Bayou Renaissance Man

Courtesy of The Free Press's newsletter this morning, a cartoon by David Mamet (clickit to biggit):

So much for sustainability!  Now what about eatability?

Peter

Remember the kerfuffle raised by climate change activists over the past three or four decades, alleging that many island chains would soon be submerged beneath the waves due to rising sea levels?

Not so fast . . .

The Guardian was in fine form last June stating that rising oceans will extinguish more than land. “It will kill entire languages,” it added, noting the effect on Pacific islands such as Tuvalu. Those areas of the Earth that were most hospitable to people and languages are now becoming the “least hospitable”.

Silly emotional Guardianista guff of course, but happily it does not seem to apply to Tuvalu. A recent study found that the 101 islands of Tuvalu had grown in land mass by 2.9%. The scientists observed that despite rising sea levels, many shorelines in Tuvalu and neighbouring Pacific atolls have maintained relative stability, “without significant alteration”. A comprehensive re-examination of data on 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls with 709 islands found that none of them had lost any land. Furthermore, the scientists added, there are data that indicate 47 reef islands expanded in size or remained stable over the last 50 years, “despite experiencing a rate of sea-level rise that exceeds the global average”.

The Maldives is also a poster scare for rising sea levels, with the attention-seeking activist Mark Lynas – he of the nonsense claim that 99.9% of scientists agree humans cause all or most climate change – organising an underwater Cabinet meeting of the local Government in 2009. As it happens, the Maldives is one of a number of areas that have seen recent increases in land mass. Other areas include the Indonesian Archipelago, islands along the Indochinese Peninsula coast, and islands in the Red and Mediterranean Seas. Notably, the  coastal waters of the Indochinese Peninsula had the most substantial gain, with an increase of 106.28 km2 over the 30-year period. Of the 13,000 islands examined, the researchers found that only around 12% had experienced a significant shoreline shift, with almost equal numbers experiencing either landward (loss) or seaward (gain) movement.

. . .

Sea level rise is not a “predominant” cause of the changing coasts, the scientists note.

There's more at the link.

I find it interesting that the climate change alarmists made claims such as "submerged islands!", then insisted that there was no time to waste, we had to act now, and we had to throw millions (if not billions) of dollars at the problem to "protect vulnerable populations", as well as damage our own economies by cutting back on anything and everything that might contribute to rising sea levels.  When research over several years (in some cases, decades) has now proved that their claims were wrong, they're conspicuous by their deafening silence.  All the money they gouged out of politically correct governments and "woke" corporations . . . what good did it do?  Where did it go?  Who benefited most from it?  No good asking those questions;  they won't answer them - but we all know where the money came from that's kept them employed and living comfortably - some would say high on the hog - all this time.

Almost the entire climate change industry is based on pseudo-scientific twaddle.  Go watch the video report at that link.  It's the truth.

Peter

I've long been frustrated (as, I'm sure, have many of my readers) with the declining effectiveness of laundry detergent, dishwasher detergent, floor cleaners and other cleaning products.  They just don't seem to work as well these days as they used to.  The reason is pretty clear:  the EPA and other Federal agencies have been trying to legislate or regulate many effective cleaning materials out of existence in the name of "environmental protection" or "pollution control" or whatever is the reason du jour.  (That's not helped by new "efficiency" regulations that hobble the performance of new clothes and dish washers, even if they had the old full-strength detergents to use.)

I've tried to get around the problem wherever possible by "adding back" some of the missing ingredients to the cleaning products I use.  One of the most common "hacks" is to add a little TSP (trisodium phosphate) to laundry or dishwasher detergent.  Until recently I've bought a box of the stuff at home improvement stores (Home Depot, Lowes and the like) when needed, and it's lasted two or three years when used sparingly.  I find it particularly useful for mopping dirty floors and cleaning grimy, greasy paintwork.  I don't do that often, but when I do it makes the job much easier.  It makes cleaning a charcoal or gas grill much faster, too, and a lot less effort.

Unfortunately, when I went shopping for a box of TSP yesterday, I found that the major home improvement chains in a nearby city have all stopped carrying it.  Instead, they're selling what they call "TSP Substitute Phosphate-Free".  The packaging claims that it's as good as the real stuff, but many customer reviews online are pretty emphatic that it's not.  I daresay the EPA and/or other agencies "leaned on" those stores to stop carrying TSP.

