'Silent Spring', 45 years down the road ...

[deborah4]

In 1962, Rachel Carson's landmark book, Silent Spring, helped launch the environmentalist movement with the recognition that we need to regulate industry in order to protect the environment. The most famous chapter, ''A Fable for Tomorrow'' described a nameless American town, where all wildlife from fish to birds, apple blossom to children, had been silenced by the lethally poisonous effects of DDT in the food chain. DDT was eventually banned, but the wider legacy of Carson's book, was a new public awareness that nature was vulnerable to human intervention.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42607/story.htm

With 20 of America's common yard birds suffering more than a 50% decline over the past 40 years due to farming monoculture, pesticides, climate change etc, what would be her prognosis today I wonder?

[Jos Stratford]

I think the most dangerous trend in the recent times is the move towards so-called green energy sources - in decades past, conservationists and environmentalists all sung from a similar songsheet. Threats, by and large, came from non-environmentalists and were tackled by conservationists working together. Now, a massive shift in thinking from those days 45 years ago, we have ranks of 'environmentalists' who actively persue goals that will destroy the very environment we seek to protect. Be it, windfarms that destroy our raptors or biofuels that ultimately fuel little more than increased destruction of rainforests and other habitats, this latest band of environmentalist has somehow hoodwinked the media and general public to believe their cause is to the ultimate good.

[Karl J]

not the faintest idea about 45 years ago...

But anyway, as for the silencing of children in the book, ok so it's not DDT and nor is it directly related to birds / wildlife but, maybe this is (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,,1999260,00.html) similar to what the author had in mind ?

green energy = dangerous trend ... hmmm, going have to think about that one a while

[deborah4]

green energy = dangerous trend ... hmmm, going have to think about that one a while

... meanwhile, I'm sure no one would doubt the environmental impact of cars cf. to cycling ;) Jos makes two or three good points though - an environmental 'movement' divided (for whatever reason) is less effective, it's been subverted by industrial lobbyists representing particular fuel source interests, more insidiously, the fox is in charge of the chicken coop when it comes to ''independent'' environmental impact assessments for planning (esp. Wind farm apps.). However, I wouldn't personally lump them all together as 'environmentalists' (whatever they choose to call themselves) but rather seeing the environmental movement as now 'veiling' those who use popular support of environmentalism to pursue non-environmental goals. (just IMO!)

Perhaps it's a case of the environment now being regulated to protect industry? (tower blocks but with a zoo, as a pay off for ruining the forest)

Interesting article Karl - saw another ''recent report'' from UK study, some years back that found traffic congestion around schools was contributing to asthma/bronchial problems in young children - it concluded by suggesting it was stationary cars turning over their engines that was more likely to cause problems than those fast moving. (think this was followed by a ''Switch off your Engine'' campaign - which everyone adhered to for a few months)

[citrinella]

I think the most dangerous trend in the recent times is the move towards so-called green energy sources - in decades past, conservationists and environmentalists all sung from a similar songsheet. Threats, by and large, came from non-environmentalists and were tackled by conservationists working together. Now, a massive shift in thinking from those days 45 years ago, we have ranks of 'environmentalists' who actively persue goals that will destroy the very environment we seek to protect. Be it, windfarms that destroy our raptors or biofuels that ultimately fuel little more than increased destruction of rainforests and other habitats, this latest band of environmentalist has somehow hoodwinked the media and general public to believe their cause is to the ultimate good.

I agree the environmental debate has been hijacked by vested interests. Always the same with any issue, but I think you are being simplistic Jos.

We cannot expect any energy source to have no environmental impact. We have to think about minimizing it, and in the meantime that might mean windfarms in some situations. Solar might be best in Spain and the Maghreb, but wind supply and demand match much better in Scotland. I have seen a proposal to put solar in the Sahara with a huge DC transmision network across Europe. Fine for the solar power - but what about the transmission network.

Another consideration in favour of windfarms might be diversifying our impact on the environment. If all the damage done is concentrated on one point, that point will break. In the case of the current situation with massive pressure on the atmosphere, that is having catastrophic consequences. Maybe we would see similar if we tried to take most of our energy from one source of a different type (e.g. solar). We don't know. I reckon we should try to mix - hydro, solar, tidal, wave (if it ever becomes practical), wind - while we wait to see if fusion offers a realistic future.

Much more important in the short term is to persuade the world, especially the western world, to stop wasting energy. I cannot see this without draconian measures. As Deborah said, switch off your engine lasted five minutes. It would help if car air-con was banned. In Scotland air-con should be banned full stop (except in agricultural machinery of course ;-). I have never seen a building with air-con in Scotland where the job could not have been done better with natural ventilation. BTW I do switch off my engine. I let the car roll down hills in traffic jams - only to be told that is illegal ! We need a complete U-turn in thinking.

As for that silent spring. The last few days have seen foul weather in my part of Scotland. Quite common in summer nowadays. Year after year we see bird breeding seriously disrupted/devastated by these events. I am beginning to wonder if climate change, increasing instability, isn't much more to blame for recent bird population problems than has been recognized. Think about the long spell of dry years in the south of england from about 1970 to that big El Nino event about 1996. What would that do to all the indegenous insects that need moisture to breed ? Knock on effects on birds reliant on those insects ?

Actually I am pessimistic on the possibilities for that U turn. You only have to look at Al Gore's carbon footprint and listen to Western rants against China to know that walking the walk is not part of the agenda. Our leaders are hypocrits, so all us ordinary individuals turn cynical - "why should I bother" ?

Mike.

