Transition away from oil is a critical step that requires a plan ...now.
Food and Farming Transition; Toward a Post Carbon Food System
The Post Carbon Institute report with cooperation from the Soil Association of Britain.
Read the PDF report
What do they propose we transition to for a post carbon food system?
Animal and human power for vegetables, nuts and dairy
rotational crops for fertility and pest control
pastures meat
local non gmo seed developed for local crops
hedgerow/woodlots and biochar
on farm biofuel production for large (grain) operations
wind solar and other alternatives
Sounds like a fabulous list. How do we make it happen?
How do we make sure incentive monies are not sidetracked toward industrial bichar and ethanol production?
Will there be the workers willing to engage in the manual labour that the transition will necessitate?
How will the current drivers of modern agriculture (monsanto, cargill, syngenta, et al) fit in to the picture? Do they need to be transitioned themselves by the transference of authority - perhaps legislation to return governance of corporations to its shareholders is in order.
Urgency is needed to honour those farmers who have preserved many of these excellent traditional carbon minimal practices...we are getting old and have been treated badly. Ridicule and repudiation and ignorance by the FDA, Ag Canada, corporate bodies and large export farm organizations is more like it. But ask eaters what they want in their kitchens and let them decide!
Powerful corporate interests will transition only through real changes in participatory democracy.
April 12, 2009
April 11, 2009
Kemerova, Russia economic innovations: free land, support and seed
This is fabulous idea!
Farming to save crisis. Russia Today
11 April, 2009, 16:45
Russia’s Kemerovo region governor, Aman Tuleev, has come up with a plan to survive during the economic crisis. He plans to offer land, as well as privileged seeds and domestic animals to those in need.
Under the project, Kemerovo region authorities will give a quarter-acre to families with unemployed parents. The fortunate farmers will be offered assistance in tilling the ground, as well as in buying potatoes for cultivation. Meanwhile, those who decide to buy and rear cows will be granted 30 thousand rubles (around 900 dollars) in support. Meanwhile, those who cannot keep big domestic animals will have an opportunity to take rabbits for breeding.
Read the rest
Farming to save crisis. Russia Today
11 April, 2009, 16:45
Russia’s Kemerovo region governor, Aman Tuleev, has come up with a plan to survive during the economic crisis. He plans to offer land, as well as privileged seeds and domestic animals to those in need.
Under the project, Kemerovo region authorities will give a quarter-acre to families with unemployed parents. The fortunate farmers will be offered assistance in tilling the ground, as well as in buying potatoes for cultivation. Meanwhile, those who decide to buy and rear cows will be granted 30 thousand rubles (around 900 dollars) in support. Meanwhile, those who cannot keep big domestic animals will have an opportunity to take rabbits for breeding.
Read the rest
April 10, 2009
Resistance not disease; bogus science
Livable futures blog describes the lunacy of some agricultural research in a post about an Op Ed in the NY Times regarding a study of pathogens in free range (324 pigs) vs. confinement pigs (298 pigs) where two free-range pigs were found to carry "the parasite trichinia".
Actually, what they carried was the where-with-all to fight the pathogens naturally - i.e. antibodies. What was also left out of the NY Times piece was that the "research" was paid for by the national pork board.
This is one of a growing waste heap of studies that are unabashedly biased, sloppy and becoming more transparently so. What kind of science is this? The aim is clearly to protect market share, and carry new products to market - they'll find what they need from the studies they pay for.
We are at a cusp now in the very perception of what is safe food.
Why the hyper focus on eradicating pathogenic bacteria "from farm to fork".
Why doesn't the pork board study antibiotics role in assisting to create a super bug? Or the consequences of residual bombardment of antibiotics on our inner family of friendly bacteria?
Having antibodies is a healthy part of being alive. We have many species of bacteria living symbiotically within. This study shows soil bacteria throws off the low down blues, and helps fight allergies.
What about the other urgent aspects of food safety?
Antibiotics in factory meat, hormones in milk, chemical residues, nano transmission, even perhaps slip-ups from engineered phages sprayed on meat or fresh veg.
There is growing public concern for real food safety and the veneer of propaganda is glaring but very thin. Let's use the opportunity to voice our other food safety concerns; I have yet to see discussion of the question of transgenic, chemical or nanoparticle toxicity in the news regarding the food safety bills - are they not mentioned? Where is this discussion?
The real momentum of cause, lobby and money toward food safety appears to be fo traceability. This would entitle government bodies and industry, presumably, insight to what is traveling to our "fork", but without labeling, the consumer would still be in the dark. That is absurdly and profoundly outrageous.
