backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by tharik.. on Jun 14 at 2:58 PM


Wheat crops in India  (Source: NY Times)
Populations around the Himalayas at risk

recent study in the journal Science shows that the shrinkage of glaciers will cause a lack in water sources for crops, ultimately leading to food shortages for approximately 60 million people living near the Himalayas. This study is one of the first to observe the effect melting glaciers have on the Himalayan river basins, and could possibly further provoke the existing debate that climate change will destroy river basins located mostly in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, China and Bhutan.

Dutch scientists Marc Bierkens, Walter Immerzee and Ludovicus Van Beek – who conducted the study and wrote in the journal -- concluded that basins around the Himalayas such as the Indus, Ganges and Brahamaputra depend on the melting glaciers to water their crops, and could see a 19.6 percent decline in their water supply by 2050. 

"We estimate that the food security of 4.5 percent of the total population will be threatened as a result of reduced water availability," the researchers wrote. "The strong need for prioritizing adaptation options and further increasing water productivity is therefore eminent."

This new study largely contrasts the U.N. report in 2007, where the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that hundreds of millions of people were in danger from the receding glaciers. According to the scientists, the reason for the "discrepancy" is that only some basins in this area depend on the glaciers. Others, such as China's Yellow River basin, obtain their water from rainfall and are expected to see a 9.5 percent increase in water supply due to the changing climate altering the pattern of monsoons. 

"We show that it's only certain areas that will be affected," said Bierkens. "The amount of people affected is still large. Every person is one too many but it's much less than was first anticipated."

In addition, the U.N. report included other errors such as the Himalayas disappearing by 2035, when actual data indicates that this will happen by 2350. Client change skeptics attacked this inaccuracy, which in fact, was just a mistake in transposing the numbers. 

Most scientists agree that "glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate as temperatures increase," and that the reason is related to the higher "atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide." Evidence for this appears in the considerable losses seen in glaciers across the Andes, Alaska, the Alps and several other ranges. According to researchers in the United States and Europe, "more than 90 percent of glaciers worldwide are in retreat."

Researchers who did not take part in the study, such as Zhongqin Li, director of the Tianshan Glaciological Station in China, noted that the scientists performing the study disregarded many other basins in central Asia and northwest China which will be affected by the glacial losses. Other glacial experts and scientists warned that "uncertainties and lack of data for the region makes it difficult to say what will happen in the next few decades to the water supply." While many researchers are skeptical of exact numbers in the study, they do agree that there should be a concern for those living in the glacial-dependent basins due to climate change. In addition, problems like pollution, overpopulation and poverty are added stress to the situation.

"The paper teaches us that there's a lot of uncertainty in the future water supply of Asia and within the realm of plausibility are scenarios that may give us concern," said Casey Brown, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts. 

"At present, we know that water concerns are already a certainty - the large and growing populations and high dependence on irrigated agriculture which makes the region vulnerable to present climate variability. 

"This paper is additional motivation to address these present concerns through wise investments in better management of water resources in the region, which for me means forecasts, incentives, efficiency."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Schadenfroh on 6/11/2010 1:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
So, does this mean that the critics of modern agricultural techniques will finally STFU and use the discoveries that science has provided us?

I am tired of hearing so many of the same people that are concerned about man's impact on the climate and the poor not being able to afford food complain about synthetic pesticides, genetically modified organisms, modern (ie non-organic) farming techniques and a bizarre fascination with "locally grown produce" in climates less efficient at growing certain types of crops on-mass.




RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By clovell on 6/11/2010 2:36:26 PM , Rating: 5
This is something I've really done a lot of thinking, reading, and soul-searching on, so I wanted to offer my views from a moderate standpoint.

Locally grown produce is about a lot more than touchy-feely stuff. It's about economics and urban planning more than anthing else.

It's a simple concept - You can't have people living in a place where there is no food. If all the food in an area has to be trucked in, that's not especially a good thing. It affects urban planning, makes the area reliant on shipping routes, and probably most important of all, it creates a barrier between the residents and one of their most important daily activities - what they stuff into their face.