Competing interests - a farmer and typical westerner in terms of consumption.

[Jos Stratford]

I agree the environmental debate has been hijacked by vested interests. Always the same with any issue, but I think you are being simplistic Jos.

We cannot expect any energy source to have no environmental impact. We have to think about minimizing it, and in the meantime that might mean windfarms in some situations.

Any response shorter than one extending to pages has to be simplistic, but I don't think I was being so simplistic - be they environmentalists or trumpeting their name as a so-called environmentalist (point taken Deborah), the fact is that new 'green policies' are already having devastating impacts, I refer not only to windfarms. To take just three countries, Colombia, Brazil and Malaysia ...all three have made it policy to expand the production of biofuel by upwards of 50%. This is resulting is land grab, habitat destruction on a massive scale and increased CO2 levels (how ironic!). Eg in Colombia, barons previously involved in the drug trade are now turning attention to growing biofuels (very profitable, esp after Bush's little trip into the green world) - result in Colombia, deforestation, subsistance farmers ordered at gunpoint off their land and in many cases killed. Malaysia, forests being cut and peatlands drained - the 'other' environmental groups (ie those not pushing biofuels) point out the damage this is doing to the ecosystem and that draining peatlands unlocks the CO2 and actually is likely to increase carbon output, very much against what the idea of biofuel is all about.
Since you refer to windfarms, I'll add one point - as discussed in a thousand threads, can only at best produce a tiny percantage of our needs - if that is worth sliced and diced raptors, then I am in a different postion as regards opinions.

If the price of maintaining a climate at present levels is a sterile world - rural areas industralised by windturbines and monocultures, species displaced - then what is the point? Might as well burn the world and be damned.

[gordon g]

Much more important in the short term is to persuade the world, especially the western world, to stop wasting energy. I cannot see this without draconian measures.

Couldnt agree more! The 'green' mantra used to be reduce, reuse, recycle: we dont here much about reduction of resource consumption any more. A large proportion of our energy consumption is used generating heat - I wonder how much our national carbon footprint would be reduced if all houses were properly insulated and double-glazed? Would it be cheaper and more effective to do this than build a 'low-carbon' nuclear power station?

[Ilya Maclean]

....the fox is in charge of the chicken coop when it comes to ''independent'' environmental impact assessments for planning (esp. Wind farm apps.). However, I wouldn't personally lump them all together as 'environmentalists' (whatever they choose to call themselves) but rather seeing the environmental movement as now 'veiling' those who use popular support of environmentalism to pursue non-environmental goals. (just IMO!)

I've come across this type of post several times, and always feel compelled to respond, particularly as I have been (amongst many other things) involved with undertaking EIAs for wind farms.

I really do not believe the EIA process it is nearly incestuous as you imply. Whilst many of the EIAs I’ve come across have had some major weaknesses, I think this has more to do with the extreme difficulty of actually determining a wind farm’s impacts (the two major impacts are collision mortality and displacement effects. In the former, a 1% error in estimations of avoidance rates can lead to 100% error is estimates of mortality. The latter, it is neigh on impossible to quantify as it requires knowledge of the extent to which displaced birds are likely to suffer higher rates of mortality due to resource competition – if you can think of a way of working this out let me know!!!).

Once completed they undergo per-review, often by organisations such as the RSPB. They are then forwarded to the relevant countryside agency for final approval and fed into the final Environmental Statement. Granted there has been some pretty bizarre approvals – the Thames Array to name but one. However, having read the EIA and the Environmental Statement I don’t at all think that it’s a case of the EIAers acting as yes men to the industry. Read the statement for yourself:

www.londonarray.com/wp-content/Non-techncal-summary.pdf

Note particularly these bits:

The EIA has assessed the "worst realistic case" within clearly defined parameters that will govern or define the full range of development possibilities and has considered the most onerous environmental scenarios for every aspect of the project. This process defines clearly the potential boundaries of the development and describes the maximum possible impact.

This assessment concluded that the only bird group that could be significantly affected by the development, assuming a precautionary worst-case scenario, would be divers, primarily red-throated and to a lesser degree black-throated. Less significant effects could also potentially affect other species including gulls and migratory waterfowl. During the course of aerial and boat surveys over three seasons, it has been established that divers over-winter off East Anglia, the Thames estuary and off the Kent coast in much greater numbers than was previously understood. These numbers are sufficient to justify classification of a substantial proportion of the east coast and Thames estuary as European Designated Sites for these species. The impacts on divers could be either displacement from a zone around the wind turbines or the risk of collision with the turbines. This does not mean that there will be a significant impact, but that there is currently insufficient data on the interaction of divers with offshore wind farms to be certain that such an impact would not occur.

I honestly believe that to be a fairly accurate account of the likely impacts. I think it is the biological uncertainty coupled with the political climate favouring wind farm construction that has lead to their approval, rather than bent EIAers!

[deborah4]

Hi Ilya

It's been many years since I was involved with Planning Applications at Local Gvt level (and even more since studying Environmental Law at Uni!) so I'm very rusty with the process of Apps. vis a vis EIAs. It's certainly not a ''vested interest'' free process though from top to bottom, and certainly came across some rather under the table type bartering while I was involved. However, I take your point re: implying EIArs are ''bent'', I think the case is the whole system is bent towards development/planning per se with environmental considerations only part of that process. The presumption for development is therefore built into the system (regardless of the nature of development) unless ES->EIA can establish good cause to either prevent/modify development proposals/schemes. The burden of proof, so to speak, heavily resting on this provision within planning law to protect the environment from direct/collateral damage due to development. Even recourse to EU Law, is assessed within the overall longterm objectives of the Treaty which is social/political/economical. All subsidiary EU legislation exists to promote that end and is interpreted as such. Thus, at EU level, environmental protection works provided it is in accordance/harmony with the overall aims of the EU. When there is conflict between environmental/political/economic/social interests (which is often the case), the piece of environmental legislation in question, must be interpreted so as to be in accordance with the primary legislation of the Treaty. This is a powerful interpretative approach which often means the ECJ can not uphold an environmental interest if it conflicts with the primary legislation. In short, from national to supra-national level, political, socio-economic interests have been built in from the start to any provision that exists to protect the environment through legal means.

