| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Cho-ku-ri |
Changing Wind.Those that have read my postings will be aware of my views of agriculture and how it will need to change in the future, but even I am amazed at how attitudes in the U.K. have changes so quickly since mid summer. Grain has gone short in the world and the price has risen and since then we have seen European compulsory set-a-side scrapped and other policies changing. I listened to a Radio Scotland interview this morning about a speech being given somewhere in Scotland today, that is advocating further use of pesticides to get a higher calorific value per acre if we are ever going to feed the expected world population growth from 6 to 9 billion by 2050. The talker hinted that by 2005 UK golf courses will all be under the plough again.Before summer many people thought that UK food production had little future, that land should be managed for wildlife and that we could out-source our foods from abroad. 30p on a loaf of bread and not many are saying that post harvest. I wonder what will the U.K. food policy be when food gets really scarce? IMHO There is little point in building up wild life populations today if we are going to starve them in the future that would be cruel. This year alone we have stolen back thousands of acres of set-a-side to feed us instead of feeding the millions of birds and animals that have grown to depend on it for the last ten years. 
What do others think? |
||||
| Northern_Lad |
I'm very much against the mass use of pesticides, and for the provision of set-asside and wildlife-friendly areas. The reason? Encourage wildlife and they'll manage the bugs for you.
You state that 'thousands of acres of set-a-side' have been 'stolen back': where abouts? and what about the reliqueshing of swathes of Essex back to the see that we 'borrowed' 400 years ago and has cause massive problems for the surrounding area? |
||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
[quote="Northern_Lad"]
You state that 'thousands of acres of set-a-side' have been 'stolen back': where abouts? quote] Every arable farm now has the option to crop set-a-sides without loosing any CAP. Most have taken the opportunity to do away with their fallow land and have sown extra winter grain, now the price is viable. (Probably won't be next year due to over planting). I'm not particularly in favour of using pesticides either, but I am in favour of producing the food our population requires to sustain itself without importing the basics. I think it is a crime to return 200-400 year old reclaimed and hard worked for land back to the sea. In our lifetime we will see this land re-reclaimed at great effort and expense. If those that advocate organic production, and have claims that it can out yield non organic production, then the time has come to prove it on a commercial scale. The 30p on bread has proven that the European public will not tolerate price increases easily. |
||||
| Treacodactyl |
In 40 years time pesticides might be so expensive people will be kicking themselves they didn't do something more sensible. (Oil to help make them, oil for farm machinery etc, etc)
I understand set-aside in this country is managed in various ways, some to actively encourage wildlife and some just to lay fallow, and probably a mix of both. I'm happy that fallow land is brought back into production but I think careful thought needs to be taken to ensure wildlife isn't harmed as a huge amount of it is beneficial and also provides other numerous benefits, many of which aren't utilised - just think how much meat could be provided by the humble rabbit. |
||||
| tahir |
We've been food importers for centuries, no change except the scale. If push comes to shove we'll be in trouble regardless of how much food we produce here. |
||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Yep, but aren't you amazed at how quick our policy makers have changed tack from eco, back to max food production, due to global prices of grain just hitting the 'profitable' level for the first time in nearly a decade? | ||||
| tahir |
No, not at all. Knee jerk reactions are what I expect, sustainable, long term planning would surprise me. |
||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
The last time the EU implemented a long term plan for storing excess foods for leaner times via intervention stores it got lambasted. How else can they plan for weather related crop failures around the world? | ||||
| Behemoth |
I thought the main reason for buying up suprlus was to control the market price and prevent small producers collapsing. Could be wrong. 
