Global warming hype to raise food prices?

[R_P_A_S]

I was talking with someone the other day and the global warming issue came up. He asked me why I believe in global warming? I told him because of the evidence shown and also how some corporations and people in the government who are in bed with these corporations are trying to call it a myth and a lie.

"you have to think about these things, who's pushing the whole global warming thing? I'm always weary when the government spends so much money and time to try and convince people of something, In other words they create a harsh reality for people to be concern with." He told me

I was a bit confused. I am too skeptical of the government when they campaign for certain things, ultimately there's a hidden agenda behind it. But global warming? This is about earth, the environment and life in general how does the government benefit from something that seems so wholesome and legit?

"Climate change is inevitable, It has been happening it's only in the last century we have statistics. they are rather new. notice how there's a whole new market now for "living green" a huge market. By shopping green you are also gaining status, social status.. you don't see any green stores in the poor communities. Also the rising cost of food, I tie that up to the whole global warming scare. I'm still trying to tie it down with the raising gas prices. but I can't quite figure it out!" he said

So what are your guys thoughts?

[ifeelyou]

I was talking with someone the other day and the global warming issue came up. He asked me why I believe in global warming? I told him because of the evidence shown and also how some corporations and people in the government who are in bed with these corporations are trying to call it a myth and a lie.

"you have to think about these things, who's pushing the whole global warming thing? I'm always weary when the government spends so much money and time to try and convince people of something, In other words they create a harsh reality for people to be concern with." He told me

I was a bit confused. I am too skeptical of the government when they campaign for certain things, ultimately there's a hidden agenda behind it. But global warming? This is about earth, the environment and life in general how does the government benefit from something that seems so wholesome and legit?

"Climate change is inevitable, It has been happening it's only in the last century we have statistics. they are rather new. notice how there's a whole new market now for "living green" a huge market. By shopping green you are also gaining status, social status.. you don't see any green stores in the poor communities. Also the rising cost of food, I tie that up to the whole global warming scare. I'm still trying to tie it down with the raising gas prices. but I can't quite figure it out!" he said

So what are your guys thoughts?

not sure id call it a total "hype," but ur friend definitely makes some very interesting points.

in all honesty, i would be shocked if a market (as in, "living green") didnt develop. this is another way to make profit.

[professorchaos]

in all honesty, i would be shocked if a market (as in, "living green") didnt develop. this is another way to make profit.
Oh, we're definitely already there. Every Fortune 500 company has some sort of "environmentally-friendly" or "green" program to benefit public relations and they're all quick to tell you how hard they're trying to decrease their "footprint".

[ifeelyou]

Oh, we're definitely already there. Every Fortune 500 company has some sort of "environmentally-friendly" or "green" program to benefit public relations and they're all quick to tell you how hard they're trying to decrease their "footprint".

most definitely.

this just came out today. it sorta ties into this thread. thought id share.

"Republican lawmakers block US climate bill"

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US lawmakers blocked a sweeping climate change bill Friday, after Republican warnings of high energy costs dashed Democrats' hopes for pollution caps under President George W. Bush's administration.

Environmentalists looked ahead to the November election for the next opportunity for legislative change, after the much-anticipated bill met a swift demise in the Senate following a week of partisan bickering.

By a vote of 48-36, the bill fell short of the 60 votes needed to bring it to a final debate, after Republicans argued that it would be too expensive to the US economy and the White House vowed a veto.

The legislation called for a "cap and trade" system that would cut greenhouse gas emissions by around 65 percent in 2050 and reward environmentally friendly companies by forcing polluters to buy credits from greener industries.

Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama admitted the bill was "not perfect," saying it did not go far enough but was "critical and long overdue legislation that represents a good first step."

He also blasted the Senate move as a "failure of our politics and a failure of leadership -- a president who for years denied the problem, and a Republican nominee, John McCain, who claims leadership on the issue but opposes this bipartisan bill."

