Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
For a while, I taught a course in human-powered machinery for the Peace Corps. You know, bicycle powered generators, treadle powered pumps, that kind of thing. One of the very rough rules of thumb regarding human energy is that an adult human can put out about a hundred watts on an ongoing, constant all-day basis. If you were to hook up a bicycle to a generator you could generate a kilowatt-hour every day … if you were in good shape and you put in a ten-hour day. Sounds like work to me.
Figure 1. Human-powered aluminum can crusher, Burning Man 2012.
I got to thinking about this number, one kilowatt-hour’s worth of electricity for a long ten-hour day’s work, in the context of the discussion about energy costs. Some people think raising energy costs to discourage CO2 production is a good thing. I say that raising energy costs, whether to discourage CO2 or for any other reason, trades a certain present loss for a very doubtful future gain. As such, it is an extremely bad idea. Here’s why:
The existence of electricity is perhaps the one thing most emblematic of human development. With electricity, we get refrigeration to preserve medicines and foods, light to extend the day, electric heat, power to run machinery, the list goes on and on. Now, as I showed above, we can hire somebody to generate electricity for us, at the rate of a kilowatt-hour for each ten-hour day’s work. Where I live, this day’s worth of slave labor, this thousand watt-hours of energy, costs me the princely sum of about thirteen cents US. I can buy an electric slave-day of work for thirteen cents.
That is why I live well. Instead of having slaves as the Romans had, I can buy a day’s worth of a slave’s constant labor for thirteen measly cents. That is what development consists of, the use of electricity and other forms of inexpensive energy in addition to and in lieu of human energy.
Now, here’s the next part of the puzzle. Out at the farther edges of society, where people live on a dollar a day or less, electricity is much more expensive than it is where I live. In the Solomon Islands, where I lived before returning to the US in 2009, electricity in the capital city cost fifty-two cents a kilowatt-hour, and more out in the outer islands.
Now, let us consider the human cost of the kind of “cap-and trade” or “carbon tax” or Kyoto Protocol agreements. All of these attempts to decrease CO2 have the same effect. They raise the cost of energy, whether in the form of electricity or liquid fuels. But the weight of that change doesn’t fall on folks like me. Oh, I feel it alright. But for someone making say $26.00 per hour, they can buy two hundred slave-days of work with an hour’s wages. (Twenty-six dollars an hour divided by thirteen cents per kWh.). Two hundred days of someone working hard for ten hours a day, that’s the energy of more than six months of someone’s constant work … and I can buy that with one hour’s wages.
At the other end of the scale, consider someone making a dollar a day, usually a ten-hour day. That’s about ten cents an hour, in a place where energy may well cost fifty-two cents per kilowatt-hour. Energy costs loom huge for them even now. I can buy six months of slave labor for one hour of my wage. They can buy a couple of hours of slave labor, not days or months but hours, of slave labor for each hour of their work.
And as a result, an increase in energy costs that is fairly small to me is huge to the poor. Any kind of tax on energy, indeed any policy that raises the cost of energy, is one of the most regressive taxes known to man. It crushes those at the lowest end of the scale, and the worst part is, there is no relief at the bottom. You know how with income tax, if you make below a certain limit, you pay no tax at all? If you are below the threshold, you are exempt from income tax.
But energy price increases such as carbon taxes don’t even have that relief. They hit harder the further you go down the economic ladder, all the way down to rock bottom, hitting the very poorest the hardest of all.
So when James Hansen gets all mealy-mouthed about his poor grandkids’ world in fifty years, boo-boo, it just makes me shake my head in amazement. His policies have already led to an increase in something I never heard of when I was a kid, “fuel poverty”. This is where the anti-human pseudo-green energy policies advocated by Hansen and others have driven the price of fuel so high that people who weren’t poor before, now cannot heat their homes in winter … it’s shockingly common in Britain, for example.