Planners are responsible are they not, for ensuring an ES accompanies an application? It's at this stage I believe, that it becomes 'flawed' as there seems to be rather a lot of scope for the limit or extent of studies to be carried out in each case. The Allt Dearg ES, for example, used, according to AWF, only one observer to assess bird activity around proposed site. It took place at one time of the year and apparently only represents a 'slice' of the overall picture. Impacts on peat have not been fully assessed (even at a base level of ascertaining the depth of the bogs which would allow for better assessment of potential erosion.). There were other objections too, such as the assumption that threatened Divers would simply move to nest on artificial rafts when there was plenty of good habitat along side Lochs in potential development area.

I don't think it's a case of those who carry out studies for ESs are ''bent'', but simply are working for those who act on the presumption of development unless it's somehow proven that it shouldn't go ahead on environmental grounds. IMO this leads to weak and potentially flawed ESs which are then fed into the EIA.

As for 'biological uncertainty', that's what the Precautionary Principle is for. Adhered to as it should be adhered to, means NO to development unless it can be shown that it will cause no harm to the environment/ or at least where the impact is known and can be fully mitigated in advance. Again, with the 'political environment', all EIAs take place within that wider construct as mentioned above.

If anything's 'bent', it's the whole p*xy system of Enviromental Law, that while pertaining to protect the environment on the one hand, accords precedent to socio-economic and political interests which obviously includes just about every type of Developer with the exception of those wanting to build Nature Reserves!!

As I said above, 'Tower blocks (or windfarms etc) with a Zoo thrown in (or rafts) as a pay off for ruining the forest (or risking the displacement/death of Shed 1 birds etc)

[citrinella]

To take just three countries, Colombia, Brazil and Malaysia ...all three have made it policy to expand the production of biofuel by upwards of 50%. This is resulting is land grab, habitat destruction on a massive scale and increased CO2 levels (how ironic!).
Sorry Jos, I didn't pick you up on your original note on biofuels. I agree entirely on this, despite the fact that some of the OSR I grow will be used for biofuel. Whatever we think in Europe, industry will mainly buy biomass from the cheapest source and that will probably mean palm oil from SE Asia for biodiesel and ethanol from the Americas. They'll buy a little from Europe too for window dressing, but no more than the EU (or member states) will give them a subsidy for.

If the price of maintaining a climate at present levels is a sterile world - rural areas industralised by windturbines and monocultures, species displaced - then what is the point? Might as well burn the world and be damned.
Well, I will take a simplistic view of this. The problem has relatively little to do with which source of energy (including food - and for that matter other resources such as minerals). The simple truth is we are using too much, far too much.

Mike.

[Jodd]

An article in today's Independent along similar lines


The fragile planet: Thoughts of a green prophet

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2679477.ece

[deborah4]

Not just 'similar lines' but the same lines! A good article highlighting the key turning points of environmental thinking (and where, if anywhere, it's got us!):

1962 Silent Spring published: Rachel Carson
1967 Science & Survival published: Barry Commoner
1968 First pictures of earth from outer space on the Apollo 8 flight
1968 The Population Bomb published: Paul Ehrlich
1971 The Closing Circle published: Barry Commoner
1972 The Limits of Growth predicting depletion of natural resources

All seminal works and foundational to birth of Environmental movement but, Commoner concludes today that:

"We've really failed to do more than a few specific things. We don't use DDT on the farm any more. We don't use lead in gasoline anymore. Environmental pollution is an incurable disease. It can only be prevented. And prevention can only take place at the point of production. If you insist on using DDT, the only thing you can do is stop. The rest has really been sort of forgotten about. Except that now, global warming has sort of consolidated the independent environmental hazards that many of us had been working on all of these years."

[Jodd]

Another depressing article. How much more can nature take?


As glaciers melt and rivers dry up, coal-fired power stations multiply

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2106943,00.html

[deborah4]

Another depressing article. How much more can nature take?



less than we are currently throwing at it I suspect

[Farnboro John]

It took just one statement in last night's "Saving Planet Earth" to make me realise we are byond the point of no return: there are 6 billion of us and we have wrecked 75% of wildnerness. Within 50 years there are likely to be 9 billion of us.

The arithmetic is simple, 9 divided by 6 is 1.5, 0.75 times 1.5 is 1.125. Without absolute, ruthless, enforced population control its all going to go and there is no saving it. The over use of resources is directly related to the volume of users and what has to be done is cut the volume of users, not allow them to increase.

That means anyone not positively advocating and practicing human birth control is an enemy not only of mankind but of every wild animal and plant on the planet.

John

[rozinante]

A very sobering thought John.

I believe though that not all people in the world are over using resources. In fact a great many are not even using enough resorces to sustain their own lives.

Perhaps the requirement for population control lies primarily with those who are currently doing the over using?