McCain, who co-sponsored an earlier version of the bill, now known as the Lieberman-Warner bill after its sponsors Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner, blamed top Democrats for choosing "to put politics above policy."

McCain also said he "could not support the legislation's final passage" unless it included nuclear power "among the technologies supported in our efforts to address global warming."

Obama advocates a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. McCain's cap-and-trade plan foresees a reduction of 60 percent in the same timeframe.

Backers of the legislation said it would create a spate of new jobs and re-position the United States, a top world polluter, as a leader in the global fight against climate change.

But Senate Republicans and Bush, who has called for a voluntary reduction in the growth of emissions from 2025 and dismissed the legislation as too complicated, said it would cause spiking fuel and electricity prices.

Bush predicted it "would impose roughly six trillion dollars of new costs on the American economy," and was the "wrong way to proceed," while his spokeswoman Dana Perino said he would veto it, if it had passed.

"If we harm the economy that's already currently in a slowdown, if we harm it any further, no one is going to have any extra money to pay for the new technologies that we're going to need to be able to solve this problem," she said.

"And by working on new technologies and working to make sure that China and India are at the table, that's the way to try to tackle this problem."

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said that although all senators had not been present for the vote, 54 had supported the bill, up from 38 in 2005.

"We anxiously await the inauguration of a president who will work with us to protect our planet and our people from the ravages of global warming," she said.

Energy industry advocates hailed the procedural motion to end debate as sign of shoddy legwork on the part of legislators.

"This mad dash to cram debate into a few days seemed to be governed by the politics of the moment, rather than any belief that the bill was really ready for final passage," said Scott Seagal of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council.

Any future bill must have an "adequate cost-containment mechanism," and "ensure that the developing world will undertake comparable action to that required in America," he said.

However, Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner accused the Republicans of preferring to "play procedural games than having a real and open debate about global warming."

"They forced the Senate's clerks to read out loud the entire bill, which is 491 pages long," he said.

Environmentalists vowed to press for a stronger bill next time around.

"The next step is November 2008 when we have an election and we are going to work to see that we get a 60-vote majority," said David Sandretti, spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters.

[R_P_A_S]

I see no problem when we as humans, realized the harm we are causing the environment and in return we try to reduce the negative effects by being more conscious. BUT I do see the 'black hand' behind it when markets spring up pushing that concept, targeting consumer. Is this just capitalism evolving? adjusting? After all thats "the beauty" about Capitalism no? that its able to adapt and mask it self, reinvent its self over and over to be more appealing?

One of the things my friend stress was the rising food prices and the global warming paranoia. Where did it come from? Who's the voice behind it? Al Gore? what the fuck is in it for him?

My friend also said that the U.S. agriculture sector output had been on the decline and that with this global warming scare, more and more people are spending more money on local produce and this entire "BUY ORGANIC" frenzy has sprung up. IN other words are people freaked out about Global Warming that they are stocking up on food? what?

[R_P_A_S]

i'd like more opinions on this.

[DancingLarry]

Don't confuse corporate PR "greenwashing" which is a way to insulate themselves politically from the blame for environmental problems, and the reality that human activity is causing ever-greater disequilibriums in the ecosystem.

[Vanguard1917]

So what are your guys thoughts?


My thoughts are that your friend is definitely on to something. The release of millions of acres of land from agriculture in order to turn them into 'nature reserves', bans and restrictions on GM technology, the promotion of backward food production methods - these have all undoubtedly had a key impact on affecting food supply worldwide.

The environmentalist ideology - which is the ideology of capitalism in retreat from production, as James Heartfield outlines in his book Green Capitalism - is responsible for reducing food output by placing the interests of 'nature' before people. The sad thing, of course, is that the 'left' has played a key role in forming this ideology and, in doing so, it has been of great service to the ruling class.



Don't confuse corporate PR "greenwashing"...


It would be major mistake to claim that it's merely PR and 'greenwashing'. The reactionary ideology of environmentalism is informing ruling class action - to highly destructive effect for people all over the world.

