this as well as I do. So the solution lies in providing incentives to the transportation industry to develop environmentally friendly individual transportation means, not in saying "Everyone has to walk or bike from now on and move out of your house and into the city center."

Victory in Pattani

Ghost - why don't you just go shoot yourself

"I have to depend on my experience working in improving the environment and the fragility that this planet exhibits chemically. We are guests here--the planet(our landlord)is very tired of us as tenants and we're losing our lease very soon."

"More negative waves man. It's a beautiful day. Can't you say something positive and righteous and hopeful for a change?"

Every post you ever write is "we're doomed".

Well, if that's true, then I want to have fun while I'm here. If you insist on wringing your hands and whinging all the time, can't you do it in a more private space.

I'll bet you're a lot of fun to hang out with......

Victory in Pattani

If the weather in your neighborhood supports it...

I was very lucky. Three years ago, during my last assignment before retiring, I found a house within walking distance of my place of work. There was a supermarket about a kilometer from my house. So I bought one of those little pull shopping carts. My dance studio was right on the bus line, and that was an easy walk as well. So I sold the car, and haven't owned one since. I walk to work, walk to shop, take the bus to dance, the train for longer trips.

Well, I did, until I retired and moved to Thailand. Wife is Thai, and we moved to Thailand. In Thailand possession of glitzy stuff is very important in marking your social status. MUCH more so than in the US. Hence a lot of people drive big, flashy pickups that they can't afford. My wife wanted one. I could afford it, but I said no. It's stupid. The price of gas is only going to go up. The writing is on the wall.

We use a "Tuk tuk" to haul stuff from our weekly shopping trips. It's cheap and easy. I get around the city and visit the in-laws on my Honda Shadow. Small engine, but sufficient for here. I tank about once a month for less than ten US dollars. It's also fun and a chick magnet.... for those of you who aren't gay.

You can't ride in the snow, but you can definitely ride in the rain. In the rainy season here, it RAINS. And I ride all the time. So I recommend a bike or scooter for those who do not have a highway commute or can avoid any meaningful stretches of highway driving in their route selection.

One drawback. Bikes are inherently dangerous. You don't have any protection. You get hit, you're going to get hurt or killed. But then, if you can't killed doing it, it probably ain't worth doing.

Victory in Pattani

Individual modes of transportation

Are most certainly more efficient from an individual time standpoint - rather than an energy standpoint. Anyone who has a job working 12 plus hours a day understands the value of this. Anyone who has an hour commute to work by automobile, which becomes two hours in a train or bus, understands this.
The Green movement has to get it's head wrapped around this. The US is not - nor is any other country - going to restructure its entire economy around the environment. Pie in the sky. It is not going to happen regardless of how many on these pages think it should.

As for concrete, hard to build many modern buildings without using things like steel, concrete or wood. Name a building material and someone here will tell you why you can't use it. Again, we have to be realistic.

Victory in Pattani

Canis, the answer is......

I was a competitive amateur boxer for ten years. It's a sport a really miss, but my body wasn't going to allow me to do it anymore after I broke my ribs in a fight. They never did heal right.

I was a professional soldier for 27 years.

So as you might guess, violence is not something I shy away from.

To answer the other part - Somalia. 1992 until my last treck in that neck of the woods - 2005.

Victory in Pattani

Amazing, you contradict yourself

On the one hand, you say Minnesota is building a rail system into highway medians, on the other, you say that exxonmob (whoever the hell that is) will never allow it.

Victory in Pattani

Democracy requires tolerance....

..... which is something in woefully short supply on these pages. You have to learn to respect people with different opinions. Did it ever occur to any of you that you might be wrong on some of these big issues? Almost no one here considers what global emission cuts mean to the global standard of living or who is most likely to deal with the brunt of those cuts.

Corporations and "Big Oil" (how come no one ever talks about "small oil"?) are LEGITIMATE parts of our society. It's not as if business is evil.... no business....no work....no work, no modern society. No one here seems to think that through. It's as if everyone wants to turn the clock back to 1650 - oh what a lovely time on the planet that was. You could sit and watch half of your children not make it to adulthood. You could watch close friends and relatives die in agony from a whole host of medical conditions that are now easily treatable.

We can not go back to being an agrarian society - well we certainly don't want to.

The Republicans are not "enemies of the people". Their viewpoints are different, but every bit as legitimate as the ones posted here.

Respect is critical in a functioning democracy. I got to spend two years in a country where that ceased happening, where government dissolved in a "revolution". It was incredibly ugly. The scope of human suffering was beyond description. So before any morons get the bright idea that a revolution would be a good thing, I suggest you go some place like Somalia and see one up close. Most revolutions do enormous damage to the societies in which they occur before some sort of normalcy returns. And then they often end in dictatorship.

So how about it we discuss good people like John McCain with the respect they deserve. Most of our politicians are of such low moral character they would throw their own grandmothers under the bus to get ahead. McCain and Obama are not of that ilk  and we should appreciate it.

Victory in Pattani

Ghost - do you really believe this?

"in about 10-15 yrs. Obviously, by then, no effort of any kind will matter and we will be forced to watch the birth of Mars right here at home. Stick a fork in us,period..."

