|
0 members (),
646
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
Has anyone been following Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution on ABC? He went into a West Virginia school system to promote eating fresh-cooked foods for the school lunch programs. Local production and preparation of foods is favored over institutional-style processed foods. His motivation is getting kids healthier--avoiding the looming diabetes epidemic, etc. I think this could also be a great way to teach kids about nutrition, biology, and science in general. Learning about our food production system is all about the sciences of chemistry, ecology/environment, and ethics/economics. What could be more fundamental? Our agricultural system (also being exported around the world) is a major contributor to climate change, and soil management is the easiest way to reverse the significant impact on the carbon cycle that our industrialized agriculture system has perpetuated. Local food production requires more labor (jobs), but it is less energy and pollution intensive; and it is a way to sustainably manage the soil, which helps with the climate-change problem. I see this Food Revolution as important for climate change because of the need to change "how" we farm, but also because if we don't head off this "looming diabetes epidemic" there won't be enough money in the budget to help with climate-change mitigation/adaptation. Plus, it is for the kids! C'mon, can we get behind this new way of doing things? Please check out Jamie's petition at: http://www.jamieoliver.com/campaigns/jamies-food-revolution/petition~ 
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
Making farming more expensive and requiring more labor isn't a solution to anything. It'll push food prices up, which will spread around the world and cause famines in the poorest countries.
The other thing labor-intensive farming will do is take people away from other productive work, like curing cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
I agree that global food prices should be kept from causing problems (like with the stupid idea to use food crops to make biofuel), but....
More costs? Agriculture is only 1% of our GDP. We could double or triple "costs" and it shouldn't send the economy into a tailspin (unlike the 30% of our GDP that are financial/banking "transactions").
I worry more about disruptions to the monocultural/processed food system and how vulnerable we are to our addiction to supermarkets. I love them and use them, but they shouldn't be 95% of our choice. The fast-food/consumption culture (on which a few have made so much money by marketing) has led to long-term problems with our health demographics, which affects our military preparedness, national security, and social well-being. It perpetuates poverty and leaves us as dependant on foreign nations for our food supply as we are on others for our oil supply.
Changing our ag.system to be more self-sufficient and locally vested would make us both more food secure and energy secure.
===
And please...
Surely the cancer researchers (whatever 0.0001% of the total labor force, out of the 30-50 thousand medical researchers in this country, that they comprise) will be safe from competition from the biomass developers, processors, and other workers.
...and what sort of country would these new cancer survivors be able to enjoy?
...and maybe we'd need fewer cancer researchers if we didn't rely so heavily on pesticides and other agrochemicals; certainly our waters would be cleaner and more productive.
CIA.gov says the U.S. labor force is about 150 million. I think that newly creating hundreds of thousands of "biomass processing" labor jobs (plus the many thousands of ag.research/development jobs that will also be required) will not drain our pool of medical students and researchers. There are millions (over 10?) of unemployed people in this country. We don't have the manufacturing jobs anymore that fueled the 20th century boom, and most new "high tech" careers don't require huge armies from our labor force (and can be easily outsourced). I think there will be plenty of people --without canabalizing our cancer or other science researchers) to fill new jobs and careers in this new food/biomass industry.
===
...or....
Just the avoided costs of mitigated climate change should more than pay for any small investments in locally controlled and produced agriculture.
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
You have some good points there, but I'll just comment on some of what I don't like :P
If only a small number of extra people are required for local agriculture then it'll only make a small difference. Make a significant dent in conventional farming and it'll cost a lot more. Spread it around the world and the effects will be even greater.
Using unemployed people? Sounds like a great idea today, but would you have said the same 5 years ago? Won't most of these tired farm workers go for nicer jobs in another 5 years when there's another labour shortage?
I didn't mean cancer scientists would be working on farms, I meant shop assistants would be working on farms, office ladies would be working in shops, nurse aids would be working in offices, x-ray technicians would be working as nurse aids, doctors would be working as x-ray technicians, and scientists would be working as doctors. Meaning a shortage across all industries. Well not exactly that sequence of course, but you get the idea.
Economic independence isn't a great idea. People realized that a couple of hundred years ago when they found you could make more money specializing in what you're good at, and buying the other stuff from places which were good at making those things.
