This will be a short post. And a very recent surprise post, since last time I wrote anything was in 2011. I just awoke from a coma nightmare and imagine my surprise when I saw the sorry state of affairs we're in now. This stimulus check we're receiving, why? $1,200 each, $3,000 for families? I mean, sure I'll take it. But, come on. It's a band aid on a severed artery.
No, the real key is taxes. We need to be taxed less. The amount of money the government wastes on the most ridiculous things is appalling. And it's OUR money, ladies and gents. We vote these people in, based on these promises they never fulfill, and then they just do whatever the hell they want (and whomever the hell they want if they're Bill Clinton). These politicians are basically running around unchecked; they're given carte blanche. And the only people who really check these people are, you guessed it, other politicians who want the opposite of them. So, really, what do we have? Two opposing sides who want very different things playing a game of tug-o-war with OUR money. All so they can make their constituents happy, get re-elected, make an obscene salary for public service, and do it all over again. These Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen are paid $174,000 per annum. Their pension is about 80% of that pay. So they're making roughly $140,000k a year for life after five years of service. Three guesses as to who is paying for that. There's 535 members of congress too, including the Senate. That's CURRENT members, so that's not even factoring in the one's we're paying for who have done the Tokyo Sayonara.
Let's put it this way. The colonies of America decided that being taxed at 20% was too much. So that factored into their revolutionary ways. And it could be argued, as per the comments I've written above, that our representation is pretty much just a facade for these politicians to do whatever the hell they want under the guise of doing it for the American people. Now I'm not saying we should revolt. There's a lot of great things about our country and I do love it so. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. But, there's a lot that needs to be fixed too. A lot. It's times like these that we need to focus on what's wrong so we can make it better for the next black swan event. Too much overhead. The government is not a for-profit business, and they should not be making money off us. And yet, all too often it does seem that's the way it is. This needs to change. Giving us our own money back in the form of "stimulus" checks is a joke and a political maneuver on a chess board.
Sincerely,
The Guy Blogging
Friday, March 27, 2020
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Politics: Climate Change/Global Warming
The warming of the Earth is increasing at an astounding rate. Global warming is one of the largest environmental concerns at the moment and for good reason. Every year the earth is getting warmer and warmer and this is causing a chain-reaction of negative effects. Global warming occurs when heat is trapped by gases in the atmosphere. Instead of being released into space, the heat stays in the Earth’s atmosphere. The main gases that are trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere are carbon dioxide, methane, sulfate aerosol, and HFC-23. Methane is 25x more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, HFC-23 is 12,000x more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat, and sulfate aerosol is 24,000x more effect than carbon dioxide at trapping heat.
Carbon dioxide and methane are natural gases that occur in nature. The problem is that we’re creating an excess of them. Cattle farms are creating much more methane than what would naturally be produced because we are producing too many cattle for consumption. Carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere because we’re burning and cutting down forests larger than the size of New York State every year. The carbon dioxide is then released into the atmosphere. Warmer oceans will absorb less carbon dioxide, warmer soils will release more carbon dioxide, and melting ice caps will reflect less of the sun’s heat. When ultra violet radiation hits a surface like snow or ice, it still has a short wavelength and can escape through the gases into space. When it hits dirt, concrete, and anything else that isn’t reflective like snow it’s wavelength becomes longer and cannot escape through the atmosphere.
The solution to the above problems is a complicated one. It seems that it would be simple i.e. eliminate all of these emissions, but it’s far more complex than that. Unless every American is willing to become a vegetarian those cattle farms aren’t going anywhere and neither is the methane they produce. How could we stop cutting down forests for timber? What are you going to write on? What is going to support the walls of your home? Carbon dioxide and methane alone would most likely still progress global warming which would cause the above to occur to. However, it is possible to stop global warming. I’ve been a vegetarian since I was five years old and I don’t feel like I’m missing anything at all. In fact, I personally find eating meat disgusting. There are many benefits vegetarians enjoy that could convert meat eaters. The price of meat could be increased so that instead of eating meat every day of the week, families only had it once or twice a week. This would equal less cattle and more crops, effectively reducing the methane in the atmosphere and creating a carbon sink. Why not create a material to place in asphalt, paint, and shingles that would reflect the ultraviolet light at the same wavelength that it entered the atmosphere and making it mandatory to include it in all roofing and asphalt materials? Unfortunately there are no quick fixes for global warming and every country has to contribute. There is no one policy that can be changed because there are too many other variables contributing to global warming, but the every nation working together in unison would be able to overcome it – it’s just a matter of doing it.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Money, Politics, and Happiness
A major problem with America is how we measure our total net worth. The gross national product system, or G.N.P for short, is used because it signifies the amount of money made by American companies overall, not just within national boundaries. This way an American company that outsources in Bangladesh can have their profits totaled up with the rest of America’s profits. It is used because it makes it look like America earns more than it actually does. After all, only the high level executives are the American’s earning money. However, this may not be the case. The American company does not have to be owned by an American. An American company owned by a Japanese company that outsources its work to Indonesia would still have its profits added to America’s G.N.P.
Another drawback of G.N.P. is that it measures everything as a positive. Let’s say that there was an oil spill and it took roughly $20 million to clean up. That money would be added to the G.N.P. – raising it by $20 million. To me, that goes beyond the realm of being counterintuitive and into the realm of absurdity. The government is spending money, yet it records it as a profit.
As I stated in an entry before this one, Americans have to relinquish their obsession for money and start doing things that make sense. Why would anyone actively try to prevent environmental disasters if the money spent fixing the damage is just going to make it look like America made more money than it did? It is a fact that the happiness of Americans peaked in the 1950’s. That’s at a point in time when American’s had far less material objects than they do now, yet they were happier. The average American today believes that money will bring happiness. This is an illusion – we only want what we cannot have. Once we have something, we toss it into the corner and think about the other things we don’t yet have. So wouldn’t it be more desirous for Americans to want something that is hard to achieve such as love, happiness, and reversing the negative affects we’ve caused to the environment? It would take a lot longer to achieve than standing in line and paying a few hundred dollars for a new gadget and the benefits would last a lifetime.
The solution is to start using a method to measure our national profit that uses both positives AND negatives. That way we have a true sense of how much we’re making. After all, all we’re doing is lying to ourselves when we present that number as a profit. Adding negatives into the mix lowers our numbers, but gives America more motivation to make more money and reduce the negatives i.e. things that affect the environment negatively. This alone may be the push America needs to start combating global warming, the use of dangerous chemicals, and the use of nonrenewable resources. If more money won’t motivate our money-obsessed country, then I don’t know what will.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Literature: Recommended Reading
This will be a shorter post as the point of the post is to just introduce two of my favorite literary series to anyone who follows/reads my blog.
The first one is called the Camulod Chronicles by Jack Whyte and it is about the fall of the Roman Empire in Britannia and the creation of Camelot and myth and legend of King Arthur. It is beautifully written and every time I finished a book in the series I was disappointed as I grew to love the characters and the series of events they went through. The series has violence, drama, very vivid and sometimes surprising sex scenes, and amazing detail - it is truly an amazing series and I am shocked more people don't talk about it. I've read through it twice and want to go through it a third this summer.
The second is the John Rain series by Barry Eisler. This is about a Japanese/American assassin named John Rain who partakes in different missions over each book in the series. Barry Eisler wrote these books after visiting each location in the book, so everything is exactly as he writes it, at least it was when he wrote it; some things may have changed by now. The series has violence, action, and steamy sex; what more could you want? I've already read through the entire series two or three times and I'm working my way through it again.
Both series are incredibly written and you won't put the books down until you have finished them. I honestly cannot put into words how fantastic these two series of books are and I suggest that if you enjoy reading at all, you go purchase the first books in both series and give them a read; you'll want to get the rest of the books, trust me. If you feel as if I liked a particular series more, you shouldn't because I could not choose a favorite between the two; I love them equally, like just any good parent loves their children equally, even though we all know that's bull shit - I mean what if you have sextuplets or something, are the kids supposed to believe there's really a six way tie? Anyways, here are the links:
John Rain Series by Barry Eisler
Camulod Chronicles Series by Jack Whyte
Note: I do not and will not ever receive money for endorsing a product and I am only doing so based upon the quality of the product and because they do not seem to be well-known. I would never, for example, endorse Harry Potter novels because everyone knows Harry Potter, even if I was offered money.
