Paul, of course the drought was an important cause of the dust bowl, but so
was the climate change from plowing up land that was better suited for
grass.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
plausible, minimal, even remotely rational
argument.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
Date sent: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 13:19:27 -0800
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:19319] Re: Re: Ideology and the Environment
of Manitoba
Date sent: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 13:19:27 -0800
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:19319] Re: Re: Ideology and the Environment
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send reply to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul, of course
Michael,
are you arguing that climate change is the result of individual farm
practice? I just don't understand where you are coming from.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
I differ with you on the climate change, but I never supported the
article
in its belief that
Carrol, we may have been overly terse, but the plowing of the land does
affect the climate -- at least according to my understanding. For
example, mistreatment of the land leads to desertification.
Paul does not believe that to be the case, if I understand him correctly.
You are also correct
Farming practices do create desertification, according to my
understanding.
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 10:41:25PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael,
are you arguing that climate change is the result of individual farm
practice? I just don't understand where you are coming from.
Paul
Yes, the problem was inappropriate land use. Also, smaller farmers tended
to plant wind breaks.
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 11:21:43PM -0600, Ken Hanly wrote:
bowl conditions! If land that should not have been broken is broken into one
section units rather than 5 or 6, what is the difference in
