h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't, try not to believe, believe anything.
I know one thing though, an awful lot of people are keeping their heads down!

> Well, I disagree wildly!
Good for you.

> The author of numberwatch is a retired professor and I like his way.
> If you don't like what he says, that's ok, only you should not base
> it on a feeling, but on facts. One fact is, that global warming has
> nothing to do with mankind. Well, just take your time and do your
> own investigations, and you will see that there is no indication for
> it.
I have nothing against some of what he says. I'm less annoyed with those blaming Global Warming on humanity than he is, and I haven't put in the effort required to be sure that human production of green house gases isn't enough to cause warming. I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong when I think the general concensus is that we don't really know enough of the atmosphere to say what effect a certain increase in CO2 would have. But I wouldn't remove it for that reason.
Neither would I remove it because I think the design is annoying as heck.
But he spends a lot of time ranting, and although I haven't bothered reading further than finding one example, it doesn't bode well to have something like the paragraph on "Snow Wonder" in http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2003%20January.htm

I'm not sure what he's trying to convey here, but the closing statement "It's only weather, of course, but a strange silence has fallen over the Global Warming propaganda" only makes sense if he either expected GW propagandists to call this evidence of GW, or if he thinks it disproves GW somehow. Before that he throws in a bit about "Electricity prices had trebled in Norway, and two Oslo pensioners were found frozen to death in their flat." What is this supposed to be significant to? Prices trebled because we exported lots of hydropower during summer, didn't get the expected autumn rains, were running low on water for hydropower, and had to import electricity. A few people might have died because they tried to hard to save power, but what's his point?

That isn't a feeling, it's a fact.

The point he wants to make is this: If you invest in alternate energy you will depend on it and in case of nature failing to supply rain or wind or sunshine the prices will go up, or, even more fatal, energy simply won't be supplied. And all that because of a scare (global warming) without any scientific justification.

About the ranting: I understand him, I think it is annoying too to see how many people spread their unfounded beliefs in a religious manner. They stop poor people in Africa from eating gene manipulated food, they stopped them from using DDT, but weren't successful because it saved so many lives. These oeko terrorists try to take everything away from us in order to establish themselves as priests of their new religion.

So much for ranting!

But now you're ranting just a bit. There are no "eco-terrorists" stopping poor people in Africa eat GM food. There are a few African governments refusing GM food. I would guess this is principally because the dumping of western agri surpluses on the developing world drives local farmers out of business and thereby impoverishes the country and increases the risk of famine. But making that argument would risk a trade dispute, so GM is a convenient fig leaf, besides any intrinsic merits the case against might have.

Personally, I will wait until the GM companies produce a life form that is much better what we have already before I support it. At the moment it seems to be a case of supporting it because it is new (like digital )

The real problem of GM food with respect to poor countries is not that they won't buy it from rich countries, but that they won't use the seeds to boost their own production, thus enabling them to feed themselves. The reason they won't do this is because the EU will stop buying crops from them if there is any chance of it being GM. And agriculture is a major part of their economy...

Of course, if the EU stopped MASSIVELY subsidizing all of its farming, that would help poor countries even more, and then they might not need the EU.

dave

I agree about the farming subsidies in the US and EU, which cause the surpluses that get dumped.

But I would question the wisdom of buying in expensive seed from the US in balance of trade terms, whether the food is for export or domestic consumption. And it would be extremely foolish to become dependent on US supplied seed engineered so that it does not produce viable seeds for the next generation. That would be asking to be held for ransom.

I agree about being held ransom by the companies, but I think the studies so far indicated that it would be economically better to use the expensive seed and up the output of food.

It could well be economically more efficient, but still bad policy because the expensive seed has to be imported, and commodity food is difficult to export into the subsidised west, so it would cause or worsen the trade defecit.

The economic advantage takes into account all of the costs associated with the use of GM seeds (including importing). The only hurdle is the fact that once these countries go GM, they will no longer be allowed to export to the EU.
Right now if they're in famine, using either bought or donated GM seeds would up the food output and end the famine. At which point, they would start looking to improve their living conditions, by selling excess food. However, since they're now using GM, they can no longer sell to the EU. So, in order to avoid endangering their future, the are forced to suffer famine...not a pretty picture.

dave

I think you missed the economic argument I was making. Economic efficiency isn't a persuasive argument for doing something if it is somebody else who benefits from the efficiency.

Your second point is not at all clear, but you seem to be under the misapprehensions that a) famine is largely a technological problem that can be solved by increasing yields, and b) policy is subistence first, exports second. In fact yields are increasing all the time without much impact on hunger, and whether food is sold locally or export rather depends on where the best price is.

Famine generally requires two of war, poverty and natural disaster. More efficient agriculture will have a small impact on poverty, but prevent two of the three causes and you will probably end famine at any technological level - this is a political problem.

You're right - I had it wrong, I didn't remember correctly. Actually what happened was that the country Zambia refused to accept donated GM food, because of fear that it would "contaminate" their regular crops, which they hoped to continue exporting to the EU.

In the end it was still the EU's fear of GM which made them make a political decision to not accept the donation.