alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
At a time when scientists are calling for significant reductions in meat consumption nearly a fifth of the EU’s total budget – more than £24bn of taxpayer money – goes to support livestock farming across Europe, according to Greenpeace. Greenpeace said that EU farm subsidies should be redirected towards incentivising more fruit and vegetable production.
125 million hectares (308 million acres) of land in Europe is used to graze livestock or produce feed – this includes more than 60% of arable land that could otherwise be used to grow food directly for human consumption. Intensively raised livestock is given specialised feeds, including soy and wheat, that fatten them up faster, rather than by grazing on grasslands.
Instead of the intensive model of grain-fed livestock, the campaigners argue that meat and dairy production should be restricted to grass-based systems, where the animals are reared outdoors and fed a largely grass-based diet. This would free up large amounts of land to growing crops directly for human consumption.
“If Europe produced and consumed exclusively grass-fed livestock, we’d be a long way towards producing and consuming less and better meat and dairy in line with what science tells us is necessary to protect nature, the climate and our health,” said Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero.
“In the long run it makes increasingly less sense to incentivise production that creates more costly impacts to society than economic benefits,” said Professor Tim Benton, the UK’s former “food security champion”. “Farmers are not the ‘bad guys’ in a simplistic story: they are trapped in a system that rewards producing more at the expense of wider social costs arising from environmental and health impacts,” he said.
The Pasture-Fed Livestock Association said the research had clearly identified that environmental damage does not arise from livestock per se, but as a result of the way in which some animals are reared.
“The problem is the intensification of livestock production across Europe made possible through feeding grains to animals. Such practices have resulted in fewer small mixed farms and more specialised farms and monoculture production systems – along with a corresponding increase in fossil fuel consumption, nitrate fertiliser production, air and water pollution and loss of biodiversity,” said the executive secretary, Russ Carrington.
Once again depressing predictions.
“The gathering storm of human-caused threats to climate, nature and economy pose a danger of systemic collapse comparable to the 2008 financial crisis, according to a new report.
[that the comparison is with only the 2008 recession I guess is actually good news. A pessimist like myself would consider such a similarity as a great under-estimate of effects. But I think it is just comparing the actual process…runaway uncontrollable side-effects]
The combination of global warming, soil infertility, pollinator loss, chemical leaching and ocean acidification is creating a “new domain of risk”, which is hugely underestimated by policymakers even though it may pose the greatest threat in human history.
“A new, highly complex and destabilised ‘domain of risk’ is emerging – which includes the risk of the collapse of key social and economic systems, at local and potentially even global levels,” warns the paper from the Institute for Public Policy Research. “This new risk domain affects virtually all areas of policy and politics, and it is doubtful that societies around the world are adequately prepared to manage this risk.”Most studies of environmental risk tended to examine threats in isolation: climate scientists examined disruption to weather systems, biologists focused on ecosystem loss and economists calculated potential damages from intensifying storms and droughts. But a growing body of research is assessing how the interplay of these factors can create a cascade of tipping points in human society as well as the natural world… the deterioration of natural infrastructure, such as a stable climate and fertile land, have a knock-on effect on health, wealth, inequality and migration, which in turn heightens the possibility of political tension and conflict.
Since 2005, the number of floods has increased by a factor of 15, extreme temperature events by a factor of 20, and wildfires sevenfold; topsoil is now being lost 10 to 40 times faster than it is being replenished by natural processes; the 20 warmest years since records began in 1850 have been in the past 22 years; vertebrate populations have fallen by an average of 60% since the 1970s, and insect numbers – vital for pollination – have declined even faster in some countries. [not to be overlooked in importance] The climate crisis was likely to create 10 times more refugees from that region than the 12 million who left during the Arab spring.
These processes amplify and interact with existing social and economic problems, potentially threatening systemic collapse similar to the 2008-9 financial crisis. Back then, a subprime mortgage crisis in the US exposed excessive risk-taking and triggered a global panic and the deepest recession since the 1930s. The IPPR study envisages a similar breakdown could occur if the US suffers relentlessly worsening damage from hurricane floods and forest fires, which would prompt a rush of insurance claims and threaten the viability of financial institutions.
The paper warns of the vulnerability of food systems that rely on just five animal and 12 plant species to provide 75% of the world’s nutrition. The lack of diversity weakens resilience to the growing risks of climate disruption, soil deterioration, pollution and pollinator loss.
