The Forum > Article Comments > World Food Day > Comments
World Food Day : Comments
By Tim Andrews, published 16/10/2012Green activists are making the world hungrier by pushing policies restricting the supply of affordable food.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 11:23:14 PM
| |
<< So yes, I am guilty on this occasion of a slight exaggeration. >>
Well!! I am staggered Pericles. Fancy you admitting that!! ( :>| But you then carry on with a not so slight exaggeration with your ridiculous nonsense about me hijacking the debate. Deeear oh dear! Meanwhile, you’ve indicated where you would like the discussion to go, but you have contributed NOTHING towards it. I wonder what you are doing that takes precedence over that and yet still allows you to express your abject distaste for any mention of the highly relevant population component of a global food security strategy. Alright, here’s a start on your Greenpeace query. From Wikipedia: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace by: • Catalysing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change. • Defending our oceans by challenging wasteful and destructive fishing, and creating a global network of marine reserves. • Protecting the world’s remaining ancient forests which are depended on by many animals, plants and people. • Working for disarmament and peace by reducing dependence on finite resources and calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. • Creating a toxin free future with safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals in today's products and manufacturing. • Campaigning for sustainable agriculture by encouraging socially and ecologically responsible farming practices. ---- The great flaw in Greenpeace’s philosophy is that there is nothing about population. It is simply nonsensical to talk about sustainable agriculture only in terms of farming practices without considering the ever-growing demand for food. If Greenpeace is completely against GM foods and against large-scale production in favour of local produce as Tim Andrews suggests, but devoid of any action or comment on population, then they have certainly not got it properly worked out. However, they’ve still got it a whole lot better worked out than Mr Andrews does! So there’s a start Pericles. Maybe you can develop it further. What a wonderful looking day. The beach beckons! Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 8:13:14 AM
| |
There you go again, Ludwig!
>>The great flaw in Greenpeace’s philosophy is that there is nothing about population<< No more questions, m'lud. Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 10:52:24 AM
| |
There you go again Perky – demonstrating your obsession with me daring to mention the P word!
Nothing else seems to matter to you. You are clearly not really interested in the topic at hand here. Once again I say; Deeear oh dear! Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 10:57:10 AM
| |
Ludwig, Pericles is not the only one.
I posted the UN's fertility rate graph which shows population is slowing down and about to go over falls from 2050 with Africa being the exception. Most of western Europe, Russia, Japan, the US and parts of Asia are now looking at how to fund aged care and pensions from a rapidly shrinking tax base. Why do you persist with this single line of argument? Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 1:04:51 PM
| |
I'm guessing it's because of the other graphs from that website you linked to Cheryl.
You know, ones like this: http://esa.un.org/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm Even with a fertility rate slowdown, that's a lot of mouths to feed. Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 1:52:15 PM
|
The seas have absorbed 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide which has built up in the atmosphere, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.
By taking in that amount, more than 1/4 of the greenhouse gas has accumulated in the atmosphere, the oceans have buffered the effects of climate change, temperatures have not risen as much as previously predicted and glaciers haven't melted as fast.
These benefits are coming at a cost to marine life, especially oysters, clams and corals that rely on the minerals in alkaline seawater to build their protective exoskeletons.
The effects of the changing chemistry add to the oceans' problems, which include warming temperatures and expanding low-oxygen "dead zones."
By the end of this century, oceans will become hot, sour and breathless.
The lead scientist from the Australian Antarctic Division told a Senate estimates hearing today "rapid changes" taking place across the icy land mass will have significant impacts on global climate.
Changes in ocean flows and shifts in Antarctic ice cap levels are occurring at rates faster than at any other time in history.
Scientists are detecting major changes in the circulation of deep, dense salty water off Antarctica. This water drives the circulation of the world's oceans, in turn climate patterns.
Parts of the Antarctic ice caps are melting at unprecedented rates. "The findings around changes in Antarctica and the southern oceans are critically important to driving world climate," he stated.
Regardless of the science, you all believe we can continue to produce cheap, calorie rich food, exponentially into the future.
I'm with Ludwig on this one, we are about tho see a huge gap in food supply-demand and it has little to do with politics, industry and economics, more likely to do with top-soil loss, extreme weather and climate events and an ever increasing population (circ 80M per annum).
This will result in the depletion of natural resources on an already tapped out finite planet, go figure!