Hat tip to Jill Richardson.
hospital themed restaurant
Actually, what they carried was the where-with-all to fight the pathogens naturally - i.e. antibodies. What was also left out of the NY Times piece was that the "research" was paid for by the national pork board.
This is one of a growing waste heap of studies that are unabashedly biased, sloppy and becoming more transparently so. What kind of science is this? The aim is clearly to protect market share, and carry new products to market - they'll find what they need from the studies they pay for.
We are at a cusp now in the very perception of what is safe food.
Why the hyper focus on eradicating pathogenic bacteria "from farm to fork".
Why doesn't the pork board study antibiotics role in assisting to create a super bug? Or the consequences of residual bombardment of antibiotics on our inner family of friendly bacteria?
Having antibodies is a healthy part of being alive. We have many species of bacteria living symbiotically within. This study shows soil bacteria throws off the low down blues, and helps fight allergies.
What about the other urgent aspects of food safety?
Antibiotics in factory meat, hormones in milk, chemical residues, nano transmission, even perhaps slip-ups from engineered phages sprayed on meat or fresh veg.
There is growing public concern for real food safety and the veneer of propaganda is glaring but very thin. Let's use the opportunity to voice our other food safety concerns; I have yet to see discussion of the question of transgenic, chemical or nanoparticle toxicity in the news regarding the food safety bills - are they not mentioned? Where is this discussion?
The real momentum of cause, lobby and money toward food safety appears to be fo traceability. This would entitle government bodies and industry, presumably, insight to what is traveling to our "fork", but without labeling, the consumer would still be in the dark. That is absurdly and profoundly outrageous.
Hat tip to Jill Richardson.
hospital themed restaurant
April 9, 2009
Brazil: No to Liberty link rice
"The public hearing on GM rice held on March 18th in Brasilia clearly showed the almost unanimous resistance to introducing Bayer’s transgenic seed into Brazil. Embrapa (the largest state agricultural research company), IRGA (the Rice Research Institute of Rio Grande do Sul, a state responsible for 70% of Brazilian production of rice), Federarroz and Farsul (Rio Grande do Sul’s main producer organizations) officially opposed the release of the Liberty Link rice, genetically modified for tolerance to application of the glufosinate ammonium herbicide, also produced by Bayer."...
Clearly the science behind this gm crop is suspect:
"To give an idea of the kind of study presented by Bayer to CTNBio, one of the tests intended to prove the product’s food safety was undertaken with chickens. The auditorium burst with laughter when Bayer's representative was asked why they used chickens in the test if they don’t eat rice.
Sarah Agapito from the department of genetic resources of Santa Catarina Federal University presented a critique of Bayer’s data relating to the molecular description of the genetic modification introduced in the rice. Some of the analyses presented by the company are based on samples taken from a single plant. “Now, sampling from a single plant is not sampling,” Agapito said. In her view, the lack of scientific rigour is abundantly clear and the studies would not be accepted for publication by any scientific journal."
As the GM rice contaminates indigenous varieties, “A recall” [of the contamination] can't be made. (...) It’s a food security issue..."
Read the article
Clearly the science behind this gm crop is suspect:
"To give an idea of the kind of study presented by Bayer to CTNBio, one of the tests intended to prove the product’s food safety was undertaken with chickens. The auditorium burst with laughter when Bayer's representative was asked why they used chickens in the test if they don’t eat rice.
Sarah Agapito from the department of genetic resources of Santa Catarina Federal University presented a critique of Bayer’s data relating to the molecular description of the genetic modification introduced in the rice. Some of the analyses presented by the company are based on samples taken from a single plant. “Now, sampling from a single plant is not sampling,” Agapito said. In her view, the lack of scientific rigour is abundantly clear and the studies would not be accepted for publication by any scientific journal."
As the GM rice contaminates indigenous varieties, “A recall” [of the contamination] can't be made. (...) It’s a food security issue..."
Read the article
April 8, 2009
Obama and Geo-engineering? Yes, you can – but don't!
ETC Group
News Release
8 April 2009
http://www.etcgroup.org
Reported musing by Obama Advisor is dangerous
OTTAWA, April 8, 2009 – Today's reports[1] from an Associated Press
interview with U.S. Chief Science Advisor John Holdren claiming that
the White House could now be taking a serious look at geo-engineering
– including the radical proposal to shoot nanoparticles of sulphate
into the earth’s atmosphere – are causing alarm around the world. “If
this is somebody's trial balloon to test Obama's acceptance of geo-
engineering, the White House should shoot it down immediately,” says
Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, an Ottawa-based civil
society organization that has been monitoring geo-engineering
technologies since 2006. Geo-engineering refers to large-scale,
intentional manipulations of the planet's climate and other systems.