The first one is called the Camulod Chronicles by Jack Whyte and it is about the fall of the Roman Empire in Britannia and the creation of Camelot and myth and legend of King Arthur. It is beautifully written and every time I finished a book in the series I was disappointed as I grew to love the characters and the series of events they went through. The series has violence, drama, very vivid and sometimes surprising sex scenes, and amazing detail - it is truly an amazing series and I am shocked more people don't talk about it. I've read through it twice and want to go through it a third this summer.
The second is the John Rain series by Barry Eisler. This is about a Japanese/American assassin named John Rain who partakes in different missions over each book in the series. Barry Eisler wrote these books after visiting each location in the book, so everything is exactly as he writes it, at least it was when he wrote it; some things may have changed by now. The series has violence, action, and steamy sex; what more could you want? I've already read through the entire series two or three times and I'm working my way through it again.
Both series are incredibly written and you won't put the books down until you have finished them. I honestly cannot put into words how fantastic these two series of books are and I suggest that if you enjoy reading at all, you go purchase the first books in both series and give them a read; you'll want to get the rest of the books, trust me. If you feel as if I liked a particular series more, you shouldn't because I could not choose a favorite between the two; I love them equally, like just any good parent loves their children equally, even though we all know that's bull shit - I mean what if you have sextuplets or something, are the kids supposed to believe there's really a six way tie? Anyways, here are the links:
John Rain Series by Barry Eisler
Camulod Chronicles Series by Jack Whyte
Note: I do not and will not ever receive money for endorsing a product and I am only doing so based upon the quality of the product and because they do not seem to be well-known. I would never, for example, endorse Harry Potter novels because everyone knows Harry Potter, even if I was offered money.
Politics: Environment and Alternative Energy
The United States is trailing behind Western Europe in alternative energy and environmental issues. When polled, 78% of Americans were for a better, more sustainable environment. When it was time to elect the president, only 1% cast their vote based upon environmental issues. Most Americans lack respect for the environment, and it’s not due to ignorance. Everyone knows littering is bad for the environment, yet people litter all of the time. It’s not that they don’t know better; they just don’t care enough, hence only 1% casting their vote based on environmental issues. People can be forgiven for things they aren’t aware of, but most of the things that are done only require common sense to realize it’s harmful. Littering, letting oil run down the storm drain, and leaving an unused light on all day are common ones that can easily be averted by the average American.
The thing I don’t understand, and this really puzzles me, is that Americans continue to degrade their environment at an alarming rate even though they have to live with it. The head of a company who causes air pollution doesn’t live in a bubble, so how in his right mind can he choose to allow mercury into the air knowing he may breathe some of it in, or even worse, his child? I understand that cleaner production is a dramatic shift financially from what industry is used to, but we have knowledge now that was unavailable to us previously. Industry would rather pollute than pay more money to have something taken care of in an environmentally sound way, but when they make that choice they’re not just affecting their finances positively; they’re affecting the entire population, whether it is regional or universal, negatively.
America has the financial means to become a leading advocate in alternative energy and environmental issues, so why don’t they? America has to stop acting like a procrastinating college kid that does their work at 2 A.M. the day it’s due. As powerful as America is, it can’t decide how nature operates. Nature is following a path, and America has to stop deviating from that path or things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
In the end, we have to protect the environment. There’s no other option when it comes down to it. We cannot live in a world where mercury is inhaled into our body in every breath we take. We cannot live in a world where harmful chemicals are in every sip of water we take. We cannot live in a world where the environment is treated as a waste site. This is our country, our piece of land on this life-sustaining planet; so how about we start treating it like we care about the quality of our health?
The thing I don’t understand, and this really puzzles me, is that Americans continue to degrade their environment at an alarming rate even though they have to live with it. The head of a company who causes air pollution doesn’t live in a bubble, so how in his right mind can he choose to allow mercury into the air knowing he may breathe some of it in, or even worse, his child? I understand that cleaner production is a dramatic shift financially from what industry is used to, but we have knowledge now that was unavailable to us previously. Industry would rather pollute than pay more money to have something taken care of in an environmentally sound way, but when they make that choice they’re not just affecting their finances positively; they’re affecting the entire population, whether it is regional or universal, negatively.
America has the financial means to become a leading advocate in alternative energy and environmental issues, so why don’t they? America has to stop acting like a procrastinating college kid that does their work at 2 A.M. the day it’s due. As powerful as America is, it can’t decide how nature operates. Nature is following a path, and America has to stop deviating from that path or things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
In the end, we have to protect the environment. There’s no other option when it comes down to it. We cannot live in a world where mercury is inhaled into our body in every breath we take. We cannot live in a world where harmful chemicals are in every sip of water we take. We cannot live in a world where the environment is treated as a waste site. This is our country, our piece of land on this life-sustaining planet; so how about we start treating it like we care about the quality of our health?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Published in the Examiner!
I now write for the Examiner.com website as a cross-trainer consultant. Feel free to check it out and let me know what you think, and as always, if you ever want to ask me anything, criticize me, compliment me, or tell me to go to hell, feel free in the comment section and I'll get back to you that day. Anyways, for the Examiner.com column, I plan to put fitness videos up weekly (almost every day) along with written articles, so be sure to check it out daily to look for new content. I may also make a fitness blog to go along with it and my health and nutrition blog http://theessentialguidetohealthyfood.blogspot.com/
Here is the examiner link (I only have one article right now) - http://www.examiner.com/cross-training-2-in-newark/ben-feldschneider
P.S. - I know that is a god awful picture - it's not small enough; I'm looking into fixing it (there's no simple picture edit option I can find).
Here is the examiner link (I only have one article right now) - http://www.examiner.com/cross-training-2-in-newark/ben-feldschneider
P.S. - I know that is a god awful picture - it's not small enough; I'm looking into fixing it (there's no simple picture edit option I can find).
Environmental Dilemma
The world’s resources are not only being harvested unsustainably, they’re also being distributed unsustainably. How can we expect to live sustainably if 20% of the world’s population is consuming 83% of the world’s resources? We need to dramatically reduce our consumption to become sustainable. Not only that, but we also need to distribute the resources more evenly. The poorest 60% of the world are only consuming 5% of the world’s resources. If the poorest and richest nations together consumed 80% of the world’s resources, 40% each, then we would be far better off both in sustainability and human suffering.
There is a great debate between environmentalists. What is the problem, distribution or population? Malthus believed population was the problem – he believed that at some point population would grow faster than food production. That did indeed happen, but now we produce enough food to make the entire global population as fat as an average American. How can the problem be population if there is enough to go around and then some? Would we be better off with less people? Yes, but it depends. If we had less Africans, then it wouldn’t matter because they consume a lot less than an American or Western European. Would we be better off with less Americans and Western Europeans? Yes, considerably so. Of course, this isn’t a solution as no one is going to line up in front of a guillotine to contribute to the environment. So the solution lies in distribution alone. It is something that Americans and Western Europeans may not like, but it’s much more appealing than dying and the fact is that we must become more sustainable and teach poorer countries to be more sustainable as they grow.
Despite America’s international standing, we are still the shepherd. Most countries follow us, especially the impoverished ones. Once we start setting good examples, others will follow. American policy makers may ask that if impoverished countries and developing countries aren’t doing it, then why should we? Well the answer is that being a role model and being, arguably, the most powerful nation in the world comes with a fair amount of responsibility. Countries may only be interested in their own national interests, but every country must pull its own weight to create a more sustainable world. If it’s only one country, it’s like trying to win game of tug of war by yourself against an entire team – you’ll be pulled face first into the mud.