Fortunately, there are still ways around that.  One can get TSP online from various suppliers in 1lb. or 4½lb. boxes, or even in 40lb. buckets.  Buying in bulk, like the latter option, is also quite a lot cheaper than the current substitutes.  I've just ordered enough to keep us going for the foreseeable future, plus a little extra in case the bureaucrats shut down even the online channels.  If you, like me, have been accustomed to using the stuff, or you want a powerful cleaner that just plain works, you might want to stock up on some yourself while the going's good.

Another bone of contention is pre-mixed or pre-diluted solutions of common cleaning products, whether spray bottles or aerosols or whatever.  I may be wrong, but the small consumer-ready bottles on the racks seem to be less effective than before.  I suspect the concentration of cleaning product has been reduced, and/or some of the chemicals used to make it have been replaced by environmentally friendlier alternatives.  That's great for the eco-weenies, but not so useful if you're trying to get something clean in a hurry.  I've therefore started to buy one-gallon bottles of concentrated cleaning detergents and products (e.g. Simple Green, Zep, bleach, vinegar, etc.) and mix my own solutions in my own spray bottles to higher concentrations than those sold commercially.  No more problems with weak-kneed solutions!

I hear that some people add TSP to their solutions of such cleaners.  I'm leery of that, because I don't know all the chemical reactions involved.  Instead, I'll have a spray bottle of TSP solution right alongside the bottle of cleaning detergent solution.  I'll apply first one, then the other, then use a mop or cloth to rub the combination into the surface I'm cleaning.  Works like a charm.

Finally, if the supply chain goes to hell in a handbasket and we can't get the cleaners we need in a timely manner, it's good to have extra in your emergency supplies to take care of that until supplies are restored.  (I wonder how many of them are made here, and how many come from China?  Even if the products are made here, where do their containers come from?)  Buying cleaners in bulk makes that easy.  One can put aside a year or two's worth of concentrated product in not very much space, and for a lot less money per unit than buying small consumer-size containers.  Add a few spray bottles to your preps to mix them, and you're all set.

Just a thought.

Peter

The BBC reports:

The latest research suggests that our skin is not just a mirror for our lifestyles – reflecting the effects of years of smoking, drinking, sun and stress – and hinting at our inner health. No, in this new upside-down-world, the body's largest organ is an active participant in our physical wellbeing. This is a strange new reality where wrinkles, dry skin and sunspots cause ageing, instead of the other way around.

In 1958 ... [a] major project was quietly conceived. The Baltimore Longitudinal Study was to be a scientific investigation of ageing with a daring and rather unorthodox premise ... The research followed thousands of adult men (and later, women) for decades, to see how their health developed – and how this was affected by their genes and the environment.

Just two decades in, scientists had already made some intriguing breakthroughs, from the discovery that less emotionally stable men were more likely to be diagnosed with heart disease to the revelation that our problem-solving abilities decline only slightly with age.

But one of the most striking findings confirmed what people had long suspected: how youthful you look is an impressively accurate expression of your inner health. By 1982, those men who had been assessed as looking particularly old for their age at the beginning of the study, 20 years earlier, were more likely to be dead.  This is backed up by more recent research, which found that, of patients who were judged to look at least 10 years older than they should, 99% had health problems.

It turns out skin health can be used to predict a number of seemingly unconnected factors, from your bone density to your risk of developing neurodegenerative diseases or dying from cardiovascular disease. However, as the evidence has begun to add up, the story has taken a surprise twist.

. . .

As the largest organ in the body, the skin can have a profound impact. The chemicals released by diseased and dysfunctional skin soon enter the bloodstream, where they wash around, damaging other tissues. Amid the ensuing systemic inflammation, chemicals from the skin can reach and harm organs that seem entirely unrelated, including your heart and brain.

The result is accelerated ageing, and a higher risk of developing the majority of – or possibly even all – related disorders. So far, aged or diseased skin has been linked to the onset of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and cognitive impairment, as well as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

. . .