[R_P_A_S]

My thoughts are that your friend is definitely on to something. The release of millions of acres of land from agriculture in order to turn them into 'nature reserves', bans and restrictions on GM technology, the promotion of backward food production methods - these have all undoubtedly had a key impact on affecting food supply worldwide.

The environmentalist ideology - which is the ideology of capitalism in retreat from production, as James Heartfield outlines in his book Green Capitalism - is responsible for reducing food output by placing the interests of 'nature' before people. The sad thing, of course, is that the 'left' has played a key role in forming this ideology and, in doing so, it has been of great service to the ruling class.



It would be major mistake to claim that it's merely PR and 'greenwashing'. The reactionary ideology of environmentalism is informing ruling class action - to highly destructive effect for people all over the world.

I always feel that "green", "organic" and anything dealing with saving energy and environmentally free has a lot to do with the upper class. They are the ones pushing it and you do get the feeling that they try to make you feel as if you gain some sort of higher status by shopping at the greener stores and for greener products.

BUT! as leftist don't we too advocate the preservation of earth and it's resources? don't we support local farmers and products?

I just don't get how capitalism manages to appear wholesome and responsible with this environmental bullshit

[Vanguard1917]

I always feel that "green", "organic" and anything dealing with saving energy and environmentally free has a lot to do with the upper class. They are the ones pushing it and you do get the feeling that they try to make you feel as if you gain some sort of higher status by shopping at the greener stores and for greener products.

Yes, exactly. Such eco-rituals (buying 'organic', 'ethical shopping', household recycling, etc.) are all part of the new morality of Western bourgeois society: environmentalism.


BUT! as leftist don't we too advocate the preservation of earth and it's resources? don't we support local farmers and products?

As Marxists, we support a far more efficient system of economic production. Unlike environmentalists, we do not support backward technology and methods of production. We welcome technological and productive progress and innovation. Indeed, we see industrial progress as the key source of social progress.

In this sense, Marxists are the direct opposites of environmentalists. Indeed, if you look at the history of the environmental movement - the 19th century Malthusians, the 20th century elite industrialists who formed the Club of Rome, the conservatives and liberals rushing to embrace environmentalist ideology as we speak - you will see that it has always been rooted in the various reactionary movements of the ruling class.

[R_P_A_S]

Yes, exactly. Such eco-rituals (buying 'organic', 'ethical shopping', household recycling, etc.) are all part of the new morality of Western bourgeois society: environmentalism.



As Marxists, we support a far more efficient system of economic production. Unlike environmentalists, we do not support backward technology and methods of production. We welcome technological and productive progress and innovation. Indeed, we see industrial progress as the key source of social progress.

In this sense, Marxists are the direct opposites of environmentalists. Indeed, if you look at the history of the environmental movement - the 19th century Malthusians, the 20th century elite industrialists who formed the Club of Rome, the conservatives and liberals rushing to embrace environmentalist ideology as we speak - you will see that it has always been rooted in the various reactionary movements of the ruling class.

can you elaborate more on "backwards technology" and how we don't support it? what exactly is it? One example I can think of is "bio-fuels" are there any reads on environmentalism? how is it bourgeois and what should communist strive for as opposed to it? in order to preserve the earth and its resources.

[Vanguard1917]

can you elaborate more on "backwards technology" and how we don't support it?

For example, the forms of food production proposed by the environmental movement: supporting 'organic' production, calling for bans on biotechnology, calling for localised and small-scale production over large-scale production. Marxists see such Western demands as reactionary.



are there any reads on environmentalism?


I would recommend James Heartfield's new book Green Capitalism (see the link in my sig). Here's a good review of it: http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2008-03/heartfield.htm

[R_P_A_S]

For example, the forms of food production proposed by the environmental movement: supporting 'organic' production, calling for bans on biotechnology, calling for localised and small-scale production over large-scale production. Marxists see such Western demands as reactionary.



