Too many people deny that our atmosphere is warming. Many of these do so because they are making lots of money contributing to global warming. They also spend lots of money convincing people of a certain political view that the promotion of the idea of global warming is the plot of people of a certain other political view.
It is relatively simple to prove that there is global warming with one simple assumption: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the globe to be warmer.
For centuries there has been a certain balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. People have used plants for food and fuel for eons. As people use the plant carbon as food, they breathe out carbon dioxide. As they use plant carbon as fuel, their fires give off carbon dioxide. Plants, in turn, use the atmospheric carbon dioxide as food to grow. The balance is such, that even with huge forest fires and volcanoes, the excess carbon dioxide is used up over a few years or decades with the new growth of plants.
We could express this as
CB-CU=0
That is, carbon burned minus carbon used by plants equals zero. That is, we have a long term balance.
Then people took coal, oil, and gas from under the ground. Now are equation is
CB-CU=CG
where CG is carbon from underground: coal, oil and gas. That is, the carbon from coal, oil, and gas is not used up by the existing plants.
To make matters worse, human activity doesn't increase the amount of plant life to absorb the extra carbon. To the contrary, human activity reduces the volume of plant life. Humans cut down huge forests without replacing them with plants of equal volume. Sometimes they replace the huge forests with sugar cane, coffee plants, or corn. Sometimes they don't even replace the plants but cover the same ground with highways, parking lots, and mammoth buildings. Now our equation becomes
CB-CU=CG+CL
where CL is carbon uptake lost. CB, CG, and CL keep getting bigger, and CU keeps getting smaller.
If you assume the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming, consider that residents of many cities are having breathing problems because of all the pollutants, including carbon dioxide, that are in the air because of the cities' dependence on fossil fuels.
Showing posts with label agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label agriculture. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Thursday, July 19, 2012
The fallacy of Buy American
Once again the cry "Buy American" is heard from high and low places. One was Chip Cravaack, R-MN8, putting a statement into a transportation bill that the steel used in highways should be American-made.
A little aside I can't resist. Aren't the Republicans the one who are all for free markets and no government intervention? Shouldn't the free market decide the best quality for the lowest price? Not some government bureaucrat or politician?
I try to buy American and buy local, but in general this is only a preference, not an iron-clad rule. We buy local produce when it is available. I love my made-in-Minnesota Red Wing work boots and some of my made-in-America yard equipment. For decades I wore 36-30 Levis and then they suddenly became too long. It wasn't me that changed; I found the 30-inch inseam was actually over 31 inches! Could that have been because Levi Strauss outsourced the making of Levis and that somebody didn't make a proper conversion to metric?
On the other hand we own one American vehicle and one Japanese vehicle, each bought for specific reasons, not the country of manufacture. Can you find an American-made digital camera? Same for most computers and related stuff. The software might be made anywhere. I prefer a French music-composing program to a Minnesota program. Do you know anyplace in the U.S., other than Hawaii or greenhouses where bananas are grown? Would you rather have chicory than coffee?
On the other hand, we should be grateful that many other countries aren't pushing too strongly on Buy English or Buy German, and surprise, Buy Chinese.
Personally, I'm very glad that in the 60s and 70s European governments weren't pushing very hard to buy only European computers. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to live in Europe for six years maintaining software for Univac computers made in Minnesota. Our customers included Lufthansa, the French Army, and the Swedish Police.
Minnesota doesn't make many computers now-a-days, but many medical devices are designed and made in Minnesota. If we don't buy goods from other countries, should they buy our medical devices?
Farmers in the U.S. are glad that they have a big export market for all kinds of agricultural products, from grains to meat. Although India still has many import restrictions "Indian Consumers already buy almonds and grapes from California, and apples by the truckload from Washington." Adam Belz, "Minnesota looks for a bigger taste of India", Star Tribune, 2012-07-19
The military-industrial complex is probably very glad that military establishments around the world aren't restricted by Buy Nationally policies. Even the most militarily-oriented Congress couldn't raise enough taxes to buy all the weapons that the U.S. military-industrial complex could produce. So, those countries buying U.S. military hardware have to raise funds to purchase the hardware. To do that, they have to sell goods and services outside their own countries, for example, oil!
One of the most interesting news items is the direction of parts for wind turbines passing through the Duluth Harbor. Big blades are coming from Europe to U.S. destinations. Big blades are going out to many other countries, the latest being Brazil. Probably each set of blades had different features that met the requirements of the buyers.
And then there is the name game. Some years ago a U.S. city was considering buying a piece of heavy equipment. The city council favored Caterpillar over Kubota because the later was an American name. Surprise! The Caterpillar was made in Japan and the Kubota was made in the U.S.
It isn't easy being a free-marketer and a protectionist at the same time.
A little aside I can't resist. Aren't the Republicans the one who are all for free markets and no government intervention? Shouldn't the free market decide the best quality for the lowest price? Not some government bureaucrat or politician?