Holdren is quoted as saying that an experimental measure such as
shooting sulphate into the atmosphere has “got to be looked at,”
adding, “we don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the
table.” As reported, these comments seem to signal a change from
earlier writings in which Holdren warned of “serious side effects” of
geo-engineering.[2]
“The most disturbing aspect of geo-engineering is that unlike the
Kyoto Protocol, which requires a broad consensus to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, geoengineering is a luxury afforded only to
superpowers, who can unilaterally decide to adjust the earth's climate
to their liking. That John Holdren is reported as countenancing
shooting sulphate nanoparticles into the atmosphere is especially
alarming.”
“The potential side effects of polluting the upper atmosphere with
sulphates could be devastating – ranging from ozone depletion and
increased drought to threats to health,” explains Jim Thomas of ETC
Group. “Worst of all, once governments start shooting up these
particles into the atmosphere, we may find ourselves addicted.
Stopping would prompt a massive and sudden jump in temperature. Of all
the wacky geo-engineering schemes out there, this one is probably the
most dangerous and the most unjust. It would be irresponsible to
contemplate real-world testing of this technology.”
Holdren’s statement is being received with glee by geo-engineers who
have been campaigning for more research dollars and a higher public
profile. This week a group of geo-engineers are reportedly sending a
letter to the Obama administration asking that geo-engineering be
placed on the agenda for the preparatory meeting of the Major
Economies Forum on Energy and Climate being convened April 27-28th in
Washington D.C.[3] The looming failure of the Kyoto Protocol and
uncertain outcome of the Copenhagen climate negotiations in December
have politicians stargazing, hoping to find anything that could appear
to be a winning strategy in the fight against climate change.
“The White House must confirm that Barack Obama's meeting with
representatives of the sixteen largest economies to discuss climate
change later this month is not an attempt to convene some new
'coalition of the willing' to reengineer the planet,” asserts Diana
Bronson of ETC Group. “If the United States does indeed head down the
geo-engineering path they could find themselves in breach of
international law under the UN's ENMOD Convention [Convention on the
Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques]. If the White House wants to be constructive,
it should work with the United Nations to ensure that appropriate
oversight structures are in place to prevent unilateral deployment of
geo-engineering. Meanwhile, geo-engineering schemes, including real
world field trials, should be vigourously opposed.”
The AP's interview with John Holdren comes on the heels of reports
from the UK suggesting that both the government and the Royal Society
are giving geoengineering a sympathetic hearing. Earlier this week,
ETC Group sent a submission to the Royal Society on the question of
governance and geo-engineering. ETC Group's submission is available
here: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=736
News Release
8 April 2009
http://www.etcgroup.org
Reported musing by Obama Advisor is dangerous
OTTAWA, April 8, 2009 – Today's reports[1] from an Associated Press
interview with U.S. Chief Science Advisor John Holdren claiming that
the White House could now be taking a serious look at geo-engineering
– including the radical proposal to shoot nanoparticles of sulphate
into the earth’s atmosphere – are causing alarm around the world. “If
this is somebody's trial balloon to test Obama's acceptance of geo-
engineering, the White House should shoot it down immediately,” says
Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, an Ottawa-based civil
society organization that has been monitoring geo-engineering
technologies since 2006. Geo-engineering refers to large-scale,
intentional manipulations of the planet's climate and other systems.
Holdren is quoted as saying that an experimental measure such as
shooting sulphate into the atmosphere has “got to be looked at,”
adding, “we don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the
table.” As reported, these comments seem to signal a change from
earlier writings in which Holdren warned of “serious side effects” of
geo-engineering.[2]
“The most disturbing aspect of geo-engineering is that unlike the
Kyoto Protocol, which requires a broad consensus to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, geoengineering is a luxury afforded only to
superpowers, who can unilaterally decide to adjust the earth's climate
to their liking. That John Holdren is reported as countenancing
shooting sulphate nanoparticles into the atmosphere is especially
alarming.”
“The potential side effects of polluting the upper atmosphere with
sulphates could be devastating – ranging from ozone depletion and
increased drought to threats to health,” explains Jim Thomas of ETC
Group. “Worst of all, once governments start shooting up these
particles into the atmosphere, we may find ourselves addicted.
Stopping would prompt a massive and sudden jump in temperature. Of all
the wacky geo-engineering schemes out there, this one is probably the
most dangerous and the most unjust. It would be irresponsible to
contemplate real-world testing of this technology.”