Don't think so? Look at the most independent country on Earth - the strangely named "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Then look at the countries with the most foreign trade - USA, China, Japan. Where would you rather be?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
This shouldn't be hard farm labor, but more like high-tech soil conservation and Permaculture (low intensity, low input agriculture). There would be online activities, wide-array gene hybridization chips, and mostly part-time activities. Overall it should be just a "sector" of the economy--able to expand or contract to absorb the population that can't find other enjoyable employment--or just to supplement any income. Even backyard activities should qualify. Plus this makes us all a bit more sustainable and less vulnerable to disruptions in the mostly monocultural food production and distribution systems. Plus this helps reverse the current unsustainable direction that our industrialized-agriculture system is taking us and the rest of the world. Rather than compare overdeveloped countries and the serious, but odd little N. Korea, wouldn't it be better to compare a country before and after Westernization of the Ag/Econ/Banking systems. Look at Haiti for instance. They used to export rice. Now it deforested, because farming was no longer profitable... because: http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/20100310_2/SH-216 Senate Hearing: Foreign Relations Committee; Mar. 10, 2010 http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/1/clinton_rice AMY GOODMAN: Kim Ives, I wanted to ask you about former President Bill Clinton, now the UN special envoy to Haiti. Last month he publicly apologized for forcing Haiti to drop tariffs on imported subsidized US rice during his time in office. The policy wiped out Haitian rice farming and seriously damaged Haiti’s ability to be self-sufficient. Well, Clinton apologized at a hearing last month before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. BILL CLINTON: Since 1981, the United States has followed a policy, until the last year or so when we started rethinking it, that we rich countries that produce a lot of food should sell it to poor countries and relieve them of the burden of producing their own food, so, thank goodness, they can leap directly into the industrial era. It has not worked. It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake. It was a mistake that I was a party to. I am not pointing the finger at anybody. I did that. I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did. Nobody else. “We Made a Devil’s Bargain”: Fmr. President Clinton Apologizes for Trade Policies that Destroyed Haitian Rice Farming
President Bill Clinton, now the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, publicly apologized last month for forcing Haiti to drop tariffs on imported, subsidized US rice during his time in office. The policy wiped out Haitian rice farming and seriously damaged Haiti’s ability to be self-sufficient. On Wednesday, journalist Kim Ives of Haiti Liberté questioned Clinton about his change of heart and his stance on the return of ousted Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
KIM IVES: But what about the change in your thinking to have you issue your apology the other day about the food policies?
BILL CLINTON: Oh, I just think that, you know, there’s a movement all around the world now. It was first—I first saw Bob Zoellick say the same thing, the head of the World Bank, where he said, you know, starting in 1981, the wealthy agricultural producing countries genuinely believed that they and the emerging agricultural powers in Brazil and Argentina, which are the only two places that have, parenthetically, increased wheat yields per acre, grain yields per acre in the last decade, because they’re the only places with more than twenty feet of topsoil, that they really believed for twenty years that if you moved agricultural production there and then facilitated its introduction into poorer places, you would free those places to get aid to skip agricultural development and go straight into an industrial era.
And it’s failed everywhere it’s been tried. And you just can’t take the food chain out of production. And it also undermines a lot of the culture, the fabric of life, the sense of self-determination. And I have been involved for several years in agricultural products, principally in Rwanda, Malawi, other places in Africa, and now increasingly in Latin America, and I see this.
So we genuinely thought we were helping Haiti when we restored President Aristide, made a commitment to help rebuild the infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers there, and do a lot of other things. And we made this devil’s bargain on rice. And it wasn’t the right thing to do. We should have continued to work to help them be self-sufficient in agriculture. And we—that’s a lot of what we’re doing now. We’re thinking about how can we get the coffee production up, how can we get other kinds of—the mango production up—we had an announcement on that yesterday—the avocados, lots of other things. Hopefully they'll grow some rice also and not just stuff for export. But.... Do you know how much soil we've already lost globally[half] ...and the quality of the remaining soil[also half] ...and the trajectory we're on ...and what we've done to the nitrogen cycle? We need to change our agricultural ethic for reasons other than just helping unemployed people. Rebuilding our soil is critical to controlling climate change and biodiversity, both deterministic to our continuation as a viable species too. ~
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
Yea protectionism can help economies get off the ground. But at the end of the day, if Haiti doesn't have the natural resources to grow rice efficiently, then it's better overall for them to do something else, and leave the rice growing to places where it's easy.
Another way to think about it is imagine Haiti is a state of America. There you expect different states to specialize in different things, and don't worry that some are dependent on others for "imports".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164 |
Huh? Protectionism? ...not sure I follow... but let me add....
I'm all for trade and using [fair] comparative advantage (if that is what you mean by the "states" analogy, but I just think it should be mainly supplemental to a fundametally sound, sustainable economy (at least where food production and other environmental services are concerned). That was why Haiti seemed like a good example. They did have a sound productive economy and were exporting rice (over and above what they used locally).