In other words, when James Hansen is coming on all weepy-eyed about what might possibly happen to his poor grandchildren fifty years from now, he is so focused on the future that he overlooks the ugly present-day results of his policies, among them the grandparents shivering in houses that they can no longer afford to heat …
Perhaps some folks are willing to trade a certain, actually occurring, measurable present harm to their grandparents, in order to have a chance of avoiding a far-from-certain distant possible future harm to their grandkids.
Not me.
I say let’s keep the old geezers warm right now, what the heck, they’ve been good to us, mostly, and lets provide inexpensive energy to the world, and thus encourage industry and agriculture to feed and clothe people, and let the grandkids deal with the dang future. That’s what our own grandparents did. They didn’t dick around trying to figure out the problems that we would face today. They faced the problems of their day.
Besides, according to the IPCC, fifty years from now those buggers are going to be several times wealthier than we are now. So why should I be worried about Hansen’s and my likely wealthy grandkids in preference to today’s demonstrably poor children? My grandkids will do just fine. Heck, they’ll probably have the dang flying cars I was promised, and the fusion power I was supposed to get that would be too cheap to meter, so let them deal with it. We have plenty of problems worrying about today’s poor, let’s focus on that and let the future take care of their poor.
The real irony is that these folks like Hansen claim to be acting on behalf of the poor, in that they claim that the effects of global warming will hit the poor hardest. I have never found out how that is supposed to happen. I say this because the effects of global warming are supposed to hit the hardest in the extra-tropics, in the winter, in the night-time. I have a hard time believing that some homeless person sleeping on the sidewalk in New York City in December is going to be cursing the fact that the frozen winter midnights are a degree warmer … so exactly which poor are they supposed to be saving, and from what?
w.
Completely agree Willis, the poor will only improve their lives with access to cheap energy. Give them the opportunities gas, coal, oil and nuclear have given the West and they will become healthier and better off. Artificially inflate the cost of energy in the West, as politicians are doing, and poverty and poor health increases.
Those who wear their ‘greeniness’ on their sleeves are too blind with their sanctimonious preaching to understand that you and others who support WUWT are the true greens with a genuine love of the environment and desire to understand and manage it wisely, as well as helping the poor to help themselves to a better life.
I like the Burning Man can crusher. One method of producing energy on a local scale, which I honestly don’t know the economics of, but looks interesting if limited, is converting the kinetic energy from a footstep into electricity. Tiles are placed in high-footfall locations and the energy extracted is stored off-grid and used for lighting.
http://www.pavegen.com/energy-harvesting-systems.php
I loved the story you related previously. We laughed aloud at the twist at the end and the commenter who thought you should tell a story in the first person singular without using the nominative singular pronoun.
S.Meyer says: January 2, 2013 at 1:12 pm
@ur momisugly mpainter, Willis Eschenbach
The question then is: How do we prepare for the inevitable scarcity of fossil fuels in the not-so-far future?
=========================
Big question, because we keep developing new sources. Shale gas, for example, has changed the energy picture. There are too many unknowns in fossil fuels to make forecasts. Don’t look to run out any time soon. And coal? not to worry, not for a long, long time.
S.Meyer says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Unfortunately, oil prices are worldwide. So when oil prices go up, the third world is hit the hardest. See my piece on “Firing Up the Economy, Literally”
Egads, sire. In the last ten years, we have seen the entire fracking revolution. This has made the US an exporter of petroleum products, due to both gas and “tight oil”, for the first time in decades. Worldwide, this is the largest expansion of available fossil reserves in a long, long time. Heck, even poor old Israel, the only country in the Middle East with no oil, has discovered huge reserves of gas, which will power Israel far into the future.
Then we have coal, global reserves run to about 300 years use at the present rate. We have the Canadian and Trinidad tar sands. And under it all we have the wild card, the untold amount of methane locked up in the methane clathrates under the ocean.
And in the face of all of that, you think the thing to do is to plan for some totally unknown future date when fossil fuels will get scarce?