... there is direct evidence that [using sunscreen and moisturizing the skin] does reduce inflammation – and that it may help to prevent dementia ... adding moisture back is not particularly complicated, whatever cosmetics adverts seem to suggest. And in the field of ageing, this simple intervention is showing remarkable results.

There's more at the link.

I'm intrigued by this research because, like many others, I was exposed to particularly harsh conditions for my skin during my military service.  When you're deployed, nobody's going to provide sunscreen or moisturizer for your skin - at least, no military organization of which I've ever heard has done so.  You provide your own, or get sunburned and wizened like a dried-up prune.  (Yes, there are other similes.  No, I'm not going to mention them in a family-friendly blog like this!)

When I look at my catalog of health problems in later life (it's a depressing list), and read this article, I find that many of the illnesses and conditions it identifies are among my issues.  I wonder if there's a correlation between years of one's skin being baked and fried and rained on and frozen in the field, and health in later life?  It sounds as if there may be.  Might veterans be able to use this evidence to get more medical assistance for such issues as they get older?  How would one prove the connection?

Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice would say . . .

Peter

Remember "You'll own nothing and be happy"?  Well, it looks like that day may be drawing nearer, if at least some airlines and resorts have their way.  In an article titled "Are luggage-free trips the future?", the BBC observes:

To highlight how travelling sustainably first starts at home, here are some places that are challenging the long-established idea of packing before you leave – and offering shortcuts to a more streamlined holiday.

Japan 

In a daring move towards a more sustainable aviation industry, Japan Airlines recently launched a pilot programme giving overseas travellers the option to rent clothes for their stay in the country in advance – thus eliminating the need to lug and load. 

. . .

The Alps 

Around the world, skiers are trying to lower their carbon footprints. But while winter sports holidays have long been the domain of excess oversized baggage costs, there is an element of changing perceptions. A new idea is emerging in resorts across France, Switzerland and Austria: leave the gear at home and rent it at the resort.

. . .

Dubrovnik 

While Venice was the first destination bold enough to consider banning wheelie suitcases to better preserve the city's overcrowded streets in 2014, Dubrovnik has turned the argument into action – now recommending visitors leave their rolling luggage at home ... the city now recommends visitors not disturb the historic cobbled streets by carrying – not dragging – wheeled baggage around.

. . .

East Africa

Safari lodges in national parks across Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda offer a different proposition to most holidays ... while there is no ban on certain types of luggage, restrictions are commonly in place and there is an expectation for travellers to understand and respect the need to arrive light.

There's more at the link.

That's all very well for the well-heeled;  but what about the rest of us, who don't have spare cash to burn?  It's also great for the resorts, which can "rent out" clothing, sports gear and other goodies (at a significant extra profit to themselves), then wash and clean it and do the same thing over and over again.  I daresay they'll end up making a profit of at least ten times what they paid for the stuff, all at our expense.

(One can only hope that their laundry and cleaning services are up to the job.  Given how many hotels already have problems with bedbugs, how many more will find unwanted insect visitors in their rented clothing or sports gear?  Who's to say that the person who rented those clothes before me was as clean and hygiene-conscious as I am?)

I can't help wondering whether this isn't being pushed by those who stand to benefit most from it.  The resorts and sports lodges are obvious winners, but there's also the airlines, who won't have to devote as much hold space to carrying passengers' luggage - they can instead fill it with higher-profit air freight containers.  There's also the perspective of those who want to "save the earth" by (among other things) reducing leisure travel.  If it becomes a lot more expensive to travel, through having to rent what you need at your destination rather than carry it with you, won't that play right into their hands?  They won't have to legally restrict leisure travel;  the costs involved will do it for them.

This may be on a par with the "eat insects!" crowd:  yet another attempt to modify our behavior to fit in with the "green revolution".  Hard pass from me, thank you very much!

Peter

Yesterday I posted a "street" interview between Tucker Carlson and rapper Ice Cube.  Today, let's follow that with the next episode from Tucker:  a twenty-minute studio interview with Ice Cube, talking in greater depth about some of the subjects raised yesterday, and going into new areas.  Like yesterday's excerpt, this is (or should be) very interesting to many who've never been exposed to the inner-city environment that produced Ice Cube and many others.  I think it's very important for that reason.