But because of our highly subsidized, resource-intensive, unsustainable production of "cheaper" rice, we forced Haiti to change its whole economy/social fabric/demographics to buy our rice with the money they could make by sewing our shirts (more or less). The once productive farms were abandoned and the forests cut as the only other souce of income and charcoal for 10s or 100s of thousands of people who migrated to the cities (Port-au-Prince mainly) to try working in "garment production" because... hey, that's their only option [Gee, I wonder why labor costs are cheaper there]....
Or words to that effect.... I mean I know they had dictator problems and all that, but this isn't just Haiti that was set up to be most vulnerable to something like an earthquake. This is the model that we've been pushing on the world for decades now. Did you read what Bill Clinton said? Do you get what he was trying to say? Do you agree?
The land and forests of Haiti should be restored. This should be done to help the locals leave the city shanty towns where they were living and return to the farms to live at least sustainably, and then to pursue market advantages. We can't "skip agricultural development and go straight into an industrial era" everywhere in the world (and probably shouldn't do that so thoroughly anywhere). And more than the socio-economic restoration that re-forestation would provide, the environmental benefit would pay for itself almost overnight with local resource services, and would pay for itself globally over more time (if combined with other restoration projects globally).
We shouldn't be taking "the food chain out of production" as Bill Clinton mentioned above.
~
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
By protectionism I mean subsidies and tarrifs.
I realize I overlooked the fact the the US rice was subsidised. That there is the more fundamental problem. Not Haiti removing its import restrictions on it.
I think free trade works for sustainability too, but over a longer period. Countries that abuse their local land to produce too much may end up unable to produce in the future. While those that do it sustainably would lose out today, but dominate in the future when they're the only ones still functioning well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
I think tarrifs should always be used in situations where extremely low wages exist.
mainly to balance the negative results that happen when a company decides that it can build products cheaper in other countries than in its own country.
we here in america had slave labor back before our civil war
which is mostly similar to extremely low wages , we had a war
between our states to end this slavery.
the result of this war meant that the freed slaves no longer had a means of buying food , shelter , or basic supplies.
because they were no longer paid with food shelter , basic supplies.
which is basically what extremely low wages provides.
I think that if the hatians were to focus on building there own economy they would
prosper , instead of settling for the pennies they get from working in the shirt
factories , they should have stores in america to sell the same shirts they produce
in hati , or sell them on the internet.
then they too could get $50.00 a shirt instead of a few pennies.
the factories I have seen in hati dont look very expensive to build
but reaping the rewards from $50.00 shirts would quickly pay for that factory.
then they would pretty much be like wallmart in a reverse scenario.
this way they could afford to have higher wages in hati and a sustainable economy.
then they could grow and produce other products to sell in their stores throughout the world.
or we can use tarrifs to offset or create a balance.
p.s
kallog what do you think about the water engine images in the hydrogen + gravity thread?
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
Hi Paul.
Nothing to stop somebody in Haiti making shirts and selling them to America. That's up to whatever individuals what to do that.
Well there is one thing stopping them. Most of the people in poor countries who have enough motivation and business sense have already moved elsewhere where the pickings are richer.
If low wage workers are 'slaves', then what does that make high wage workers in high living cost countries? They also depend on their jobs to buy food, it's the same thing for all of us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Most of the people in poor countries who have enough motivation and business sense have already moved elsewhere where the pickings are richer.
thats probably why theres so much starvation in the world today and every day. its because the high wage workers in high living cost countries starve less or never , mostly because of the low wage workers in low cost living areas. I have thought that by using robotics and either free energy or alternate energy companies in america could compete and even out compete countries such as china , so that we could again become the greatest industrialized nation in the world. and it is a possibility that we could do that. theres nothing stopping us , except money. but starting small could lead to large. just by building small products that are currently outsourced in china such as plastic gears or fasteners etc. using mostly robotics to perform the work , this would remove the expence of labor , and would provide work for higher paid technicians. the use of alternate energy would remove the expence of energy. and the expence of shipping would also be removed. so I could have a industry in america that sells to america that could easily undercut chinas best price. and since americans choose the least cost supplies then the company would grow. then move on to another product that can be produced cheaper than china could produce and ship it. sure you can get cheap products from china but when you get the shipping bill it is usually larger than the bill for the products. then another , then another , etc etc ... before long it would be america that is again the greatest industrialized nation again , and it all started with one simple product. anyway thats the way I see it.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
thats probably why theres so much starvation in the world today
and every day.