[John Eaton]

It took just one statement in last night's "Saving Planet Earth" to make me realise we are byond the point of no return: there are 6 billion of us and we have wrecked 75% of wildnerness. Within 50 years there are likely to be 9 billion of us.

The arithmetic is simple, 9 divided by 6 is 1.5, 0.75 times 1.5 is 1.125. Without absolute, ruthless, enforced population control its all going to go and there is no saving it. The over use of resources is directly related to the volume of users and what has to be done is cut the volume of users, not allow them to increase.

That means anyone not positively advocating and practicing human birth control is an enemy not only of mankind but of every wild animal and plant on the planet.

John

John,

They were exactly my thoughts when that comment was made. Quite frightening, and that's without global warming really kicking in as yet.

John

[Farnboro John]

A very sobering thought John.

I believe though that not all people in the world are over using resources. In fact a great many are not even using enough resorces to sustain their own lives.

Perhaps the requirement for population control lies primarily with those who are currently doing the over using?

No, completely wrong. The fastest rates of population growth are all in the lower technology parts of the world, especially where modern medicine has been introduced (even the lowest level of modern medicine makes an enormous difference to mortality rates) but the humans have not got around to the idea that if almost all infants survive there's no need to have lots of them. Basing status on how many goats/cattle one has in low productivity habitat doesn't help either.

However, having idiots in charge who believe that "growth" is the only way forward and in consequence accept immigrants to already overcrowded areas is our current problem and until someone comes up with a new model our little corner of the world will continue to disappear under concrete.

John

John

[citrinella]

No, completely wrong. The fastest rates of population growth are all in the lower technology parts of the world, especially where modern medicine has been introduced (even the lowest level of modern medicine makes an enormous difference to mortality rates) but the humans have not got around to the idea that if almost all infants survive there's no need to have lots of them. Basing status on how many goats/cattle one has in low productivity habitat doesn't help either.

John
Condemning them to poverty. While this persists, their consumption, production of green house gases, will remain tiny compared with the west. They simply cannot afford to consume.

Even in China production of greenhouse gases per capita remains c.20% of that in Europe, 10% of that in the US. That is despite the fact that by shifting our manufacturing to China we have shifted a large part of our greenhouse gas production there, making their figures appear worse, ours much better.

Population control in the third world is no panacea. Besides, how would western do-gooders get them to do it ? What right have we ? We created the problem by massive past production of CO2. Nobody will listen to us until we control our own emissions (if then).

Mike.

[Farnboro John]

Condemning them to poverty. While this persists, their consumption, production of green house gases, will remain tiny compared with the west. They simply cannot afford to consume.

Even in China production of greenhouse gases per capita remains c.20% of that in Europe, 10% of that in the US. That is despite the fact that by shifting our manufacturing to China we have shifted a large part of our greenhouse gas production there, making their figures appear worse, ours much better.

Population control in the third world is no panacea. Besides, how would western do-gooders get them to do it ? What right have we ? We created the problem by massive past production of CO2. Nobody will listen to us until we control our own emissions (if then).

Mike.

What condemns a lot of these people to poverty is their simple over-production of people. But I am not talking about population control just in the third world. Our own government has set the laudable aim of having reduced emissions by 60% in the next fifty years, and the easiest way to do that is to have 60% fewer people emitting. So anyone who is wondering whether to have a holiday to Antarctica or start a family - go see the penguins and make sure your carbon footprint is your family's last one.

Nobody will listen to us, full stop. At present the only thing that saves some third world wildlife is the affluence of the first world visitors that allow some to make a living from it. Once that goes (as it will when the oil runs out) the wildlife will disappear as third world peoples ignore world opinion and national and international legislation and just clear habitat for agriculture, kill the animals for bushmeat and to avoid competition with their flocks, and cover the remaining wilderness with human settlement. Wildlife will come to mean Brown Rats, since they are the only thing seemingly as tenacious and adaptable as our own destructive self-centred species.

The only thing that will stop emissions is exhausting the stocks of fuels.

Doom approaches!

John

[Jos Stratford]

Oo er, you're in a depressed mood there John ...nasty hangover still lingering? ;)

Still, Lithuania must be exempt all these bad consequences of population growth - population has shrunk by at least 20% in last few years ...ta much you kind folks in the UK and Ireland for absorbing them all and leaving the country less busy for us remaining. Don't worry if you're condemning them to poverty by paying virtual slave wages in some quarters, they went of their own free will ;)

[StrikingSlug]

If you will forgive me refering back to an earlier part of this thread, wind farms are not always a bad thing for wildlife. In a classic case of the law of unintended consequences, the offshore wind farms in the North Sea are proving to be havens for fish in what is otherwise fast becoming a wasteland. Plaice, sole, cod and other threatened species all enjoy the fact that the bottom-raping beam trawlers are barred from the areas occupied by the turbines, and as a result their numbers are blossoming. And for anyone who believes anything said by a commercial fisherman, it is a fact that despite the best efforts of quotas and time-at-sea limitations, North Sea fish stocks are under severe pressure, with commensurate pressure on the food chain. Without some form of protection there could be nothing left within a few years (look at what happened to the New England cod fishery as an example).
I know it is not fashionable amongst the 'environmentalist' (of whatever type) lobby, by IMHO nuclear power has to have a place in reducing our carbon footprint, especilly with the vastly more efficient modern reactors (for example, in my world, nuclear submarines used to be refuelled every 4-5 years, now they will go for their entire working lives of 20-25 years on one fuelling). Yes there is the difficulty of what to do with the resulting waste, but at least there are options such as deep burial which are controllable. We simply cannot afford to keep pumping carbon gases into the atmosphere at the current rate.

