While the green revolution, subsidy and low fuel costs have allowed huge yield increases over the previous half century, many agro-ecologists believe that this growth is not sustainable, as can be seen by the shrinking gap between global food production and per capita consumption. The situation is exacerbated by rising demand from developing economies in countries such as China, and India.
We are rapidly approaching a point where we will not have surplus food, but a defecit instead, and cannot rely on agronomical/technological developments to provide.
Projections which envisage us feeding an increased population in coming decades are majoritively based upon continuing yield increases based upon past (unsustainable) trends.

95% of agricultural genetic diversity has been lost since the 1980’s; this was man’s common inheritance. It has been stolen by global corporations. Instead of hundreds (or thousands) of locally adapted crop varieties being grown, we rely on a handful (dozen or so) strains developed by seed companies.
If a pest or disease wins the arms race between resistance and susceptibility, huge losses can occur; and this has happened. Where there were many variants, total annihilation was very unlikely.

When water shortage, limited land resources, and increasing reliance on chemical and capital inputs to retain productivity of depleted soils are viewed against the backdrop of peak oil and the potential of climate change, the outlook is very bleak.

Speculation in agricultural commodities has recently become increasingly popular, and adds undesirable volatility to an unpredicatable market already fraught with risk.

In this light, national food security ought still to be a relevant concern.

Industry changes are required to provide the ‘carrot’ of pricing for more environmentally friendly vehicles, as the present pricing structure does not wholly support this principle.
Concessions would need to be introduced for such classes as farmers, who have a valid reason for driving larger 4wheel drive vehicles; and the self-employed plumbers, electricians etc. Do they have a tax allowance for their works vehicle (sometimes only vehicle), or do they have to absorb the extra cost and pass it on to the consumer?
Is small business driven out by competition due to greater financial flexibility and economies of scale in larger operations?

The demographic of developed countries is radically different from the 1950’s, and the infrastructure necessary to support and promote environmentally sound lifestyles and behaviour is lacking and needs to be developed and cultivated.

Because prevailing economic theory and ‘the market’ do not adequately value environmental goods and services, government intervention is required to redress the damage.

Environmental considerations and concerns have only recently become mainstream policy, and are widely abused by government for point scoring, leverage and power broking, rather than their true ends.

Whilst we got to benefit (as consumers) from the lack of environmental controls, through economic development. lower prices, subsidies etc. We also (as consumers) suffered the costs (environmentally, quality of life, pollution, health) and get to pay for the costs of correction both through direct taxes and higher costs passed on by industry for clean-up and their costs imposed by taxes and regulation.

A real breakthrough in policy and development is required, instead of inadequate token gestures; but government does not respond well to longer term issues and challenges, and is shy of the ramifications of unpopular decisions among powerful lobbies.
By the time the problems and global ramifications of resource exploitation, dwindling reserves, the shrinking gap between per capita consumption and agricultural production, pollution and damage, with the added potential impact of climate change become apparent, on a scale which cannot be dismissed or denied, we will have passed the point where these problems may be easily addressed.
The still current cornucopian beliefs, and reliance on the hope of technological solutions which are not being adequately of sufficiently researched funded or explored is not sustainable.

The approach of England towards curbing vehicle use has suffered as much from ‘greenwash’ as genuine environmentally credible solutions.
In addition, only a small portion of the huge income raised through fuel and vehicle tax is spent on maintenance, improving capacity, traffic flow and alleviating congestion, or environmental measures.

The problems (congestion, pollution, increasing vehicle ownership and vehicle size) are difficult to address without adversely punishing lower income groups.

Forcing the poorest people to abandon their cars, in order to show progress towards ‘environmental’ goals, is not an equitable solution and has many potentially negative consequences for society as a whole.
Measures should not deliver reduced freedom and quality of life to those least able to afford pay, whilst allowing the wealthier to choose pollute.

Poorer people are frequently unable to afford the latest technology; they tend to have larger families and require larger vehicles as a result. They also have less choice in where they can afford to live.

It is reasonable that we should all make concessions to reduce environmental impact; but a system is needed which does not disadvantage the most vulnerable.
The average income of UK hill farmers in the Peak District is >£8,000, or £2.50/hour for a 58hour week!
You are regarded to be in ‘fuel poverty’ if you spend more than 8% of your income on domestic fuel bills! Average bills of £300/quarter (each gas and electric - total £600) requires an income of more than £30,000 to avoid fuel poverty, £500/quarter requires income of over £50,000!

While reducing journeys is a valuable strategy, it requires structural changes, and decentralization of services- the opposite of prevailing trends, with Post Office closures and out-of-town developments predominating; reductions in rural public transport and doctors services; and business increasingly using ‘just-in-time’ ordering strategies.