Local produce is something we should all try our best to support - without being crazy about it. Example - I live in Chicago. In a couple weeks, farmer's markets will open up through the end of September. I'll go there. I will not buy 30 lbs of tomatoes in September, though, and can them at home - I can buy canned tomatoes just fine in the store when it's snowing outside.

Genetically modified food is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it makes crops easier, faster, bigger, and more efficient. On the other hand, it totally screws with biodiversity. The instant a pest develops just the right mutation, the entire soybean crop of the United States of America could be wiped out. Does that mean we nix genetically modified crops? No, it means we keep conventional crops in the lifecycle, and continue to cross-breed them.

We also continue to question - why is it so important that all the wheat / sugarcane / corn grow to be the same length? Is the mechanical efficency gained at harvest really worth the amount of pesticides, genetically enhanced seeds, and synthetic fertilizers that are used to accomplish that?

No, at the end of the day, it's about being closer to your food than just a label, a trademark, a nutrition fact sheet. It's about being involved - not politically, but conciously.

It's summer - grow something. I think if everyone played some part, however small, in growing their own food - even a jalepeno plant in a small pot (I've 2 of these on the balcony of my 650 sq. ft. apt.), that we would appreciate what we eat that much more. It would go a long way to fighting obesity, inhumane treatment of animals, and promoting local agriculture.


By HalJordan on 6/11/2010 3:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
So, what you are saying is: "Embrace the new, but not at the expense of the old." Right? I can get behind that, and I am definitely not the "touchy-feely" type. Odd that you would mention Jalopeno plants, as I just started to grow two of my own, keep your fingers crossed for me, I don't have much of a green thumb. If all goes well, I'm planning on tomatoes next.

I believe we can inspire more people to shift their patterns based on their pocketbook, rather than ethics alone.


By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:18:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'll keep em crossed for you. I started some seeds back at the end of March, and now I've got 2 Jalepenos, 1 Banana Pepper, 1 California Wonder Bell Pepper, 1 Mariachi Hybrid Pepper, 2 Roma Tomatoes, 1 Tomatillo, and 1 Viva Italia plant - plus a handful of Herbs out on my balcony.

I've really enjoyed it. Starting inside from seeds was a lot of trial & error, but it gave me something to do in those last winter months.

You should give tomatoes a try. Not sure where you live, or if you plan on planting them in the ground (mine are all in pots), but you might start with a determinate species (only grows to a certain length, rather than a continuously long vine). My Romas grew pretty fast (germinated quicker than the Viva Italias), but the Viva Italias can make do with less water (which is helpful if you sometimes forget to water).


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Ammohunt on 6/11/2010 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
You lost me at "inhumane treatment of animals" top of the food chain, top of the food chain.


By ClownPuncher on 6/11/2010 3:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
Viruses and the machines from the Matrix feed off of people.


By SPOOFE on 6/13/2010 12:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You lost me at "inhumane treatment of animals"

Well, clearly you read almost the entirety of his post to get to that part, so he didn't really lose you, did he? :D


By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, a lot of that stuff is really hard to believe until you read up on it or watch a documentary. It's disgusting, though - especially the cattle lots in West Texas & New Mexico.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By JediJeb on 6/11/2010 3:55:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We also continue to question - why is it so important that all the wheat / sugarcane / corn grow to be the same length? Is the mechanical efficency gained at harvest really worth the amount of pesticides, genetically enhanced seeds, and synthetic fertilizers that are used to accomplish that?


Not so much mechanical efficiency but overall yield. We use things like Glyphosate resistant corn and soybeans so that we can spray over the crops to kill the weeds and grasses that will take nutrients away from the crop of interest. Otherwise we would have to hire thousands or even millions of more workers to use a hoe to remove those weeds which would greatly increase the cost of these crops.