Full marks to Tucker Carlson for stretching the boundaries for many of his fans;  and full marks to Ice Cube for doing the same, and for speaking out about current affairs and America's problems without fear or favor.

Peter

This is a very interesting and worthwhile discussion between Tucker Carlson (who needs no introduction) and rapper Ice Cube.  Highly recommended viewing to get an idea of what life is like in "the hood".

A very useful look at how many Americans live today.  Many of us aren't exposed to that way of life at all.  I saw its effects when serving as a prison chaplain, where many of the inmates to whom I ministered came from that background.  That's not to say that everyone in the hood is a criminal, of course;  it's just that many in that environment see no other way out but to turn to crime, which is tragic in itself.

Peter

We've been enduring a typical Texas summer heatwave over the past couple of weeks, with temperatures routinely well above 100° Fahrenheit.  There have been warnings from electrical utilities to conserve power, or risk cascading power failures;  but as far as I know, there haven't actually been any of the latter.  The reason, according to Oilprice.com, may surprise you.

Peak energy demand has reached an all-time high in Texas, where temperatures have been hotter than 99% of the world over the last few weeks. The prolonged heat wave is shattering records now but is likely just the beginning of what scientists predict will be a pattern of increasing and increasingly extreme weather events associated with climate change.

In Texas, the expectation that summer heat waves as well as winter storms will continue to get more and more intense has been of particular concern, due to the fragility and isolated nature of the state’s power grid. That fragility was made infamous in 2021, when the grid collapsed under the strain of increased heating demand during the disastrous Winter Storm Uri. Tragically, at least 246 people died from the storm and the related grid failure, with stated causes of death ranging from hypothermia to carbon monoxide poisoning according to the state’s official death toll. However, a BuzzFeed News analysis says that the official count is far lower than the real death toll, which they calculate to be around 700 lives lost.

. . .

The New York Times has called the Texas grid “the nation’s most extensive experiment in electrical deregulation,” and experts have been nervous that that experiment could go terribly wrong all over again under the strain of an extreme weather event such as the one Texas is experiencing now. But so far, the grid has held up, even with peak energy demand reaching a record-breaking 81,000 megawatts (MW), a significant uptick from the  69,000 MW peak demand that left the grid in ruins during Winter Storm Uri.

How is this possible? The Lone Star state has quietly been building out its renewable energy industry at a breakneck clip. “It’s all thanks to the rapid additions of solar, wind, and grid-scale battery storage in the last two years,” reports Forbes. The state has added almost 3,000 MW of wind since 2021 and 10,000 MW of solar since 2020, with utility-scale solar doubling every year since then. Its solar energy installment rate has surpassed that of California, and its new grid battery installations are a very close second to the Golden State. “During this historic heat wave, it’s been all these new, low-cost wind, solar and batteries that have kept the grid afloat and Texans cool – in many cases saving lives,” Forbes writes.

All of this added renewable energy production capacity has made the Texas energy grif much more resilient. Not only does it give the grid a greater diversity of energy sources to fall back on in case of disaster, it’s also easing the state’s reliance on fossil fuels for energy security. Past grid failures in Texas have shown that coal and gas plants are much more vulnerable than renewable ones to extreme weather events in both hot and cold conditions. In fact, when the state lost 9,600 MW of electricity capacity last week due to the failure of several natural gas and coal plants, solar and wind provided that lost energy and then some, generating a record 31,500 MW on Wednesday.

There's more at the link.

I've always regarded increased dependence on so-called "renewable" energy sources - solar, wind, etc. - as a potential weakness, a likely point of failure.  I'm honestly surprised to read that they've actually relieved the pressure on traditional electricity generating plants during a peak consumption period like this.  I can understand solar energy being more than usually efficient during such heatwaves, but the winds have often been less than usual as a hot blanket has dampened normal weather patterns, so I'd discounted it as a major contributor.

Are these reports trustworthy, or are they just hype on behalf of the renewable energy industry?  I don't know, but Oilprice is normally a reasonably trustworthy source.  Can knowledgeable readers chime in with their input?  I'm sure we'd all like to know more.

Peter

Neil Oliver points out that the so-called "green" revolution is all about money for its promoters, and nothing else.