I try to buy American and buy local, but in general this is only a preference, not an iron-clad rule. We buy local produce when it is available. I love my made-in-Minnesota Red Wing work boots and some of my made-in-America yard equipment. For decades I wore 36-30 Levis and then they suddenly became too long. It wasn't me that changed; I found the 30-inch inseam was actually over 31 inches! Could that have been because Levi Strauss outsourced the making of Levis and that somebody didn't make a proper conversion to metric?
On the other hand we own one American vehicle and one Japanese vehicle, each bought for specific reasons, not the country of manufacture. Can you find an American-made digital camera? Same for most computers and related stuff. The software might be made anywhere. I prefer a French music-composing program to a Minnesota program. Do you know anyplace in the U.S., other than Hawaii or greenhouses where bananas are grown? Would you rather have chicory than coffee?
On the other hand, we should be grateful that many other countries aren't pushing too strongly on Buy English or Buy German, and surprise, Buy Chinese.
Personally, I'm very glad that in the 60s and 70s European governments weren't pushing very hard to buy only European computers. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to live in Europe for six years maintaining software for Univac computers made in Minnesota. Our customers included Lufthansa, the French Army, and the Swedish Police.
Minnesota doesn't make many computers now-a-days, but many medical devices are designed and made in Minnesota. If we don't buy goods from other countries, should they buy our medical devices?
Farmers in the U.S. are glad that they have a big export market for all kinds of agricultural products, from grains to meat. Although India still has many import restrictions "Indian Consumers already buy almonds and grapes from California, and apples by the truckload from Washington." Adam Belz, "Minnesota looks for a bigger taste of India", Star Tribune, 2012-07-19
The military-industrial complex is probably very glad that military establishments around the world aren't restricted by Buy Nationally policies. Even the most militarily-oriented Congress couldn't raise enough taxes to buy all the weapons that the U.S. military-industrial complex could produce. So, those countries buying U.S. military hardware have to raise funds to purchase the hardware. To do that, they have to sell goods and services outside their own countries, for example, oil!
One of the most interesting news items is the direction of parts for wind turbines passing through the Duluth Harbor. Big blades are coming from Europe to U.S. destinations. Big blades are going out to many other countries, the latest being Brazil. Probably each set of blades had different features that met the requirements of the buyers.
And then there is the name game. Some years ago a U.S. city was considering buying a piece of heavy equipment. The city council favored Caterpillar over Kubota because the later was an American name. Surprise! The Caterpillar was made in Japan and the Kubota was made in the U.S.
It isn't easy being a free-marketer and a protectionist at the same time.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Farmers, pollution, and large corporations
Rod Hamilton, member of the Minnesota House and a farmer, wrote an op-ed piece "Please, a little more understanding for farmers: Their stake in our resources is deeply personal", Star Tribune, 2012-06-09. He writes that certain groups are targeting farmers for cleanup of river sludge. He claims that farmers are stewards of the land and need to protect their land for generations.
First, are all farmers that careful stewards of their land? Probably most of those he knows, but there probably will be a few who cut corners.
Second, what about corporate farms? How many are there in Minnesota? Technically, none. This claim was made in "Tara and Nick Meyer provide a glimpse of life as young Minnesota farmers", Audra Otto, MinnPost, 2011-12-16. Tara Meyer stated, "Corporate farms only exist in the eyes of the media. There are no corporate farms in Minnesota – this a huge misconception." She provided a link to Minnesota's "Corporate Farm Law".
Well, few laws are so straight-forward, and some special interests always manage to protect their interests. This law is no exception in that it has several exceptions. These include poultry and feedlots, general and limited liability partnerships (really a corporation), and land for sod. Do you think all such entities are going to have the same stewardship ideas as Rep. Hamilton?
Then there is the granddaddy of loopholes - "entities that do not meet any of the above criteria may apply to the commissioner of agriculture for a special exemption." And we've always had Minnesota governors who hold the public interest higher than corporate interest, right? Wisconsin is now "Open for Business"; will Minnesota be far behind?
First, are all farmers that careful stewards of their land? Probably most of those he knows, but there probably will be a few who cut corners.
Second, what about corporate farms? How many are there in Minnesota? Technically, none. This claim was made in "Tara and Nick Meyer provide a glimpse of life as young Minnesota farmers", Audra Otto, MinnPost, 2011-12-16. Tara Meyer stated, "Corporate farms only exist in the eyes of the media. There are no corporate farms in Minnesota – this a huge misconception." She provided a link to Minnesota's "Corporate Farm Law".
Well, few laws are so straight-forward, and some special interests always manage to protect their interests. This law is no exception in that it has several exceptions. These include poultry and feedlots, general and limited liability partnerships (really a corporation), and land for sod. Do you think all such entities are going to have the same stewardship ideas as Rep. Hamilton?
Then there is the granddaddy of loopholes - "entities that do not meet any of the above criteria may apply to the commissioner of agriculture for a special exemption." And we've always had Minnesota governors who hold the public interest higher than corporate interest, right? Wisconsin is now "Open for Business"; will Minnesota be far behind?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)