Sorry, but that’s the same thing that Hansen wants us to do, to sacrifice current losses for the possibility of some future avoided cost. There is no need to plan or stage-manage what will happen when fossil fuels start to get short. There is also no way to forecast when that will be, or how fast it will happen. All of that is just wasted effort.
So no, we don’t need to “prepare for the inevitable scarcity of fossil fuels”. There’s no need to do that at all, the market will take care of it, just as it did when we went from wood to coal, or coal to oil.
If this seems too complex, then simply remember—nobody was wringing their hands in 1850 and saying “we have to plan the inevitable transition off of coal”, and despite that the transition to oil was totally seamless.
All the best,
w.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Let us consider time T, money M, and evil E.
As you point out above, Stephen,
However, what is often forgotten is that
Solving for E gives us
And substituting yields
In other words, just like the fundamentalist preachers used to tell us when I was a kid, Times Square is evil … amazing stuff, math.
w.
michaeljmcfadden says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Thanks, Michael. I’m sorry, but I couldn’t get past that second sentence of his, I was laughing too hard. Now, I know that my writing skills are at least reasonable, and that despite that there are sometimes misunderstandings. I accept that.
But is there anyone (except your friend) reading this thread who thinks that I was proposing bicycle power as an alternative to fossil fuels? Seriously?
Michael, if your friend is any representative of the bicycle activists where you are, maybe the pressure which them tight leetle bitty spandex bicycle shorts put on a man’s generative organs is interfering with his rational thought processes. One head affecting the other, so to speak.
I hope so, because that’s curable … since the other option is that anyone who reads what I wrote and can seriously say that I am proposing bicycle power to replace fossil fuels is dumber than a box of hammers.
w.
michaeljmcfadden says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm
“Meanwhile though, while I was out, I got an email back from one of my bicycle activist friends. I’ll share it here, without comment, but it anyone would like me to invite him here for debate I’d be happy to.”
Well, reading his response I find myself so familiarly again lost among strawmen, gross evasions of the central point, a couple of offers supporting the point he is actually trying to argue against, a “noble savage” and enforced “return to the Garden of Eden” appeal, the usual appeal to blaming the successful for allegedly victimizing the poor and underdeveloped, demonizing the “enemy”/fossil fuel, an appeal to tired old alleged panaceas, a failure to do a cost-benefit analysis, and a general failure for your cyclist activist buddy to first consider what might be wrong with anything/everything he says.
So my advice to you is to limit your exposed relationship to cycling with him. Strangely, that kind of activity is the only venue in which I’ve been able to get along with such people – hiking, playing basketball, jogging, float trips – although some such people seem to like to introduce excessive risk-taking into the mix with even these activities. So beware! But send him over here anyway…perhaps after he tries out his benighted energy poverty for himself, complete with hand-wrought and wooden bike wheels?
Lazy teenager…
When you get to college, take an economics course. There you will learn about Supply-Demand curves, which predict that if Supply stays constant while Demand drops, cost INCREASES, not decreases.
All other things being equal, if the US starts consuming less oil, then oil prices increase for the rest of the world. Thus, your proposition dooms 3rd world countries to greater poverty. I am assuming that is not the result you were intending.
RDCII
more soylent green! says:
January 2, 2013 at 7:10 am
Willis,
Have you considered having the unfit and overweight being required to exercise, and having their stationary bikes wired to a generator?…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean Congress?
dscott says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:11 pm
You inadvertently revealed the growing horror of life in the third world. Human Slavery is on the increase….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for bring that issue up. One of the reasons for the high fertility rate in third world countries is because the children are valuable items that are sold. Often it is called child labor not slavery but that is what it is. Child labor is an epidemic world-wide. There are an estimated 246 million children working, often in physically brutal conditions.
Roisin Robertson says: January 2, 2013 at 5:28 am
“….can smirk behind your hands about the destruction caused by (once freak, now normal) weather events (Sandy Superstorm, etc)…”
This belief puts you into the bracket of the truly indoctrinated, Roisin.
Surely you know Sandy was “unprecedented”!!! – without previous instance; never before known or experienced; …now that is hardly normal is it?
