cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

But land for agricultural use is cheap enough. It would be interesting to cost the offsetting done by trees against other avenues of carbon emissions reduction...

According to Irish Timber and Forestry Monthly, forestry is also fairly lucrative ... Shouldn't the state try to get its hands on more land for forest as parks and forest as a source of renewable industry? It might not only offset carbon emissions but there might be health and industry benefits as well.

Cactus, some parts of Ireland are surely unsuitable for agriculture being bog - don't broadleaf trees grow in bog and what agriculture can bogs sustain?

I know the answer to that. Lets start a forestry thread. I'll come back to it tomorrow.

Are you off to the Síbín? I'm off to the leaba - big day tomorrow - have to read 300 pages of Collapse

Ibis. There is nothing secret about the wish to deindustrialise the West because it is called for clearly in The Earth Charter which was signed in Rio deJaneiro in 1994. There are numerous sites dealing with this but for credibility's sake I will link the UN site which gives a brief introduction. www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 - 24k - Follow up meetings were held in 2004 in South Africa. They clearly call for one set of global laws. Here is a good video that will have many scratching their heads as well,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

youngdan wrote:

Ibis. There is nothing secret about the wish to deindustrialise the West because it is called for clearly in The Earth Charter which was signed in Rio deJaneiro in 1994. There are numerous sites dealing with this but for credibility's sake I will link the UN site which gives a brief introduction. www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 - 24k - Follow up meetings were held in 2004 in South Africa. They clearly call for one set of global laws. Here is a good video that will have many scratching their heads as well,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

Er, well, first, the Rio declaration contains no reference to deindustrialisation, or even industry. It contains no reference to the West either.

Second, and more important, that doesn't answer the question - why? What's in deindustrialisation for anyone?

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Ibis. There is nothing secret about the wish to deindustrialise the West because it is called for clearly in The Earth Charter which was signed in Rio deJaneiro in 1994. There are numerous sites dealing with this but for credibility's sake I will link the UN site which gives a brief introduction. www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 - 24k - Follow up meetings were held in 2004 in South Africa. They clearly call for one set of global laws. Here is a good video that will have many scratching their heads as well,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

Er, well, first, the Rio declaration contains no reference to deindustrialisation, or even industry. It contains no reference to the West either.

Second, and more important, that doesn't answer the question - why? What's in deindustrialisation for anyone?

Well ibis, I just clicked in to that link to Alex Jones and got my first glimpse of the New World Order. It is an interesting concoction, with the look of a monster that has been built out of spare parts (oops - that's been done before). The Rothschild Conspiracy bit is borrowed straight from early 20th century anti-semitic conspiracy theory. When I got to the bit where Churchill (an arch Tory) was portrayed as a Fabian Socialist, and when the Fabian Socialists (high tea luvvy socialists) were portrayed as in some way meaningful, it was time to go and get a coffee and head to the garden. Wow, these people really don't like town planning, do they. I am put in mind of page 65 of dear old "Collapse" in which the need for Montana to bring in some land use controls was discussed. At the time or writing the book, there was no planning whatsoever, and anyone could build a house anywhere, with consequent sprawl all over the best agricultural land.

The author says "When Steve was a Ravalli County commissioner in 1993, he sponsored public meetings just to start discussion of land use planning and to stimulate the public to think about it. Tough-looking members of the militias came to the meetings to disrupt them, openly carrying holsters with guns in order to intimidate other people."

These people have utter contempt for democracy, do they not?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Ibis. There is nothing secret about the wish to deindustrialise the West because it is called for clearly in The Earth Charter which was signed in Rio deJaneiro in 1994. There are numerous sites dealing with this but for credibility's sake I will link the UN site which gives a brief introduction. www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 - 24k - Follow up meetings were held in 2004 in South Africa. They clearly call for one set of global laws. Here is a good video that will have many scratching their heads as well,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

Er, well, first, the Rio declaration contains no reference to deindustrialisation, or even industry. It contains no reference to the West either.