[Farnboro John]

Oo er, you're in a depressed mood there John ...nasty hangover still lingering? ;)

More like not enough ale....

Last night's tiger programme made me feel even more that this can't be done. The Indian tiger champions tried to be upbeat, but its not just an issue of space and God knows they've little enough of that! A billion (thats 1,000,000,000) people in India and 2,000 tigers: 500,000:1. How many in each half million of population could cheerfully contemplate making a fast buck by disposing of a single tiger?

And what's the counter? Its simple - the Indians know it and practise it - the African game preservers know it and they carry AK47s as well as elephant guns - you have to put the animals lives not at the same level but above humans' lives and hunt the hunters. And you have to have the resources to detect incursions fast and the firepower to put them down quickly. And you can't imagine they will stop coming because there is big money behind them. How many humans are the Western Europeans who squeal about battery hens are going to be prepared to face such truth unflinchingly, even if it is the only hope for the megafauna?

John

[Tyke]

The only thing that will stop emissions is exhausting the stocks of fuels.


John

I'm coming to the same conclusion John.

This article is a bit of a reality check-as one of the commentators says-"When ExxonMobil calls for a carbon tax we should know its time to panic"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1980407.ece

Colin

[citrinella]

I'm coming to the same conclusion John.

This article is a bit of a reality check-as one of the commentators says-"When ExxonMobil calls for a carbon tax we should know its time to panic"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1980407.ece

Colin

Thanks Colin,

Lets hope the United States, which is basically run by big business, learns the common sense message in this rather than using it as an excuse for doing nowt.

Lets hope Europe doesn't react in an anti-big business way - "everything they say is crap".

We need intense efforts on all fronts.

Mike.

[deborah4]

Lets hope Europe doesn't react in an anti-big business way - "everything they say is crap".

We need intense efforts on all fronts.

Mike.


With Treasurer/Chancellor/Money-bags-Brown now the Pretender who's got his Throne, 'big business', I'm sure will be central to Gvt thinking. Not a single mention of Climate Change or the 'Environment' from Gordon Brown yesterday in any of his interviews or Speech. :C Lot's about making Britain great in the global market.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/27/nbrown127.xml

David Millband will presumably hold his position and given his recent reply to an email I sent him regarding specific needs and concerns about un-sustainable farming policies:

''With regard to your comments on sustainable farming, in January David Miliband set out a vision for English farming in 2020. It identifies a farming sector which should:

· be profitable in the marketplace, continuing to produce the majority of the food we consume;
· make a positive net environmental contribution, notably in respect of climate change, but also more widely; and
· manage the landscape and the natural assets that underlie it. ''

Hardly a ''Vision'' for the next 20 years!

''It's the Economy, stupid''

[citrinella]

With Treasurer/Chancellor/Money-bags-Brown now the Pretender who's got his Throne, 'big business', I'm sure will be central to Gvt thinking. Not a single mention of Climate Change or the 'Environment' from Gordon Brown yesterday in any of his interviews or Speech. :C Lot's about making Britain great in the global market.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/27/nbrown127.xml

David Millband will presumably hold his position and given his recent reply to an email I sent him regarding specific needs and concerns about un-sustainable farming policies:

''With regard to your comments on sustainable farming, in January David Miliband set out a vision for English farming in 2020. It identifies a farming sector which should:

· be profitable in the marketplace, continuing to produce the majority of the food we consume;
· make a positive net environmental contribution, notably in respect of climate change, but also more widely; and
· manage the landscape and the natural assets that underlie it. ''

Hardly a ''Vision'' for the next 20 years!

''It's the Economy, stupid''

Firstly, I'd like to add that Scottish policy, despite the recent change in government, appears very much the same. I have a letter in response to an email to Richard Lochead and Michael Russell which, to my eye, suggests no new thinking.

Secondly, on David Milliband's comments, I couldn't agree more. Rural poverty is a real and increasing issue. It is one of the main forces behind the so-called industrialization of agriculture - i.e. the increase in size of businesses and the economies of operations they are looking for. It is becoming extremely difficult for normal rural people to afford to buy a house in competition with people with urban incomes. The income gap is wide, and I cannot think of any justification for it. So yes, this should be The top priority.

Other social needs follow on from that anyway. Money has got to come from somewhere for conservation (and other social structures). Given the tax-payers' (ultimately) reluctance to pay more, local individuals and organizations are impotant in achieving more. If the rural economy is doing badly, it puts the squeeze on.

Mike.

[Farnboro John]

Other social needs follow on from that anyway. Money has got to come from somewhere for conservation (and other social structures). Given the tax-payers' (ultimately) reluctance to pay more, local individuals and organizations are impotant in achieving more. If the rural economy is doing badly, it puts the squeeze on.

Mike.

Aren't you rather assuming that rural people contribute more than urban to conservation, which personally I doubt is the case even if considered per capita? No doubt the RSPB etc could supply demographic information of this nature.

Incidentally just to make sure of an appropriate doom-laden note on which to finish the week, all the stuff about saving the albatross last night made it clear by omission that the major players in Southern Ocean fishing (Japanese, Koreans and other Asian nations) are not playing ball although the South Americans and South Africans are. As you'd expect, frankly. Once it is clear everyone else has taken the measures as far as they can go it will be time for the hunter killer subs to enforce compliance from the renegades. Hopefully that will be while there are still a few Messrs. Ross left.