Oh, except for the other times it has happened …. many long ago :
This is just from Wiki – only up to 1900 List of New York Hurricanes:
Before 1800
between 1278 and 1438 — A major hurricane struck the modern-day New York/New Jersey area, probably the strongest in recent millennium.
August 25, 1635 — A hurricane that is reported to have tracked parallel to the East Coast impacts New England and New York, although it remains unknown if any damage occurred.
September 8, 1667 — A ‘severe storm’ is reported in Manhattan and is reported to be a continuation of a powerful hurricane which affected the Mid-Atlantic.
October 29, 1693 — The Great Storm of 1693 causes severe damage on Long Island, and is reported to create the Fire Island Cut as a result of the coast-changing storm surge and waves.
September 23, 1785 — Several large ships crash into Governors Island as a result of powerful waves which are reported to have been generated by a tropical cyclone.
August 19, 1788 — A hurricane strikes New York City or Long Island and is reported to have left the west side of the Battery “laid in ruins” after severe flooding occurs.
1800–99
Estimated track of the 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane
October 9, 1804 — Heavy snow falls in Eastern New York peaking at 30 inches (75 cm) as a hurricane tracks northward along the East Coast and becomes extratropical, as cold air fed into the system.
September 5, 1815 — A hurricane tracks over North Carolina and parallels the East Coast before producing a heavy rainstorm in New York.
September 24, 1815 — Several hundred trees fall and the majority of the fruit was stripped off apple trees just prior to harvesting time after a hurricane makes landfall on Long Island.
September 16, 1816 — A possible hurricane strikes New York City, but damage remains unknown.
August 9, 1817 — A tropical storm produces heavy rainfall in New York City and Long Island.
September 3, 1821 — The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane results in severe damage on Long Island and is accompanied by storm surge of 13 feet (4 m). High wind causes a ship to crash on Long Island killing 17 people.
June 4, 1825 — A hurricane moves off the East Coast and tracks south of New York causing several ship wrecks, and killing seven people.
August 27, 1827 — High tides are reported in New York City which are caused by a hurricane offshore.
August 1, 1830 – A hurricane passes to the east of New York and produces gale-force winds to New York City and Long Island.
October 4, 1841 — Gale–force winds affect New York City as a hurricane tracks north along the East Coast of the United States. Damage is estimated at $2 million (1841 USD, $41 million 2007 USD).
October 13, 1846 — The Great Havana Hurricane of 1846 tracks inland, causing some damage to New York City.[3]
October 6, 1849 — Severe structural damage occurs in New York City and Long Island with the passage of a hurricane to the east.
July 19, 1850 — A hurricane destroys a Coney Island bath house and causes heavy rain, although damage is unknown.This storm destroyed the ship Elizabeth off Fire Island and drowned American transcendentalist Margaret Fuller.
August 24, 1850 — A storm that is reported to be a hurricane affects New York and New England although there is no known damage.
September 9, 1854 — A hurricane brushes the East Coast from Florida to New England causing rain on Long Island.
September 16, 1858 — Low barometric pressure of 28.87 inches mercury at Sag Harbor is reported, and is thought to be associated with a tropical cyclone which causes no known damage.
September 6, 1869 — A category 3 hurricane makes landfall in Rhode Island and brushes Long Island, which is affected by rain, although minimal damage resulted from the storm
October 28, 1872 — A tropical storm passes over New York City and Long Island.
October 1, 1874 — New York City and the Hudson Valley receives rainfall after a minimal tropical storm tracked over Eastern New York.
September 19, 1876 — The remnants of the San Felipe hurricane track over western New York State, although damage is unknown.
October 24, 1878 — The state is affected by tropical storm-force winds and heavy rain with the passage of a hurricane, which made landfall in Virginia.
August 22, 1888 — A tropical storm tracks over New York City before tracking north along the East Coast of the United States.