The solution is simple: distribute resources more evenly and stop harvesting resources as quickly. Of course this is easier said than done. As long as there is a market for something, it will be harvested to make money off of it. We should try to create markets for things that are renewable or find alternative ways to harvest things. Instead of mining for coal, use wind turbines to produce electricity. Instead of harvesting diamonds, use lab-created ones. They’re exactly the same – they have the same physical, optical, and chemical properties. This way you have a conflict-free diamond; a flawless product; and a much cheaper, more sustainable product.
Change won’t come without a crisis, as I noted in my post above. After all, America puts value on what material things you own. Why would anyone want to give that up so an African kid can afford to wear a pair of shoes? Why would a woman want to be the only one in her circle of friends with a lab-created ring? Why would someone who can afford a Ferrari opt to drive a Toyota Prius instead? The answer is, most wouldn’t and that’s the problem. We put too much emphasis on things that honestly don’t mean shit. How does a natural diamond improve your life anymore than a lab-created one? They are exactly the same in every way possible. Sure a Ferrari is a great car and people may see you differently than if you were driving a Prius, but the question is, do you really need people on the road, that you don’t know, to know that you have money? Why would you even care? America as a whole has to rid themselves of the insecurity and lavishness they’re so acquainted with and start making some sacrifices for the good of the world.
There is a great debate between environmentalists. What is the problem, distribution or population? Malthus believed population was the problem – he believed that at some point population would grow faster than food production. That did indeed happen, but now we produce enough food to make the entire global population as fat as an average American. How can the problem be population if there is enough to go around and then some? Would we be better off with less people? Yes, but it depends. If we had less Africans, then it wouldn’t matter because they consume a lot less than an American or Western European. Would we be better off with less Americans and Western Europeans? Yes, considerably so. Of course, this isn’t a solution as no one is going to line up in front of a guillotine to contribute to the environment. So the solution lies in distribution alone. It is something that Americans and Western Europeans may not like, but it’s much more appealing than dying and the fact is that we must become more sustainable and teach poorer countries to be more sustainable as they grow.
Despite America’s international standing, we are still the shepherd. Most countries follow us, especially the impoverished ones. Once we start setting good examples, others will follow. American policy makers may ask that if impoverished countries and developing countries aren’t doing it, then why should we? Well the answer is that being a role model and being, arguably, the most powerful nation in the world comes with a fair amount of responsibility. Countries may only be interested in their own national interests, but every country must pull its own weight to create a more sustainable world. If it’s only one country, it’s like trying to win game of tug of war by yourself against an entire team – you’ll be pulled face first into the mud.
The solution is simple: distribute resources more evenly and stop harvesting resources as quickly. Of course this is easier said than done. As long as there is a market for something, it will be harvested to make money off of it. We should try to create markets for things that are renewable or find alternative ways to harvest things. Instead of mining for coal, use wind turbines to produce electricity. Instead of harvesting diamonds, use lab-created ones. They’re exactly the same – they have the same physical, optical, and chemical properties. This way you have a conflict-free diamond; a flawless product; and a much cheaper, more sustainable product.
Change won’t come without a crisis, as I noted in my post above. After all, America puts value on what material things you own. Why would anyone want to give that up so an African kid can afford to wear a pair of shoes? Why would a woman want to be the only one in her circle of friends with a lab-created ring? Why would someone who can afford a Ferrari opt to drive a Toyota Prius instead? The answer is, most wouldn’t and that’s the problem. We put too much emphasis on things that honestly don’t mean shit. How does a natural diamond improve your life anymore than a lab-created one? They are exactly the same in every way possible. Sure a Ferrari is a great car and people may see you differently than if you were driving a Prius, but the question is, do you really need people on the road, that you don’t know, to know that you have money? Why would you even care? America as a whole has to rid themselves of the insecurity and lavishness they’re so acquainted with and start making some sacrifices for the good of the world.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Poetry: Random Ramblings of a Recently Reassembled Mind
Drill a hole into the top of your head;
Attach a light fixture so it always looks like you have a bright idea,
Look out! There’s a monster behind you,
Playing blackjack with the dinner table, dealer busts,
Open like a piñata hit with a wrecking ball.
You kicked me out of bed last night.
The trees sway in the wind to car stereo music, it looks like rock;
I think one of them has a lighter.
Bonjour mademoiselle, we are ready to seat you,
The barstool limps, from uneven legs, over to you,
Are you interested yet?
Here, I’ve brought you a gift wrapped in…
Have you heard a nursery rhyme lately?
…children’s letters to Santa.
You shove your face into the pillow like you’re at a pie eating contest;
It’s blueberry…I hate blueberry.
And all the while the cardboard donkey pours its rich in fat blood all over the grass,
While children clamor like adults at the stock exchange.
Raise one eyebrow so you look like an old man with a monocle.
Take this paper and crunch it into a ball.
Shove it in your ear so you know what a bad poem sounds like.
The lion cocks his rifle, taking aim for the antelope.
They always kick and shout like children throwing tantrums.
Set your alarm, I count seconds like it’s New Years Eve.
I trip and fall on the road like it’s paved with steel ball bearings.
Or banana peels, how comical.
I feel confined, like I’m always in a straightjacket;
Give me one second while I gulp down this dose of sanity.
The dog hides under the table like there’s a storm coming,
Stupid dog, it’s only for me.
Attach a light fixture so it always looks like you have a bright idea,
Look out! There’s a monster behind you,
Playing blackjack with the dinner table, dealer busts,
Open like a piñata hit with a wrecking ball.
You kicked me out of bed last night.
The trees sway in the wind to car stereo music, it looks like rock;
I think one of them has a lighter.
Bonjour mademoiselle, we are ready to seat you,
The barstool limps, from uneven legs, over to you,
Are you interested yet?
Here, I’ve brought you a gift wrapped in…
Have you heard a nursery rhyme lately?
…children’s letters to Santa.
You shove your face into the pillow like you’re at a pie eating contest;
It’s blueberry…I hate blueberry.
And all the while the cardboard donkey pours its rich in fat blood all over the grass,
While children clamor like adults at the stock exchange.
Raise one eyebrow so you look like an old man with a monocle.
Take this paper and crunch it into a ball.
Shove it in your ear so you know what a bad poem sounds like.
The lion cocks his rifle, taking aim for the antelope.
They always kick and shout like children throwing tantrums.
Set your alarm, I count seconds like it’s New Years Eve.
I trip and fall on the road like it’s paved with steel ball bearings.
Or banana peels, how comical.
I feel confined, like I’m always in a straightjacket;
Give me one second while I gulp down this dose of sanity.
The dog hides under the table like there’s a storm coming,
Stupid dog, it’s only for me.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Politics: Government Policy Entrenchment
There is a large problem within government in the form of policy entrenchment. Entrenchment is when a public policy creates a group of people who use that policy to make sure it doesn’t change. This group is often a powerful group such as the mining industry or agricultural industry. As long as these people are around, the policy is extremely unlikely to change. Most of these industries are bad for the public and the environment, but they create a lot of money so they have a lot of power.
Entrenchment often keeps a harmful policy in place that is beneficial to the industry profit-wise, but not really any use for anyone else. The 1872 Mining Act allowed any individual the right to purchase the rights to minerals under public land for a very cheap cost and the government has to give it to them if they have the intent to mine the minerals. One mining company sought after the rights of land that bordered Yellowstone National Park. The government gave them the rights to another piece of land so as to not disturb the ecosystem of Yellowstone. Fortunately, the company accepted the deal although they did not have to. If they did not, the government could not have stopped them.
The food industry is another good example. I recently saw the film Food, Inc and was not all that shocked to discover that individuals high up in government and the food industry switched between the two in a revolving door effect. Some people in the food industry became Supreme Court Justices, EPA officials, part of presidential administrations, and FDA officials. An FDA official who used to be an attorney for Monsanto oversaw the FDA’s decision to not label genetically modified organisms. The food industry taking away consumers’ rights to know what is in their food with their power.