|
||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
That was a result, but the reason was for surplus food storage. IMHO they should have somehow purged their stores to the starving third world now and again during the decades that we never had crop failures, but even at there worst (fullest), intervention stores only held a few weeks supply for the E.U. They were deemed very important during the cold war. Intervention used to be blamed for price fixing, then subsidies were blamed, Now we haven't had food subsidies for a couple of years or intervention stores for over a decade, we shall see what happens next. It could get interesting but I suspect the public won't tolerate paying the true cost of production. | ||||
| RichardW |
Not quite true. Ok its not linked to a specific production of a specific crop / product but subsidies are still paid in the form of support payments linked to historic claims / area farmed. But to the farmer its still the same thing (money coming in to the pot to make the enterprise finacialy viable). I doubt any farmer could do what they are currently doing & still charge the same for their produce without the SFP (organic or enviromental payments too) money. People (people on here excepted) just will not pay the true costs of production for home grown produce when it can be imported cheaper. Justme |
||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
But what happens when for what ever reason, as with wheat at the moment, it can't be imported any cheaper? | ||||
| Northern_Lad |
Then the price paid has to go up and people have to get used to paying the true cost. |
||||
| boisdevie1 |
[quote="Cho-ku-ri"] It could get interesting but I suspect the public won't tolerate paying the true cost of production.quote]
Well ultimately they won't have much choice will they? Either they pay the full price or farmers are subsidised. Which is actually the same thing since it's taxpayers money that pays farmers their subsidies. |
||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
But they don't pay quietly, they scream when bread goes up 30p and policy makers panic and make rash decisions like doing away with set-a-side overnight. I don't like set-a-side, but is going to be a blooming great shock to wildlife this winter. It has just amazed me how quickly the mood has swung. I hear the USA is also being blamed because it is turning its export wheat into bio fuel. Who would have thought, pressurising the Americans into cutting carbon emissions would result in the U.K. loosing thousands of acres of wildlife habitat overnight. 
|
||||
| Behemoth |
It's also put the price of food and animal feed in the US up in process and er, farmers and consumers are complaining. |
||||
| Shane |
The way I see it, food prices are currently high because:
a) it's been a crap year for growing stuff b) land that normally produces food is now producing feedstocks for non-food use (biofuels, cosmetics, etc) Personally, I'd like to see large-scale biofuel production brought to a complete halt until ALL the pros and cons are properly understood and debated, and I think palm oil and other similarly-farmed crops should be outlawed unless produced sympathetically. That'd free up a fair amount of land for agriculture. Using more and more chemicals to make land produce an ever higher yield is a non-starter, as the world is already approaching a soil erosion crisis - further intensification is not going to help. And of course, it would help if those of us in the lands of plenty didn't throw away as much food as we ate... |
||||
| tahir |
You mean it's as simple as that? 
|
||||
| Shane |
Yeah - piece of, erm, cake 
|
||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
[quote="Shane"]
Personally, I'd like to see large-scale biofuel production brought to a complete halt ...quote] But environmentalists have been crying out for us to use renewables instead of fossil fuels. I do agree that the benifits of renewable bio-fuels are wiped out if they in the first place are imported from other continents, but local bio-fuel has to be a good thing.IMHO. I think what is dawning on us is there is not enough planet surface to provide a growing population with, food, fuel, and wildlife. We will have to prioritise. How would you prioritise the three options? |
||||
| boisdevie1 |
The whole biofuel debate is a road that leads to nowhere. It's just a potentially short term answer that appeals to short term politicians. Long term we are going to have to change the way we live big time. But so far everyone is grasping at straws (biofuels, recycling) etc that they think will allow them to continue their lifestyles very much as before.