August 24, 1893 — Hog Island is washed away by strong storm surge associated with a tropical storm of unknown strength. According to HURDAT, this was a Category 1 hurricane that struck the western end of the Rockaway Peninsula, passing through Brooklyn as a weakening hurricane. Manhattan Island saw gale force winds to 56 mph.
October 10, 1894 10 People were killed and 15 injured at 74 Monroe Street in Manhattan when winds blew a building under construction onto a tenement crushing it. Extensive damage in the NYC and Long Island to telegraph lines, trees and boats docked on shore. Storm formed over Gulf of Mexico as a Category 3 weakened over land in the Southeast and re strengthened to a Category 1 over the Chesapeake Bay before striking Long Island.
mpainter says:
January 2, 2013 at 11:08 am
I guess … except for the part where he is completely wrong, which is pretty much his whole main thesis. He thought population went up geometrically, while food production only went up linearly. He was wrong on both counts.
See my post “I Am So Sick Of Malthus” for further details …
w.
S.Meyer says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:12 pm
….. The question then is: How do we prepare for the inevitable scarcity of fossil fuels in the not-so-far future?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nuclear (Thorium) with fusion hopefully to come on board later. India and China are already investing in Thorium.
A list of links at this site
michaeljmcfadden says:
January 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm
….Meanwhile though, while I was out, I got an email back from one of my bicycle activist friends….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps a year in one of those third world countries he wants to reduce us to might open his eyes.
Backpacking and caving in the back of beyond in Mexico certainly opened my eyes and made me appreciate what we have here in the USA. How those people managed to scratch out a living in those semi-arid mountains I will never know.
I was curious as to the carbon footprint of bicyclists, and according to one conservative website, bicyclists emit quite a bit of CO2.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/do-bicycles-actually-have-a-lower-co2-footprint-than-cars/2/
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach
“Unfortunately, oil prices are worldwide. So when oil prices go up, the third world is hit the hardest. See my piece on “Firing Up the Economy, Literally”
Very interesting link, thanks for pointing it out.
I was not talking about a carbon tax imposed on a third world country though, but I was thinking about such a tax applied in the USA only.
I agree that oil prices are the same world- wide, based on supply and demand (plus some speculation, maybe). However, a carbon tax added at the consumer end, would make energy more expensive locally, but should not directly affect world-wide prices for oil. An example would be gasoline prices in the UK being roughly twice as high as in the USA. This price difference is entirely due to taxes. I do not think that higher gasoline prices in the UK could influence global crude oil prices, except if such taxes were to reduce global demand perceptibly. I am not sure that this would happen though. Demand in the third world seems to be rising faster than we could ever shrink our demand.
What I am trying to say here is that I am doubtful that a carbon tax in the USA (applied at the consumer level) would cause harm to the third world.
As to peak oil, I am inclined to agree with you. I still remember the club of Rome and all the predictions of running out of this and that (copper?) which never came true. We’ll find a way, once we have to.
Gail Combs says:
“….. The question then is: How do we prepare for the inevitable scarcity of fossil fuels in the not-so-far future?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nuclear (Thorium) with fusion hopefully to come on board later. India and China are already investing in Thorium.”
Thanks! Here is another link to what I call “pocket reactors”
http://www.celsias.com/article/are-small-nuclear-reactors-safer/
Willis Eschenbach says: January 2, 2013 at 6:33 pm
I guess … except for the part where he is completely wrong, which is pretty much his whole main thesis. He thought population went up geometrically, while food production only went up linearly. He was wrong on both counts.
See my post “I Am So Sick Of Malthus” for further details
==============================
I have, thank you, and 440 (!) comments, which I perused. The man generated controversy in his day and, obviously, still does. I will stand by my statement that he was a profound thinker. Most of the controversy stems from the implications drawn from his postulates which, of themselves, are not so controversial.
Did you know that both Darwin and Wallace credited their reading of Malthus as providing the germ of their ideas on natural selection, which principle they reached independently? That Keynes credited Malthus with influencing his ideas on economics?