I am in agreement though that people should learn to grow some of their own food when and if they can. Should the economy take a much more severe downturn than it has already it could be a very useful skill to have. Also it is useful during certain natural disasters that may hinder shipping of food. Just a good skill to know overall and lets people more appreciate the work that goes into providing food for the planet that our farmers do every day.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Spuke on 6/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By JediJeb on 6/11/2010 6:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
I guess we will disagree on some topics though I have agreed with you on others. I just happen to think it is good to learn other things, even if you may not use them extensively in life. I already know farming since I grew up on a farm, but I became a chemist for my career. I have along the way learned to operate heavy equipment, blacksmithing, carpentry, cooking, computer programming, basic first aid, basic tailoring, leather working, automotive repair, and other things. If my vision will allow and I have the time and money I would also like to learn to fly and sail among other things.

Some people like me would like to be able to provide for ourselves in an emergency, at least until we can obtain the services of someone more skilled in the area of need. Growing up the people around me could not hire a professional every time something needed to be done, mostly because there were no professionals anywhere near by. I'm sure people who grew up in a large city were more able to depend on others with the skills needed to do specialized tasks, which is good. I do though tend to plan for the best, but prepare for the worst.

I respect your beliefs in reliance on a diverse society, I hope you can respect my beliefs in self reliance also.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Spuke on 6/11/10, Rating: -1
By JediJeb on 6/14/2010 10:56:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I happen to think that everyone should do a mandatory two years in the military.


Though I was never able to serve because of health problems, my father did and I know from his experience that it can be something a person can benefit from. There are the dangers of course but the discipline one gains is very helpful in life. I can not say I have the discipline that my father and grandfather had, but their examples made a strong impression on my live for sure.


By ShaolinSoccer on 6/11/2010 11:51:16 PM , Rating: 1
JediJeb, what you've just wrote is probably one of the best things I have ever read. I wish more people were like you. Crime is getting worse where I live. People are losing morals more and more. I don't know what could solve the problem but if everyone was like you, the world would be a utopia!


By JediJeb on 6/14/2010 10:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
Utopia I think would be too much to ask for. Self reliance only makes the ups and downs easier, it doesn't necessarily fix the dark side of peoples mentality.


By aegisofrime on 6/11/2010 9:17:01 PM , Rating: 1
I would like some clarification on this part

"it creates a barrier between the residents and one of their most important daily activities"

Why is this important? I ask because I live in Singapore, and without question, all of our food is trucked, shipped or flown in. I think we get along fine without seeing some of our food grown in local farmland.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know much about Singapore, but here in America, food is processed, fast, and cheap. Most people around here eat with a casual abandon, without ever understanding what's on their plate.

Don't get me wrong - I'd stop at McDonald's before I skipped a meal, but given the choice, I'd choose something different. Call me crazy, but I just think that eating is an intimate activity - that there's a right way and a wrong way to raise and slaughter animals - that there's a certain level of respect that everyone should have for their food that gets lost in the shuffle of modern agriculture.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Suntan on 6/14/2010 12:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Call me crazy, but I just think that eating is an intimate activity - that there's a right way and a wrong way to raise and slaughter animals - that there's a certain level of respect that everyone should have for their food that gets lost in the shuffle of modern agriculture.


If you think eating is an “intimate” activity, then you’re either doing nasty things with that ear of corn, or else you don’t have your head on straight.

And if it is always the humans that are so barbaric and lacking such respect for the world around them, so out of touch with mother nature and the overall ecosystem, please point out a single species on the planet that has any respect for the food they eat...

Most hunter species elect to crush their prey’s windpipe and slowly suffocate them to death over the span of a few minutes while standing on top of their dying corpses... Does that sound very respectful? Not to mention, have you never seen a documentary where the hunter animal has any qualms about killing and proceeding to eat the offspring of a prey animal while it the meal’s mother stands helplessly out of range watching? Very respectful...

Anyone ever heard about specialization? It is what allowed our ancestors to progress on from crouching in caves and covering themselves in the stinky hides of the animals they just ate. For a refresher, it is basically the notion that the people who know how to do a certain activity the most effectively concentrate on that activity and provide the output for the rest of the society.

Trying to grow all your own food in your back yard or close to your house if you live in an area that does not support it (whether you live in a location where the soil does not support it, or a heavily urbanized area that makes it impractical) is silly and counter to the notion that even early humans knew as folly. The fact that people are able to do it and still survive just points out how comfortable we are as a race, that you can grow your food in a way that makes you happy even though it is inefficient and a waste of land that could be used for more efficiently for other things.