While public transport needs to be improved, using public transport exclusively costs more than owning and running a car for many families, and imposes many limitations, (E.g. increased journey time; crowding; discomfort; limited choices; exposure to risk and weather; greater demands on time, administration and organization) reducing quality of life and freedom. In addition it is common that employers have very limited tolerance of the limitations and inefficiency of public transport, and dismissal for failures of the service provider, beyond the control of the employee are of frequent occurance.

Stronger and better incentives are necessary for industry to produce more efficient vehicles.
The latest suggestion to retrospectively tax larger, less efficient vehicles has been condemned by environmental groups.
While it will swiftly removing many of these vehicles from use (by devaluing them almost instantaneously); it unfairly punishes their owners for decisions made over the previous decade. At the time these vehicles were purchased manufacturers were not producing these vehicles to the same efficiency or environmental standards as other vehicles.
The move to get rid of SORN (statutory off road notification) and require all vehicles to be taxed, even when they are not in use, is another extremely inequitable measure, which would appear to have little effect on emissions.

- —

The scale of the problem so alarms Lester Brown, a leading environmental thinker, that he fears huge populations dependent on glacier-fed rivers in Asia - 360 million on the Ganges in India and 388 million on the Yangtze in China alone - will not be able to feed themselves, with devastating effect on already rising global food prices.

‘These populations are larger than the populations of any other country in the world,’ said Brown. ‘We know from models there will be shifts in rainfall, crop yields reducing, but these are theoretical. Here there’s a degree of certainty we’ve not seen before in terms of an historically negative effect on food security.’

__________________________________________
Dear B,

In the light of E. O. Wilson’s comments about small creatures and today’s report from the World Conservation Union (IUCN) that more than 41,000 species of animals and plants are now on its ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST, do you think it is too early to consider that the evolutionary success of the human species may not be guaranteed? Perhaps it is not too late to consider how the human species in our time could inadvertently precipitate a “Human Community Collapse” by adamantly insisting upon more unbridled growth of business enterprise and human numbers now overspreading the Earth.

I am concerned that after threatening biodiversity with extinction and the environment with irreversible degradation, and also dissipating the limited resources of Earth, humankind will become an unexpected threat to its own survival.

Sincerely,

Steve

____________________________________________
Hi Steve,

You bring up a very good point, and one that is foremost in the minds of everyone with environmental awareness. The notion of sustainability does not seem to have been infused in equal value to progress made in both the industrial and technological revolutions. When we look closely, it is as if we are but children playing with new toys, not grasping just what they mean nor thinking very far into the future. Anyone who studies simple biology knows that unchecked growth cannot last, that eventually the system that supported whatever it is gets out of balance, and then…well…things change. So at the very least we are looking for sweeping change. How much of it we will see in our short lifespan is uncertain, but what is certain is that even now we are observing first-hand some negative effects of our actions in the past. Nature is very efficient, and certainly will take care of things one way or another. I agree with what you suggest, that we could benefit from applying caution and implementing the enlightened consideration of experts in our approach to the future. Application of knowledge requires official sanction and public policy, which as you know is not so easy to achieve. Hopefully, the brightest minds among us who post their knowledge and recommendations in research & books and who broadcast their views and information on things like TED TALKS will encourage our policy makers to get on the same page, i.e., as stewards of the earth and its abundance rather than exploiters. Ultimately, I have hope, and think a hopeful attitude can have a snowball effect. I’m pretty sure hope is the official stance of this organization, by the way, and why a forum such as this is so encouraging.

Thanks, Steve, for your posts here and elsewhere on our blogs.
___________________________________________
Dear B,

Sometimes it looks to me as if some of our brothers and sisters are so focused on the accumulation of wealth and power, in feathering their own gigantic nests, frequenting exclusive clubs, flying private jets, sailing yachts and visiting exotic hideaways, that the “powers that be” have overlooked the certain requirements necessary for the maintenance of our planetary home, which is soon to become endangered by certain unbridled, distinctly human enterprises now overspreading the Earth.

How do things look to you?

Always,

Steve

___________________________________________
Steve,

I like the idea of everyone coming to see that we are definitely interconnected. Just as the bees and flowering plants need each other, so do we humans need the environment. The sooner we get truly sustainable in our stewardship of the environment, the better. The last 50 years have seen unprecedented wealth and technology, and a few have enjoyed advantages never dreamt of in the past. Hopefully, we will all start doing our part, even the very insulated among us. I’m actually quite optimistic, as I think there is so much positive focus for new energies coming along in young people, and a rededication to creative efforts to make the world a better place in those of us who are older. I certainly can imagine these things building on themselves. It starts right here, wherever we are.

B.

____________________________________________
Dear B,

I share your optimism. With good science as our guide and the adequate use of intelligence and other splendid gifts granted to human beings by God, we can choose to respond ably to the requirements of reality, whatsoever they may be.

Elders like me will hopefully be open to guidance of our young people, as you suggest, and also of the mothers of children, rather than holdfast to the outworn creeds of the children of men among us. The self-proclaimed masters of the universe in my not-so-great generation appear to have lost their way.