Holdren’s statement is being received with glee by geo-engineers who
have been campaigning for more research dollars and a higher public
profile. This week a group of geo-engineers are reportedly sending a
letter to the Obama administration asking that geo-engineering be
placed on the agenda for the preparatory meeting of the Major
Economies Forum on Energy and Climate being convened April 27-28th in
Washington D.C.[3] The looming failure of the Kyoto Protocol and
uncertain outcome of the Copenhagen climate negotiations in December
have politicians stargazing, hoping to find anything that could appear
to be a winning strategy in the fight against climate change.
“The White House must confirm that Barack Obama's meeting with
representatives of the sixteen largest economies to discuss climate
change later this month is not an attempt to convene some new
'coalition of the willing' to reengineer the planet,” asserts Diana
Bronson of ETC Group. “If the United States does indeed head down the
geo-engineering path they could find themselves in breach of
international law under the UN's ENMOD Convention [Convention on the
Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques]. If the White House wants to be constructive,
it should work with the United Nations to ensure that appropriate
oversight structures are in place to prevent unilateral deployment of
geo-engineering. Meanwhile, geo-engineering schemes, including real
world field trials, should be vigourously opposed.”
The AP's interview with John Holdren comes on the heels of reports
from the UK suggesting that both the government and the Royal Society
are giving geoengineering a sympathetic hearing. Earlier this week,
ETC Group sent a submission to the Royal Society on the question of
governance and geo-engineering. ETC Group's submission is available
here: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=736
April 7, 2009
Farm subsidy reform tossed
Obama's plan to reform the farm bill so subsidies don't reach those with receipts above $500,000 got tossed out of the budget; The senate and congress approved highlights released thursday don't mention them.
Redirecting subsidies to local sustainable farming seems reasonable to me especially when you look at the largest recipients of the subsidies, which you can, on the Farm subsidy Database, The top "farm" was National rice with 7.7 million in subsidies.
But Obama's reform wasn't to include those to commmodity farmers, perhaps because their output is essential to foreign policy (shaping agricultural policies in the developing world). Without US soy, corn, rice, where would the trade deficit be?
And large commodity farms are essential to the biotech pr machine.
As the Tom Laskawy at the Grist points out,
"But we’d still have a system that encourages the overproduction of corn and soy and the underproduction of fruits and vegetables".
Redirecting subsidies to local sustainable farming seems reasonable to me especially when you look at the largest recipients of the subsidies, which you can, on the Farm subsidy Database, The top "farm" was National rice with 7.7 million in subsidies.
But Obama's reform wasn't to include those to commmodity farmers, perhaps because their output is essential to foreign policy (shaping agricultural policies in the developing world). Without US soy, corn, rice, where would the trade deficit be?
And large commodity farms are essential to the biotech pr machine.
As the Tom Laskawy at the Grist points out,
"But we’d still have a system that encourages the overproduction of corn and soy and the underproduction of fruits and vegetables".
pricking out basil
I was pricking out in the basil in the hoop house yesterday, I worked up quite a sweat while the sun shone, but step outside and the wind was settling a chill out there. Inside it is a lovely sauna with the st aw bale plywood bench along one side and close to full with brassicas, lettuce, onions leeks herbs. The potting house has run out of room and my test of a the flat of climate for basil succeeded- and all the little cuties have survived.
The turnips have long gone as is the better quality hay and the cows are really eye-balling the fall rye in my garden on the other side of the electric fence tape. The ground is still wet and spongy but there is some firmer ground for them around the far side of the garden. So their first traverse onto the first stretch of their rotation begins today - I'm give them a tiny piece of the rye too - I'll put sunflowers and dahlias there after they move on. Alex is pretty happy.
The turnips have long gone as is the better quality hay and the cows are really eye-balling the fall rye in my garden on the other side of the electric fence tape. The ground is still wet and spongy but there is some firmer ground for them around the far side of the garden. So their first traverse onto the first stretch of their rotation begins today - I'm give them a tiny piece of the rye too - I'll put sunflowers and dahlias there after they move on. Alex is pretty happy.
April 6, 2009
Global Civil Society Opposes Charred Earth Policy
ETC Group
Press Release
April 6 /09
147 organisations from 44 countries warn against 'biochar' (large-scale charcoal) as a dangerous new false solution to climate change
An international declaration was today launched by 147 organisations opposing the growing hype and political support for Biochar. The groups signing the declaration "strongly oppose the inclusion of soils in carbon trade and offset mechanisms, including in the Clean Development Mechanism.” The groups further assert that ," the ‘biochar’ initiative fails to address the root causes of climate change.”