It’s one thing to decide to treat animals humanly before they get slaughtered, it is another thing altogether to think that our food sources should be given “respect” by dialing back the progress we have made by thousands of years.

-Suntan


By clovell on 6/14/2010 2:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
> If you think eating is an “intimate” activity, then you’re either doing nasty things with that ear of corn, or else you don’t have your head on straight.

Suntan, I generally agree with you on a lot of things. Eating involves putting something in your mouth and having it pass through and be absorbed into your body as part of yourself. Idk if it would help you to read my other posts in the thread, but it seems like what I mean when I say "respect" and what you think I mean when I say "respect" are two different things.

There's a lot of people that no longer understand that a chicken has to die for you to have KFC; that a pig is butchered to make bacon for your chesseburger. As a hunter & a fisher, I don't get emotional with every kill or catch. But, I do realize that an animal died for my sustenance, and I give it "respect" - in the midst of gutting, cleaning, breaking it down, and finally cooking and eating it.

It's not something I'm good at explaining, I guess, but at the end of the day, growing something yourself (certainly not everything), or fishing, or hunting (for food, rather than just sport), brings you to a place where that "respect" is more easily understood.

I can't promise that clears it up, but past that I think we're just going to disagree.


By shin0bi272 on 6/12/2010 3:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
I would like to point out that the maize you eat (either on or off the cob) this summer is a genetically engineered product that started out as a grass about ankle high or so and was bred to be the food we eat today through hundreds of years of cultivation. There is also another newer version that students at the university of nebraska are working on to make a more disease resistant version of the stuff because once one stalk goes bad to fungus or rust or beetles there's a good possibility that that entire acre will get infected in a matter of days. So please dont ignore the fact that science has always played a role in food production and pass it off as a "mixed blessing".

One other thing, Organic is BS. A study out of England back in 08 said that they studied the "organic" vs regular food for 50 years and they concluded that organic is nothing more than a label when it comes to the health benefits. In other words its hogwash! Youre paying more money for something that essentially is no better or worse for you than the standard stuff we all bought for years. Taste might be different depending on the type of organic and the type of food youre talking about but for the nutritional value there is no difference. Sorry to burst your bubble bub.


By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/2010 6:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe it's the nutritional value that makes organic

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/nu00...


By chemist1 on 6/14/2010 4:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
That British article wasn't a study, it was a review article -- a summary of other published work. It focused principally on vitamin and mineral content, and came to conclusions consistent with that of another large review [Zhao X, et al. (2006), HortTechnology, Vol. 16, No. 3 pp. 449-456, http://horttech.ashspublications.org/cgi/content/a...] -- that the vitamin and mineral content of organic and conventionally grown produce is similar. HOWEVER, Zhao also reviewed, in detail, numerous studies assessing phytochemical content (the British study did as well but not, it seemed, as thoroughly). Zhao found that, while more work needs to be done, "the evidence overall seems in favor of enhancement of phytochemical content in organically grown produce." And it's the phytochemicals (e.g., flavinoids) that are thought to provide much of the health-enhancing benefits of fruits and vegetables. Here's more on this from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming):

"The FiBL Institute has been investigating the differences at over 200 farms. It states that "organic products stand out as having higher levels of secondary plant compounds and vitamin C. In the case of milk and meat, the fatty acid profile is often better from a nutritional point of view. As far as carbohydrates and minerals, organic products are no different from conventional products. However, in regard to undesirables such as nitrate and pesticide residues, organic products have a clear advantage. A £12m EU-funded investigation into the difference between organic and ordinary farming published in 2007 found that organic foods have more nutritional value.[43] A recent study found that organically grown produce has double the flavonoids, an important antioxidant.[44]. A 2007 study found that organically grown kiwifruit had more antioxidants than conventional kiwifruit.[45]"

In addition, organic produce may be chemically safer. Some chemical fertilizers are made from industrial waste, and thus contain high levels of cadmium. And, of course, there's the issue of pesticides.


