<It depends what you mean by "farming". So-called "conventional" farming - industrialised farming - is fossil-fuel intensive, economically expensive, and the ecological costs are externalised. They can be and have been costed.> By costed I meant included in the price. Because infrastructure is paid for by taxes, all business are subsidised to some extent, agriculture is probably the most subsidised ( no judgment). The brit figures are an excellent example. My wife is studying for a master in Sustainable Agriculture, I'm a little selective in what I read on the subject and so we often argue about such matters. I tutor OS students in critical reading (many are trained to believe everything that they read and suffer real trauma when presented with varying opinions in a lit. review) so I discard papers that do not have a stand alone logical development that fits the pattern I use for students. (I wouldn't read much of my own ravings) Anyway I accept that biodynamic, organic and non-genetically modified farming can be profitable on an investment/ return basis and indeed Oz would likely make more export dollars concentrating on these niche markets. If the premise that there is no more quality farmland to be had that can or rather may be used to increase production is valid then the tones/hectare becomes significant. In Oz we are being forced to retire land because of salinity. Porous alluvium over marine sediments-seems that the land near to the water is amongst the least suitable for irrigation. The irrigation farmers want the graziers to reforest the hills to lower the salt water tables, not that it would help unless the water use is minimised. Oz has many millions of hectares of flat volcanic clays that would not be subject to salinity, provided that they used good water. Of course there is no good water within cooee of the land in question. The point( there is one) is that in my experience there is no land suitable for agriculture that isn't in use and there are few sites left that combine water storage potential with suitable soils to facilitate multi-cropping. I expect this to be the situation world wide. Do you seriously believe that alternative agriculture can match the production of the industrialised systems and then increase production to meet increasing global demand? ( I allow the same level of subsidy that you demonstrate for the Brits). You have been long suffering and supportive - I owe you an explanation of my motivation.(with the associated risks involved with soul baring) Here our arguments are generally about the proportion of the natural resource that must be reserved for the rest of nature-habitat and species. The "environmentalists" that I "slag" are those who would, in this context, deny us the ability to improve the lot of the underprivileged, both here and globally. I do have reasons that make sense, to me at least. For a premise I would state that unless we can stabilise the world's human population, ecological sustainability is impossible, natural or non-Malthusian economics may eventually reduce human population by itself, however, I make the value judgment that the cost to the natural world would be unacceptable, indeed with 6 billion plus the effect could actually cause an extinction of humans as well as many other species and most natural habitats. Note that I once held the view that a series of "natural" population crashes should be allowed to reduce human population to a level from which we could "rebuild" sustainably. Without the ongoing "green revolution" this may have happened, but there was always going to be a maximum population size beyond which the ecological damage associated with population crashes could be tolerated. Is the 6 billion the magic maximum? Has my human conscience rejected the costs in human suffering associated with population crashes cut in? Indeed my perception of acceptable ecological damage may have changed. Only Lassie knows! Some one else can judge. The only projections that I am aware of, that show world population ultimately declining, involve an increase in the modal standard of living, globally. Particularly in terms of food security and education. I hope that my comments are generally consistent with a desire to achieve an improved global standard of living and, subsequently, population decline via a decreased birth rate. I am guilty of assuming that initiatives that may reduce productivity or the rate of increase of productivity are contrary to improving living standards and as such diminish from a sustainable future. A very few people are prepared to see a positive correlation between population size and global production and make the logical connection that limiting production will limit population. My line is that though this is probably true, to me it no longer leads to a sustainable future for the reasons that I outlined above. -The outcome is not worth the costs! Totally a value judgment? My students once wrote in a year book: "You cannot win an argument with Harry because when you present a sufficiently compelling case he changes sides." I hope that it's still true. Regards from Harry.
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/