Read the whole thing. Here is a little excerpt:
“Large-scale support for biochar is premature and dangerous. Claims that biochar is retained permanently in soils and increases fertility are based on Terra Preta soils in Amazonia, which were made by indigenous peoples hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Those farmers used biodiverse organic residues and compost, as well as charcoal. Modern biochar is not the same. Some companies are making biochar out of municipal waste and tyres, others promote using biochar to scrub flue gases from coal burners and then using this combination as a fertilizer. Some plan to use giant microwave ovens to char trees – justifying this by pointing to ancient Amazonian soils is absurd.”
Press Release
April 6 /09
147 organisations from 44 countries warn against 'biochar' (large-scale charcoal) as a dangerous new false solution to climate change
An international declaration was today launched by 147 organisations opposing the growing hype and political support for Biochar. The groups signing the declaration "strongly oppose the inclusion of soils in carbon trade and offset mechanisms, including in the Clean Development Mechanism.” The groups further assert that ," the ‘biochar’ initiative fails to address the root causes of climate change.”
Read the whole thing. Here is a little excerpt:
“Large-scale support for biochar is premature and dangerous. Claims that biochar is retained permanently in soils and increases fertility are based on Terra Preta soils in Amazonia, which were made by indigenous peoples hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Those farmers used biodiverse organic residues and compost, as well as charcoal. Modern biochar is not the same. Some companies are making biochar out of municipal waste and tyres, others promote using biochar to scrub flue gases from coal burners and then using this combination as a fertilizer. Some plan to use giant microwave ovens to char trees – justifying this by pointing to ancient Amazonian soils is absurd.”
Epigenetic effects of chemicals (next generation's woes)
Epigenetics is the elephant in the room that industrial agriculture and its network of company science doesn't want to think about (it lurks in on synthetic biology too). Epigenetic effects are "usually taken to encompass changes in the genetic material — the genomic DNA and chromatin — that alter gene expression in a manner that is heritable during somatic cell divisions (and sometimes even in germline transmission)" here
No one really knows how it works, but its possible that what your grandmother ate effects some aspect of your phenotype. And corn belt babies may be passing, immune system disorders and sterility to what could be the last generation.
Many studies are indicating that agriculture chemicals, like Atrazine, are creating effects that don't surface initially, but for the next generation.
"In one study, Dr. Winchester says, baby rats exposed to atrazine, an herbicide that is banned in European countries, were born with no birth defects. But they developed problems including infertility, kidney and prostate problems, cancer and shortened lifespans as adults - and passed them on to their offspring.
That means agrichemicals could have effects for generations to come, he says".
This Globe and Mail article Risks of Birth Defects Linked to Month of Conception (when spraying takes place) describes the similar effects between Altrazine and the chemical bisphenol A, "a plastic-making compound able to act like a female hormone. Not only can it disrupt the hormonal systems of living organisms, but it does so at very low doses."
Devinder Sharma is right to question the short-sightedness of scientic studies in gm crops toxicity as well:
"If this is true of pesticides, I wonder how can the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) be satisfied with the so-called long-term tests done by Mahyco on Bt brinjal. The longest toxicity tests, which are for only 90 days, cannot assess long-term effects like the development of tumours or cancers from genetic modification. No safety can be concluded about Bt Brinjal based on this, and considering the above mentioned study on atrazine exposure in rats, it is obvious that the true impact can only be known when research spans for a few generations."
Some scientific study links
Developmental Immunotoxicity of Atrazine in Rodents
Neuroendocrine and behavioral effects of embryonic exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in birds
No one really knows how it works, but its possible that what your grandmother ate effects some aspect of your phenotype. And corn belt babies may be passing, immune system disorders and sterility to what could be the last generation.
Many studies are indicating that agriculture chemicals, like Atrazine, are creating effects that don't surface initially, but for the next generation.
"In one study, Dr. Winchester says, baby rats exposed to atrazine, an herbicide that is banned in European countries, were born with no birth defects. But they developed problems including infertility, kidney and prostate problems, cancer and shortened lifespans as adults - and passed them on to their offspring.
That means agrichemicals could have effects for generations to come, he says".
This Globe and Mail article Risks of Birth Defects Linked to Month of Conception (when spraying takes place) describes the similar effects between Altrazine and the chemical bisphenol A, "a plastic-making compound able to act like a female hormone. Not only can it disrupt the hormonal systems of living organisms, but it does so at very low doses."