I would recommend James Heartfield's new book Green Capitalism (see the link in my sig). Here's a good review of it: http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2008-03/heartfield.htm

I think it just hit me. I was always under the impression that environmentalism and marxism went hand on hand. However I just could never get off how the capitalist had "snatched it" and used it to make money. etc... hmm..

I'm sorry but can you elaborate on why marxist feel that organic and small scare production is reactionary?

when i was growing up in mexico we consumed nothing but organic and local produce. It wasn't "the cool thing to do" it was what we had. Why is that all the sudden bad? It wasn't until the big chain markets came in that people were force to sell their land and either move to the U.S. or work for the big chain markets.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm sorry but can you elaborate on why marxist feel that organic and small scare production is reactionary?


Because it's through the application of the most advanced productive methods that we can increase our output and be more productive.

Think about it: what would happen if all food production was 'organic' and 'locally produced'? Answer: we would be able to produce only a fraction of the food that we can produce using modern methods. Result: greater food scarcity and hunger.

[R_P_A_S]

Because it's through the application of the most advanced productive methods that we can increase our output and be more productive.

Think about it: what would happen if all food production was 'organic' and 'locally produced'? Answer: we would be able to produce only a fraction of the food that we can produce using modern methods. Result: greater food scarcity and hunger.

true.. but i don't fucking get it.. In Cuba for example most of their food is grown organic and locally because they don't count on lots of energy, fuel and products that other countries can rely on. and it works out for them.

It just seems fucked up to spray produce with a shit load of hormones and pesticides to feed the masses.. in other words quantity over quality.

Maybe Organic farming is not to blame here. perhaps is the driving force behind it. markets, capitalism, profit..?? :confused:

[Vanguard1917]

No, backward production is to blame, and capitalism is the cause of backward production.

For a discussion on organic food, see this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/truth-organic-food-t55189/index.html

It also touches on and debunks the myths surrounding 'organic' production in Cuba.

[R_P_A_S]

No, backward production is to blame, and capitalism is the cause of backward production.

For a discussion on organic food, see this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/truth-organic-food-t55189/index.html

It also touches on and debunks the myths surrounding 'organic' production in Cuba.

you also have to understand why im so confused and conflicted. It's like Im being told to shop at wal mart and consume from the big producers as opposed of the "mom and pop's shops"

[Jazzratt]

true.. but i don't fucking get it.. In Cuba for example most of their food is grown organic and locally because they don't count on lots of energy, fuel and products that other countries can rely on. and it works out for them.

Cuba has a population density of 102/sqr mi. In the hundred odd places above them (~>50% of world's total inhabitable surface area, I think [feel free to correct me]) densities are much higher and in a number of them [two examples: Gambia and Kiribati - but there are many more.] the population sustained per square mile is much lower. Basically a lot of countries rely on imports and, to prevent this, should switch to GM crops as much as possible - GM crop yields are larger as are the crops themselves.


It just seems fucked up to spray produce with a shit load of hormones and pesticides to feed the masses.. in other words quantity over quality.

If the hormone or pesticide isn't harmful why is it fucked up? So many crops are lost to parasites and bugs which could otherwise be removed.


Maybe Organic farming is not to blame here. perhaps is the driving force behind it. markets, capitalism, profit..?? :confused:

The two are not inseparable. The super wealthy tend to buy "ethically" because they can afford "ethics". But it's not at all ethical - the prices of organic are so high because the yields are so low - the supply is way under the demand so it can be as expensive as fuck (without the farmer seeing a penny/cent/rupee/whatever per pound/dollar/thousands of rupees/whatever). Quantities needed to feed the world will not be made with organic farming; for example in Britian for a farm to get organic status they have to abandon a lot of methods that prevent blights and insect damage (pesticides, hormones and the like) whilst encouraging wildlife [some insects which eat needed crops like wheat are classed as wildlife needing "encouragement"] by giving over a large portion of their land to hedgerows and ponds (no really, like entire fields or some shit).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

you also have to understand why im so confused and conflicted. It's like Im being told to shop at wal mart and consume from the big producers as opposed of the "mom and pop's shops"
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter where you, as a single individual, shop. You won't make a difference to the big producers by boycotting them.