Policy entrenchment has to stop. It benefits only the company that is using entrenchment and so they will never stop using it. Take Monsanto for instance – they own 90% of the soybeans used in the United States and the soybeans are genetically modified organisms. I do not want to eat genetically modified organisms and I certainly don’t want a government official deciding whether or not it’s safe for me to eat let alone one who used to work for Monsanto. Someone has to wedge a door stop under the revolving door or government and industry will be too closely affiliated with each other. This is when government stops working for the good of the people and works only for the good of a few wealthy industries. Maybe I’m mistaken, but last time I checked the government was set up for the people, not a few greedy individuals.
Entrenchment often keeps a harmful policy in place that is beneficial to the industry profit-wise, but not really any use for anyone else. The 1872 Mining Act allowed any individual the right to purchase the rights to minerals under public land for a very cheap cost and the government has to give it to them if they have the intent to mine the minerals. One mining company sought after the rights of land that bordered Yellowstone National Park. The government gave them the rights to another piece of land so as to not disturb the ecosystem of Yellowstone. Fortunately, the company accepted the deal although they did not have to. If they did not, the government could not have stopped them.
The food industry is another good example. I recently saw the film Food, Inc and was not all that shocked to discover that individuals high up in government and the food industry switched between the two in a revolving door effect. Some people in the food industry became Supreme Court Justices, EPA officials, part of presidential administrations, and FDA officials. An FDA official who used to be an attorney for Monsanto oversaw the FDA’s decision to not label genetically modified organisms. The food industry taking away consumers’ rights to know what is in their food with their power.
Policy entrenchment has to stop. It benefits only the company that is using entrenchment and so they will never stop using it. Take Monsanto for instance – they own 90% of the soybeans used in the United States and the soybeans are genetically modified organisms. I do not want to eat genetically modified organisms and I certainly don’t want a government official deciding whether or not it’s safe for me to eat let alone one who used to work for Monsanto. Someone has to wedge a door stop under the revolving door or government and industry will be too closely affiliated with each other. This is when government stops working for the good of the people and works only for the good of a few wealthy industries. Maybe I’m mistaken, but last time I checked the government was set up for the people, not a few greedy individuals.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Agriculture and the Environment: The Effects on Climate Change (Not Global Warming)
Ever since agriculture began about 10,000 years ago, it has been a central part of life for human beings. In this day and age, agriculture is more important than ever as the global population grows in concurrence with global hunger. Governments recognize this and often put policies in place in order to better serve the farmers who grow our food. These subsidies, however, while making food cheap, only serve to hurt us and the environment in the long run. The government is footing the bill for environmental degradation by externalizing the cost of environmental damage. Externalizing the cost simply means that the price of the environmental damage isn’t reflected in the price paid for the product. Farmers use pesticides and herbicides, overuse water, and grow more and more crops because it is much cheaper for them to do so than to utilize conservative and/or environmentally friendly practices. These all contribute to climate change, soil degradation and erosion, and water scarcity. While all of these are serious environmental concerns, it is climate change that is the most alarming.
Climate change is not global warming. Global warming is an “average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, ‘global warming’ often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities”. This is different from climate change because “climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer)”. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they both exemplify different meanings. However, they are both caused by the same things because invariably if global warming is occurring, climate change is occurring as well. “Global warming can be likened to sitting in a car in the sun. The sun’s heat enters through the windshield but is unable to escape the same way because it has changed to longer heat wavelengths that cannot penetrate the glass. So, inside the car it gets hotter and hotter. The Earth’s atmosphere creates the same effect; and as we continue to increase the amount of polluting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it has the same result as rolling up the windows in a hot car - less and less heat is able to escape”.
The warming of the earth right now is happening at an increased rate that upsets the equilibrium of ecosystems, which are not able to keep up with the increased rate of change, compared to past instances where global warming has naturally occurred. Climate has always varied in the past, however, the change occurred at a slower rate and because of that, ecosystems were able to adapt easier. For example, if the climate is changing slowly, a forest will move in relation to the changing climate. Part of the forest will die where it could grow before as the climate makes it uninhabitable for the forest. However, the forest will then grow where it could not grow before because the climate has now become habitable. Overall, the forest stays the same size. If the climate is changing rapidly, the forest will not be able to adapt and migrate in relation to the changing climate fast enough, which will have detrimental affects on the forest and the organisms living in it.
The increased rate of climate change is due to anthropogenic causes; the addition of greenhouse gases into the air continually traps more and more heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere right now as it is as it is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere with 384 ppm. The United States alone puts more than 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Other greenhouse gases play an important role in global warming as well; methane (which is roughly twenty-five times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide), nitrous oxides, and hydroflourocarbons are all detrimental in their role as greenhouse gases and are put into the atmosphere as a result of human activity at an alarming rate. Since 1750, methane emissions in the atmosphere have increased by 148 percent and nitrous oxide emissions have increased by 18 percent. “Through our combustion of fossil fuels in cars, aircraft, power plants, and factories, we have raised the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment by well over one-third since the start of the Industrial Revolution”. Methane is released into the atmosphere largely by the decomposition of waste in landfills and gas produced by livestock. Livestock produce nearly ten million tons of methane each year.
Animal agriculture is the major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector in multiple ways. Animal agriculture contributes to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to forests being cleared for livestock grazing. These forests are usually burned, which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Not only is the carbon dioxide released into the air, but the forest is no longer available to be a carbon sink, or absorb carbon from the atmosphere as vegetation grows. Livestock also takes ten times the amount of energy to produce as grains, as livestock are a trophic level above grains. This, therefore, increases the amount of fossil fuels used to create the final product. Fuel is used to grow and ship the grains to the livestock, which then are made into meat products and shipped to grocery stores. This results in a large amount of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, as well as other pollutants. In fact, a 2006 report done by the United Nations found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined. Due to the rising global world population and the likely increased demand for protein in developing and impoverished countries, animal agriculture will continue to expand and release even more methane into the atmosphere. This is supported by findings from the Environmental Protection Agency; between 1990 and 2007, the amount of methane produced by livestock increased from 133.2 TgCO2 Equivalents to 139.0 TgCO2 Equivalents. This trend is likely to continue and increase dramatically over the next few decades.
The main problem with agriculture being a major contributor to climate change is that it, in turn, is affected negatively by climate change. Dry areas become wet, warm areas become cool, wet areas become dry, and cool areas become warm. Certain crops need certain climates in order to thrive well enough to be produced commercially. If the climate rapidly changes, as it is now, a multitude of crops will die due to their inability to keep up with the rapidly changing habitat. This will be devastating to the agricultural industry and global population economically as there will be a decrease in food supply, which means prices will rise. It will also mean that global hunger rates will sharply increase. Farmers will either have to switch to growing different crops and change their whole operation (different crops constitute different methods of growing and harvesting), or they will have to move their operations entirely to a place where their crops will be able to grow. Feedback loops only serve to intensify the problems of global warming. As the global temperature rises, the oceans will become warmer and absorb less carbon dioxide, making increasing the rate at which global warming occurs. The continuation of deforestation would equal less carbon sinks and the rising temperatures would make remaining forests less effective at absorbing carbon dioxide, thus again increasing the rate of global warming. The reduction of ice caps as a result of the increased temperature would also lead to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Ice reflects the sun’s rays at the same wavelength that it enters the atmosphere which allows the radiation to exit the Earth’s atmosphere, as opposed to it hitting the terra firma or ocean, which changes the wavelength and causes it to become trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere. These feedback loops, along with others, play off each other and create a snowball rolling down a hill effect. As they progress further along, the process intensifies and cannot be stopped.