Second, and more important, that doesn't answer the question - why? What's in deindustrialisation for anyone?

Well ibis, I just clicked in to that link to Alex Jones and got my first glimpse of the New World Order. It is an interesting concoction, with the look of a monster that has been built out of spare parts (oops - that's been done before). The Rothschild Conspiracy bit is borrowed straight from early 20th century anti-semitic conspiracy theory. When I got to the bit where Churchill (an arch Tory) was portrayed as a Fabian Socialist, and when the Fabian Socialists (high tea luvvy socialists) were portrayed as in some way meaningful, it was time to go and get a coffee and head to the garden. Wow, these people really don't like town planning, do they. I am put in mind of page 65 of dear old "Collapse" in which the need for Montana to bring in some land use controls was discussed. At the time or writing the book, there was no planning whatsoever, and anyone could build a house anywhere, with consequent sprawl all over the best agricultural land.

The author says "When Steve was a Ravalli County commissioner in 1993, he sponsored public meetings just to start discussion of land use planning and to stimulate the public to think about it. Tough-looking members of the militias came to the meetings to disrupt them, openly carrying holsters with guns in order to intimidate other people."

These people have utter contempt for democracy, do they not?

They are temperamentally opposed, more generally, to any form of binding group decision-making, because it constrains the paramount freedom of the individual. It is a particularly useless philosophy in tis pure form, and only tenable at very low population densities in First World countries, where the rest of society provides the necessary supporting structure of law, technology, social services, public medicine, published knowledge, etc etc etc.

It calls quite clearly for equalisation of energy usage for all regions of the world. Unless you believe that everyone in the 3rd world will be driving SUVs then it stands to reason that we must adjust downward. You ask what is in it for us, well absolutly nothing because you or me or Cactus or any other pleb counts for nothing. Anyone can watch the video and after watching the news closely for a few months will see that what they are saying even if you think is bizarre is happening right before your eyes.

youngdan wrote:

It calls quite clearly for equalisation of energy usage for all regions of the world. Unless you believe that everyone in the 3rd world will be driving SUVs then it stands to reason that we must adjust downward. You ask what is in it for us, well absolutly nothing because you or me or Cactus or any other pleb counts for nothing. Anyone can watch the video and after watching the news closely for a few months will see that what they are saying even if you think is bizarre is happening right before your eyes.

Why would the mega-rich want to destroy the economy, youngdan? The way it looks from here is that they want to avoid tackling global warming - it is a cost on their business.

youngdan wrote:

It calls quite clearly for equalisation of energy usage for all regions of the world. Unless you believe that everyone in the 3rd world will be driving SUVs then it stands to reason that we must adjust downward. You ask what is in it for us, well absolutly nothing because you or me or Cactus or any other pleb counts for nothing. Anyone can watch the video and after watching the news closely for a few months will see that what they are saying even if you think is bizarre is happening right before your eyes.

I'm not asking what's in it for us, though. I'm asking what's in it for "them" - the "elite".

Auditor #9 wrote:

But land for agricultural use is cheap enough. It would be interesting to cost the offsetting done by trees against other avenues of carbon emissions reduction...

Agricultural land is cheap (relatively) but it produces a much higher return when it used to produce food or energy.

Auditor #9 wrote:

According to Irish Timber and Forestry Monthly, forestry is also fairly lucrative ... Shouldn't the state try to get its hands on more land for forest as parks and forest as a source of renewable industry? It might not only offset carbon emissions but there might be health and industry benefits as well.

If it was that lucrative, the State wouldn't have had to establish forestry grant systems. True, farmers also get grants, but that's largely because consumers would revolt if they had to pay the true cost of producing food.

The State already owns millions of acres of forested land under the guise of Coillte. However, Coillte spends most of its time either removing trees from this land or selling the land for others to remove the trees. And whatever amount of time it spends planting trees, it spends planting non-native species like spruce, which pollute our water systems.