Having said that, there are good reasons not to shop at Wal-Mart besides environmental concerns. The fact that Wal-Mart treats its workers like crap and busts unions is a major one, for example.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Global warming is happening. There's no denying that. When I was gutting houses in the charred landscape of New Orleans, there was no doubt of that in my mind. When scientist after scientist points out that CO2 levels are rightly skyrocketing, we shouldn't be surprised for anything but a spike in temperature. There's a global drought on right now. This isn't coming out of thin air.

Organic farming is bunk. It's not efficient for what we need. However GMO crops aren't necessary either. Vertical farming provides a largely organic alternative to our problems, which can produce yields of massive proportions. Moreover it takes up very little space, allow us to free up farm land for recolonization by native ecosystems, which will help sequester a lot more carbon.

[R_P_A_S]

Global warming is happening. There's no denying that. When I was gutting houses in the charred landscape of New Orleans, there was no doubt of that in my mind. When scientist after scientist points out that CO2 levels are rightly skyrocketing, we shouldn't be surprised for anything but a spike in temperature. There's a global drought on right now. This isn't coming out of thin air.

Organic farming is bunk. It's not efficient for what we need. However GMO crops aren't necessary either. Vertical farming provides a largely organic alternative to our problems, which can produce yields of massive proportions. Moreover it takes up very little space, allow us to free up farm land for recolonization by native ecosystems, which will help sequester a lot more carbon.

So lets just say that the state of Oregon in the U.S. and all it's cites and towns have some sort of organic "local farm" and each these farms grow the generic stuff, but some specialized in certain produce.. between these towns and cities working together in a with a planned farming output wouldn't make ends meet?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

So lets just say that the state of Oregon in the U.S. and all it's cites and towns have some sort of organic "local farm" and each these farms grow the generic stuff, but some specialized in certain produce.. between these towns and cities working together in a with a planned farming output wouldn't make ends meet?

Small scale, intensive agriculture can produce higher yields than corporate agriculture. Chemical fertilizer and other "green revolution" can certainly up the production further. But vertical farms are the way to go anyway.

[R_P_A_S]

Small scale, intensive agriculture can produce higher yields than corporate agriculture. Chemical fertilizer and other "green revolution" can certainly up the production further. But vertical farms are the way to go anyway.

I'm sorry what's vertical farming?

[Lost In Translation]

I was talking with someone the other day and the global warming issue came up. He asked me why I believe in global warming? I told him because of the evidence shown and also how some corporations and people in the government who are in bed with these corporations are trying to call it a myth and a lie.

"you have to think about these things, who's pushing the whole global warming thing? I'm always weary when the government spends so much money and time to try and convince people of something, In other words they create a harsh reality for people to be concern with." He told me

I was a bit confused. I am too skeptical of the government when they campaign for certain things, ultimately there's a hidden agenda behind it. But global warming? This is about earth, the environment and life in general how does the government benefit from something that seems so wholesome and legit?

"Climate change is inevitable, It has been happening it's only in the last century we have statistics. they are rather new. notice how there's a whole new market now for "living green" a huge market. By shopping green you are also gaining status, social status.. you don't see any green stores in the poor communities. Also the rising cost of food, I tie that up to the whole global warming scare. I'm still trying to tie it down with the raising gas prices. but I can't quite figure it out!" he said

So what are your guys thoughts?

Climate change is inevitable, but it's been rising far to abruptly. Even though the climate graph compliments the population graph nicely, the population of Earth may soon exceed maximum capacity (says Al Gore, who may be exaggerating). However, I actually don't think the governments are spending that much on becoming more "green". It's just a bunch of long-term bs to make it seem like we're doing a lot. I don't think the hype will raise food prices. It will be the natural disasters that are attributed to Global Warming that will raise food prices.