Erosion is the movement of soil by water, wind, or gravity. This process does occur naturally, however, agriculture is increasing the rate at which it is happening. Soil erosion is becoming a major problem throughout the world as the global demand for food increases. Soil is more than just dirt; it “a mixture of minerals, air, water, and organic materials, such as roots, decaying plant parts, fungi, earthworms, bacteria, and microorganisms”. When crops are planted, they take nutrients and moisture out of the soil. When these crops are harvested and the nutrients are not placed back into the soil, degradation can occur if the process repeats itself over the years. The amount of arable land in the world to use for farming is decreasing as conventional farm methods and animal agriculture degrade the soil, often causing desertification. Desertification is when the soil is degraded to the point where it resembles desert sand due to the loss of nutrients and moisture. A famous example of this is the Dust Bowl that occurred in the 1930’s in the United States.
While desertification is not a problem in the United States any longer, it is still a major problem in developing and impoverished countries which do not have the knowledge or technology to prevent desertification. The United States is not, however, immune to soil erosion and degradation. “In this century alone, for instance, the US has lost half its topsoil (the fertile upper layer of earth necessary to grow all food). Around the world, about 70 percent of the land used for agriculture is at risk of being turned to degraded waster soil that will be worthless for farming, unable to sustain healthy and diverse flora, and unlikely to recover. “Currently, the average rate of soil erosion on U.S. cropland is 7 tons per acre per year”. Deforestation is a major cause of soil erosion and desertification. “The immediate consequences of deforestation can be severe. Forests play a crucial role in the natural water cycle, for example. Rain falls in mountain forests, gradually seeps through sand, soil and rock, and emerges from this natural filtration system as clear river and lake water. When the trees are removed, the water simply runs off mountainsides in sheets taking topsoil and rock with it, and leading to soil erosion. Roughly 34 million acres of forests are lost each year. Imagine a forest one hundred miles wide and five hundred miles long - an area greater than the size of New York state - lost every year”.
“About 2 million ha of soil, equivalent to 15 percent of the Earth’s land area (an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined), have been degraded through human activities”. “Causes of soil degradation include overgrazing (35 percent), deforestation (30 percent), agricultural activities (27 percent), over-exploitation of vegetation (7 percent), and industrial activities (1 percent)”. According to these statistics, agriculture accounts for roughly 99 percent of all soil erosion. Once again, animal agriculture is the major contributor as deforestation and overgrazing account for 65 percent of soil degradation. In developing and impoverished countries, forests are cleared for livestock to graze. Instead of managing these grazing lands, the farmers allow the livestock to overgraze, leaving little but dirt. The process is then repeated, resulting in forests and land being cleared and overgrazed, respectively, over and over.
Vegetable production, however, is very degrading to soil quality as well. Vegetable production is one of the most concentrated businesses in industrial agriculture because all of the plants are tightly packed together to increase yield per acre. The vegetables all compete for nutrients and water in the soil, and when there are that many vegetables extremely close together; most of them are left without any real nutritional content due to a severe lack of nutrients in the soil. After these vegetables are harvested, the soil is extremely vulnerable to erosion as it lacks nutrients and water moisture. Since soil formation is a very slow process, even a slight amount of soil degradation can be devastating. “Since 1950, about one-third of American cropped land has had to be abandoned because of erosion problems.” “Soil removed by erosion contains about 3 times more nutrients and 1.5 to 5 times more organic matter than the soil that remains behind”. Once an area is degraded or goes through desertification, it takes many years for any vegetation to be able to grow there again. The soil left behind is often extremely inefficient at sustaining healthy crops and fauna and is a major problem all around the world.
Water scarcity is a growing concern in global politics and it is predicted the next major war will be fought over water. Agriculture only serves to enhance this global tension over water as agriculture enhances the scarcity of water in a plethora of ways. Water is taken for agricultural purposes and no effort is made to replenish it. Water pollution and depletion are by-products of agriculture and cause severe water scarcity. Water pollution from agriculture occurs when soil, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or animal run-off get into the waterways. Soil erosion also plays a large part in water pollution. “In addition to removing valuable soil from farmland, erosion pollutes waterways with sediment. Runoff containing sediment degrades aquatic ecosystems by reducing stream depth and increasing turbidity (making water cloudier), causing the population of fish and other aquatic organisms to decline. According to the EPA, sediment is the most significant non-point source (NPS) pollutant in the US”. A non-point source pollutant is something that is not intentionally directed to waterways, but ends up there regardless.
Pesticides and herbicides also have negative affects on waterways. “The US Department of Agriculture reports that perhaps half the groundwater and well water in the US is, or could be, contaminated by pesticides. When the US Geological Survey conducted its National Water Quality Assessment they found that more than 95% percent of the samples collected from streams were contaminated with pesticide”. As pesticides are carcinogenic, pesticides in the water harm aquatic species and land species. Animal waste, largely coming from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), is held in lagoons mixed with water. These lagoons often leak into underground water sources or overflow during storms. Livestock manure has a lot of ammonia in it which is fatal to fish and can be converted into nitrates; elevated nitrates in the drinking water is highly poisonous to humans. Animal waste also has a high level of pathogens and microorganisms which can harm humans and other animals. Heavy metals are also present in animal waste, which contaminates water further and damages organisms that drink the contaminated water and that live in it. Fertilizers can seep into the water and cause eutrophication due to an overabundance of nutrients in the water. Eutrophication is when algal blooms expand at an increased rate and absorb all of the oxygen in the immediate area, which kills all of the aerobic organisms in the water. The algae itself then dies out as well due to a lack of oxygen. What is left is a barren aquatic environment lacking any aerobic organisms.
Another way agriculture contributes to global water scarcity is water depletion. Water is heavily subsidized by government for agriculture in the United States, so farmers use flood irrigation methods, which essentially is just flooding the field of crops. Roughly 75 percent of this water evaporates before it has time to reach the roots of the crops or is lost as run-off. Only about 4 to 8 percent of the water actually goes to the roots of the crops. The rest of it seeps into the ground but does not make contact with the roots of the crops. The largest aquifer in the United States, the Ogallala aquifer, is being depleted at a rate of 12 billion cubic meters per year. Agriculture utilizes roughly 70 percent of the world’s water and its overall use is increasing. The most striking example of water exploitation for agriculture is the Aral Sea; heavy extraction for irrigation of cash crops has “literally drained the lake of life. Since 1960 the lake has shrunk to one-third of its previous area, a loss of 18,500 square miles”. “Because industrial production for the global food market often promotes crops inappropriate to local climate and soil, such agriculture can have devastating impacts on local ecological balance. Aquifers are overdrawn, rivers and lakes are depleted, and soil can be seriously degraded. All water contains some salt. The massive irrigation required by industrial agriculture, especially in inappropriate climates, can leave damaging salt residue. The soil progressively degrades and eventually is made unusable for farming. About 20 percent of the world’s farmland is affected by rising salinity, and about 2.5 million acres are abandoned each year as a result”. All of these negative affects to the environment are connected and linked together - they are not separated by anything.
Despite all the negative affects agriculture currently has on the environment, there are solutions in order to make agriculture a sustainable process while still feeding the global population. Reducing or ideally, eliminating, the consumption of meat, practicing conservative farming methods, eliminating agricultural subsidies, and making the switch to local, organic farms would do wonders for the environment.
Cutting meat consumption alone would drastically reduce the detrimental environmental effects caused by agriculture. “If Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan - a Camry, say - to the ultra-efficient Prius”. Soil erosion, deforestation, pollution of water and air, and climate change would all be slowed as a result of the reduction of the amount of meat eaten. Animal agriculture by itself is one of the most harmful practices to the environment today and the elimination of animal agriculture would dramatically increase the viability of the environment. However, animal agriculture is not going to go away any time soon and more realistic solutions must be put into place. Locally and organically raised livestock reduces the amount of fossil fuels used for transportation, reduces the amount of chemical fertilizers (the animal’s manure is used in its place), and reduces the amount of greenhouse gases released as only a certain number of livestock can be produced viably in the given amount of land. While this solution would have Americans eating less meat, it is a sacrifice that must be made to save the environment. As long as there is animal agriculture, the environment can never be safe.