John

[John Morgan]

I would appear that the "new breed" of environmentalist is someone who concerns themself only with human beings. Having just woken up to the fact that all life on the planet is threatened, these people think things through from a specist point of view, identifying what needs to be done to enable human beings to continue to "go forth and multiply" Their view of nature is the commonly held theistic one that nature is provided by God for us to overcome and subjugate. They may hold such strongly entrenched views about this that no amount of logically constructed argument will be even remotely entertained.

[citrinella]

Aren't you rather assuming that rural people contribute more than urban to conservation, which personally I doubt is the case even if considered per capita? No doubt the RSPB etc could supply demographic information of this nature.
John
Not in the least. I was discussing policy directed at landowners and local organizations. That policy views them (us) as key in those areas over which they (we) have influence. As that is a very significant proportion of the rural environment I wouldn't disagree with that view. RSPB and other major, national, organizations adopt this role when they take on local committments, and are the subject of government policy and support too.

The question of who contributes more is an irrelevant distraction. The important question is what our society (system) as a whole achieves, fails to achieve, or destroys.

Mike.

[citrinella]

I would appear that the "new breed" of environmentalist is someone who concerns themself only with human beings. Having just woken up to the fact that all life on the planet is threatened, these people think things through from a specist point of view, identifying what needs to be done to enable human beings to continue to "go forth and multiply" Their view of nature is the commonly held theistic one that nature is provided by God for us to overcome and subjugate. They may hold such strongly entrenched views about this that no amount of logically constructed argument will be even remotely entertained.
Is this supposed to be pointed at me ;-)

I'll assume not !

The people you describe are a tiny minority, though rather vocal. I disagree with their views but I think wealthy people have to be a bit more pragmatic. If we want the environment improved in a certain area, we will be most successful if we can get the local people on board. To do that, we have got to demonstrate to them that their lives will be enhanced in some way and that they will be no worse off financially in the short term. Otherwise they will stick to what they know rather than take a risk. Remember, they will do this even if what they know is wrong. I said "wealthy people" because that wealth is what local people after. If, to get a share of that wealth, people on the margins of tha Amazonian rain forest have no choice but to chop down the forest to grow crops China or for for biofuel, or coca for drugs, what else can they do ? It is perfectly sensible for the president of Brazil to say that if we want the rain forest preserved, we need to pay for it.

Introducing laws that ban people from making a little money to survive on is never going to work, because those people are desperate. The best thing that might happen may be that everybody ignores the law. Worse scenarios are very likely - trade being taken over by large criminal organization, civil war, destruction and even greater poverty.

Mike.

[Farnboro John]

Is this supposed to be pointed at me ;-)

I'll assume not !

The people you describe are a tiny minority, though rather vocal. I disagree with their views but I think wealthy people have to be a bit more pragmatic. If we want the environment improved in a certain area, we will be most successful if we can get the local people on board. To do that, we have got to demonstrate to them that their lives will be enhanced in some way and that they will be no worse off financially in the short term. Otherwise they will stick to what they know rather than take a risk. Remember, they will do this even if what they know is wrong. I said "wealthy people" because that wealth is what local people after. If, to get a share of that wealth, people on the margins of tha Amazonian rain forest have no choice but to chop down the forest to grow crops China or for for biofuel, or coca for drugs, what else can they do ? It is perfectly sensible for the president of Brazil to say that if we want the rain forest preserved, we need to pay for it.

Introducing laws that ban people from making a little money to survive on is never going to work, because those people are desperate. The best thing that might happen may be that everybody ignores the law. Worse scenarios are very likely - trade being taken over by large criminal organization, civil war, destruction and even greater poverty.

Mike.

The people described are not a tiny minority. The vast majority of people think they have a (god-given or otherwise) right to reproduce at whatever rate they choose. All we would need to do to save the planet is make sure everyone gets their nuts cut after one child, but you try proposing it in a world where the biggest Christian sect won't even advocate contraception.

John

[Jane Turner]

Emissions will indeed decrease when we run out of fuel. So will populations since the rather larger part of oil usage is food production. I have seen it calculated that there is just enough land space available to feed the current population of the earth without petrochemicals, as long as we all become vegan.

Will see if I can locate the figures.

Here is the first bit.... "Vast amounts of oil and gas are used as raw materials and energy in the manufacture of fertilisers and pesticides, and as cheap and readily available energy at all stages of food production: from planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting, through to processing, distribution and packaging. In addition, fossil fuels are essential in the construction and the repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads.

The energy ratio (energy out/energy in) in agriculture has decreased from being close to 100 for traditional pre-industrial societies to less than 1 in most cases in the present food system, as energy inputs, mainly in the form of fossil fuels, have gradually increased."

http://www.energybulletin.net/5045.html

[citrinella]

The people described are not a tiny minority.
Oh come on. He was referring to a radical element amongst the environmental lobby.

The vast majority of people think they have a (god-given or otherwise) right to reproduce at whatever rate they choose. All we would need to do to save the planet is make sure everyone gets their nuts cut after one child, but you try proposing it in a world where the biggest Christian sect won't even advocate contraception.
John
I agree, control of population should help, but in the short to medium term I suspect it would have the effect of increasing consumption / environmental impact.

How so ? The one child policy has been a huge success in China. It has meant that resources are shared between significantly fewer people, meaning that numbers escaping poverty have been vastly increased, moving vastly more people from subsistence to consumers as a result.

So, to gain the long term environmental advantage requires short term environmental pain (though I doubt our politicians have realized that). As in all else, politicians are only frightened of the short term. The other short term political difficulties - clash with religion etc - make it highly unlikely that population control will be forced.