[Sendo]

GM foods DO NOT SOLVE HUNGER PROBLEMS. We produce enough food to feed everyone and still would with local, organic farming. HUNGER IS CAUSED BY POVERTY, NOT SHORT SUPPLY! C'mon you people should know this. Even with the biofuel scam (well corn, at least, since grass ethanol seems promising) there is still enough food. The problem is that agribusinesses don't NEED to sell food for the sake of feeding every mouth.

If you do research you will find that all of the "Green Revolution" chemicals are a farce and create "chemical treadmills." Farmers apply these chemicals and now find that many pesticides have BECOME necessary to sustain production because pests build up resistance OR the chemicals kill off more predators of pests than pests themselves. The results are even worse if the chemicals are applied haphazardly. Some chemicals can be good, but they have been negative overall, in my opinion. This food crisis would never have happened if it weren't for the capitalist mode of food production, just like the Dust Bowl would never had happended.

Inorganic farming is very destructive for the soil (see monocultural production of corn) and IS LESS EFFICIENT. It is higher yield BUT ONLY WITH HIGHER INPUTS. Dwarf wheat is a haven for pests, is extremely thirsty, and requires hosts of chemicals to grow.

Inorganic farming is dependent on fossil fuel for production.

Centralized agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel for transportation.

Check out Greenleft.org.au for an article on Cuba's sustainable economy (the only one so certified by the journal "Nature") urban gardens provide a huge chunk of Havana's food requirements.

Permaculture is the way to go. Admittedly, bourgoies consumerism is annoying and useless..."I drive a hybrid. My farts smell like roses!" "Oh yeah! I take a bus, yeah that's right, it's even more efficient. But oh god, you have to mingle with 'poor' people!"

[Kami]

GM foods DO NOT SOLVE HUNGER PROBLEMS. We produce enough food to feed everyone and still would with local, organic farming.
Actually, this isn't true. More to the point, why should we avoid something that increases a crop at no detriment to quality or health?

HUNGER IS CAUSED BY POVERTY, NOT SHORT SUPPLY!
Absolutely.


Inorganic farming is very destructive for the soil (see monocultural production of corn) and IS LESS EFFICIENT.
In this case, they're doing it wrong.

Inorganic farming is dependent on fossil fuel for production.
<citation needed>

[Sendo]

GM crops require much higher inputs. Not only more energy for watering them, but also for more fertilizer. The Gm crops are designed to be denser. Soils cannot provide the nutrition for such dense plant growth. Fertilizers are made today from fossil fuels. The chemicals require much fossil fuel inputs.


I don't have the essay I wrote on this topic right now. But check out "Natural Causes: Ecological Essays in Marxism" or "The Death of Ramon Gonzalez" "Pesticides in the Third World: A Growing Problem" or any scientific journal that mentions the topic.

The fact that you are in disbelief and need a citation tells me you don't know a whole lot about this. Every leftist who knows a lot about agriculture I've talked to has agreed and we have shared information. I'm at work right now. I just moved and can't get my laptop online right now. But if you really want some more information I can send you some.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I'm sorry what's vertical farming?

Intensive hydroponic farming built vertically. Basically a hydroponic greenhouse and stack in 20 stories high. It's organic, hyper water efficient, nearly energy independent and can produce food for thousands and thousands of people. Even under capitalism it would be great for the world's poor as it would give nearly anyone the opportunity to develop food sovereignty.