By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
The corn you're talking about was cross-bred over a couple centuries? That doesn't sound like anything I'd have a problem with. I'm not ignoring that science is doing a lot of good in agriculture - but it kinda seems like you just ignored my point about biodiversity.

I can buy a Conventional Bell Pepper, and after 10 days in my fridge, I have to toss it. If I buy an Organic one, it can go three weeks. Organic Zucchini cooks up better on the grill. I like having the option - Onions? I go conventional. Garlic? I'm not made of money. But, there is a difference, in terms of taste and water content. Sometimes its negligible, sometimes it's not - but it's always a matter of taste. So, you have a point, but I never really said that Organic was healthier for you. It does rely less on petrochemicals. It does generally promote biodiversity more than conventional crops, which, usually helps in conventional cross-breeding.

So, I'm not really arguing with you here, but just leaning on the other side of the same fence. No bubble burst; no apologies necessary.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By raf11 on 6/11/2010 7:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that a very small fraction of people that are making the argument that climate change is a myth today, wouldn't be doing so if the idea wasn't fueled by a political party/ideology. Much in the same way that I believe a fraction of a percent of people would be making the argument that evolution is a myth, if it wasn't fueled by an underlying religious belief.

It seems people will often dismiss factual information to fit their personal beliefs, instead of modifying their personal beliefs to align with factual information.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By raf11 on 6/11/2010 10:44:40 PM , Rating: 3
I was referring to man-made climate change.

My girlfriend's grandfather is a die-hard republican (Disclaimer: I have nothing against those who are conservative, just pointing out how this opinion exists mostly within a specific party) - he commonly opposes the idea of man-made climate change, and uses different references concerning Al Gore this and that as if it eliminates the entire consensus of the scientific community for the last 20 years. A common political tactic is to demonize a single entity that holds the same view, and then paint the entire body that holds that view as being the same. It doesn't logically make sense.

quote:
Only a blockhead would actually claim that proponents of this theory aren't the ones with the political ideological agenda.


Even if a political party was using climate change as a giant wealth redistribution scheme (Which is a point I don't necessarily agree with) - how can you ignore the consensus of the scientific community, of all the universities, experts, etc - and favor the opinion of those who are aligned with your own political beliefs (Who are not authorities on the subject)?

With your nearly 3,700+ posts and outspoken and extremist view, I'm starting to think you are hired by DailyTech to increase ad revenue. Since your provocative comments incur further posts, this increases page views and thus ad revenue. Otherwise, I don't see why you would spend so much time spreading your opinion when the majority of users don't agree with you (As displayed with your average down-rating) and you have been repeatedly proven wrong. Why spend all this time on DailyTech posting, for nothing?


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By raf11 on 6/11/2010 11:12:58 PM , Rating: 3
This will be my last reply to you, as I realize any attempt to counter anything you say is pointless, and just a waste of time.

quote:
So if a "majority" of scientist agree on something, it's true.


If that something happens to be their field, and it's based on studied facts and testing, then yes, exactly. At least until legitimate evidence from the science community proves otherwise. I don't even see how you could argue against that.

quote:
If a "majority" of raters disagree with me, I'm an extremist paid Daily Tech mole?


No, the above was suggested because day in and day out you argue with posters and are continually proven wrong. When they prove you wrong, you label it "leftist" and disagree with it usually solely based on the fact that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be on the left (even several times in your last post). The fact that I don't believe a person could do this all day, every day without being paid for it is why I made that suggestion. If you aren't receiving some type of compensation for it, then that truly makes the situation entirely more pathetic.

quote:
You seem to be very hung up on majorities. Are you a very insecure person?


Funny, since you several times try to convince yourself that you are in the majority with your views when it supports your argument, which is why I pointed it out.

Quote from you on 5/17
quote:
The country IS "far right". It was founded on "far right" principles. And the majority of the country when polled, identify themselves as "far right".