On the other hand, we cannot rule out the possibility that I am one of those unfortunate elders about whom I report, who has lost touch with good science, the natural order of living things, and the limitations imposed upon human life by the very nature of the biophysical world we inhabit.

I and my generation can and will do better. Of that I am certain.

Sincerely,

Steve

___________________________________________
ONWARD!

B.
___________________________________________
Dear B,

I believe this is one way to begin. We have to speak of topics that are taboo, just as we do here.

My greatest concern is that the undoing of the human species, and life as we know it, could inadvertently occur as a result of the adamant and relentless maintenance of SILENCE.

Silence is something to be feared. Silence is especially terrifying and potentially ruinous when it is actively employed as a tool for denying good science.

Thank YOU,

Steve

__________________________________________
Steve,

I don’t mean to be flip, but the old saying comes to mind: “The more the merrier!” We can hope more voices will speak up for beneficial uses of our stunning technologies to forge a path to a wise, efficient, and fittingly sustainable paradigm for the future world. There is another saying that comes to mind should we fail to understand what we need to do, and that is, “That way lies madness.” I am so looking forward to the tipping point, where all accept as a given the need to create and live in a balanced world. I know it is coming.

B.

____________________________________________
Dear B,

You make wonderful points. Let me see if I understand you well enough.

Would it be correct to say that we have a choice: either we can choose to accept the knowledge derived from the best available, good science and deploy that knowledge to maintain a sustainable world, one fit for human habitation, or we can fail to do what is necessary by holding fast to an unsustainable paradigm for the future world…and by continuing to defend flawed data derived from politically convenient and economically expedient mad science?

Always,

Steve
__________________________________________

…and having the wisdom to know the difference.

B.
__________________________________________
Dear B,

At least in my humble opinion, THIS IS COMMUNICATION!

Perhaps humanity has global challenges in the offing, challenges that are formidable, even as we begin to take the measure of them.

As we steady our focus on these challenges, it becomes evident that there may be no quick fixes to the problems with which we are presented. Business-as-usual brought us to this moment in human history, but cannot take us to the future we picture for our children.

Contemplate and picture in your mind the business-as-usual activities with which we are familiar. We can see that the unbridled growth of economic activities is overspreading the Earth.

Now for the hard part: questions.

Can the seemingly endless growth and the astonishing success of unregulated human production and consumption activities continue in the same old business-as-usual way and at their current scale on a relatively small, finite planet the size of Earth?

If the Earth is round and has physical limitations, is it reasonable and sensible to consider that there are limits to the unrestricted global growth of human activities on Earth?

Are there no alternatives to untethered economic globalization?

Are there no options to the unchecked per capita consumption of Earth’s limited resources?

Who knows, before long questions like these will become a part of open discussions at international conferences, in governing bodies and spoken of by those in the mass media.

I and my generation are going to do better, much better.
__________________________________________
Steve,

Your questions almost answer themselves and wholly appeal to common sense. I believe that love of humanity, passion for life and a strong will to survive will eventually corral all of us into the same camp, which is good because we must work together to solve our problems. We may be lucky that things are getting so blatantly out of hand, because a cry for better will eventually emerge. Hat’s off to any who can keep their heads while some around us are losing theirs. Like a teenager on a joy ride, flagrant environmental abuses cannot have good results and therefore cannot last that long. The trick will be coming to the tipping point. I believe we are very very close. I hope others will participate in this inspiring conversation. We believe in the exchange of ideas and invites it with these blogs. Thanks so much for participating.

____________________________________________
Dear B,

Thanks to you, D., Al and the great scientists of the IPCC, it does appear more and more people are beginning to awaken, finally, with the coming of each new day, to something that is fresh and unforeseen about the world we inhabit.

I and our dearest colleagues have only become awakened just a matter of days earlier than those who are soon, or else eventually, to be released from their slumber.

Once awake, people are going to be able to see that while nothing about the surface of the Earth has changed, not really; everything about the wondrous landscape is different in unexpected ways.

When many in the human community perceive what you and other leaders are saying and doing, it will be as if they are seeing the world God blesses us to inhabit for the first time, I suppose.

That is going to make a difference.

All the best to you,

Steve

Thanks for your interest. Your reaction was correct, that CORRIM is a timber industry exercise. Its authors have direct ties to timber through academic forestry departments and other relationships.

CORRIM’s methodology is worse than flawed. Normal science was not used in evaluating either wood or steel’s carbon footprint. Instead, they used emissions from mills, when the big problem with wood emissions is what occurs during harvest: soil, branches, roots, and competing species are disrupted and killed, releasing carbon, so the small remainder captured by wood products is not very significant.

Even the mill data is flawed. Four “Reference” mills for steel were used, and they were all from Canada, which has weaker standards than we do. Only one of the mills was a minimill.

You can forward this to the respondent or post it if you like.

Michael V. Roddy