Eventually a period of reckoning will arrive and it will be one that we can't ignore. |
||||
| Shane |
Not if it's produced at the expense of food, cos the food shortfall has to be imported instead of the biofuel. I really am at a loss to understand how your master plan of turning the entire world into one, giant, intensively-farmed field is going to be the best solution for the planet. As boisdevie1 says, we need to change the way we live. That means that we have to accept that we can't have palm oil in our shampoo, that we can't rely so heavily on combustion for transport and power, that we can't have everything we buy in twelve layers of wrapping, that we can't throw out more food than we eat. We can't just keep producing more and more food and biofuel to feed and power an ever increasing population. |
||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
That is not my plan at all. I just think those countries with massive overpopulations like ours in the U.K. should start compromising now to set an example before 'developing' countries fall into the same trap. If we have over populated then we shouldn't have the short term policy of increasing our wildlife in land returned to nature, simply to snatch it back when the economics change like we have done this year. Rising food prices have shown that it is the whole world that is short of food, not just Britain because of a lousy summer. It is simply greedy of us to expect others to starve so we can eat, just because we currently have cash. I have broached the subject, but many are uncomfortable with the concept, but population control has to be the only civilised way of dealing with this problem. China has had the nerve to attempt it in the past. Countries like ours should at least have the nerve to debate the issue while we have the time before nature necessitates.IMHO. |
||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Our basic needs at our latitude are food, water, and warmth. They are intertwined and all are as important to sustain human life. There is no point of having plenty of food but dying of hyperthermia. |
||||
| Shane |
We are hardly living in Siberia. It's perfectly possible to survive with just shelter and warm clothing, but as a society we have become used to having warm houses. |
||||
| VSS |
Surely population growth is the root of the problem?
I'm not sure its quite right to say that the UK is overpopulated - certainly not in the sense that the birth rate is falling and average family size has fallen below 2 children per couple. As far as the UK is concerned we have an an expanding population because others come here in search of better things, and considering the appaling conditons that many of the worlds peoples have to live in who can blame them? |
||||
| Shane |
If you believe some of the reports, one reason that we are creaking at the seams is the number of immigrants from eastern Europe that have arrived since their countries joined the EU. You also read stories of villages over there being virtually deserted. So why shouldn't we grow food there and import it? (Just playing devil's advocate, here).
Agree that maybe the subject should be debated, but the difference between here and China is that you can change the regime here... |
||||
| Behemoth |
It's not purely numbers of people, it's what they do that matters. | ||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
I'm not sure how 'overpopulated' should be defined, but a country like the U.K. that has to import 30%+ of its food every day, 365 days a year surely must fall into this category. That does not take into account the clothing and other essentials that are coming into the country on a daily basis.
|
||||
| Jonnyboy |
It seems that we could all benefit from eating a lot less anyway. | ||||
| Andy B |
Wild animals dont vote, most people want cheap food and fast cars. Land will be used to suit people and if animals cant fit then we will watch them vanish. | ||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Andy, that is what has amazed me. 30p on a loaf of bread and ten years od set-a-side ecology wiped out in a few weeks of autumn sowing and not a cheap on the media. Rumblings, I grant you within eco and wildlife groups but none of it has grabbed the public attention. I really don't think the great British public care about nature at all.
http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.asp?id=tcm:9-171075 |
||||
| VSS |
They only care about it if looking after it has no impact on them personally. People on the whole are very selfish | ||||
| Andy B |
I am conviced they dont. How many people go out into the countryside and experience and value it for what it is with no thought to monetary value. I would bet that as a % of the population its miniscule. Most people dont care about other people let alone animals, be it farmed or wild and it you dont visit and enjoy the countryside your hardly going to miss it once its gone. We can sit in front of the telly and marvel at polar bears or tigers long after they have become extinct. |
||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
It disappoints me no end to think that we are really no 'greener' than ever before, in fact probably less so. The biggest change of use for land in our history happens overnight and it does not even get any media attention at a time when the public is pretending to be green. The reason why the scrapping of set-a-side overnight is bigger than its introduction twenty years ago is because it was gradually introduced voluntarily at first, and has generally evolved from being full rotational fallow fields to permanent wide field margins on most farms. All gone at the stroke of an E.U. pen. | ||||
| Andy B |
Look at the damage to the environment that a lot of bio fuel growth is doing. Whole areas of land in asia being converted into vast mono cultures for palm oil, wiping out mases of bio diversity in the process. What do we think were saving! certainly not the planet and its animlas, just the chance to eak out an unsustainable way of doing things for a few extra years. |