Devinder Sharma is right to question the short-sightedness of scientic studies in gm crops toxicity as well:
"If this is true of pesticides, I wonder how can the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) be satisfied with the so-called long-term tests done by Mahyco on Bt brinjal. The longest toxicity tests, which are for only 90 days, cannot assess long-term effects like the development of tumours or cancers from genetic modification. No safety can be concluded about Bt Brinjal based on this, and considering the above mentioned study on atrazine exposure in rats, it is obvious that the true impact can only be known when research spans for a few generations."
Some scientific study links
Developmental Immunotoxicity of Atrazine in Rodents
Neuroendocrine and behavioral effects of embryonic exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in birds
April 4, 2009
Sorting information
By god there is a lot of biosolids out there on the internet, misinformation, detritus.
It isn't so much the occurrences that are hard to sort: I saw the picture of Obama's deep low bow, it was swift - but also shocking. The tales spun of it are where things get stinky though. I'm willing to say it was more akin to Trudeau's piroette behind the Queen. But go ahead and watch for yourself, the whole video is fascinating.
But jeeze Obama, what was with the quality of your grin?
And why bow to a brutal, despot that bore the alleged 9l1 culprits and whose human rights record is among the worst.
Who are all the people in the picture? I see World Bank Zoellick and Stauss/Kahn of the IMF... Queen Elizabeth. Don't know the other people posing for this "family" photo in addition to the G20 leaders. Are kissinger, brzezinski, shapiro and others hiding behind those curtains?....But wait now we are entering deep, unknown territory and there is a poop alert.
I hope that there are actual people's aspirations behind the leadership of China, Brazil, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Argentina, South Africa - countries that were given more influence allegedly, and whose behaviour at this gathering has more decorum, than some. I can't help but note that with a few fabulously exciting exceptions, many of these countries have transferred the colonizers institutions to its own elite, or adapted the game, or are still colonized in principle. This does not represent the people of the world; it speaks for the elite of the world.
Why do these wealthy countries get to decide for us.
If indeed the actions will be to regulate and supervise shadow banking, hedge funds, tax havens...great.
We shall see.
I'm going to read some press from Latin America and see what their take is on it and will update this post here.
It isn't so much the occurrences that are hard to sort: I saw the picture of Obama's deep low bow, it was swift - but also shocking. The tales spun of it are where things get stinky though. I'm willing to say it was more akin to Trudeau's piroette behind the Queen. But go ahead and watch for yourself, the whole video is fascinating.
But jeeze Obama, what was with the quality of your grin?
And why bow to a brutal, despot that bore the alleged 9l1 culprits and whose human rights record is among the worst.
Who are all the people in the picture? I see World Bank Zoellick and Stauss/Kahn of the IMF... Queen Elizabeth. Don't know the other people posing for this "family" photo in addition to the G20 leaders. Are kissinger, brzezinski, shapiro and others hiding behind those curtains?....But wait now we are entering deep, unknown territory and there is a poop alert.
I hope that there are actual people's aspirations behind the leadership of China, Brazil, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Argentina, South Africa - countries that were given more influence allegedly, and whose behaviour at this gathering has more decorum, than some. I can't help but note that with a few fabulously exciting exceptions, many of these countries have transferred the colonizers institutions to its own elite, or adapted the game, or are still colonized in principle. This does not represent the people of the world; it speaks for the elite of the world.
Why do these wealthy countries get to decide for us.
If indeed the actions will be to regulate and supervise shadow banking, hedge funds, tax havens...great.
We shall see.
I'm going to read some press from Latin America and see what their take is on it and will update this post here.
April 3, 2009
MEPs, Nanotechnology: no data, no market
The European Parliament's environment committee this week adopted a report by Swedish Green MEP Carl Schlyter which calls for tighter controls on nanotechnology, including the application of the 'no data, no market' principle contained in the REACH Directive.
More on this topic:
The own-initiative, non-binding report calls for products containing nanotechnology which are already on the market to be withdrawn until safety assessments can be made.
Read it here
What will it take to make it "binding"?
The own-initiative, non-binding report calls for products containing nanotechnology which are already on the market to be withdrawn until safety assessments can be made.
Read it here
What will it take to make it "binding"?
biosolids in the Annapolis Valley
Plan to fertilize fields with biosolids causes concern
Scientist understands 'ick factor' but says treated sewage is approved for use on farms
By GORDON DELANEY Valley Bureau
Tue. Mar 31 - 2:34 PM
A little bit of the city is coming to the country, and that has some people asking questions.