The IPPR repor urges policymakers to grapple with these risks as a priority, to accelerate the restoration of natural systems, and to push harder on the “green new deal” transition towards renewable energy.
It says, “the younger generations will need help in finding the energy and a sense of control that often eludes them as they begin to realise the enormity of inheriting a rapidly destabilising world”.
“People are not frank enough about this. If it is discussed at all, it is the sort of thing mentioned at the end of a conversation, that makes everyone look at the floor, but we don’t have time for that now,” he said. “It’s appearing more in media, but we are not doing enough.”
Won’t any comrade direct me to some positive good news? 😥
Do you think that this open letter to the American people from Maduro is going to get headline news on the media? Will CNN and other news outlets have its top commentators discussing it to the American public?…nawww…I don’t think so. Instead they will focus on what Bolton says.
Climate change – a silver lining for Greenland
Worldwide demand for sand totaled about 9.55 billion tonnes in 2017 with a market value of $99.5 billion and is projected to reach almost $481 billion in 2100, driven by rising demand and likely shortages. That meant a rare opportunity for the island
“At the moment it is an inexpensive resource but it will become more expensive”
Prosperity on tap?
Rising global temperatures are melting the Greenland ice sheet and carrying ever more sand and gravel into coastal fjords.
“You can think of it (the melting ice) as a tap that pours out sediment to the coast”
Yet the EU is also echoing the same policy according to this thinktank
“The European Union is particularly ill-prepared for a new era of great power competition,” the MSR declares, a point that is revealed by the new debate about Europe’s “strategic autonomy.” There does not appear to be a “plan B” for how Europe could emancipate itself in its global security policy…For that reason it was important he said, that the MSC this year shows the “non-European participants that the EU is ready to fight for its interests by asserting itself.”
https://www.dw.com/en/munich-security-report-sees-world-as-a-broken-puzzle/a-47448944
A call for the EU to flex its muscles
Just how long does it take for sabre-rattling to become clashes?
Ultra-processed foods tend to be high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. France consumes less of such packaged foods and ready meals than many other countries, at around 14% of the diet. More than half the UK diet is ultra-processed food
French research involved more than 44,000 people over a period of seven years. They looked at how much of their diet – and calories – was made up of “ultra-processed” foods – those made in factories with industrial ingredients and additives, such as dried ready meals, cakes and biscuits. Over seven years of follow-up, there were 602 deaths, of which 219 were from cancer and 34 from cardiovascular disease. The research, published in the journal Jama Internal Medicine, found that deaths were more likely to occur in those who ate more ultra-processed food. The link was clear even after taking into account the greater likelihood of deprivation, smoking, obesity and lower educational background among those who ate ultra-processed food, the researchers say. Other scientists were unsure whether the study proved a link between ultra-processed food and an early death, but agreed it was more evidence that a junk food diet was bad for health. Other scientists said it was difficult to draw firm conclusions from the study, partly because the “ultra-processed” foods category was so large, ranging from packet soups to chocolate bars.
“The case against highly processed foods is mounting up, with this study adding importantly to a growing body of evidence on the health harms of ultra-processed foods,” said Prof Nita Forouhi, of the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge. She said more evidence was needed, “yet we would ignore these findings at public health’s peril…A vital takeaway message is that consumption of highly processed foods reflects social inequalities – they are consumed disproportionately more by individuals with lower incomes or education levels, or those living alone,” Forouhi said. “Such foods are attractive because they tend to be cheaper, are highly palatable due to high sugar, salt and saturated fat content, are widely available, highly marketed, ready to eat, and their use-by dates are lengthy, so they last longer. More needs to be done to address these inequalities.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47202553
A regulator should oversee tech giants like Google and Facebook to ensure their news content is trustworthy, a government-backed report has suggested.
The Cairncross Review into the future of the UK news industry said such sites should help users identify fake news and “nudge people towards reading news of high quality”. The report called for a new Institute for Public Interest News.
Such a body, it said, could work in a similar way to the Arts Council, channelling public and private funding to “those parts of the industry it deemed most worthy of support”.And who is defining the high quality of news…did someone say the pro-Iraq invasion cheer-leading of the BBC and the Guardian and the promotion of fake news stories to justify it.
And who deems which news provider “most worth of support” – ahhhh, government appointed quango members like the Arts Council.
