March 2009 Archives

Well, there isn't a case here, at least nothing she can think of.

Speaking on a right-wing talk radio show in Minnesota on Saturday, Bachmann said:
"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people - we the people - are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States."

You may remember Ms. Bachmann from some of her statements before the election about how some members of congress are un-American.

Well, Ms. Bachmann, I can think of nothing more un-American than a call to arms over a piece of legislation making it's way through the government.  The whole purpose behind our government process is the concept that we can create legislation that is good for the people of the country in a peaceful and civil manner.  Threating violence is the way they do it in many, less civil, countires around the world.  I suggest the Ms. Bachmann might want to visit some of these countries that have had tens or hundres of years of civil war to see which form of government she prefers.

Original story from Politico

I read Lester R. Brown's book 'Plan B 3.0' about a year ago specifically interested in peak oil issues and global warning trends. He does a great job pulling together scientific research from a wide variety of sources to address many problems facing the world today and offering feasible solutions. The reading can be a bit overwhelming at times and can make one want to immediately jump to action. As I worked my way through a few chapters on food production, I felt a sudden urge to get outside and start digging up the backyard to plan space for a garden. The fact there is an inch or two of snow back there and that the ground is probably frozen solid was not going to get in my way.

In chapter Nine, titled 'Feeding Eight Billion People Well', Brown goes into some detail about maintaining the world's food supply and shares some ideas about how we can avoid depleting all of our natural resources in the process. He identifies water as being one of the most important resources we need to be able to manage.

Many countries have increased their grain production since the 1950s by making more land available, using genetically modified seeds, and an eleven fold increase in artificial fertilizer usage. Other techniques such as using multiple cropping which is where a farmer will plant different crops in the same field at different times of year. While larger crop yields are important, if we are to sustain larger world populations, we cannot maintain these levels of food production with current conventional techniques.  

Currently, 70% of the the world's fresh water is used for irrigation. The fact that we are over using this water supply is starting to become evident as major rivers, like the Colorado River in the southwestern United States, have almost all of their water diverted before they reach their deltas. Almost 90% of the water that flows down the Colorado river is used for irrigation. The Colorado is also the major water source for drinking water for the southern states of New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California. There is also evidence that the Ogallala aquifer which supplies water for most of the middle states from South Dakota down to the northern parts of Texas is being depleted at a rate of 12 km3 (12 billion metric tons) a year. The Ogallala provides water for 27% of the irrigated land in the United States and provides 82% of the drinking water to the central part of the country. Some estimates only give this major water source another 25 years before it is completely depleted.

One obvious way to conserve water is to use more efficient irrigation systems. As much as 50% of the water used in flood and farrow irrigation systems is wasted. Overhead sprinkler systems use 30% less water and drip irrigation systems use up to 50% less water than traditional methods of irrigation.

Another way to conserve water is to grow crops that require less water. Many organic crops which do not use artificial fertilizers also have lower water requirements. The end products also have less water in them which many believe is why organically grown products have better flavor as they are not watered down as much as their conventional counterparts. It takes 1000 tons of water to produce 1 ton of grain, if more sustainable techniques were used for raising livestock, the amount of grain used for feed could be greatly reduced and the amount of water used would also be reduced.

Maybe a less obvious way which is available in countries like the US is to, as Brown puts it, 'move down the food chain'. The average American consumes roughly 800 kg of grain a year of which only 100kg is directly consumed as grain in bread, pasta and breakfast cereal. The rest is consumed indirectly through livestock and poultry products. Compare this with Italy which consumes 400kg of grain per person and India which consumes 200kg of grain per person. It's interesting to note that the Italians have a longer life expectancy than Americans partially due to the fact that wile the Italians do eat meat and cheese, their diets are more moderate than the heavy meat based diet enjoyed by many Americans. If Americans could cut 100kg of grain by removing some meat products from their diet, we could save 300 million tons of grain a year or 30 billion tons of water. This is enough to allow the Ogallala Aquifer and the Colorado River a chance to recharge again which will protect the drinking water for millions of Americans.

Brown then goes on to explain the impact the American diet has on climate change by suggesting that converting to a more Mediterranean diet would have the same impact on CO2 emissions as replacing an SUV with a Toyota Prius, not to mention the fact that a warmer climate means more water lost in irrigation due to evaporation. Overwhelmed again, I put down the book to go outside an inspect the future location of our new vegetable garden.  

Recently I received a phone call from Oxfam America which is a charity that I am a regular donor to. My credit card had expired and they wanted to update my information. The young woman that called seemed somewhat determined to spend a few minutes to let my know about one of the programs they have been working on in Cambodia. The program is called System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and apparently was a tremendous help for poor rural farmers. I had never heard of it before so I thought I should spend sometime researching SRI and how Oxfam was implementing the program.

At first glance, SRI seems to too good to be true. The idea that a farmer could see a gain in production from 50 to 100% by using less resources does not seem feasible. In fact, the promise of higher yields has been a major stumbling block towards adoption of the SRI methodology being taken seriously. Instead of using science to genetically modify seeds and the way the plants grow, scientists studied and observed the way rice is grown and found that many of the traditional methods currently used are not very efficient. For example, the SRI methodology uses much less water. Traditionally, rice fields are flooded as it was thought that the roots of the rice plants needed to be underwater all the time in order to grow properly. SRI suggests that the soil be moist but not saturated which allows more oxygen to get to the roots of the rice plants. Another difference is to use less seed (up to 100kg per hectare less) and spacing the seedlings out as opposed to bunching them together. By spacing having more space between each seedling, the plants have more room to grow stronger root systems. Of course, there are some things which are harder using the SRI methods, the main one being dealing with weeds which have an easier time growing since the fields are not constantly flooded. There are also very precise instructions on how to grow and plant the seedlings so that they can reach their full potential.

Through my readings about SRI, I found that even these very poor third world farmers could practice a sustainable form of agriculture. No special equipment is needed - no artificial fertilizers, pesticides or special seeds. But because of the larger yields, SRI is economically profitable for the farmers. It's also environmentally friendly in the sense that less water resources are being (many farms only using rain water) used and no chemicals are being introduced on the fields. Finally, I read a number of stories about how excited the farmers were about farming and sharing their techniques with their neighbors. The SRI method requires each farmer to be smarter about the way they farm the land encourages farmers to experiment themselves, to get a better understanding of why these new methods work and to adapt them to their particular location. This is important as different regions are going to have different requirements based on what the soil conditions are like and how much water is available. By sharing their experiences with one another, they can fine tune SRI to their particular location. Their stories are uplifting, and I really admire the way organizations like Oxfam can help these farmers help themselves in creating a sustainable, economically profitable way of life. 

I would have to guess that the people in Red Ash, PA have Lexington, KY beat in the race for the largest carbon footprint.   A coal mine there has been burning since 1915.  There are 36 coal mine fires currently burning in PA with no real end in sight.  It's cheaper to move people out of the way than it would be to actually put the fires out.   

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13279075&fsrc=rss

Welcome to my new blog powered by Movable Type. This is the first post on my blog and was created for me automatically when I finished the installation process. But that is ok, because I will soon be creating posts of my own!