Like I say, reforestation is one of many solutions to climate change, but like all the other solutions, it has an economic impact, and therein lies the problem.

seinfeld wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

But land for agricultural use is cheap enough. It would be interesting to cost the offsetting done by trees against other avenues of carbon emissions reduction...

Agricultural land is cheap (relatively) but it produces a much higher return when it used to produce food or energy.

Auditor #9 wrote:

According to Irish Timber and Forestry Monthly, forestry is also fairly lucrative ... Shouldn't the state try to get its hands on more land for forest as parks and forest as a source of renewable industry? It might not only offset carbon emissions but there might be health and industry benefits as well.

If it was that lucrative, the State wouldn't have had to establish forestry grant systems. True, farmers also get grants, but that's largely because consumers would revolt if they had to pay the true cost of producing food.

The State already owns millions of acres of forested land under the guise of Coillte. However, Coillte spends most of its time either removing trees from this land or selling the land for others to remove the trees. And whatever amount of time it spends planting trees, it spends planting non-native species like spruce, which pollute our water systems.


Like I say, reforestation is one of many solutions to climate change, but like all the other solutions, it has an economic impact, and therein lies the problem.

Funny, really, that Japan manages to be 74% forested.

ibis wrote:

seinfeld wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

But land for agricultural use is cheap enough. It would be interesting to cost the offsetting done by trees against other avenues of carbon emissions reduction...

Agricultural land is cheap (relatively) but it produces a much higher return when it used to produce food or energy.

Auditor #9 wrote:

According to Irish Timber and Forestry Monthly, forestry is also fairly lucrative ... Shouldn't the state try to get its hands on more land for forest as parks and forest as a source of renewable industry? It might not only offset carbon emissions but there might be health and industry benefits as well.

If it was that lucrative, the State wouldn't have had to establish forestry grant systems. True, farmers also get grants, but that's largely because consumers would revolt if they had to pay the true cost of producing food.

The State already owns millions of acres of forested land under the guise of Coillte. However, Coillte spends most of its time either removing trees from this land or selling the land for others to remove the trees. And whatever amount of time it spends planting trees, it spends planting non-native species like spruce, which pollute our water systems.


Like I say, reforestation is one of many solutions to climate change, but like all the other solutions, it has an economic impact, and therein lies the problem.

Funny, really, that Japan manages to be 74% forested.

There isn't much of demand for meat and dairy products in Asia, though is there? Be interesting to see what happens to land use in the Far East as Chinese and Indian teenagers start stocking up on Big Macs.

seinfeld wrote:

ibis wrote:

seinfeld wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

But land for agricultural use is cheap enough. It would be interesting to cost the offsetting done by trees against other avenues of carbon emissions reduction...

Agricultural land is cheap (relatively) but it produces a much higher return when it used to produce food or energy.

Auditor #9 wrote:

According to Irish Timber and Forestry Monthly, forestry is also fairly lucrative ... Shouldn't the state try to get its hands on more land for forest as parks and forest as a source of renewable industry? It might not only offset carbon emissions but there might be health and industry benefits as well.

If it was that lucrative, the State wouldn't have had to establish forestry grant systems. True, farmers also get grants, but that's largely because consumers would revolt if they had to pay the true cost of producing food.

The State already owns millions of acres of forested land under the guise of Coillte. However, Coillte spends most of its time either removing trees from this land or selling the land for others to remove the trees. And whatever amount of time it spends planting trees, it spends planting non-native species like spruce, which pollute our water systems.


Like I say, reforestation is one of many solutions to climate change, but like all the other solutions, it has an economic impact, and therein lies the problem.

Funny, really, that Japan manages to be 74% forested.

There isn't much of demand for meat and dairy products in Asia, though is there? Be interesting to see what happens to land use in the Far East as Chinese and Indian teenagers start stocking up on Big Macs.