Eliminating subsidies for agriculture would also serve to reduce the amount of meat consumed, as well as provide incentives for farmers to use conservative and environmentally sustainable practices. If the price of the environmental degradation was reflected in the price of the product (water and air pollution, soil degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions), the cost of meat would be too high for most to eat it every day in the United States, which is currently the common practice. Not only would meat be more expensive, but crops produced by conventional agriculture, and products linked to those crops, would also be more expensive as pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, fossil fuels, and water would not be subsidized. Farmers would have the incentive to keep their crops viable without pesticides and herbicides. They would also have the incentive to install drip-irrigation systems instead of using flood-irrigation. Drip-irrigation systems consist of a network of pipes that deliver water, drip-by-drip, to the roots of crops, reducing the amount of water used and wasted by an astronomical amount. The removal of fossil fuel subsidies, along with the others, would encourage the growth of local, organic farms to reduce transportation costs and chemical fertilizer costs. This would cause pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and soil erosion caused by agriculture to decrease considerably as organic farming does not use chemical pesticides, fertilizers, or herbicides. Organic farms also seek to reduce soil erosion by contour farming, which plants crops in furrows along lines of consistent elevation on sloped land in order to prevent soil erosion and slow the movement of water.
While agriculture is harmful to the environment at the present time, there is the possibility of salvation in the removal of agriculture subsidies, reduction of meat consumption, the movement towards local, organic farms, and practicing conservative agriculture methods. All these solutions would serve the reverse the damage agriculture has cause the environment in a staggering way. Climate change has the potential to cause the most harm to the environment, and this is what we need to address first and foremost. Fortunately, however, addressing this issue will also address the other issues as well. Nothing in the environment comes individually wrapped and packaged for human convenience. Harming one thing invariably harms another and benefiting one thing benefits another; the environment is interconnected in ways we cannot even comprehend completely or foresee. The only difference is whether we put in place practices that harm or benefit the environment.
Sources:
M. Borders and H. Sterling Burnett. "Farm Subsidies: Devastating the World's Poor and the Environment". NCPA, 2006.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
Ibid
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/233/climate-change-and-global-warming-introduction#Rapidchangesinglobaltemperature
H. Shugart, R. Sedjo, and B. Sohnjen. “Forests and Global Climate Change”. 2003.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.html
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
EPA, Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change: Back to Basics, page 3.
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
Ibid
H. Steinfeld et al., Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, Livestock, Environment and Development. 2006.
U.S. Emissions Inventory 2009: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/soil/
Ibid
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/soil/
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
Global Environmental Outlook 3: Chapter 2, page 3
The Evolution of Industrial Vegetable Production
P. Warshall. Tilth and Technology: The Industrial Redesign of Our Nation’s Soils
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/soil/
Ibid
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/waterpollution/
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135192/contour-farming
Climate change is not global warming. Global warming is an “average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, ‘global warming’ often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities”. This is different from climate change because “climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer)”. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they both exemplify different meanings. However, they are both caused by the same things because invariably if global warming is occurring, climate change is occurring as well. “Global warming can be likened to sitting in a car in the sun. The sun’s heat enters through the windshield but is unable to escape the same way because it has changed to longer heat wavelengths that cannot penetrate the glass. So, inside the car it gets hotter and hotter. The Earth’s atmosphere creates the same effect; and as we continue to increase the amount of polluting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it has the same result as rolling up the windows in a hot car - less and less heat is able to escape”.
The warming of the earth right now is happening at an increased rate that upsets the equilibrium of ecosystems, which are not able to keep up with the increased rate of change, compared to past instances where global warming has naturally occurred. Climate has always varied in the past, however, the change occurred at a slower rate and because of that, ecosystems were able to adapt easier. For example, if the climate is changing slowly, a forest will move in relation to the changing climate. Part of the forest will die where it could grow before as the climate makes it uninhabitable for the forest. However, the forest will then grow where it could not grow before because the climate has now become habitable. Overall, the forest stays the same size. If the climate is changing rapidly, the forest will not be able to adapt and migrate in relation to the changing climate fast enough, which will have detrimental affects on the forest and the organisms living in it.
The increased rate of climate change is due to anthropogenic causes; the addition of greenhouse gases into the air continually traps more and more heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere right now as it is as it is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere with 384 ppm. The United States alone puts more than 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Other greenhouse gases play an important role in global warming as well; methane (which is roughly twenty-five times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide), nitrous oxides, and hydroflourocarbons are all detrimental in their role as greenhouse gases and are put into the atmosphere as a result of human activity at an alarming rate. Since 1750, methane emissions in the atmosphere have increased by 148 percent and nitrous oxide emissions have increased by 18 percent. “Through our combustion of fossil fuels in cars, aircraft, power plants, and factories, we have raised the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment by well over one-third since the start of the Industrial Revolution”. Methane is released into the atmosphere largely by the decomposition of waste in landfills and gas produced by livestock. Livestock produce nearly ten million tons of methane each year.
Animal agriculture is the major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector in multiple ways. Animal agriculture contributes to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to forests being cleared for livestock grazing. These forests are usually burned, which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Not only is the carbon dioxide released into the air, but the forest is no longer available to be a carbon sink, or absorb carbon from the atmosphere as vegetation grows. Livestock also takes ten times the amount of energy to produce as grains, as livestock are a trophic level above grains. This, therefore, increases the amount of fossil fuels used to create the final product. Fuel is used to grow and ship the grains to the livestock, which then are made into meat products and shipped to grocery stores. This results in a large amount of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, as well as other pollutants. In fact, a 2006 report done by the United Nations found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined. Due to the rising global world population and the likely increased demand for protein in developing and impoverished countries, animal agriculture will continue to expand and release even more methane into the atmosphere. This is supported by findings from the Environmental Protection Agency; between 1990 and 2007, the amount of methane produced by livestock increased from 133.2 TgCO2 Equivalents to 139.0 TgCO2 Equivalents. This trend is likely to continue and increase dramatically over the next few decades.
The main problem with agriculture being a major contributor to climate change is that it, in turn, is affected negatively by climate change. Dry areas become wet, warm areas become cool, wet areas become dry, and cool areas become warm. Certain crops need certain climates in order to thrive well enough to be produced commercially. If the climate rapidly changes, as it is now, a multitude of crops will die due to their inability to keep up with the rapidly changing habitat. This will be devastating to the agricultural industry and global population economically as there will be a decrease in food supply, which means prices will rise. It will also mean that global hunger rates will sharply increase. Farmers will either have to switch to growing different crops and change their whole operation (different crops constitute different methods of growing and harvesting), or they will have to move their operations entirely to a place where their crops will be able to grow. Feedback loops only serve to intensify the problems of global warming. As the global temperature rises, the oceans will become warmer and absorb less carbon dioxide, making increasing the rate at which global warming occurs. The continuation of deforestation would equal less carbon sinks and the rising temperatures would make remaining forests less effective at absorbing carbon dioxide, thus again increasing the rate of global warming. The reduction of ice caps as a result of the increased temperature would also lead to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Ice reflects the sun’s rays at the same wavelength that it enters the atmosphere which allows the radiation to exit the Earth’s atmosphere, as opposed to it hitting the terra firma or ocean, which changes the wavelength and causes it to become trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere. These feedback loops, along with others, play off each other and create a snowball rolling down a hill effect. As they progress further along, the process intensifies and cannot be stopped.
Erosion is the movement of soil by water, wind, or gravity. This process does occur naturally, however, agriculture is increasing the rate at which it is happening. Soil erosion is becoming a major problem throughout the world as the global demand for food increases. Soil is more than just dirt; it “a mixture of minerals, air, water, and organic materials, such as roots, decaying plant parts, fungi, earthworms, bacteria, and microorganisms”. When crops are planted, they take nutrients and moisture out of the soil. When these crops are harvested and the nutrients are not placed back into the soil, degradation can occur if the process repeats itself over the years. The amount of arable land in the world to use for farming is decreasing as conventional farm methods and animal agriculture degrade the soil, often causing desertification. Desertification is when the soil is degraded to the point where it resembles desert sand due to the loss of nutrients and moisture. A famous example of this is the Dust Bowl that occurred in the 1930’s in the United States.