Yes I agree it would be a good thing. I am sick of hearing pressure groups slagging off the Chinese policy when it has achieved far more good than anything they have ever dreamt of.

Mike.

[Tyke]

I agree with your comments on population Mike. At root it is the major reason for global habitat loss-particularly since the development of cultivation/agriculture-and it would seem is a contributor to the current warming phase.
The reasons for resistance to population control-or even the very idea of human population growth as a "problem" are many & fascinating.

But one appeared in the Sunday Times last weekend which made me see the "anthropophile" outlook in a clearer light.

AA Gill-tv & food writer-friend of J Clarkson is not a man I like very much. Nor do I like what he writes most of the time.

This was part of his tv piece last weekend-

From The Sunday TimesJuly 1, 2007


Nobody in TV history has ever had a back catalogue like David Attenborough’s. Or more right to be self-referential. He fronted a strand, Saving Planet Earth (Sunday-Friday, BBC1), that started with the familiar collation of his best bits, overlaid with the breathy, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger voiceover we have grown to love. He told us that fur, feather and fin are retreating in front of polyester, nylon and rubber.

Each time I have to listen to this four-legs Eden, two-legs Armageddon stuff, it gets less conscience-pricking and more annoying. It’s people who are de trop in the world, specifically the poorest and most needy. Pastoralists in Africa, subsistence farmers in Latin America and Asia: there are too many people to suit the animals. So which of us do you want to get rid of? I’m not unconcerned or unconvinced, I’m just not sure the Darwinian imperative to procreate doesn’t apply to us just as much as to gorillas and lemurs. The hypothetical question comes down to: if you saw one of the thousand remaining tigers about to eat a child of one of the billion Indians, do you shoot the tiger?

..he concludes a critical review of the programme ( with which I agree!) with this phrase :-

We are the most wonderful, miraculous and exciting species that ever lived.

So there you have it in a nutshell-for Gill & Clarkson and many others including the poor of Idia, China, Africa etc it's people that matter-no other species is as important. The tiger conundrum which Gill poses might have carried more weight if the tiger is the last of it's kind.
You might feel that equating the need to save the life of a child with the consumption of natural resources by our burgeoning population is cheating a bit. But for people with Gill's point of view there is no difference.

Whatever man needs he must have is -I suspect-his philosophy.And it is one shared by millions of people who-unlike Gill-have empty stomachs.

..."there are too many people to suit the animals."
Colin

[Farnboro John]

We are the most wonderful, miraculous and exciting species that ever lived. [/I]

You might feel that equating the need to save the life of a child with the consumption of natural resources by our burgeoning population is cheating a bit. But for people with Gill's point of view there is no difference.


Colin

The first comment entirely misses the point about Darwin and all the work that springs from his: that things are inteconnected and to an uninvolved observer the human race is going to look damn silly when it has cocked up the whole planet beyond being able to sustain itself at the level to which any of it has become accustomed.

The second comment is right on the money. It does equate, especially where first world interference in natural rebalancing (cf Ethiopia famine) allows the continued destruction of habitat by an artificially sustained population level.

Not to mention that food aid costs money that could be better used for conservation. Where are we going to sit: on the side preserving parts of a single species with an utterly destructive record or on the side preserving the biodiversity of Earth i.e. valuing numbers of species above numbers of individuals?

John

[citrinella]

Hi Colin,

Yes, very interesting ideas.

However, it is other humans that are really endangering the poor of the world, not the wiildlife. Two problems -

there are far too many of us for the resources available;

many of us claim far more than a reasonable share of those resources.

On the second point - worse, we now do it knowing a lot about how bad the consequences are.

One other point on human species vs. the others. I reckon we benefit far more from the others than we realize. Take the big bad wolf. Exterminated in Scotland as a threat to livestock and humans. Now their prey species are causing problems. I belief that it is in our own best interests to maintain biodiversity. Lose a piece out the jigsaw, and others are imperilled. It would be easy to start a domino effect which might just knock us out too.

Mike.

[deborah4]

How so ? The one child policy has been a huge success in China. It has meant that resources are shared between significantly fewer people, meaning that numbers escaping poverty have been vastly increased, moving vastly more people from subsistence to consumers as a result.



Unfortunately, increased consumerism brings disadvantages, as China is finding to it's detriment ... unless they face the 'pain' of immediate action, pollution of human habitat will be the biggest asset for population control!


http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42936/story.htm

[Tyke]

Where are we going to sit: on the side preserving parts of a single species with an utterly destructive record or on the side preserving the biodiversity of Earth i.e. valuing numbers of species above numbers of individuals?

John

John-and Mike-I don't agree with Gill's views.
I was trying to say that people like Gill & his best pal Clarkson, are scathing about conservation because they think the only species which should actually be conserved is man. Gill said so in terms-the first time I have seen it put so plainly.
But whilst these two can rabbit on about the subject from the comfortable bosom of the chattering metropolitan classes to help them earn a living -and we can sit here having a civilised debate about it-millions of people in Asia & Africa share their views -because that's the only way they can exist. Subsistence farmers who need enough children to help them farm & look after them in old age will not think twice about clearing more land for agriculture.It's an imperative for them-not just a nice debating point.
And whilst you & I might hope that the Gill/Clarkson "human supremacism" is a minority voice in the affluent & enlightened west ( though I'm by no means certain that it is ) - it seems to me that it is the majority voice in those very places where population will grow over the next half century.