Well, that's already happening - it's the cause of the current rise in food prices. Germany is 31% forested - a far cry from our 8-9%. I'm fairly certain the Germans don't stint on meat and dairy, though.

ibis wrote:

seinfeld wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

But land for agricultural use is cheap enough. It would be interesting to cost the offsetting done by trees against other avenues of carbon emissions reduction...

Agricultural land is cheap (relatively) but it produces a much higher return when it used to produce food or energy.

Auditor #9 wrote:

According to Irish Timber and Forestry Monthly, forestry is also fairly lucrative ... Shouldn't the state try to get its hands on more land for forest as parks and forest as a source of renewable industry? It might not only offset carbon emissions but there might be health and industry benefits as well.

If it was that lucrative, the State wouldn't have had to establish forestry grant systems. True, farmers also get grants, but that's largely because consumers would revolt if they had to pay the true cost of producing food.

The State already owns millions of acres of forested land under the guise of Coillte. However, Coillte spends most of its time either removing trees from this land or selling the land for others to remove the trees. And whatever amount of time it spends planting trees, it spends planting non-native species like spruce, which pollute our water systems.


Like I say, reforestation is one of many solutions to climate change, but like all the other solutions, it has an economic impact, and therein lies the problem.

Funny, really, that Japan manages to be 74% forested.

I understand that they do it, in part, by importing everybody else's rain forest.

Essentially, youngdan is right, we do have to accept a "lower living standard" i.e. consume less.

cactus flower wrote:

Essentially, youngdan is right, we do have to accept a "lower living standard" i.e. consume less.

And you can do it in the simplest, most painless ways like:

*walk up stairs instead of using lifts.
*cycle/walk to the shop instead of driving.
*leave nothing on stand-by.
*turn lights off in rooms you're not using.
*turn the heating down 1 degree.
*put a lagging jacket on your tank.
*shower instead of bathe.
*ensure your car's tyres are correctly pressurised.
*buy A grade electronic appliances.

Easy!

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

seinfeld wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

But land for agricultural use is cheap enough. It would be interesting to cost the offsetting done by trees against other avenues of carbon emissions reduction...

Agricultural land is cheap (relatively) but it produces a much higher return when it used to produce food or energy.

Auditor #9 wrote:

According to Irish Timber and Forestry Monthly, forestry is also fairly lucrative ... Shouldn't the state try to get its hands on more land for forest as parks and forest as a source of renewable industry? It might not only offset carbon emissions but there might be health and industry benefits as well.

If it was that lucrative, the State wouldn't have had to establish forestry grant systems. True, farmers also get grants, but that's largely because consumers would revolt if they had to pay the true cost of producing food.

The State already owns millions of acres of forested land under the guise of Coillte. However, Coillte spends most of its time either removing trees from this land or selling the land for others to remove the trees. And whatever amount of time it spends planting trees, it spends planting non-native species like spruce, which pollute our water systems.


Like I say, reforestation is one of many solutions to climate change, but like all the other solutions, it has an economic impact, and therein lies the problem.

Funny, really, that Japan manages to be 74% forested.

I understand that they do it, in part, by importing everybody else's rain forest.

True:

ibis wrote:

seinfeld wrote:

ibis wrote:

seinfeld wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

But land for agricultural use is cheap enough. It would be interesting to cost the offsetting done by trees against other avenues of carbon emissions reduction...

Agricultural land is cheap (relatively) but it produces a much higher return when it used to produce food or energy.

Auditor #9 wrote:

According to Irish Timber and Forestry Monthly, forestry is also fairly lucrative ... Shouldn't the state try to get its hands on more land for forest as parks and forest as a source of renewable industry? It might not only offset carbon emissions but there might be health and industry benefits as well.

If it was that lucrative, the State wouldn't have had to establish forestry grant systems. True, farmers also get grants, but that's largely because consumers would revolt if they had to pay the true cost of producing food.