Pressure the Big Boys…and soon these Big Boys will pressure us Little Uns who run blogs or Twitter accounts …yup, I am getting paranoid…
UK and Switzerland have signed a deal to continue trading after Brexit as they did before it.
Cue for a facetious quote from Third Man
“…in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock…”
Such continuity agreements have been signed with only Switzerland, Chile, The Faroe Islands, Eastern and Southern Africa.
Director general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Carolyn Fairbairn, said the lack of other trade deals being signed was an “emergency” – particularly in the case of South Korea and Japan.
The Labour Party general secretary, Jennie Formby, revealed 673 complaints in 10 months alleging acts of anti-Semitism by its members, 96 members immediately suspended from the party for their conduct between April 2018 and January 2019, and 12 expelled, 211 were told they would be investigated, 146 members received a first warning, and 220 cases did not have sufficient evidence of a breach of party rules for an investigation, 44 resigned
Formby said: “I totally reject the suggestion that the existence of anti-Semitism in our party is a smear. I have seen hard evidence of it and that is why I have been so determined to do whatever is possible to eliminate it from the party.”
Labour MP Margaret Hodge tweeted a warning not to trust the figures and said she was not convinced the party’s leadership were “serious on rooting out anti-Semitism”.
673 complaints represented about 0.1% of the membership
Does anybody seriously doubt that the pro-Israeli lobbyist organisation AIPAC provides donations to sympathetic American politicians to gain influence.
To say so is anti-Semitic, particularly if you happen to be a muslim congress-woman. She answered a journalist’s question on why US political leaders always defend Israel, Omar replied : “it’s all about the Benjamins baby.” using a common slang term for $100 bills. When further asked where the money was coming from she then answered “AIPAC”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47201983
There is no secret whatsoever about this AIPAC funding to sway politicians views, it is on official record, but to say so has now become anti-Semitic regardless that the focus on the tweets was Israel
Sadly he does demonstrate that conflicting interests does increase confrontation
The “… new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth is being deployed to the Pacific for its maiden voyage in 2021 amid a dispute over China’s claims in the South China Sea….” to join American and Australian provocations over control of such a vital trade route. The UK is still a player in the Great Game, Brexit or no Brexit.
Perhaps we should also consider Marx extrapolating from history of the possibility of a future “…where a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes…”
Maybe, it is a time for the Marxist optimists to start to accept the conclusion that IF there is NOT going to be any social change, then our society faces ruination, that indeed we are no closer to socialism and are now on the brink of barbarism. [this is a debate we also should be engaged in]
The accuracy of this scientific report will either be confirmed or qualified or dismissed by further investigation. But to ignore such an early warning is itself absurd and reckless. We are not responding to the wild ranting of a politician or a journalist but to the supported findings of those trained in the area of research.
When you suggest phrasing should have been thus:
“…(“would be if the existing rate of extinction were to be maintained” would be more acceptable, but then that wouldn’t attract the same headlines)…”
Just how different is that from what I already quoted the lead author of saying?
““IF insect species losses cannot be halted, this will have catastrophic consequences for both the planet’s ecosystems and for the survival of mankind,” Dr Francisco Sánchez-Bayo said.
“UNLESS we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades,” the report said.
Yes Marcos, I do accept that Nature is very adaptable to conditions but it is not always able to. We have known about the impact of poisons used by farming since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring on DDT in the early 60s.
I’m sure the Scottish tourist board will delight in the disappearance of midgies and myself and the medical world will look forward to the extinction of mosquitos. What the unintended consequences will be, though, I have no idea.
The BBC reporting of the study does suggest that some species of insect will thrive in future and does offer more qualification on the consequences of the research – NB remember this was not new research simply a review of over 70 existing studies by others brought together to reach some sort of consensus of opinion.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47198576
“…the review also finds that a small number of species are likely to be able to adapt to changing conditions and do well.”
An expert not involved in the study is then quoted
“Fast-breeding pest insects will probably thrive because of the warmer conditions, because many of their natural enemies, which breed more slowly, will disappear, ” said Prof Dave Goulson from the University of Sussex. “It’s quite plausible that we might end up with plagues of small numbers of pest insects, but we will lose all the wonderful ones that we want, like bees and hoverflies and butterflies and dung beetles that do a great job of disposing of animal waste.” Prof Goulson said that some tough, adaptable, generalist species – like houseflies and cockroaches – seem to be able to live comfortably in a human-made environment and have evolved resistance to pesticides.”
