Hi Dick I'm afraid you paint with far too broad a brush, very sweeping generalisations - true, but very far from the only thing that's true. There are far more than a billion subsistence farms, and the variety of circumstance is immense - do you really think you cover them all with what you've said?
>From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Rethinking economy of scale > >Bravo Marc! And thankyou! > >A couple of things to add. Biodiesel may or may not be feasible at the >individual small-peasant level.... > >*or necessary, i might add... bullocks, mules, and such are known to have >little use for biodiesel, being programmed to run better on biomass. Indeed they do, and produce useful amounts of improved biomass in return. That's one option. There are many good projects dealing with this - animal traction, animal breeding, cart design, local road improvement, and of course biogas, and more. >The methanol problem can be solved by using ethanol from local sources - >very interested to hear what you find with fermenting coconut water... > >*i understand that coco water alky gives you an unbearable hangover. a shot >of biodiesel 'the morning after the night before' might help straighten >things out. it should clear your brain, as well as other parts of your >humanity. Flip. >I'd predict there's a way of producing usable amounts of ethanol from local >sources. > >*yup. they've been doing it for eons now. compensates for being abject, >sub-poverty-line, small-peasants and subsistence farmers. that's how they >took the west over from the natives. used to call it firewater then.... Also flip. >*folks, i wish we'd get REAL on this. there's ~ one thousand million >subsistence farming operations going on in this planet, and none of them has >a tractor, or anything else that runs on biodiesel, cocokero, or whatever. Nonsense. Subsistence farms and subsistence farming communities run through just about the full range of energy profiles - from sweat and that's it all the way through every possible shade and combination to diesel generators etc etc. Improving local energy options at any of these levels (except the economic vacuum cleaner at the top) can have a very positive ripple effect. Using renewable, locally available raw materials is always the best option - one of the few times you can say "always". If you can use biofuels merely to increase the productivity of the local blacksmith you've done everyone good. Though again it's not that simple. It never is. Diesel motors that have outlived their vehicles are cheap and available in many or most parts of the Third World. >*and they never will have either, if the farming scene continues to evade >the basic poor farmer's plight, which is lack of capital accumulation. Much too simplistic. There are many other factors that keep poor farmers poor. You should read Marc's analysis more carefully. >*an interviewer recently asked ge's jack welch how much $ 10'000 in ge >shares invested when he took over as ceo would be worth today. answer : $ >800'000. go explain that to a philipine slash-and-burn operator... In what way is it relevant? I should also say that "slash-and'burn" seems to be rather rare, though the phrase gets bandied about a lot. The clear-cut industrial forestry of the north is one example of slash-and-burn. In the Third World landless peasants follow the logging companies, it's the companies that slash and burn. In Africa, slash-and-burn turns out to be a rational system, well adapted to the local ecology - in fact it's rotational, and sustainable, until it gets put under unseemly pressure arising from quite other quarters. For a very clear case-study: http://journeytoforever.org/keith_paul.html >* so, harsh as it might sound, IMHO biofuels should someday work for the >'bourgeois' farmer and up, but the >small-peasants and subsistence farmers will continue to use carbohydrate fed >muscle power. A very unfounded conclusion. <snip> >*so please, again, lets get real. biofuels are fascinating, and we're all >hoping they'll take-off someday, and replace fossilfuels. but they're not >what's going to end subsistence farming, or make small-peasant farmers rich. >only trees can do that, but that's another kettle of fish....... Whyever would you want to end subsistence farming? Why make small peasants rich? It seems you're missing a LOT of things, Dick. You're also wrong about trees - not the "only" answer, though part of most answers (but not all). You're aiming at the wrong things - surpluses that go beyond local community use have what benefit? To sell them in the city? Once such surpluses are achieved, better to recycle them back into the community in the form of biofuels, which really can have a knock-on effect. But not towards such as "progress", excess, wealth, and then what? - conspicuous consumption? It's sustainability, both environmental and economic, that's the goal. It's achievable, it is being achieved, there are many success stories, and biofuels have a useful role to play. >*there now !!, finally managed to get everybody pissed-off at me !!! Not pissed off, just a bit surprised at such a blinkered view. >'in cocoalky veritas...' cheers, dick. (:-D) (i'm a mead man myself...) Is all thus explained? :-) Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ >"<Snip> your way to peer admiration. Let your wisdom carry the day !!!" >(This is a Public Interest Message) Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