The State already owns millions of acres of forested land under the guise of Coillte. However, Coillte spends most of its time either removing trees from this land or selling the land for others to remove the trees. And whatever amount of time it spends planting trees, it spends planting non-native species like spruce, which pollute our water systems.


Like I say, reforestation is one of many solutions to climate change, but like all the other solutions, it has an economic impact, and therein lies the problem.

Funny, really, that Japan manages to be 74% forested.

There isn't much of demand for meat and dairy products in Asia, though is there? Be interesting to see what happens to land use in the Far East as Chinese and Indian teenagers start stocking up on Big Macs.

Well, that's already happening - it's the cause of the current rise in food prices. Germany is 31% forested - a far cry from our 8-9%. I'm fairly certain the Germans don't stint on meat and dairy, though.

Its more of a pork thing to them, and the pig produces food more efficiently than than the cow.

Cows are probably the most inefficient way to produce food, which is probably why we have so many of them.

Where are you getting these stats?

FAO (www.fao.org) mostly.

Cows stomach's are very good at producing methane and government in Ireland has started to say we will have to choose between cows and cars.

Today's IT though says that very good ethanol suitable for car fuel is being produced from the non-protein element of whey, a dairy bi-product. I'd like to see some cost and environmental footprint figures.

The word is that most of Ireland is too wet for wheat, grows timber fast but not well in terms of quality, and that grass fed cattle and dairy herds do very well here and are much less damaging than the indoor US type. All we need perhaps is some way of capturing the methane for use (the mind boggles).

Well can everybody at least agree that the very rich do not care about us. They have concluded that the Earth can not sustain it's present population. Well guess who is goimg to get the chop. Do you think a bag of rice doubling in price makes any difference to them. They intend to have 500 million with them at the top. Here is another article from yesterday
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8877.
Have a read of this next because these people are I believe far left. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/05/01/to_defeat_famine_kill_the_wto This new world order codology is a far right police state and the Europeans have fallen for it hook line and sinker. Population control is the order of the day. Don't believe me just watch while ye are bombarded with news of famine and doom. More people are wising up to Bush and want these trade agreements and UN gone.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/05/01/to_defeat_famine_kill_the_wto

youngdan wrote:

Well can everybody at least agree that the very rich do not care about us. They have concluded that the Earth can not sustain it's present population. Well guess who is goimg to get the chop. Do you think a bag of rice doubling in price makes any difference to them. They intend to have 500 million with them at the top. Here is another article from yesterday
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8877.
Have a read of this next because these people are I believe far left. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/05/01/to_defeat_famine_kill_the_wto This new world order codology is a far right police state and the Europeans have fallen for it hook line and sinker. Population control is the order of the day. Don't believe me just watch while ye are bombarded with news of famine and doom. More people are wising up to Bush and want these trade agreements and UN gone.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/05/01/to_defeat_famine_kill_the_wto

I might be missing something, but that doesn't make a blind bit of sense to me. What does it have to do with the elite conspiracy to deindustrialise the West?

Not only are you missing something but you seem to be missing everything. The entire industrial base of the United States is nearly all gone overseas already. The industrial base in Ireland is likely to follow suit. Over here the big shots make millions and everyone else struggles.

youngdan wrote:

Not only are you missing something but you seem to be missing everything. The entire industrial base of the United States is nearly all gone overseas already. The industrial base in Ireland is likely to follow suit. Over here the big shots make millions and everyone else struggles.

They will go wherever the wages are lowest, they are in it to make a profit. There are some even moving to the US for precisely that reason (low wages, low dollars - US people can't afford to import).

Of course they will move to where the wages are lowest. The end result is low wages everywhere. That is the whole game plan. People will not be able to afford to eat even. The US has been turned into a 3rd world economy and Ireland is next. The strange thing is it is left wing people who think this is a good idea. When George Bush senior on that video talked about the new world order do you not believe him.