An Annapolis County farmer is preparing to spread biosolid fertilizer from Halifax Regional Municipality on hay and cornfields in the Clarence area.
Neighbours say they have concerns.
"I don’t think it’s ever been spread in the community before," said one woman who asked not to be named.
She wouldn’t name the farmer but said piles of biosolid fertilizer are appearing on the side of the roads, but the fields are still too wet to spread it.
"It can be quite stinky," said the woman. "Some people have complained that they almost get physically ill from it.
The whole article from the Chronicle Herald seems to have disappeared from the net (but you can buy it for 4 dollars here)
Nova Scotia's Ecology Action Centre's position paper (PDF)
Here is another story for those in the province following the blog - Bio-not-so-solids; Dumping sludge on farmland is a crappy idea, by Chris Benjamin in the Coast.
And here are the Nova Scotia Guidelines For Land Application and Storage of Biosolids in Nova Scotia, where distances from wells. waterways, time and covering (tarping) are clarified.
Scientist understands 'ick factor' but says treated sewage is approved for use on farms
By GORDON DELANEY Valley Bureau
Tue. Mar 31 - 2:34 PM
A little bit of the city is coming to the country, and that has some people asking questions.
An Annapolis County farmer is preparing to spread biosolid fertilizer from Halifax Regional Municipality on hay and cornfields in the Clarence area.
Neighbours say they have concerns.
"I don’t think it’s ever been spread in the community before," said one woman who asked not to be named.
She wouldn’t name the farmer but said piles of biosolid fertilizer are appearing on the side of the roads, but the fields are still too wet to spread it.
"It can be quite stinky," said the woman. "Some people have complained that they almost get physically ill from it.
The whole article from the Chronicle Herald seems to have disappeared from the net (but you can buy it for 4 dollars here)
Nova Scotia's Ecology Action Centre's position paper (PDF)
Here is another story for those in the province following the blog - Bio-not-so-solids; Dumping sludge on farmland is a crappy idea, by Chris Benjamin in the Coast.
And here are the Nova Scotia Guidelines For Land Application and Storage of Biosolids in Nova Scotia, where distances from wells. waterways, time and covering (tarping) are clarified.
IAASDT Report: we need a PR machine in people acting
harvesting soy
Jill Richardson at La Vida Locavore posts about "the biggest report you've never heard about. I didn't know much about it. It was the Intergovernmental Plenary Session in Johannesburg, South Africa in April, 2008. Who is burying this important information?
"Over 400 scientists and 30 governments came together as the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) to write a report on the global food system. The director of IAASTD, Robert Watson, won a Nobel prize. Why hasn't anyone heard of this? Well... my guess is two-fold: 1) the report employed scientists not PR strategists and marketers and 2) the companies that have the big money to put into PR and marketing didn't like the results".
Farmers, scientists, NGOs, government, global bodies, came to conclusions that many of us have been saying for a long time.
"Multifunctionality of agriculture and the productivity and effectiveness of small household farms and gardens to provide food security was recognized.
The old ‘one size fits all’ approach of industrial agriculture was not sufficient to abolish poverty and hunger and caused irreversible damage to the environment everywhere it was introduced.
For poverty and hunger alleviation the paradigm shift will have to include solution packages that are tailored to the given situation and will include initially low-tech and certainly cost-free strategies"
from: The IAASTD report and some of its fallout – a personal note By Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, ETH Zurich, Institute of Integrative Biology, Zurich, Switzerland
Biotech food giants could not come up with the science they trumpet. Take this claim as an example: "‘biotechnology is key to reducing poverty and hunger…’. They can't claim that.
They could not work with a huge majority in consensus about several matters: that context counts, that industrialized farming has some untenable human and ecological costs and that small, local and sustainable is productive.
Biotech can provide the PR and industry "science" to argue against those things, but not the facts. They picked up their marbles and left. Now this work is "discredited for not being "scientific". But they've changed the definition of that to mean convincing, haven't they? It is very much like, and perhaps related, to the shadow banking comic tragedy unfolding. They both involve pyramids with a very few on top and by god, lots of global suckers. They have massive numbers of indepted parties, control industry and governments profit and seek new toxic assets to keep the wheels going. But the masses of us want change.
We obviously need an accounting and a strict regulation of the life science, industrial farming industry and a reclamation of our governments to steer agriculture to a more sustainable central, just and bountiful place.
See Tom Philpots great article in the Grist, for example.
The photo is from a 04/08 BBC story, Global food system 'must change', about the IAASTD report.