Those who rejected Malthus and his ideas include Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
Malthus is credited with founding demographics and originating important economic ideas. Wikipedia has a good article on Malthus, very informative, if you wish to gain some insight on the Reverand Thomas Robert Malthus.
Malthus reached his conclusions through observations. Remind you of anyone? Malthus postulated that population had the innate capacity to expand geometrically, but observed that in fact, it did not. He gave the reasons why it did not. He postulated that food supply was the ultimate limit on population. But Malthus, the observer, was looking backward, and did not realize that he stood at the verge of an agronomic transformation. He was correct insofar as his observations informed him.
Malthus was a scholar and a scientist and preached no doomsday gospel, but simply gave his ideas on population and economics.
mpainter
Very nice post Willis. Many have been trying to say these things but they lack your clarity and gift of writing to be understood.
—–
Chris Phillips says:
January 2, 2013 at 4:27 am
The truly frightening thing is that the proponents of “sustainable development” believe that reducing the number of humans alive on earth is fundamental to achieving their goals. For them, pricing the poor out of electricity is a very useful step along the way.
—–
Agreed Chris. But please notice that they always believe controlling others’ population, not their own. As you said reducing the poor with high electricity costs.. But for example, consider Al Gore; his great mansion that would power something like 20,000 homes, and other selfish actions while demanding that others must sacrifice. But Al will never sacrifice.
Anthony Harmon says:
“January 2, 2013 at 7:51 pm
I was curious as to the carbon footprint of bicyclists, and according to one conservative website, bicyclists emit quite a bit of CO2.”
Tell me that you forgot the “sarc”? Even the climate alarmists don’t count CO2 released from breathing, because it does not come from fossil fuels. We exhale what we eat, nice example of recycling. Unless you eat coal?
Chris Phillips said @ur momisugly January 2, 2013 at 4:27 am
The truly frightening thing to me is that some might actually believe this statement. The Git is in favour of sustainable development, but has never espoused, or been enamoured by, population control. Given that several of his relatives from his father’s generation were “population controlled” sixty odd years ago, this is hardly surprising. So, why does The Git advocate sustainable development?
The short response is that he doesn’t see any wisdom whatsoever in unsustainable development where he means the OED definition of develop.
The OED defines sustainable development as
When The Git wants to develop anything sustainably that means doing so by depleting his capital by a smaller amount than he will gain from said development. It’s called making a profit. Conversely, unsustainable development means having less money after the development than before, or operating your business at a loss. Quite how believing business should operate profitably equates with advocating genocide escapes me.
geoff says:
January 2, 2013 at 4:18 am
Electricity at 22c. We in South Australia get it for 30c. We also have the highest proportion of wind turbines in Australia, and as a % of overall capacity we are up there with Denmark and Germany. Mmhhm! All 3 of us has very expensive electricity. What could cause that? sarc off/
rgb – I am hesitant at disputing your post, not least because you are an outstanding scientist and I am not. But.
For all of my conscious life, I have been hearing about the solar energy breakthrough that is “just around the corner.” In my sunny country (Australia) this has been an article of faith for at least five decades. Yet here we are, untold billions of dollars worth of research and development later, and solar is still a tiny and hugely expensive contributor to domestic energy use. It is completely useless for industrial use, of course, as machines and computers require reliable and constant input. In the largest sense, of course, all energy is solar – whether it be stored energy in coal or photosynthesis. But, for practical purposes, there seem to be two major problems with solar technologies associated with putting up structures to catch the rays of the sun.
One is the obvious one of intermittency. This means that a single home or business can never rely on solar, because batteries, again the subject of massive research effort, still can’t store enough energy in a safe way at a reasonable cost (although we are always being told that it is “just around the corner”). It also means that conventional power grids have their costs increased and their performance potentially endangered by unpredictable inputs from solar energy sources.
The second, which I approach with caution because I am not a scientist, is the simple physics of what can be garnered from the sun in relation to the area required to collect it. It is pretty clear that collecting enough energy to run a modern settlement involves covering a very large area with panels. It also seems that, despite the promises that I have been hearing for many decades, the reality is that concentrated solar energy in the form of gas or coal or oil, which is transportable and works 24/7, is very much cheaper and more reliable.