While desertification is not a problem in the United States any longer, it is still a major problem in developing and impoverished countries which do not have the knowledge or technology to prevent desertification. The United States is not, however, immune to soil erosion and degradation. “In this century alone, for instance, the US has lost half its topsoil (the fertile upper layer of earth necessary to grow all food). Around the world, about 70 percent of the land used for agriculture is at risk of being turned to degraded waster soil that will be worthless for farming, unable to sustain healthy and diverse flora, and unlikely to recover. “Currently, the average rate of soil erosion on U.S. cropland is 7 tons per acre per year”. Deforestation is a major cause of soil erosion and desertification. “The immediate consequences of deforestation can be severe. Forests play a crucial role in the natural water cycle, for example. Rain falls in mountain forests, gradually seeps through sand, soil and rock, and emerges from this natural filtration system as clear river and lake water. When the trees are removed, the water simply runs off mountainsides in sheets taking topsoil and rock with it, and leading to soil erosion. Roughly 34 million acres of forests are lost each year. Imagine a forest one hundred miles wide and five hundred miles long - an area greater than the size of New York state - lost every year”.
“About 2 million ha of soil, equivalent to 15 percent of the Earth’s land area (an area larger than the United States and Mexico combined), have been degraded through human activities”. “Causes of soil degradation include overgrazing (35 percent), deforestation (30 percent), agricultural activities (27 percent), over-exploitation of vegetation (7 percent), and industrial activities (1 percent)”. According to these statistics, agriculture accounts for roughly 99 percent of all soil erosion. Once again, animal agriculture is the major contributor as deforestation and overgrazing account for 65 percent of soil degradation. In developing and impoverished countries, forests are cleared for livestock to graze. Instead of managing these grazing lands, the farmers allow the livestock to overgraze, leaving little but dirt. The process is then repeated, resulting in forests and land being cleared and overgrazed, respectively, over and over.
Vegetable production, however, is very degrading to soil quality as well. Vegetable production is one of the most concentrated businesses in industrial agriculture because all of the plants are tightly packed together to increase yield per acre. The vegetables all compete for nutrients and water in the soil, and when there are that many vegetables extremely close together; most of them are left without any real nutritional content due to a severe lack of nutrients in the soil. After these vegetables are harvested, the soil is extremely vulnerable to erosion as it lacks nutrients and water moisture. Since soil formation is a very slow process, even a slight amount of soil degradation can be devastating. “Since 1950, about one-third of American cropped land has had to be abandoned because of erosion problems.” “Soil removed by erosion contains about 3 times more nutrients and 1.5 to 5 times more organic matter than the soil that remains behind”. Once an area is degraded or goes through desertification, it takes many years for any vegetation to be able to grow there again. The soil left behind is often extremely inefficient at sustaining healthy crops and fauna and is a major problem all around the world.
Water scarcity is a growing concern in global politics and it is predicted the next major war will be fought over water. Agriculture only serves to enhance this global tension over water as agriculture enhances the scarcity of water in a plethora of ways. Water is taken for agricultural purposes and no effort is made to replenish it. Water pollution and depletion are by-products of agriculture and cause severe water scarcity. Water pollution from agriculture occurs when soil, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or animal run-off get into the waterways. Soil erosion also plays a large part in water pollution. “In addition to removing valuable soil from farmland, erosion pollutes waterways with sediment. Runoff containing sediment degrades aquatic ecosystems by reducing stream depth and increasing turbidity (making water cloudier), causing the population of fish and other aquatic organisms to decline. According to the EPA, sediment is the most significant non-point source (NPS) pollutant in the US”. A non-point source pollutant is something that is not intentionally directed to waterways, but ends up there regardless.
Pesticides and herbicides also have negative affects on waterways. “The US Department of Agriculture reports that perhaps half the groundwater and well water in the US is, or could be, contaminated by pesticides. When the US Geological Survey conducted its National Water Quality Assessment they found that more than 95% percent of the samples collected from streams were contaminated with pesticide”. As pesticides are carcinogenic, pesticides in the water harm aquatic species and land species. Animal waste, largely coming from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), is held in lagoons mixed with water. These lagoons often leak into underground water sources or overflow during storms. Livestock manure has a lot of ammonia in it which is fatal to fish and can be converted into nitrates; elevated nitrates in the drinking water is highly poisonous to humans. Animal waste also has a high level of pathogens and microorganisms which can harm humans and other animals. Heavy metals are also present in animal waste, which contaminates water further and damages organisms that drink the contaminated water and that live in it. Fertilizers can seep into the water and cause eutrophication due to an overabundance of nutrients in the water. Eutrophication is when algal blooms expand at an increased rate and absorb all of the oxygen in the immediate area, which kills all of the aerobic organisms in the water. The algae itself then dies out as well due to a lack of oxygen. What is left is a barren aquatic environment lacking any aerobic organisms.
Another way agriculture contributes to global water scarcity is water depletion. Water is heavily subsidized by government for agriculture in the United States, so farmers use flood irrigation methods, which essentially is just flooding the field of crops. Roughly 75 percent of this water evaporates before it has time to reach the roots of the crops or is lost as run-off. Only about 4 to 8 percent of the water actually goes to the roots of the crops. The rest of it seeps into the ground but does not make contact with the roots of the crops. The largest aquifer in the United States, the Ogallala aquifer, is being depleted at a rate of 12 billion cubic meters per year. Agriculture utilizes roughly 70 percent of the world’s water and its overall use is increasing. The most striking example of water exploitation for agriculture is the Aral Sea; heavy extraction for irrigation of cash crops has “literally drained the lake of life. Since 1960 the lake has shrunk to one-third of its previous area, a loss of 18,500 square miles”. “Because industrial production for the global food market often promotes crops inappropriate to local climate and soil, such agriculture can have devastating impacts on local ecological balance. Aquifers are overdrawn, rivers and lakes are depleted, and soil can be seriously degraded. All water contains some salt. The massive irrigation required by industrial agriculture, especially in inappropriate climates, can leave damaging salt residue. The soil progressively degrades and eventually is made unusable for farming. About 20 percent of the world’s farmland is affected by rising salinity, and about 2.5 million acres are abandoned each year as a result”. All of these negative affects to the environment are connected and linked together - they are not separated by anything.
Despite all the negative affects agriculture currently has on the environment, there are solutions in order to make agriculture a sustainable process while still feeding the global population. Reducing or ideally, eliminating, the consumption of meat, practicing conservative farming methods, eliminating agricultural subsidies, and making the switch to local, organic farms would do wonders for the environment.
Cutting meat consumption alone would drastically reduce the detrimental environmental effects caused by agriculture. “If Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan - a Camry, say - to the ultra-efficient Prius”. Soil erosion, deforestation, pollution of water and air, and climate change would all be slowed as a result of the reduction of the amount of meat eaten. Animal agriculture by itself is one of the most harmful practices to the environment today and the elimination of animal agriculture would dramatically increase the viability of the environment. However, animal agriculture is not going to go away any time soon and more realistic solutions must be put into place. Locally and organically raised livestock reduces the amount of fossil fuels used for transportation, reduces the amount of chemical fertilizers (the animal’s manure is used in its place), and reduces the amount of greenhouse gases released as only a certain number of livestock can be produced viably in the given amount of land. While this solution would have Americans eating less meat, it is a sacrifice that must be made to save the environment. As long as there is animal agriculture, the environment can never be safe.