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

[The Intransigent Faction]

This has already been mentioned, but I would think that the concerns over food prices are coming from the hype about biofuel which would apparently inflate such prices.
As for climate change occuring naturally..there's no doubt that the average global temperature has not been a perfect constant over the millions upon millions of years of the earth's existence. However, the change as we see it now is too dramatic to be accounted for by minor fluctuations in the sun, a "warm period", or anything of that nature.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that factories, the increasing number of vehicles, and more are all releasing harmful substances into the air? When millions of people produce even a little bit of something toxic, it becomes a huge problem. This is not to say that your average worker is an equal cause of the current problem when compared to, say, a corporate thug with 15 luxury vehicles parked in his driveway, or those who purposely used as much electricity as they could on earth day "to spite environmentalists". The point is that naturally such a large amount of pollution will have some drastic impact on the environment.
As for "living green" and social status--yeah, and I've heard other claims from libertarian peers that seemed sound to me way back when. Arguably it is in the companies' interest to find more energy-efficient methods of producing their products in order to maximize production. Unfortunately, efficiency alone doesn't deal with the root problem, and the only goal there is profit, so if a misinformation campaign is successful enough it could turn demand back against "living green" and the market would go back to abusing the environment.
For all the posturing the bourgeois may do about buying more environmentally friendly products, we have studies like this one http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/06/24/footprint-households.html?ref=rss
to conclude the obvious.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here are some reasons why I think food prices are increasing;

1) The insane practice of increasingly growing crops for biofuels instead of for human consumption.

2) Wheat stem rust reducing yields.

3) Rice shortages in Asia.

4) The current fad for organic food, which has no measurable benefits over conventionally produced food.

5) The increasing wealth of countries like India, China, et al meaning there is an increased demand in the market for more and better foods, which previously was almost completely dominated by the rich developed countries.

6) Economic troubles immiserating increasing numbers of people, meaning they have to spend more of their income on food.


GM crops require much higher inputs. Not only more energy for watering them, but also for more fertilizer. The Gm crops are designed to be denser. Soils cannot provide the nutrition for such dense plant growth. Fertilizers are made today from fossil fuels. The chemicals require much fossil fuel inputs.Considering that GM crops can be made to produce their own pesticides, I would have to say [citation needed].

[Sendo]

Organic food is much healthier and potent, for one.

As for Chinese and Indians wanting "better food," untrue. They want Western food.

1 kg of beef requires 7kg of wheat
1kg of pork requires 4kg of wheat
1kg of chicken requires 2kg of wheat

(Source: FAO from a BBC News Article)

Guess which meat is most popular in the Western diet??

(Obviously India isn't gung-ho on beef, but China is)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Organic food is much healthier and potent, for one.

There's no evidence for that.


As for Chinese and Indians wanting "better food," untrue. They want Western food.

1 kg of beef requires 7kg of wheat
1kg of pork requires 4kg of wheat
1kg of chicken requires 2kg of wheat

(Source: FAO from a BBC News Article)Pork, chicken and beef are not unique to Western cuisine.


Guess which meat is most popular in the Western diet??I'd guess beef, but since this is based on nothing but a hunch I could be wrong.


(Obviously India isn't gung-ho on beef, but China is)India has plenty of Muslims, who have no problem with eating beef.

[R_P_A_S]

have any of you guys seen."THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE?"

http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/the_great_global_warming_swindle/

[Anarchophilia]

"you have to think about these things, who's pushing the whole global warming thing? I'm always weary when the government spends so much money and time to try and convince people of something, In other words they create a harsh reality for people to be concern with." He told me


It is the overwhelming majority of the scientific community who are truly pushing it though; and in my humble opinion, it seems they're still struggling to be heard. Admittedly, individuals in the scientific community connected to government bureaucracies do stand to gain large amounts of government funds from this 'hype'. None the less, that says nothing of the huge support global warming awareness gets from the scientific community as a whole.


One well known leftist thinker, Alexander Cockburn, blames the global warming hype on a tendency that has existed among human civilizations all throughout time; the tendency to blame catastrophic natural events on human sinfulness.

Here's the url to his essay titled "Is Global Warming a Sin?":
counterpunch.org/cockburn04282007.html (copy and paste)

Here's a url to a good critique of Cockburn's essay:
myblog.michaelpbyron.com/2007/04/28/misunderstanding-global-warming-alexander-cockburn-versus-reality.aspx (copy and paste)