We would all welcome the breakthroughs that have been “just around the corner” in solar and battery technology for so many decades, but you must admit that they are likely dead ends.
As for all the cant about “our grandchildren”, it is just like ancestor worship, IMO. It is an excuse for doing what you want to do by invoking people who aren’t around to contradict it. Bollocks!
S. Meyer says: @ur momisugly January 2, 2013 at 8:31 pm
…I was not talking about a carbon tax imposed on a third world country though, but I was thinking about such a tax applied in the USA only.
I agree that oil prices are the same world- wide, based on supply and demand (plus some speculation, maybe). However, a carbon tax added at the consumer end, would make energy more expensive locally, but should not directly affect world-wide prices for oil. An example would be gasoline prices in the UK being roughly twice as high as in the USA. This price difference is entirely due to taxes…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did you forget the 2008 when food riots broke out in more than 30 poor countries???
The 1995 World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture, written by Dan Amstutz VP of Cargill and later partner in Goldman Sachs, intentionally wiped out third world farmers and made third world countries dependent on US and EU food by getting rid of the national tariffs that protected local farmers. The 1996 “Freedom to Farm bill” also written by Amstutz end the annual acreage reduction programs that curtailed US farm overproduction. With taxpayer subsidies, US farmers produced grain at below actual cost. As a result the U.S. share of world trade in wheat, feed grains, cotton, rice and soybeans rose to 50 percent. In 2008 Cargill, Monsanto ADM, Goldman Sachs and others reaped the profit from these programs they orchestrated. Meanwhile the price of diesel went from $1.139 in 1996 to almost $4.00 and the price of livestock feed and hay has tripled.
Mexico is one example:
US trade policies destroyed Mexico’s agricultural sector, 2 million farm workers lost their jobs and 8 million small-scale farmers were forced to sell their land at disastrously low prices. In all Mexico lost 75% of her farmers.
Haiti is another:
Now what ever is done to the USA and the EU directly effects the third world because we bankrupted their farmers.
Remember The World Bank’s role in promoting CAGW, well it is promoting the land grab too. The World Bank is playing a leading role in a global land grab… The World Bank will be meeting with government officials and private sector investors during its annual conference, where they will discuss large-scale farmland acquisitions by foreign corporations in developing countries…. The global land grab was denounced at over 250 worldwide protest actions…
S. Meyer says:
January 2, 2013 at 10:11 pm
Anthony Harmon says:
“January 2, 2013 at 7:51 pm
I was curious as to the carbon footprint of bicyclists, and according to one conservative website, bicyclists emit quite a bit of CO2.”
Tell me that you forgot the “sarc”? Even the climate alarmists don’t count CO2 released from breathing, because it does not come from fossil fuels. We exhale what we eat, nice example of recycling. Unless you eat coal?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I can’t resist.
If you are in the USA you do. Some of the carbon the plants transform into organics is from our coal burning plants. I am sitting near a coal plant so I definitely ‘eat coal” Also The manufactured fertilizers normally are made from petroleum and natural gas, except for superphosphate and triple superphosphate, which are rock phosphate that has been concentrated using acid reactions.
BTW thanks for the link on the micro-nuclear plant. I have already talked to my local energy coop about them and they are looking into something similar.
The Pompous Git says:
January 2, 2013 at 11:06 pm
….The Git is in favour of sustainable development,…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem is the word “sustainable” like so many others has been taken over and twisted to mean something else entirely.
If by “sustainable” you mean rotating crops, planting nitrogen fixing cover crops, no till farming, rotating cropland to pasture and back again, planting grass filter strips and tree wind breaks I am all for it. If you mean Agenda 21 which is what “sustainable” means to the bureaucrats then I suggest you watch this video by a liberal democrat who is a California bureaucrat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK2sZUs2l_U