I think so. I've got this theory that there must always be some extreme poverty somewhere no matter what. It goes like this. Imagine all the people in say the rift valley were moved to more fertile and productive places, and they all got good jobs, and they're all happy. That leaves a huge area of land that's got nearly no value. It's wide open for anybody to walk in, set up a tent and start living self sufficiently. There's always going to be somebody who likes the idea of going bush, and they're going to move there. Then they'll have kids and the population will grow. Eventually there'll be too many people for the few natural resources to support, so they'll suffer periodic famines, disease, etc. As long as there are places that can just barely support life, somebody's going to live there, and suffer poverty. We don't see desperate poverty in Antarctica, because it can't just barely support life. It's too hostile. If it became more fertile then we'd surely see it turn into the new Africa.
I have thought that by using robotics and either free energy or alternate energy companies in america could compete and even out compete countries such as china , so
Haha, sorry matey but Japan beat you to it. That's why they're better at making cars than America. They went the extra mile to do it more efficiently while you guys just sat around.
that we could again become
the greatest industrialized nation in the world.
So what? That's a totally pointless goal. If you want to be the greatest industrialized nation in the world, then find that country, immigrate there, make it your home, and feel patriotic about being such a great country.
the use of alternate energy would remove the expence of energy.
No, because alternative energy currently costs more than coal. Somebody's got to invent a cheaper way before we can actually use it. Oh wait, we could reduce shipping costs by flying the goods around on magic carpets. Let's all do that!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Haha, sorry matey but Japan beat you to it. That's why they're better at making cars than America. They went the extra mile to do it more efficiently while you guys just sat around.
they didnt beat us to it , our buisness men let them have it. they had low wages , china was not a good choice then because of political reasons , and we had just won a war with japan , japan was industrialized because of the war , so it seemed to be the best way for our buisness men to make more money due to low wages. If you want to be the greatest industrialized nation in the world, then find that country, immigrate there, make it your home, and feel patriotic about being such a great country.
Im already there. It is my home. and Im already patriotic. theres only a thing or two that need to change to make it the greatest industrialized nation again. No, because alternative energy currently costs more than coal. how much coal would $81.60 buy me ? 1 short ton = 2000 lbs
spot prices for 1 short ton of coalwe will use the 04/30/2010 Illinois Basin 11,800 Btu, 5.0 SO2 for $41.40 a short ton I can get 11,800 Btu for $41.40 I can get 23,600 Btu for $82.80 so if I burn the 2 short tons of coal in 1 hour I get 23,600 Btu/hr I get charged 0.12 cents for every kWh I use. so using the purchased coal it cost me $2832.00 I can buy 1 60 watt solar pannel for $81.60 I can get 34 60 watt pannels for $2832.00 I can get 34 x 60 watts per hour for apx 5 hrs a day. every day for 25 years. 34 x 60 = 2040 watts per hour. 2040 watts x 5 hours a day = 10,200 watts a day. 10,200 watts x 365 days = 3,723,000 watts a year 3,723,000 watts a year x 25 years = 93,075,000 watts or 93 mW 1 Btu = 1000 Watts so using coal I get 23,600,000 watts and using solar I get 93,075,000 watts I spent the same money but over the 25 year life span of the solar pannel I get 3 times the Btu that I would have if I would have spent the money on coal. No, because alternative energy currently costs more than coal. I dont see it that way!!! Oh wait, we could reduce shipping costs by flying the goods around on magic carpets. Let's all do that!! why not just do away with shipping all together , look at all the pollution shipping causes.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
so using coal I get 23,600,000 watts
and using solar I get 93,075,000 watts
Hehe I can't make sense of all those units, but I'd better not start an argument over metric :P Nonetheless, at the end of the day real companies paying real money in the real world mostly choose coal over solar, so that must be the cheaper way - businessmen aren't as stupid with their money as they are with other things :P
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Nonetheless, at the end of the day real companies paying real money in the real world mostly choose coal over solar of course they do , they can burn coal and pay only $41.00 for 11,800 Btu's then turn around and sell that same 11,800 Btu's at $0.12 a Btu for $1,416.00 quite a profit wouldnt you say? if your having problems converting units between standard and metric there are thousands of free online converters on the internet. Im not sure why you are having trouble all of a sudden as you have not previously had any difficulty deciphering my post... LOL.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
Haha I have to admit I hardly ever work through your calculations. I just get an idea of what you're doing without actually checking it. Those times I did check it they came out fine. I know how to convert units but I can't be bothered going and doing that. It would just make things much simpler to stick to a single system.
Most of that 'profit' will be eaten up by costs. If it wasn't, somebody else would be doing it cheaper. Such as the millions of small factories/etc with their own onsite oil or coal powered boilers/furnaces. It can work out cheaper than electricity if you only need the heat from it. And of course it's also cheaper than solar.
|
|
|
|
|