Victory in Pattani

Avoiding all the waste?

I can't speak for worldwide. But when I lived in Somalia, you could never find a plastic bag or plastic bottles. The Somalis used them as canteens. Plastic bottles were reused. The place was so poor, EVERYTHING was recycled into something.

Victory in Pattani

Canis your suggestion is a good way.....

......... to make the environmentalist boat smaller, and not larger. I will NEVER become a vegetarian, since I do not like vegetables.

I do support certain environmental causes, but I am not "Mr Humanitarian" and I never had any problem with violence. In fact, I enjoy violence.  So, if you make being a vegetarian a prerequisite to being a supporter of environmental issues, you push a bunch of us out of the boat - and we climb into a another one.

"The connexion between environmentalism and animal-welfare advocacy should most certainly be raised, now and again.T

Victory in Pattani

Pangolin

Asphalt isn't the only surface on which one can drive and automobile.....

Victory in Pattani

Tell the Voters the truth????

Whoa, whoa, whoa.......... stop right there.

Politicians don't do that. That would violate their code of ethics.

Dave, you are, of course, quite right. And people are fools if they just sit back and wait for the government (US or any other) to do something about this. People have to start modifying their lifestyles themselves. Government isn't positioned to tackle this issue yet.

So, you can take the bull by the horns, walk the dog, figure out the impacts of peak oil, and structure your lives to deal with those impacts, or not and suffer the consequences.

As they say here: Up to you.

Victory in Pattani

The problem is econmic, not policy

Agricultural work is seasonal, it's backbreaking work, and it doesn't pay much. Those are economic facts that no amount of policy can change. That's why it's dependent on migrant labor. Migrants are willing to work at low wages, long hours..... because the working conditions and wages are better than what they are making at their places of origin.

100 years ago, standards of living were much lower. Many youth lived on farms and ranches, or worked to harvest with small communities as part of the work cycle. This is still true where I live, in Thailand. This is model is no longer possible for the US. Therefore, factory farms are clearly the model for the future, even though most Greens have a fundamental opposition to them. We are NOT going to become a more aggragrian society unless there is a total glopbal economic collapse, with the resulting wars and mass population decreases that would be associated with same.On To create a truly sustainable food system, we'll have to confront the farm-labor crisis posted 1 year, 5 months ago 14 Responses

Indeed

There were a lot less people.

Of course, a healthy world war could kill off a couple of billion if we tried........

Victory in Pattani

This is happening now in Germany

"I think a better answer is to have sustainability and environmental issues incorporated into all movies, TV shows etc rather than one-off 'global warming scare' films but given the commercial orientation of mainstream media and whatnot that's unlikely to happen."

Which is why I have become desensitized to the issue. It's a constant. Eventually I just got fed up with it. I just don't give a shit anymore.

Victory in Pattani

Tastes like something pulled from the garden......

But the Somalis just love it. In fact, they love it so much, they will kill you over it. Gotta love the Somalis.

Victory in Pattani

Fat women.......

"A recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study found that women in poverty were roughly 50 percent more likely to be obese than those with higher socioeconomic status."

Then maybe they should skip the next trip to the McDonalds, stop supersizing their meals, and get their fat asses out for a morning or evening run! Now fat women aren't fat anymore because they're lazy and spending too much time in front of Oprah........ oh no, it's because they're poor and it's the fault of George Bush and evil corporations!!!

I am tapped out on sympathy by people who do stupid crap, lead pathetic lifestyles and then want to blame it on the government. When are we going to take responsibility for ourselves?

Victory in Pattani

"It's CAFOs that need shutting down."

If people would just stop eating........ that could cut carbon emissions in a big way!

Victory in Pattani

He looks like a dork, but...........

..... this is too funny:

McEwan said, describing how the eminent scientists, who were gathering down the hall to talk earnestly about the future of humankind, were also capable of stealing each others' footwear and regarding their colleagues with deep distrust.

Victory in Pattani

I'll bet they didn't survey Somalia

It's got to be one of the best...........

Of course, life expectancy is around 45 years....... and most people live in utter and abject poverty, totally dependent on those evil Americans for their food supply, but hey, they don't have many carbon emissions. On the other hand, they burn everything in site for fuel, as it's the only fuel they have access to.On Brazilians and Indians are the greenest, says survey posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Senate

Look, EVERYONE in the Senate is considering every political angle in everything they do. Don't think for a moment that one of these guys is more politically moral than another....... or that one party is more moral than the other.

The issue concerning how to deal with climate change is cost - pure and simple. Who's going to pay what. Because activists have this annoying little habit of lying when it suits their purposes, a lot of time has been lost waiting for the science to solidify. Meanwhile, the politicians are doing what politicians do, which is lie, obfuscate, and dither.

There is a lot of momentum on the issue, and as it gathers steam it will galvanize politicians across the spectrum into action. Why? Because it will be politically expedient to do so.

So the issue needs to be kept in the forefront. Realistic options need to continue to be explored, invested in (as in renewable energies, carbon sinks, etc.) and implemented. But if you try turning this into a "good guy, bad guy" scenario.......... counter-productive.

Victory in Pattani