Eliminating subsidies for agriculture would also serve to reduce the amount of meat consumed, as well as provide incentives for farmers to use conservative and environmentally sustainable practices. If the price of the environmental degradation was reflected in the price of the product (water and air pollution, soil degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions), the cost of meat would be too high for most to eat it every day in the United States, which is currently the common practice. Not only would meat be more expensive, but crops produced by conventional agriculture, and products linked to those crops, would also be more expensive as pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, fossil fuels, and water would not be subsidized. Farmers would have the incentive to keep their crops viable without pesticides and herbicides. They would also have the incentive to install drip-irrigation systems instead of using flood-irrigation. Drip-irrigation systems consist of a network of pipes that deliver water, drip-by-drip, to the roots of crops, reducing the amount of water used and wasted by an astronomical amount. The removal of fossil fuel subsidies, along with the others, would encourage the growth of local, organic farms to reduce transportation costs and chemical fertilizer costs. This would cause pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and soil erosion caused by agriculture to decrease considerably as organic farming does not use chemical pesticides, fertilizers, or herbicides. Organic farms also seek to reduce soil erosion by contour farming, which plants crops in furrows along lines of consistent elevation on sloped land in order to prevent soil erosion and slow the movement of water.
While agriculture is harmful to the environment at the present time, there is the possibility of salvation in the removal of agriculture subsidies, reduction of meat consumption, the movement towards local, organic farms, and practicing conservative agriculture methods. All these solutions would serve the reverse the damage agriculture has cause the environment in a staggering way. Climate change has the potential to cause the most harm to the environment, and this is what we need to address first and foremost. Fortunately, however, addressing this issue will also address the other issues as well. Nothing in the environment comes individually wrapped and packaged for human convenience. Harming one thing invariably harms another and benefiting one thing benefits another; the environment is interconnected in ways we cannot even comprehend completely or foresee. The only difference is whether we put in place practices that harm or benefit the environment.
Sources:
M. Borders and H. Sterling Burnett. "Farm Subsidies: Devastating the World's Poor and the Environment". NCPA, 2006.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
Ibid
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/233/climate-change-and-global-warming-introduction#Rapidchangesinglobaltemperature
H. Shugart, R. Sedjo, and B. Sohnjen. “Forests and Global Climate Change”. 2003.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.html
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
EPA, Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change: Back to Basics, page 3.
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
Ibid
H. Steinfeld et al., Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, Livestock, Environment and Development. 2006.
U.S. Emissions Inventory 2009: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/soil/
Ibid
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/soil/
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
Global Environmental Outlook 3: Chapter 2, page 3
The Evolution of Industrial Vegetable Production
P. Warshall. Tilth and Technology: The Industrial Redesign of Our Nation’s Soils
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/soil/
Ibid
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/waterpollution/
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable. London & New York: Zed Books, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135192/contour-farming
New Blog
I just made a new blog very, very recently as I feel that although I made this blog to write about any topic I wanted, I just had too much to say on the topic of healthy eating and wanted to give it its own personal blog. Do me a favor and go check it out of healthy eating is something that interests you as I can promise a lot of interesting and intelligent posts, along with a lot of food ideas and great brands.
Sincerely,
The Guy Blogging
Sincerely,
The Guy Blogging
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Returning From My Hiatus
So, it's been...a long time since I've posted anything on here. A lot has happened and I have a lot to talk about. However, I am going to keep this post short and simple. Expect a lot of things in the near future about a variety of topics. I am going to start several sub-blogs within this one blog. I'll leave you all with a tip. If you like cheese, goat cheese specifically, and have a Whole Foods near you, go get yourself some Humboldt Fog cheese; it is sublime.
Sincerely,
The Guy Blogging
Sincerely,
The Guy Blogging
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Health and Fitness Update
In addition to this blog I will be creating another blog purely for the purpose of writing about fitness, nutrition, and health. I will be posting all articles relating to health in this new blog as well as daily updates on what exercises I have performed. This will be starting today so look for my fitness blog link on the right hand side of the page!
-Ben
-Ben
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Religion: It's Affect and the Aftermath (Warning: Highly offensive to religious people)
Color me fucking baffled because I just do not get it. How come religion plays such an integral part in so many people's lives and in their beliefs? You can claim that your religion is better and that Christians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. are only going to Heaven...but that doesn't make it true. What if there doesn't even turn out to be a Heaven? How much of a douchebag would you feel like then? Claiming that only your religion goes to Heaven and there isn't even a Heaven to go? Wow, you would probably feel like an astronomical asshole. It's not that you were wrong about which religion was right, you were wrong about something even existing. That's a giant leap upwards in regards to you fucking up. Would you like a pat on the back now by your omnipresent god?
Regardless, no one religion is right. I don't care if you're Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Wiccan, or any of the other religions in the world. How can there be one right religion? It’s basically just a giant roulette game with peoples’ faith. You bet 23 instead of 24 and you’re eternally fucked. Let’s forget about the fact that they're all basically the same thing with minor changes in belief and simple name changes (well the major ones anyways); you don't even know what is waiting for you after this life. All you have is a belief. A belief? Well that my friend, is useless bullshit. I could believe I had a billion dollars, but that doesn't make it true does it? No, it does not. I could believe I was a superhero, but again I am not. No matter how hard I really do believe, I won't make anything come true. So just because you believe that there is a certain something after death, doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Just because you believe that your religion is the right one, doesn't make it true. Did you ever hear the saying that what's right for one person isn't always right for another? Yes? No? Well it's true either way. And I'm thinking specifically about Christianity when I say this; stop pushing your religion onto other people. No one really cares what you believe or how great your God is. If they did, they'd be coming to you. People are not like women in bars when it comes to religion. They don't wait back hoping you'll pick them out of the crowd. They don't feel special when you go over and talk to them. But just in case you do, at least buy them a drink first. It'll make the pain of your incredibly boring, long, over enthusiastic sales pitch that more bearable.
What is religion? Well Webster’s defines it as...who gives a fuck? What has religion ever done for you? Now I know, I know. It gives you something to believe in right? You should believe in yourself. You shouldn't need religion to be your crutch. It's pathetic when people say, "Jesus or God or Allah or that witch from Bewitched or maybe even Sabrina the Teenage Witch will come and save us. If we trust in them we'll be just fine." No you won't! You really think some higher being (if they do exist) really cares about you? What higher being would allow the catastrophic state we're in? No I know, it's all part of a higher purpose right? Yes? No, wrong again but thanks for playing. You cannot base your life around a silly belief that there is a higher purpose if you don't know if there even is a higher being to create a higher purpose. Jesus Christ! And I say that only as an expression, not to announce I believe in Jesus. Was he alive at once time? How should I know? Do I care? Of course not. Why? Because it has absolutely nothing to do with me or my life.
Religion is an excuse for hatred, murder, and thievery; for example the crusades and Jihad. Think of all the death that came about; men and young men dying by the sword, their skin punctured with arrows, and their bodies crushed by massive stones flung by catapults. A bit gruesome isn't it? And you know why it happened? Religion. Hm what's another horrible thing that happened because of religion? Oh right, the Holocaust. Not only did it cause the deaths of over six million people, it also almost destroyed the world. Imagine if the Nazis had risen to power and defeated U.S. and Russia? Which they would have had they not attacked Russia while attacking the European countries to the west of them on the western front. Could you imagine a world where freedom was non-existent and you were killed just because someone didn't like the way you looked or talked? Yeah and it almost happened because of religion.
Religion is the people of the world using another medium to get things done or to use as a medium for blame. "Oh I didn't clean the house because I prayed to God to make the house clean. He didn't do it? Oh my gosh! Why God, why would you do that to me?" I'll tell you little Billy...because God may not be real. Based on scientific evidence, God may be just a clusterfuck of stars somewhere in our universe. Is that true? Who knows? You can say it's not...but how do you know? If you deny that it is true at all, then you sir or madam are a hypocrite. Without proof, you cannot prove or disprove any theory. Your theory is God; mine is a clusterfuck of stars. Let's leave it at that.
Don't hesitate to leave comments agreeing or disagreeing; just promise not to incur the wrath of your God on me if you severely disagree.
Sincerely,
The Guy Blogging
P.S. - Be sure to check out Bill Maher's Religulous if this at all interests you. Every religion is made fun of so even if you are slightly insulted by it, you can have a laugh at another religion's expense more than once. If you're like me, then you can laugh at them all. It is also quite informative and eye-opening as it is a mockumentary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)