<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Thirty years ago, high crop prices caused environmental destruction, too]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by bharshaw http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/ Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:10:33 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/1 And After the 1970's, the 1980's

I wonder how well Dan predicted the events of the 1980's.

In 1983 a conservative Republican President stretched the law to its limits to approve the largest land diversion program in our history. (The 1983 payment-in-kind program.)

Boom and bust is feature of agriculture. We may have $20 wheat today, but not tomorrow.

]]> And After the 1970's, the 1980's

I wonder how well Dan predicted the events of the 1980's.

In 1983 a conservative Republican President stretched the law to its limits to approve the largest land diversion program in our history. (The 1983 payment-in-kind program.)

Boom and bust is feature of agriculture. We may have $20 wheat today, but not tomorrow.

]]> Comment #2 by Pompey Road http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/ Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:47:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/2 Don't blame Reagan

His deregulation and economic policy was guided by Nancy's astrologer, plus the fact he had alzhheimer's and was asleep at the wheel most of the time. It was medium economics actually instead of trickle down economic.

Our current president is the one who practices trickle down economics. He says economy is fine and based on sound principles with a sound economic foundation, as he pee's on your leg and tells you it's just raining.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

]]> Don't blame Reagan

His deregulation and economic policy was guided by Nancy's astrologer, plus the fact he had alzhheimer's and was asleep at the wheel most of the time. It was medium economics actually instead of trickle down economic.

Our current president is the one who practices trickle down economics. He says economy is fine and based on sound principles with a sound economic foundation, as he pee's on your leg and tells you it's just raining.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

]]> Comment #3 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/ Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:30:20 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/3 feeding cars vs. feeding animals

In yesterday's Guardian, George Monbiot argues that the growing meat industry is more responsible than the development of biofuels for the global rise in food prices:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/04/15/the-pleasures- ...

Thanks to Karen Dawn of DawnWatch for the notice.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> feeding cars vs. feeding animals

In yesterday's Guardian, George Monbiot argues that the growing meat industry is more responsible than the development of biofuels for the global rise in food prices:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/04/15/the-pleasures- ...

Thanks to Karen Dawn of DawnWatch for the notice.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> Comment #4 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/ Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:44:20 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/4 Canis

that is only because there are ten people who eat meat for every car, and only about 2-3% of car fuel is presently made from biofuels. Even so, according to Monbiot, biofuels account for about twice the grain deficit.

Put in perspective how fast biofuels burn grain.  Extrapolating that 100 million tons fed to cars (that use about 2% biofuel) to cars using 100% biofuel, you would get about 5 trillion tons to cars, verses 760 million to livestock.

Or, if all of the people who eat meat also drove cars using 100% biofuel, you would need 50 trillion tons of grain.

But here is the key. About 6 billion people "want" to eat meat. Very few "want" to burn biofuel, especially when they realize it costs more, is worse for global warming, and destroys biodiversity. Governments don't force people to eat meat and dairy.

Some quotes from the Monbiot article:

The production of biofuels this year will consume almost 100m tonnes(7), which suggests that they are directly responsible for the current crisis.

In the midst of a global humanitarian crisis, we have just become legally obliged to use food as fuel. It is a crime against humanity in which every driver in this country has been forced to participate.

I know a few healthy-looking vegans and I admire them immensely. But after almost every talk I give, I am pestered by swarms of vegans demanding that I adopt their lifestyle. I cannot help noticing that in most cases their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey.

He smacked the hornet's nest and ran away chuckling with that last quip.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Canis

that is only because there are ten people who eat meat for every car, and only about 2-3% of car fuel is presently made from biofuels. Even so, according to Monbiot, biofuels account for about twice the grain deficit.

Put in perspective how fast biofuels burn grain.  Extrapolating that 100 million tons fed to cars (that use about 2% biofuel) to cars using 100% biofuel, you would get about 5 trillion tons to cars, verses 760 million to livestock.

Or, if all of the people who eat meat also drove cars using 100% biofuel, you would need 50 trillion tons of grain.

But here is the key. About 6 billion people "want" to eat meat. Very few "want" to burn biofuel, especially when they realize it costs more, is worse for global warming, and destroys biodiversity. Governments don't force people to eat meat and dairy.

Some quotes from the Monbiot article:

The production of biofuels this year will consume almost 100m tonnes(7), which suggests that they are directly responsible for the current crisis.

In the midst of a global humanitarian crisis, we have just become legally obliged to use food as fuel. It is a crime against humanity in which every driver in this country has been forced to participate.

I know a few healthy-looking vegans and I admire them immensely. But after almost every talk I give, I am pestered by swarms of vegans demanding that I adopt their lifestyle. I cannot help noticing that in most cases their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey.

He smacked the hornet's nest and ran away chuckling with that last quip.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #5 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/ Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:25:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/5 Perlescence is by correlation,

not by consequence.  GM is presumably pulling our leg with that stereotype; nevertheless, the corpse-like pallor of his swarming vespid assailants might better be ascribed to their anal retentiveness and proclivity to nag.

We are not all like that, you know.

FYI, I am flexi-vegan, allowing now and again some dairy products and eggs, and very very rarely some fish -- not of my own choosing.  And, FWIW, I maintain my ancestral oliveness, flushing to walnutness when somebody cute smiles at me.  No pearl grey here, save in my hair.

Also, BioD, I am agnostic on whether environmentalists should be commanded to go vegetarian, as being obviously the very best thing that one can do to save the world.  I leave that sort of calculation up to you and your number-crunching colleagues -- not failing to notice, though, that the least suggestion that eating less meat, as an environmental benefit, seems knee-jerkedly to send you flying into a tizzy.  : )

On the other hand, I am deeply set in my belief that being kind to animals is a good thing for ourselves and for our world.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> Perlescence is by correlation,

not by consequence.  GM is presumably pulling our leg with that stereotype; nevertheless, the corpse-like pallor of his swarming vespid assailants might better be ascribed to their anal retentiveness and proclivity to nag.

We are not all like that, you know.

FYI, I am flexi-vegan, allowing now and again some dairy products and eggs, and very very rarely some fish -- not of my own choosing.  And, FWIW, I maintain my ancestral oliveness, flushing to walnutness when somebody cute smiles at me.  No pearl grey here, save in my hair.

Also, BioD, I am agnostic on whether environmentalists should be commanded to go vegetarian, as being obviously the very best thing that one can do to save the world.  I leave that sort of calculation up to you and your number-crunching colleagues -- not failing to notice, though, that the least suggestion that eating less meat, as an environmental benefit, seems knee-jerkedly to send you flying into a tizzy.  : )

On the other hand, I am deeply set in my belief that being kind to animals is a good thing for ourselves and for our world.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> Comment #6 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/ Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:40:53 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/that-70s-show/6 Canis

Our diets are not very far apart. If you are a flexi-vegan, I'm a semi-flexi-vegan.

I often suggest we eat less meat, like Monbiot. It's the insistence that we eat no animal products that sends me (and obviously Monbiot) into a tizzy.

Between veganism and burning biofuels, the best (and easiest) thing one can do is refuse to burn biofuels because they do more damage on a per person basis.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Canis

Our diets are not very far apart. If you are a flexi-vegan, I'm a semi-flexi-vegan.

I often suggest we eat less meat, like Monbiot. It's the insistence that we eat no animal products that sends me (and obviously Monbiot) into a tizzy.

Between veganism and burning biofuels, the best (and easiest) thing one can do is refuse to burn biofuels because they do more damage on a per person basis.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]>