And here is just one of the many posts from you that displays your extremism, from 5/28
quote:
Or maybe I should support the idea. That way when the rest of us finally snap from paying taxes for everyone else's EV car, it will be really easy to identify the enemy. Simply drag anyone out of an EV you find, kicking and screaming, and put a bullet in their face .


By ShaolinSoccer on 6/12/2010 12:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Climate Change research is a huge pile of money just waiting to be grabbed. It pays for itself.


lol I remember an article in Parade about "hot jobs" and one was 'anything to do with global warming'...

just wanted to throw that out there...


By AEvangel on 6/14/2010 1:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to remember back in the 70's it was the idea of Global cooling and their was this myth of a huge overwhelming majority of scientist in favor of that theory as well.

Personally, I would rather have global warming since that is much less of an overall threat to humanity then Global cooling since the last time we had a global cooling some 20k years ago everything north of Africa and Mexico was under ice.

I agree with climate change you have to be an idiot not to, I just don't believe in the man made concept since this is the latest fad of the scientific community(who love the grant $$ to do these studies) to come along.


By shin0bi272 on 6/12/2010 3:33:30 AM , Rating: 3
Actually in the US belief in man made global warming is down to 20% of the population according to a poll I saw about 3 months ago. Once the scientist that worked for the UN came out and admitted that the emails that were hacked were true and that there had been no appreciable warming since 1995 the belief in it sort of dropped out. Still hasnt stopped people from pushing a "green economy" or "going green" despite the laws of physics and thermodynamics and the economics of scale there are still zealots out there pushing for it... Barry Obama being one of them.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2010 6:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. Raf believes that scientific majority = population majority. So good luck convincing him that most American's actually CAN make their own opinions on something once they are informed enough about it.

Climategate opened our eyes, and confirmed a lot of suspicions. These aren't good men and women just doing a job. These are people HIGHLY motivated to push an agenda.

Now the media and several sources, based on East Anglia's own laughable "investigation", would like you to believe the "science was solid" but the people doing the science were flawed. I mean, honestly, who's buying that??


By just4U on 6/13/2010 12:03:46 AM , Rating: 2
The beauty of the internet. The masses in western civilization have more information at their fingertips then world leaders and thinkers of less then 100 years ago.

Regardless, the scientific majority only appears to agree on the fact that the world is warming up. Jury seems to be out on cause and effect. Or even if such warming will hurt us or be benifitial. Afterall, warming trends have meant massive growth for our planet in the past.


By BikeDude on 6/13/2010 2:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
AFAICT, almost every generation in human history have had one (or more) prophecy of doom. We all yearn to be the logical conclusion to a long history, so we celebrate rapture, ragnarok, y2k, 2012 and whatnot because surely our generation is the one that makes a difference. We're important, and that means the world must end now.

The hypothesis of man-made global warming fits neatly into the pattern of a good decent doomsday prophecy. Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Meanwhile, our planet is already a very crowded place. We have resorted to all sorts of tricks to increase crop yields, slowly poisoning everyone of us (including animals). Heck, some of us have tried to fuel our cars on sugar canes, and immediately someone starts complaining that the price of wheat started climbing. The price of wheat hit a record low in the late 80s and the US, Russia and EU have all paid farmers to stop growing anything. Yet when the price starts to pick up slightly, people panic.

Seeing the whole picture is a difficult task. The simple truth is probably what someone summed up in the question "what is better? 10 millions starve now, or 3 billions 10 years from now?". The more people we save now, the more people will need saving down the road. The human population breed like rats, and the Catholic ban on birth control (and abortion for that matter) is not helping.

What science tells us is that Greenland is named Greenland for a reason. The vikings farmed a large portion of Greenland in locations that are still covered with a thick layer of ice. We are emerging from a mini-iceage, and our society is not set up for the kind of migrations our forefathers had to endure.

The CO2 taxation won't work. Without CO2 there would be no life on this planet. Rather than focus on particle emissions that cause real (and sometimes irreperable) damage, our politicians are singeling out the one emission that occur naturally. I am not impressed. Initially I had hoped that the Kyoto agreement would lead to at least some discussion about e.g. NOx emissions, but our elected leaders are acting like headless chickens.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki