[Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


David Walters writes:

> Hans in a previous response argues that the carbon is still put into the
> environment. I argue "yes, but it's returned". Thus cattle raising this way
> is what is called carbon-neutral.

and David Riley writes:

> our agricultural systems ... are potentially one of the best tools we have
> on hand to CONSCIOUSLY reverse some of the climate consequences that
> have already registered

This reversal allegedly happens by taking carbon out of the atmosphere.
But empirically there is no reversal of prior damage.  The concentration
of CO2 in the atmosphere is accelerating.  The Mauna Loa CO2
concentration rose by 2.27 ppm from July 2014 to July 2015, and by 3.08
ppm from July 2015 to July 2016.  See
https://www.co2.earth/keeling-curve-monthly

This email is an attempt to explain why I don't think this so-called
"return" of the carbon into the top soil is satisfactory.  It cannot be
considered a reversal of the damage done by digging up fossil fuels.

I am going to start with Adam and Eve.  The most important step
necessary to prevent dangerous climate change is the de-carbonization of
the world economy.  This means the extraction of additional fossil fuels
out of the ground must be stopped as quickly as possible.

The right way to do this is to do the research which tells us the upper
limit of fossil fuels that can still be burned, establish a schedule
when to phase out which power plants and refineries, replace the phased
out fossil power plants as quickly as possible with renewable power
generation, and re-build the transportation system so that it can run on
electricity or renewable fuels.  Since renewables cannot be scaled up
quickly enough to replace the fossil fueled power plants, and since also
the re-building of the transportation system takes time, this requires
that people in the rich countries must use much less energy and travel
less.  The poor countries must leapfrog fossil fuels and give their
populations access to renewable energy and sustainable transportation
and communication systems from the start.


This is the simple remedy to climate change which ecosocialists should
promote.  It is a prudent retreat from the overconsumption in the rich
countries.  I deliberately left out two things:

(1) Nuclear Energy should not be used but should also phased out despite
its low carbon footprint.

(2) Extraction of carbon out of the air and putting it deep underground
as well as other geo-engineering methods should also not be relied on.

Why should they be left out?  Because our goal must be to live more in
harmony in nature instead of trying to subjugate nature even more.


The Kyoto Protocol negotiated the first phase of this world wide
de-carbonization.  They did not pursue the simple and "right" way which
I just described, but diluted it by several "flexible mechanisms" as
sweeteners in order to get buy-in from profit-seeking capitalists.  One
of these flexible mechanisms, which certain countries insisted on, was
that extraction of fossil fuels could be balanced by afforestation and
other land use changes.  This was a diplomatic concession which has no
basis in science.  Carbon in the top soil is part of the fast carbon
cycle, while fossil fuels are part of the slow carbon cycle.  Changes in
the fast cycle cannot undo the damage caused by the man-made injection
of carbon from the slow cycle into the atmosphere.  Other flexible
mechanisms are cap and trade, Clean Development Mechanisms, and Joint
Implementation.  All of them are different ways to avoid phasing out
fossil fuels under different pretexts.

My advice to ecosocialists is to reject all these flexible mechanisms,
because they try to conserve capitalism at the expense of the ecological
basis of human life.  Ecosocialists are materialists.  Our goal is to
get enough control of our social relations that we can do certain things
which capitalists don't like.  We are not going to to follow the growth
imperative until the basis for human civilization is destroyed, and we
also have to replace a very dysfunctional industrial agricultural
system.  Etc.  And we do not use land use improvements as an excuse for
not phasing out fossil fuels.

P.S. I am not opposed to afforestation and agricultural practices which
keep as much carbon as possible in the top soil.  This is called REDD++
or REALU or AFOLU, and something along these lines certainly must be
done.  But it should not be tied to the phasing out of fossil fuels.
These are two different things which should not be thrown into the same
pot.  Both of them must be done.  Dave Riley tries to trade them off
against each other.  This is a category error, it is a 

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Ratbag Media via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

I'm not saying eat chicken rather than beef or beef rather than
pork..or animals rather than beans. I'm not talking about consumption
so much as ecology.

If you review the carbon farming figures they are impressive as
regards drawing down atmospheric carbon. And given that even if we
ceased the output of most of our carbon emissions today we'd still be
stuck with the ever rising impact of those that have been  pumped out
so much over the last 200 years.

That's the nub of the issue. Not only are our agricultural systems
unsustainable but they are potentially one of the best tools we have
on hand to CONSCIOUSLY reverse some of the climate consequences that
have already registered.

What that means for CONSUMPTION is an open question...but we really do
need to begin the transition NOW.

Simple measures are things like moving livestock back into
horticultural areas  to feed on crop residues and adjusting grazing
habitats in line with rotational protocols. This latter aspect is
taking off in Australia, North America and parts of Africa. the added
advantage is that grasses survive droughts better because the elevated
SOC and aquifers hold more water.

Crucial to that is the business of what's called 'rewilding'  -- where
sections of farms are returned to ungrazed native vegetation cover.
This can  also be akin to the various agroforestry approaches like
Silvopasture. However, the main rationale is to sustain diversity and
reverse species loss while fostering habitats and species that service
productive agriculture and grazing.



dave riley
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Hans asks a good question, though he's unfair to Dave Riley and myself
because at no point did either Dave or say or argue that this is the end
all and be all of climate change. I posted a single link to a video that
shows a healthier way (for the soil and, consequently, for the planet) to
farm. Thats' it. It wasn't the worlds answer to climate change but only one
facet of it. And yes, if all cattle raising the world was done this way,
it's a net gain, that is, lower, not higher methane and, CO2 emissions.
And, people can still have a hamburger or steak. I call that a 'win-win'.

Hans in a previous response argues that the carbon is still put into the
environment. I argue "yes, but it's returned". Thus cattle raising this way
is what is called carbon-neutral. In fact if you read the Aussie Socialist
Alternative link Dave provided on agriculture (and I don't agree with
some/much of it) you'll see it's a serious proposal to reorganize
agricultural away from large commercialization. That's a good thing, not a
bad thing, Hans. Is it enough? No, no one thing is enough. But it's also
*rational*. It doesn't require universal buy in from everyone. Like meat
eaters (most of humanity)...it doesn't require us to become vegans (thank
the gods!). It allows for a phased change in agriculture that is both
useful, environmentally friendly and sane. It also doesn't argue that "we
use too much", the ultra position of the Western green movement. It points
to a lower carbon steady state economy. It doesn't' do another thing like
the angry gnat buzzing around our ears but is impossible to catch: it
doesn't require lowering the planet's population either. And that's just
the SA ag program!

Where I likely departs from Hans and Dave Riley is over energy, since I
also note that solar/wind crazed Germany has not replaced a single coal
plant with either wind or solar but instead built up coal and, to
substitute for some nuclear (which is low carbon) they've built scads of
natural gas plants all throughout Germany. From an emissions POV, Germany
(and Denmark) are utter failures. Without a serious paradigm shift to
nuclear, zero of Han's wishes will ever come to pass, despite all the "100%
fossil/nuclear free" papers written...the proof is that not a single thing
has changed.

Hans points out that while we get better at point specific carbon emissions
(better gas mileage cars, lower CO2 output from air transport) the overall
rate goes up as more people employ these methods of transportation. I
agree, this is a problem. Gee, Hans, what do you suggest we do? I'm for
actual solutions, such as sythetic fuels made from atmospheric CO2 like DME
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Hans asks a good question, though he's unfair to Dave Riley and myself
because at no point did either Dave or say or argue that this is the end
all and be all of climate change. I posted a single link to a video that
shows a healthier way (for the soil and, consequently, for the planet) to
farm. Thats' it. It wasn't the worlds answer to climate change but only one
facet of it. And yes, if all cattle raising the world was done this way,
it's a net gain, that is, lower, not higher methane and, CO2 emissions.
And, people can still have a hamburger or steak. I call that a 'win-win'.

Hans in a previous response argues that the carbon is still put into the
environment. I argue "yes, but it's returned". Thus cattle raising this way
is what is called carbon-neutral. In fact if you read the Aussie Socialist
Alternative link Dave provided on agriculture (and I don't agree with
some/much of it) you'll see it's a serious proposal to reorganize
agricultural away from large commercialization. That's a good thing, not a
bad thing, Hans. Is it enough? No, no one thing is enough. But it's also
*rational*. It doesn't require universal buy in from everyone. Like meat
eaters (most of humanity)...it doesn't require us to become vegans (thank
the gods!). It allows for a phased change in agriculture that is both
useful, environmentally friendly and sane. It also doesn't argue that "we
use too much", the ultra position of the Western green movement. It points
to a lower carbon steady state economy. It doesn't' do another thing like
the angry gnat buzzing around our ears but is impossible to catch: it
doesn't require lowering the planet's population either. And that's just
the SA ag program!

Where I likely departs from Hans and Dave Riley is over energy, since I
also note that solar/wind crazed Germany has not replaced a single coal
plant with either wind or solar but instead built up coal and, to
substitute for some nuclear (which is low carbon) they've built scads of
natural gas plants all throughout Germany. From an emissions POV, Germany
(and Denmark) are utter failures. Without a serious paradigm shift to
nuclear, zero of Han's wishes will ever come to pass, despite all the "100%
fossil/nuclear free" papers written...the proof is that not a single thing
has changed.

Hans points out that while we get better at point specific carbon emissions
(better gas mileage cars, lower CO2 output from air transport) the overall
rate goes up as more people employ these methods of transportation. I
agree, this is a problem. Gee, Hans, what do you suggest we do? I'm for
actual solutions, such as synthetic fuels made from atmospheric CO2 like
DME or Dimethyl Ether (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/emerging_dme.html)
or ammonia or H2 and more importantly, electricity powered not by gas and
coal generated electricity but carbon free nuclear energy (France, not
Germany). We do have to get serious, but banning automobiles is not going
to work. It can't work, actually. Societies as a whole are not going to use
less, they are going to use more. At least most societies are. Even if
population were to drop at the rate it's increasing now, we will need a lot
more energy to produce low GHG emissions from the commodities we use today.
The left has to start understanding that or their "ecosocialism" will end
up being a sad joke and take us not to a new dawn for humanity but a sunset
followed by night time of poverty, war and scarcity.

David
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


After a link to statistics which say that

> beef consumption has been pretty stable in countries like the US
> but it is chicken that has really grown in patronage

Dave Riley asks:

> Do we all eat too much meat?

Behind the rhetoric which switches from beef to meat and from growth
rates to averages, I think Dave's point is that it is better to eat
chicken than beef.  Yes it is a good thing, just as it is a good thing
that the carbon footprint of air travel has been falling by 1% per year
for many years now, and that electricity generation in the US is
switching from coal to natural gas.  Each of these is good, but they do
not add up.  For instance. the volume of air travel has been increasing
by 3% per year, oustripping the efficiency improvements.  Natural gas is
still a fossil fuel, and some of the coal not burned in the US is being
exported.  We are not in a negotiation with nature where we do part of
what nature demands and then expect nature to meet us half way.  The
laws of nature are un-negotiable.  The relevant reality check on the
improvements adduced by David Riley and David Walters is whether they
add up.  They don't.

Hans G Ehrbar

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Ratbag Media via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Assuming the figures are correct, or at least close enough to actual
consumption, these interactive graphs are fascinating.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/
Source: the FAO.

If you have an interactive fiddle and go back in time along the cross
bar, you'll note that beef consumption has been pretty stable in
countries like the US but it is chicken that has really grown in
patronage. In Australia the 'other meat' I guess refers to lamb which
we used to eat a lot of --and still do by international standards
outside the Middle East.

Understandably.

Elsewhere the nutritional story varies.

So a reality check is warranted.

Do we all eat too much meat? We certainly eat too much seafood as that
is a finite resource with very few fish stocks currently sustainable.

The real growth has been in sugar and fat consumption -- in part
allied to the rise in processed food.

As an aside, among regenerative agriculturalists the big boogey in
terms of environmental impact isn't the herbivore but the plough.
Woody Guthrie and the Grapes of Wrath remind is that the Dust
Bowl/Dirty Thirties  was an environmental crisis that may soon be
replayed with more telling consequence as the recent Californian
Drought suggests.

dave riley
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


David Walters writes:

> But I can tell you now: anything that stymies the worlds desire to
> increase their standard of living ... will not find a hearing
> whatsoever and will be opposed.

Unfortunately I agree.  As I see it, the chances are slim that a
movement based on voluntary self-restraint comes off the ground now.  It
is more likely that our social systems remain unable to rein in the
profit motive, and those individuals who have options and could make a
difference now through a mass movement will not act decisively and
quickly enough to prevent dangerous climate change.  It is my guess that
most of them will not wake up until it is too late, i.e., until even the
fairest social system can no longer protect them from starvation and
accelerating disasters.  Let's hope that, when the decline has
progressed to that point, people will maintain their humanity and face
the hard times with dignity instead of exacerbating them by going to war,
OR CONTINUING TO EAT MEAT IN THE FORM OF CANNIBALISM.  But as long as I
have enough time, food, and health now, I will use my retirement years
to live simply and help others who also want to live simply, to support
any political movement that tries to solve a facet of the wicked problem
before us, and to patiently try to convince anyone who comes into
earshot that big changes are necessary now, before everything has
visibly crashed.  And I am not alone.  Many others see the danger too
and try to react in similar ways.  See for instance Bill McKibben's call
for a WWII-like mobilization

https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii

Hans G Ehrbar

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Thank you Dave for proving links to the Socialist Alliance's ag policy...I
remember working with two of your farmer comrades on this, a bit, in
discussions before the program was fully developed. I think it's an
advantage that the SA there has some farm people in it to elaborate on the
technical details of the program. I believe it's the only socialist group
in the developed worlds with a serious...or any...agricultural policy. I
don't agree with it all and I think generally, the *reasons* for many to
support organic farming is bogus. But here it focuses on carbon
sequestration and ending soil degradation which makes all the sense in the
world. Cereal grain production however is something that is simply done
more productively in large commercial farming methods. But that's another
debate (not to mention the sort of hyper-opposition to GMOs instead of a
more measured parsing of the issues surrounding them. I agree with some of
the *intent* of the anti-GMO statement in the program).

Hans' position, is the opposite of mine. I don't agree we even need a
'leaner' set of eating habits. How would you implement this short of a
Pol-Pot rationing of food? Han's positions require this sort of catholic
universalism not ready to come by. In every society that increases it's
standard of living, animal protein goes up. Han's is part of the
"de-development" wing of the environmental movement that I think all
Marxists should reject. He writes:

"If we are talking of leaner lifestyles, different use-values must be
treated differently." then... "We want to restrict those things which we
can do without without living a too impoverished life, and which allow us
to reduce our footprint a lot. Meat consumption and air travel are rightly
in the cross hairs as the main things which we must learn to use only
sparingly."

So...well no...I'm not talking about that all and none of us should. What
we are talking about is *wiser* use of all resources. I'm not sure anyone
or any institution can decide what is "too impoverished life" is. I'm for
*abundance*, as Marx was, and we need to figure out how to get that or we
except the "nobility of the poor".  We need a lot more of everything to
bring the worlds impoverished up to at least a decent (by *their* standard)
of living. This means more energy, which solar and wind won't do for us. We
need to increase the productivity of land without poisoning it forever.
This means a balanced approach to both the use of chemical fertilizers with
organic farming methods and the sound (and sane non-capitalist) use of
GMOs. But I can tell you now: anything that stymies the worlds desire to
increase their standard of living, especially in impoverished developing
countries will not find a hearing whatsoever and will be opposed. Anything
that prevents the neo-colonial world will be smashed politically. Asking
people not eat what they want is going to be laughed out of the room.

David Walters
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Ratbag Media via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Just on the healthy soils question...

David Walters writes:"It shows truly the only way the soil can be
conserved and made healthy again (which, folks, REQUIRES cow herds to
return to the land and thus our necessary consumption of them)."

There is a lot of hype being generated about this phenomenon of carbon
sequestration by herbivores so it warrants a careful embrace. Soil
health and carbon sequestration are always going to be victimized by
drought and limited rainfall --as well as events like bushfire or wild
fire.

This is the nub of so many carbon trading debates: can you put a price
on it? Can it deliver year in your out?

Indeed, the Carbon Coalition (primarily made up of graziers)  here in
Australia tends to be dominated by some anti-green right wingers who
argue that we don't need the other stuff, as carbon farming can save
the planet.

A lot of bovine celebration literature -- like 'Cows Save The Planet'
(by Judith Schwartz) -- promotes a similar  fix-it.

There is a big discussion that needs to be had out among
agriculturalists in regard to land use and sustainability . But it is
proceeding. A reason why it is kicking in is that the soil friendly
option is cheaper with fewer inputs and less frequent  interventions..

Aiding this trend has been a revolution in soil science (driven by new
microscopic techniques)  which is changing the way we view dirt and
its inhabitants. Indeed, a good remaking of agriculture's day to day
should be 'microbe farming' -- which applies equally to
paddock,orchard and produce bed.

The complication is that the 'Green Revolution' horticulture doesn't
cut the sustainability mustard. And THAT, rather than the
biochemistry,  is the crux of GM tensions.

What that means for farming isn't quite clear, or self evident, as
some sort of mass scale transition is required.

New Agroecology techniques --supported by academic research --  are
having impacts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroecology
such that it isn't a simple business of presuming  a sudden sharp turn
to organic agriculture is our one option. Indeed, 'organic' labeling
can be a sort of obscurantism that  fosters a marketing niche rather
than building awareness the sort of rural changes that we need to put
in place.

And the 'don't eat meat' mantra is simply destructive to discourse,
especially between city and countryside, as it is to undermining the
platform of the climate change movement.

I think the Socialist Alliance here in Australia has a pretty good
Agricultural Policy that tries to tackle some of the main issues. It
is well worth a read.
https://socialist-alliance.org/policy/environment-natural-resources/agriculture
It is a pretty good summary of  some of the key changes required if we
are to recover soil health..

dave riley
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


Thanks for the link, David Walters.  Here it is again:

https://vimeo.com/80518559

Very interesting.  All of Peter Byck's videos make a lot of sense.
Painting roofs white, installing solar panels, recycling energy, putting
windmills on farms, etc., are all great ideas and I am all for it.  But
all this together will not bring down our carbon emissions quickly
enough.  We also have to reduce our footprint by consuming less.

Here is another remark regarding sequestering carbon in top soil.  We
should not think it is ok get more coal, oil, and gas out of the ground
because we can then sequester the carbon in top soil.  In the long run,
this sequestration is unreliable.  Right now, a lot of carbon gets
released because of peat fires in Indonesia and thawing permafrost in
the arctic.  All this is carbon sequestered in top soil which is finding
its way back into the atmosphere.  This is one of the reasons why GHG
concentrations in in the atmosphere are still accelerating, although
fossil fuel emissions have been declining.  (Another reason seems to be
that the warming oceans are absorbing less CO2).  We have no choice
but leaving the carbon safely sequestered far below ground where it is
right now.  Digging it back down into equally safe permanent
repositories is going to be incredibly expensive.

Hans G Ehrbar
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


Ratbag Media  (Dave Riley) writes
(I am bringing seleted passages from Dave's email
with my responses in the paragraph after his passages):

> Hang on!  'Meat' is a commodity like everything else.

I disagree.  If we are talking of leaner lifestyles, different
use-values must be treated differently.  We don't want to restrict
things that make us more educated or healthier.  We want to restrict
those things which we can do without without living a too impoverished
life, and which allow us to reduce our footprint a lot.  Meat
consumption and air travel are rightly in the cross hairs as the main
things which we must learn to use only sparingly.

Further down you write:

> That's a basic principle of human evolution: we eat what we can get.
> Whether we kill or harvest it isn't the point. In rangelands the norm
> has been to grow meat and eat it BECAUSE horticulture is not an easy
> fit there. They are brittle landscapes.

You are changing the subject here.  I did not say that nomads in
Mongolia should not eat meat.  Of course they should, as long as they
maintain their traditional lifestyles.  But the masses in megacities in
Africa or Asia cannot eat much meat.  There are not enough Mongolias or
Australias or Argentinas on this planet to feed them.

Further down you write:

> Every landscape needs animals. It is a ecological fact. And landscapes
> have evolved in tandem with animals -- even our human farms.

There is a reason why we differentiate humans from other animals:
humans are too smart, we overwhelm the slow process of natural
selection and trial-and-error equilibria.  We cannot just satiate
our hunger with the thing that tastes best or even that is traditional.
We have to use our brains so that we don't disturb the balance
which we have evolved even more than we already have.

> As it happens, here in Australia the homo sapiens currently share a
> continental space where there are  74 million sheep to 23.5 million
> people with a further beef herd  of 13.4 million head.
>
> Is that too much grazing?

I have no idea how much cattle the Australian ecosystem can tolerate.  I
am sure it depends on how this cattle is being managed.  But this is not
my point.  Even if you double the meat production in Australia, you will
not produce enough meat for the billions in the emerging countries who
can afford meat now.  They must restrict their meat diet.  The Chinese
government has realized this.  The next quote is not from Dave but from
https://thinkprogress.org/united-states-meat-consumption-historic-increase-fccc1ebbf3aa#.2b2ddukl0

> This year, the Chinese government released dietary guidelines urging
> citizens to limit their meat and egg intake to 200 grams — or around
> 0.4 pounds — a day. (By contrast, the average American eats about 419
> grams of meat and eggs daily.)

I am arguing that not only the Chinese but also the Americans should be
satisfied with 200 grams of meat per day or less.  This is a simple
matter of equity, we all live on the same planet and must share what it
can give.  And if Australians produce 1000 grams of meat per day per
person (only as a matter of argument), they should also content
themselves with 200 grams and export the rest to those countries which
so far have not been able to import meat because their populations were
too poor.  This is my idea of an equitable distribution of the limited
resources of this planet.

> So I don't get you point at all.

That's why I just re-formulated it.  I hope I made it clearer
this time.


Hans.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


Ratbag Media  (Dave Riley) writes
(I am bringing seleted passages from Dave's email
with my responses in the paragraph after his passages):

> Hang on!  'Meat' is a commodity like everything else.

I disagree.  If we are talking of leaner lifestyles, different
use-values must be treated differently.  We don't want to restrict
things that make us more educated or healthier.  We want to restrict
those things which we can do without without living a too impoverished
life, and which allow us to reduce our footprint a lot.  Meat
consumption and air travel are rightly in the cross hairs as the main
things which we must learn to use only sparingly.

Further down you write:

> That's a basic principle of human evolution: we eat what we can get.
> Whether we kill or harvest it isn't the point. In rangelands the norm
> has been to grow meat and eat it BECAUSE horticulture is not an easy
> fit there. They are brittle landscapes.

You are changing the subject here.  I did not say that nomads in
Mongolia should not eat meat.  Of course they should, as long as they
maintain their traditional lifestyles.  But the masses in megacities in
Africa or Asia cannot eat much meat.  There are not enough Mongolias or
Australias or Argentinas on this planet to feed them.

Further down you write:

> Every landscape needs animals. It is a ecological fact. And landscapes
> have evolved in tandem with animals -- even our human farms.

There is a reason why we differentiate humans from other animals:
humans are too smart, we overwhelm the slow process of natural
selection and trial-and-error equilibria.  We cannot just satiate
our hunger with the thing that tastes best or even that is traditional.
We have to use our brains so that we don't disturb the balance
which we have evolved even more than we already have.

> As it happens, here in Australia the homo sapiens currently share a
> continental space where there are  74 million sheep to 23.5 million
> people with a further beef herd  of 13.4 million head.
>
> Is that too much grazing?

I have no idea how much cattle the Australian ecosystem can tolerate.  I
am sure it depends on how this cattle is being managed.  But this is not
my point.  Even if you double the meat production in Australia, you will
not produce enough meat for the billions in the emerging countries who
can afford meat now.  They must restrict their meat diet.  The Chinese
government has realized this.  The next quote is not from Dave but from
https://thinkprogress.org/united-states-meat-consumption-historic-increase-fccc1ebbf3aa#.2b2ddukl0

> This year, the Chinese government released dietary guidelines urging
> citizens to limit their meat and egg intake to 200 grams — or around
> 0.4 pounds — a day. (By contrast, the average American eats about 419
> grams of meat and eggs daily.)

I am arguing that not only the Chinese but also the Americans should be
satisfied with 200 grams of meat per day or less.  This is a simple
matter of equity, we all live on the same planet and must share what it
can give.  And if Australians produce 1000 grams of meat per day per
person (only as a matter of argument), they should also content
themselves with 200 grams and export the rest to those countries which
so far have not been able to import meat because their populations were
too poor.  This is my idea of an equitable distribution of the limited
resources of this planet.

> So I don't get you point at all.

That's why I just re-formulated it.  I hope I made it clearer
this time.


Hans.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Dave Riley brings common sense to this meaty discussion.

I urge list readers to view this video titled "Carbon Cowboys"

https://vimeo.com/80518559

It shows why cattle ranching in small packed herds rotating around a hugely
built up number prairie grasses actually creates a situation that allows
for a net consumption of methane into the soil vs bovine methane out put.
It shows truly the only way the soil can be conserved and made healthy
again (which, folks, REQUIRES cow herds to return to the land and thus our
necessary consumption of them
). Absolutely fascinating and well produced show. Made me rethink my
anti-cattle perspectives.

David Walters
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Ratbag Media via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Hang on!  'Meat' is a commodity like everything else. You may as well
suggest  that  (I'm suggesting as well) ' with a limited planet that
there is no need to restrict'  grain consumption or soya beans or rice
or corn or yams  or whatever.

Making a fetish of one element in the food chain obscures the
ecological reality.

My argument is that  meat production is related to 'meat's' relevance
to the environment...and THAT relates to its consumption. That's a
basic principle of human evolution: we eat what we can get.
Whether we kill or harvest it isn't the point. In rangelands the norm
has been to grow meat and eat it BECAUSE horticulture is not an easy
fit there. They are brittle landscapes.

Every landscape needs animals. It is a ecological fact. And landscapes
have evolved in tandem with animals -- even our human farms.

As it happens, here in Australia the homo sapiens currently share a
continental space where there are  74 million sheep to 23.5 million
people with a further beef herd  of 13.4 million head.

Is that too much grazing?

As for your confusing comment:

"The only reason why people in the rich countries can eat so much meat
is that they also consume the share of the people in the poor
countries, and that they pump fossil water using fossil fuels etc. "

 I don't have the consumption figures on hand for all the 'rich
countries'  but in the USA  the main meat suppliers of imported beef
into the US are Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

They aren't 'poor countries'.

http://beef2live.com/story-beef-imports-country-year-date-0-107548

As well as the US, Australia's primary export market for beef is
China, Korea and Japan...and the rise in meat consumption
internationally is being registered in the 'poor countries' generally.

So I don't get you point at all.

Of note is that most Australian lamb exports go to the Middle East
http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-markets/Market-news/How-did-2015-fare-for-Australian-lamb-exports-12012015

As for the question of meat consumption per se...indigenous peoples
diets are  various but here in Australia, as much as I can
research,aborigines generally ate more meat -- from various animals --
than the current Australian intake . In the Americas  the Plains
Indians  no doubt ate more meat than their East Coast cousins and the
Inuit of the north  were/are dependent on hunting for meat.

But that varies of course around the planet.Look at legume driven
India, for instance. That proves that meat consumption in large
quantities isn't  nutritionally essential. But no society has existed
without using meat or animal products such as milk or hides.

However I'm suggesting that large herbivores in most environments may
indeed be an ecological necessity.

Just as other animals -- pigs, poultry and the like -- may be
essential recyclers that consume AND STORE in their flesh what would
otherwise be wasted.

Yesterday's rotting fruits become tomorrow's bacon.

dave riley



On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:59 PM,   wrote:

> you are basically saying: if we do it right, we can produce so much with
> a limited planet that there is no need to restrict meat consumption, even if
> we are 7-9 billion people, and even if climate change drastically
> reduces what can be grown where.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


Hello Dave Riley,

you are basically saying: if we do it right, we can produce so much with
a limited planet that there is no need to restrict meat consumption, even if
we are 7-9 billion people, and even if climate change drastically
reduces what can be grown where.  This does not convince me.  The only
reason why people in the rich countries can eat so much meat is that they
also consume the share of the people in the poor countries, and that
they pump fossil water using fossil fuels etc.  This is a destructive
process which has to be reined in.  In order to allow the poor people a
place at the table, we must change our wasteful eating habits.  Meat
consumption must be severely restricted.  We must share the world with
all other humans living now, with our descendants, and with other
species.  Right now we are using too much on all three counts.

Hans G Ehrbar

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Ratbag Media via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

I'm not aware that 'cheap' meats were being defended...
But grazing animals and husbandry -- certainly are.
Since the core  debate lies at the belly of herbivores there is a
complication in that some eco-socialists and agro ecologists advocate
MORE herbivores being grazed  under regenerative/rotational protocols.
The argument for this is complicated in way of carbon sequestration
and soil renewal, but  in locales like Australia the debate is also
referenced by the long lost role of megafauna as it relates to
bushfires and a drying continent, drought and vegetative cover.
This is especially true of the northern section of the continent.
While I agree with Hans' argument for mixed agroecology the nub of the
debate is that in rangelands -- tallgrass and shortgrass prairies,
desert grasslands and shrublands, woodlands, savannas, chaparrals,
steppes, and tundras--
which cover something like 50% of the planet's land surface,
horticulture --aside from 'grass farming' -- isn't feasible.
Intensive grazing may be disastrous, but rotational grazing is not as
it replicates the ecological impact of  indigenous grazing herds.
The site carries a lot of information about this prospect., especially
in regards to the consolidation of soil carbon:SOC.
The presumption that we can simply replace rangeland grazing with
horticulture is not feasible in most of these regions. However,
complex integration of grazing and grain production is practical  in
many areas so long as the stalk is returned to the soil (as in
'straw'). In similar mode, domestic animals should be a source of most
of our fertilizers for horticulture and that presumes not only their
presence in the landscape, but active management of their wastes.
This leads into the ongoing impact of  Inorganic Chemical Nitrogenous
Fertilizer on the planet -- on waterways, run off, sustainable soil
health,plant nutrition, energy use (in their production) and the
looming phosphorus shortage.
Reducing the discussion to 'meat' -- for or against -- obscures a much
more significant reality and one that is disparaged by 'Cowspiracy'
obscurantism.
But the worse consequence of all is the argument that by not eating
meat -- or engaging in husbandry -- we can save the planet from
climate change. That trend in the climate change movement is
disastrous as it deflects attention from the main drivers of
greenhouse gases --energy production, transport ... in effect,
capitalism.
Instead, the cows are scapegoated.