It goes on to say, “…Ultimately, if huge numbers of insects disappear, they will be replaced but it will take a long, long time…”
And again this neutral expert is cited for his view.
“If you look at what happened in the major extinctions of the past, they spawned massive adaptive radiations where the few species that made it through adapted and occupied all the available niches and evolved into new species,” Prof Goulson told BBC News. “So give it a million years and I’ve no doubt there will be a whole diversity of new creatures that will have popped up to replace the ones wiped out in the 20th and 21st centuries.”
There you are ALB and Marcos, he agrees with you both. It is confirmed that the report is indeed scare-mongering and insects will still be around. You’ll just have to be around in a million years to see them.
I referred to the issue of lack of knowledge that may well change any conclusion and the BBC also does the same.
“99% of the evidence for insect decline comes from Europe and North America with almost nothing from Africa or South America.”
From anecdotal and personal experience these are exactly the regions where widespread inappropriate use of pesticides takes place and where monoculture is increasing so I suggest the chances are that the effect on insect numbers will be more severe when the regulatory authorities are more lax and giant corporations like Monsanto can impose the marketing of pesticides banned elsewhere.
I await good news but until then I have to endure and relay the prevailing bad news and it has to be differentiated from fake news.
We can always blame the messenger, those scientists who thrive on headlines to justify their jobs and acquire their funding…oh, where did I hear that claim about science…from climate change deniers…
I placed the item on the food thread rather than climate crisis since it appears that climate change is not the main cause of the fall but intensive agriculture and extensive pesticide use.
I am no entomologist but I think there has been some genuine concern in recent years over the drastic reduction of pollen-spreading insects such as bees which can have a serious impact on crop production. 70 percent of crops that are used today require pollination. Plus they are at the bottom of the food chain and vital for many other species.
Tell me a scientist who does give definitive outcomes. They always use guarded qualifiers. “Could” is a well used term within scientific community for projections and predictions.
Data is particularly hard to acquire for creepy-crawlies so there can only be speculation – or as some would say – educated guess-work. This article refers to actual scientific ignorance
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/magazine/insect-apocalypse.html
“…Most academic funding is short-term, but when what you’re interested in is invisible, generational change, says Dave Goulson, an entomologist at the University of Sussex, “a three-year monitoring program is no good to anybody.” This is especially true of insect populations, which are naturally variable, with wide, trend-obscuring fluctuations from one year to the next…
…When entomologists began noticing and investigating insect declines, they lamented the absence of solid information from the past in which to ground their experiences of the present. “We see a hundred of something, and we think we’re fine,” Wagner says, “but what if there were 100,000 two generations ago?” Rob Dunn, an ecologist at North Carolina State University who helped design the net experiment in Denmark, recently searched for studies showing the effect of pesticide spraying on the quantity of insects living in nearby forests. He was surprised to find that no such studies existed….”
When research is done as in the case of Germany where a 75% drop in flying beasties in 27 years is recorded it is conducted in a protected nature reserve where there is little farming activity. Imagine if the fields and orchards had been the location of the study – no reference points at all? Imagine climate change research if we had no met records to compare
The researcher is much more definite when he discusses the effect on humanity IF the trend continues as it appears in research papers
“If insect species losses cannot be halted, this will have catastrophic consequences for both the planet’s ecosystems and for the survival of mankind,” Dr Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, at the University of Sydney, Australia, said.
“Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades,” the report said. “The repercussions this will have for the planet’s ecosystems are catastrophic to say the least.”
I do not believe this report is absurd, nor is it scare-mongering. And indeed its extrapolation from existing knowledge is indeed a valid conclusion UNLESS it can be demonstrated that active and effective counter-measures are taking place to minimize the trend by treating the causes of the decline. I can only add my pessimistic opinion is that apart from some commercial reforms of the honey-bee situation, not much is being done about the drop in insect populations.
I do recall a book from the 60s or 70s that foresaw only grass and cockroaches surviving an all-out nuclear war.
You might be interested in this letter to a Socialist Standard editor reply
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/02/letters-more-about-human-nature-1988.html
Senator Amy Klobuchar will run for president in 2020
She has some union support
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/10/amy-klobuchar-2020-presidential-run-speech