....and have a look at this - this is Australia not Indonesia or China!!:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2023041.ece

Colin

[Farnboro John]

But whilst these two can rabbit on about the subject from the comfortable bosom of the chattering metropolitan classes to help them earn a living -and we can sit here having a civilised debate about it-millions of people in Asia & Africa share their views -because that's the only way they can exist. Subsistence farmers who need enough children to help them farm & look after them in old age will not think twice about clearing more land for agriculture.It's an imperative for them-not just a nice debating point.
And whilst you & I might hope that the Gill/Clarkson "human supremacism" is a minority voice in the affluent & enlightened west ( though I'm by no means certain that it is ) - it seems to me that it is the majority voice in those very places where population will grow over the next half century. Colin

I entirely agree with you Colin, but you are slightly off-beam with the numbers of children to help look after aged parents, that's the outlook of human groups with high childhood attrition - which even the present level of modern medicine available practically throughout the world has removed - there is always a lag before people realise they no longer need to reproduce so relentlessly. It is not helped by parroting of outdated doctrines with their origins in the same cultural problems by heads of organised religions.

The question is what to do about it, and before anything helpful to the world's relentlessly squeezed wildlife can happen the whole human set of values will need revision, in my view.

And I don't think human supremacists are a minority in the West either, even if some of them don't realise that's what their choices make them.

[citrinella]

Unfortunately, increased consumerism brings disadvantages, as China is finding to it's detriment ... unless they face the 'pain' of immediate action, pollution of human habitat will be the biggest asset for population control!
[/url]

All things have multiple effects, but everyone thinks they, as individuals, can have it all ways. As Colin says, the imperative when you are very poor is to earn some money. Hardly surprising. It seems it is still pretty imperative when you are not so poor, or even rich, or _very_ rich.

Awareness in China is growing fast (far faster than it did in the West, but they have us as an example). It is growing in central government too, and they are laying down a framework to deal with the issue. However, Chinese government relies on remote provincial and local officialdom where stagnation and corruption are endemic.

We must stop taking a holier than thou attitude with China etc. Just because we got rich first doesn't mean that the build up in problems that we caused should be everyone else's responsibility. Yes, we have closed down a lot of polluting practices in our own countries, but many of those polluting practices have just been exported, are still being carried out on our behalf in countries like China - in other words it is our pollution that is killing them too.

Mike.

[Farnboro John]

All things have multiple effects, but everyone thinks they, as individuals, can have it all ways. As Colin says, the imperative when you are very poor is to earn some money. Hardly surprising. It seems it is still pretty imperative when you are not so poor, or even rich, or _very_ rich.

Awareness in China is growing fast (far faster than it did in the West, but they have us as an example). It is growing in central government too, and they are laying down a framework to deal with the issue. However, Chinese government relies on remote provincial and local officialdom where stagnation and corruption are endemic.

We must stop taking a holier than thou attitude with China etc. Just because we got rich first doesn't mean that the build up in problems that we caused should be everyone else's responsibility. Yes, we have closed down a lot of polluting practices in our own countries, but many of those polluting practices have just been exported, are still being carried out on our behalf in countries like China - in other words it is our pollution that is killing them too.

Mike.

Yes but all the "developing nations" choose to take exactly the same routes we so lengthily and painfully learned could be done better, which doesn't say much for mankind's ability to learn from experience. And its not afir to say we have exported those practices, all the newer, cleaner, greener options could be exported now but developing nations go for cheap, easy, and dirty as hell. In such circumstances it becomes a planetary duty to oppose their development.

John

[cuckooroller]

For the sake of being purposely schematic. The ban on DDT should certainly be maintained in spite of most African health workers pleading for decades to have the ban removed. Before the ban DDT was instrumental in eradicating Malaria in the zones in which it was used. Malaria kills more people in Africa than any other disease including HIV. The ban must be maintained so that we can cull this third world population - another method of demographic control!

Everybody should be required by law to buy and drive SUV's as much as possible. All compact and so-called hybrid or energy-efficient vehicles should be immediately banned. We must eliminate all fossil fuel sources from the planet! This is the only valid incentive to really develop alternative energy sources.

Biofuels. Yes, by all means. Let us adhere to another crackpot scheme inducing people to put even more pressure on undeveloped habitats. Forests, waterlands, pshaw!!, who needs them. What we really need is another dumb reason to develop a worldwide paved parking lot!

Our apparent Savior, nuclear energy of course! Who cares about nuclear waste products - how about depopulating half of the third world so that we can use it as a nuclear dump!

Fusion would be nice - haven't heard they are making any headway in the last twenty years though.

Solar energy, if anyone out there has any sense, is probably the most valid answer, but who is doing any valid research? It is just too much a threat to those in our governments and in the private energy sector to let this genie out of the bottle - they want to control it and do everything in their power to kill it.

[citrinella]

Yes but all the "developing nations" choose to take exactly the same routes we so lengthily and painfully learned could be done better, which doesn't say much for mankind's ability to learn from experience. And its not afir to say we have exported those practices, all the newer, cleaner, greener options could be exported now but developing nations go for cheap, easy, and dirty as hell. In such circumstances it becomes a planetary duty to oppose their development.

John

They want wealth first, environment once they see how much damage they are doing, just the same as we did. And they are learning a damn site faster than we did.

Why are they using cheap ? Because western consumers (through the likes of
Walmart) are putting the pressure on for cheap. There is a lot of competition out there, and if they don't go cheap, other Asian producers will. Another benefit of the global market - as proposed by big business (which owns the US government) and supported by most western countries led by the UK.

Mike.

[deborah4]

Planet Pop

Good write up in the Independent this morning:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2745127.ece