dave riley


On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:45 AM,   wrote:

> The Soil Alliance are very good at criticizing corporate land grabs
> which drive small farmers off the land, and other profiteering from
> environmental crisis.  I fully agree with them there.  But I think they
> are wrong to defend meat consumption and cheap meat, by the reasoning
> that meat must be cheap so that the working class can eat meat.  The
> planet is simply not big enough to give everybody their daily
> hamburgers.  The increasing cultural aversion against meat is a good
> thing and not a "consumption shibboleth."
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Hans G Ehrbar via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


Ratbag media wrote about the Soil Alliance

http://soilalliance.blogspot.com.au/

> In the context of the current trend to impose consumption shibboleths
> on agriculture, the SOIL ALLIANCE  tries to capture some of the
> reality of working the soil in the face of climate change impacts and
> contemporary capitalism.

The Soil Alliance are very good at criticizing corporate land grabs
which drive small farmers off the land, and other profiteering from
environmental crisis.  I fully agree with them there.  But I think they
are wrong to defend meat consumption and cheap meat, by the reasoning
that meat must be cheap so that the working class can eat meat.  The
planet is simply not big enough to give everybody their daily
hamburgers.  The increasing cultural aversion against meat is a good
thing and not a "consumption shibboleth."  Eco-socialists should promote
good nutrition for everyone, nobody needs to be malnourished, and this
can be done much better with small-scale diversified eco-agriculture
than with industrial agriculture.  An excellent recent report about this
is "From Uniformity to Diversity: A paradigm shift from industrial
agriculture to diversified agroecological systems."

http://www.ipes-food.org/reports

But complete and tasty diets do not need meat.  Meat is a luxury and not
a necessity.  I think in the rich countries it is our moral duty to
consume much less of it, but when we indulge in it, it should be high
quality meat.  This is a good way to decrease the consumption footprint
of people in the rich countries.  If we do this, then if will not feel
so wrong to tell those still living in poverty that meat will always be
something special and not a daily cheap staple.

Hans G Ehrbar



_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] SOIL ALLIANCE resource hub

[Ratbag Media via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

The SOIL ALLIANCE hub project was launched this year to foster a
radical perspective on  food and fibre production and consumption.

'Soil Alliance seeks to promote  an ongoing  dialogue between rural
and urban based workers of the soil as well as among those who consume
the food and fibre the soil produces. It hopes to  provide news and
analysis in order to encourage and facilitate collaboration among
farming, ecology, locally grown, food movement and climate change
activists.'

In the context of the current trend to impose consumption shibboleths
on agriculture, the SOIL ALLIANCE  tries to capture some of the
reality of working the soil in the face of climate change impacts and
contemporary capitalism.

http://soilalliance.blogspot.com.au/

Recent posts:

Millions face drought and famine in Southern Africa...
Stopping land clearing and replanting trees could help keep Australia cool ...
Venezuela: Slave labour or just growing more food?...
On the Frontline: Climate Change & Rural Communities...
Monsanto Losing Millions as Farmers in India Plant indigenous seed..
Diana Rodgers: Meat is Magnificent: Water, Carbon,...
Fix farming by junking the corporate model
Rural Workers: AUDIO
Water under attack : Reports
Organic Farmers Are Not Anti-Science, but Genetic Engineers often are...
Hunger in Venezuela? A look beyond the spin
Why changing our diet won't save the Earth
Nature is neglected in this election campaign
The effects on soil biology of agricultural chemicals...
Plant varieties: Why are we losing them?
Land grabbing – A new colonialism
Carbon Sequestration on Land – the Government’s Greenhouse Gas Policy
Ruminant livestock and greenhouse gases

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com