The Report can be found on the IAASTD website
A Bad April fools joke: Prof. Pingo Detritus!
The hoax about a "multi F_ super food" foisted on the G 20, is still circulating around the net, set off by the link below and other's generous quotations from it.
The story is a crock, or rather, a pingo of detritus.
Read it for yourself at:
GM may be on the agenda at the G20 summit
Mark Henderson
The Times, April 1 2009
A few clues to its mischief:
"... involve the most ambitious use of multi-stacked genes to date, and has already been dubbed "a multi F-ing super food", because of its ability to feed, fuel and fortify the world, while helping to undercut the financial crisis.
In a press release Hugh Grant, Monsanto's CEO, commented, "Not only do one in three people go to bed every night malnourished and not knowing where their next meal will come from, but many of us can barely afford to run our hummers. ......
Prof. Pingo Detritus, who's been heading up the international project, said, "This breakthrough is of such monumental importance, that it's vital that the G20 leaders now unite behind this inspirational global endeavour ..."
Why is this important to check our facts?
First, we need hope as well as outrage. We have had some significant victories and made great ground in all sorts of ways:
-The Members of the European Parliament (MEP) are listening to the people, who are rationally cautious of GE food and are poised to toughen right up.
-Its apparent that the methodology and so called "peer review of the biotech corporation's studies are suspect and not surprisingly so given their tremendous influence with congress and government.
- substantial equivalence isn't holding up
- independent, peer reviewed scientific studies are showing very unacceptable results (something a lot of us suspected ) e.g.. feeding studies are showing toxicity,
-Many countries don't want it and have banned it
- crop disasters and disappointing results (e.g. 3 varieties of Monsanto corn in south African didn't set seed!)
-common folk, the world over are growing gardens and saving seed
- there are little bright lights of regional independence from gmos (GE crops) everywhere.
- and lots more examples
Second
Credibility is a murky word on the net. Facts are easily destroyed or buried with some well positions strikes on one's authority, or fitness, to speak.
What is is left is fact checking and honest reassessment/discussion of what has been said. Trust is built with frankness and goodwill. The Dr. Pingo scenario, while certainly a possible future reality, is bloody well not with us now.
If we speak nonsense to argue against gmos or bad food safety bills, our credibility is questioned; there is no reasonable argument for discrediting the precautionary principle. There is ample to discredit the "multi F_ super food" story.
Does the industry help us along these blind treacherous alleys?
The story is a crock, or rather, a pingo of detritus.
Read it for yourself at:
GM may be on the agenda at the G20 summit
Mark Henderson
The Times, April 1 2009
A few clues to its mischief:
"... involve the most ambitious use of multi-stacked genes to date, and has already been dubbed "a multi F-ing super food", because of its ability to feed, fuel and fortify the world, while helping to undercut the financial crisis.
In a press release Hugh Grant, Monsanto's CEO, commented, "Not only do one in three people go to bed every night malnourished and not knowing where their next meal will come from, but many of us can barely afford to run our hummers. ......
Prof. Pingo Detritus, who's been heading up the international project, said, "This breakthrough is of such monumental importance, that it's vital that the G20 leaders now unite behind this inspirational global endeavour ..."
Why is this important to check our facts?
First, we need hope as well as outrage. We have had some significant victories and made great ground in all sorts of ways:
-The Members of the European Parliament (MEP) are listening to the people, who are rationally cautious of GE food and are poised to toughen right up.
-Its apparent that the methodology and so called "peer review of the biotech corporation's studies are suspect and not surprisingly so given their tremendous influence with congress and government.
- substantial equivalence isn't holding up
- independent, peer reviewed scientific studies are showing very unacceptable results (something a lot of us suspected ) e.g.. feeding studies are showing toxicity,
-Many countries don't want it and have banned it
- crop disasters and disappointing results (e.g. 3 varieties of Monsanto corn in south African didn't set seed!)
-common folk, the world over are growing gardens and saving seed
- there are little bright lights of regional independence from gmos (GE crops) everywhere.
- and lots more examples
Second
Credibility is a murky word on the net. Facts are easily destroyed or buried with some well positions strikes on one's authority, or fitness, to speak.
What is is left is fact checking and honest reassessment/discussion of what has been said. Trust is built with frankness and goodwill. The Dr. Pingo scenario, while certainly a possible future reality, is bloody well not with us now.
If we speak nonsense to argue against gmos or bad food safety bills, our credibility is questioned; there is no reasonable argument for discrediting the precautionary principle. There is ample to discredit the "multi F_ super food" story.
Does the industry help us along these blind treacherous alleys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
