🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
In ca.politics dlow@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) said: 
 
 
>Jim Barrett (jimbar@tuna.hooked.net) wrote: : In ca.environment  
 
>: It is true that we are all a part of nature. I do want to change the way
we 
>: interact with nature. I believe that we are better off acting in a less 
>: destructive manner.  This should make sense from an economic point of
view. 
>: It seems to make sense that eating food that is grown in one's back yard
or 
>: at least in one's country is ultimately cheaper and better for the 
>: environment than having it shipped across the planet.  
> 
>You are clearly wrong here. The seasons are different depending on where
you  
>are on the planet. Mexico is far enough south that spring crops can be  
>harvested there for sale in the US in the middle of winter. Fresh fruits
and  
>vegetables are better tasting and healthier than canned or dried
equivalents.  
>If food is nothing more than fuel for the body then all we need is bread
and  
>water, spam and spinach. Life is to be enjoyed and not endured. Having a
wide  
>selection of different foods from different countries all year round is
part of  
>what makes life enjoyable instead of something to be endured. It also is  
>healthier if you have food allergies to be able to buy food from somewhere
else  
>that you are not allergic to. 
 
 
It still makes sense that something grown closer is ultimately less
expensive. There is a cost of moving the produce. This consumes energy. If
we eat the foods that are in season and choose those that are grown closer
rather that farther we will eliminate some of the cost of transportation.
Much of my arguement is based on the assumption that the economy is some
what distorted. I support the idea of growing close to home and decreasing
the cost of transportation.  
 
I in fact don't eat spam so my diet may be even more limited than you
think. Actually I am a vegetarian and try to buy all my food from the local
organic coop. I know that we can get produce from other countries so that
there is more variety during different times of year. I do find however
that my diet is quite varied and have been able to eat quite enjoyable. I 
live in California which gives me an advantage when buying locally. I
definately agree with you that life is something that should be enjoyed not
endured.  
 
The point I'm trying to make is that we can work to improve on the
interaction of the economy and the environment. These are not mutually
exclusive ideas. If there is a transportation component in the production
of food I would work to minimize it. This is why I say it should be
ultimately less expensive to grow in here rather than somewhere else. 
 
 
>: It makes sense that 
>: food that is grown with out pesticides is better for our health and will
be 
>: more cost effective in the long run.  
> 
>No it does not. If it did, pesticides would never have come into common
use.  
>Pesticides cost money. More natural methods like planting marigolds is
cheaper  
>BUT income is produced by selling harvested goods. A cheap method that
produces  
>fewer harvested goods is not neccessarily better than an expensive method
that  
>produces far more goods. Farmers have a more intimate and detailed
knowledge of  
>their costs and yields than you do. Organic farms exists. They are smaller
and  
>fewer than regular farms. That says that your conjecture is wrong.
Otherwise  
>the economics of farming would give the reverse situation. 
> 
 
 
The reports I have heard (CNN news for one) suggest that the percentage of
organically grown produce eaten in California is 1%. The prediction is that
it will be 10% by the end of the century. This is a substantial reversal.
There is evidence to show that one can grow organically grown produce as
efficiently as pesticide produce. Much of this is due to the destruction of
the land that comes from the present farming practices. Much of the use of
pesticides has been done without realizing the effects. 25 years ago we
started to see the effects of things like DDT. It was used extensively
before on realized the effects. Pesticides are implicated in breast cancer
and a world wide 50% drop in sperm count. (for references please contact
the Pesticide Action Network.) The claim that it is less expensive to eat
organic produce is based on the fact that I will avoid the health
consequences of having consummed chemicals which are detremental to me. 
 
 
 
 
 
>: It makes sense that transportation 
>: that is achieved efficiently will save money and protect the air and my 
>: health.  
> 
>One of the reason for global farming is air transport is very efficient.
No one  
>has made an electric plane that can match the efficiency of a gas power
plane. 
> 
 
Part of the reason that it is cost effective is that the cost of polluting
is not paid for by those who pollute. I maintain that if they were required
to pay these costs we would see a substantilally different economic effect.

 
 
 
>: It makes sense that we not destoy the forests so that we can 
>: sustain the production of lumber, paper and medicine. Environmentalists
and 
>: free market advocates should get together and figure out how to solve
each 
>: other's problems rather than just assuming that they are enemies. It
makes 
>: no sense in my mind to think that any of us don't want both a healthy 
>: environment and a healthy economy. 
> 
>You are correct here. The problem is everything else you have written is
not.  
>That is one reason while business and environmentalists rarely get along. 

>Businessmen know what the environmentalist are advocating is nonsenses.  
>Environmentalists have to start talking sense before businessmen will
listen to  
>them. I can recall one of the earliest environmental slogans for renewable
 
>energy..."Split wood not atoms." That was stupid idea when it was first  
>proposed. Yet many environmentalists took it seriously until smog from
burning  
>wood make it clear or rather murky that this was a bad idea. 
> 
 
 
 
I thank you for agreeing with me on something. I, as an environmentalist,
have disagreements with the ways that "businessmen" look at things much of
the time. I think that much of what they say can be characterized by the
words "nonsense" and "stupid" in my way of looking at things. I don't think
it gets us anywhere to say this however. I would prefer to try and figure
out where people agree and work from there rather than to just butt heads
with each other.  
 
 
Let me restate my arguements to try and muster as much support as possible.

 
1.) It would be better for both the environment and the economy if we could
grow as much of our food locally as we can. 
 
2.) It would be better for both the environment and the economy if we could
grow food without the use of chemicals.