As always:  follow the money.  Look at who most benefits from every green initiative.  For example, as Twitter user Arwenstar points out:  "When climate alarmist Al Gore ran for US president in 2000 he was apparently worth $1.7M.  After decades of travelling the world in private jets to frighten the wits out of the proles he has amassed an estimated $313M."  I'm sure he finds that a very congenial change in his financial climate!

Peter

Courtesy of Watts Up With That, here's a little fact of which I wasn't aware.

From the beginning of natural gas pipelines, compressors were powered by natural gas. That made sense because the pipelines were full of natural gas, so pipelines powered themselves. But gradually, compressors were electrified so slowly that, to follow the parable, they, like the frog, didn’t notice what was about to happen.

. . .

The anti-fossil fuel movement started pressuring North Texas cities and towns to require electric compressors on natural gas pipelines based on arguments that the air pollution from natural gas-powered compressors was causing increased asthma and other health problems. In 2012, the Denton City Council invited me to participate in their project to rewrite city ordinances that regulate natural gas drilling and pipelines.

I distinctly recall a public meeting in which I said that electrifying natural gas pipeline compressors was a terrible idea that could affect the availability of natural gas when it was needed most, such as during bad weather events. Unfortunately, I lost that debate, and the City of Denton changed its city ordinances to require electric natural gas compressors within its city limits. Similar ordinances quickly spread to other municipalities within the state of Texas and eventually to other natural gas-producing states that pipelines pass through.

As shown in the map above, the use of electric compressors on gas pipelines has now become so pervasive that the entire interstate natural gas pipeline network is effectively compromised. An interruption in the generation of electricity can cause some natural gas pipelines to shut down, which interrupts other parts of the natural gas pipeline grid and potentially shuts down multiple pipelines.

An early indicator of the problems caused by the electrification of natural gas pipelines was Winter Storm Uri which hit Texas and much of the nation in February 2021. This was detailed in my article “The Texas power grid was minutes from collapsing in 2021 and declaring an emergency in 2022.”

Here’s what happened. The entire state of Texas was hit by Winter Storm Uri, which resulted in all 254 counties in the state experiencing below-freezing temperatures, with much of the state temperatures in the teens and below zero in some areas for almost an entire week. Freezing temperatures affected all forms of electrical generation, starting with frozen wind turbines, freeze-offs at natural gas wells, and even problems with coal-fired generators and nuclear power generation plants.

As the temperatures dropped and people turned up their heat, the demand for electricity exceeded the supply, and rolling blackouts were ordered to maintain the integrity of the electrical grid. The grid operator, ERCOT, ordered rolling blackouts to balance supply and demand. Unfortunately, some local electricity companies did not have good information on the location of natural gas wells and compressor stations, so some blackouts shut down natural gas wells and pipeline compressors. In turn, this reduced the natural gas supply to gas-fired power generators. This caused a death spiral in electricity generation to the point where the Texas grid was within 4 minutes and 37 seconds of completely collapsing.

There's more at the link.  I highly recommend that you read the whole thing.

Was this an innocent mistake, where concern about pollution gave rise to a "solution" that inadvertently increased risks to natural gas supply?  Or was it a deliberate "stealth" move by anti-energy crusaders that was intended to cause disruptions to our energy supply at a critical time?

I know they say that "correlation is not causation", and I know I should "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity".  Nevertheless, the ongoing campaign against fossil fuels - including natural gas, most recently resulting in the banning of gas stoves in new construction in New York State - suggests that there may be some fire to back up the smoke, if you know what I mean.

Next question:  Now that this vulnerability is known, how many municipalities are reversing their previous regulations and allowing gas pipeline companies to use natural-gas-powered compressors on their pipelines within municipal areas?  If they aren't, I suggest it would lent additional weight to the "deliberate" argument.

Peter

Armstrong Economics reminds us that the much-ballyhooed "climate emergency" is no such thing.  It's a cynical ploy designed to grab more and more power over us in the name of a non-existent crisis.

The Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. “The climate view of CLINTEL can be easily summarized as: There is no climate emergency.” Over 1540 experts respected in their independent fields have joined CLINTEL to spread the message that there is no scientific data to indicate that climate change is [anything other than] political propaganda.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.

“To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in.  This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”

. . .

We MUST question why governments across the world are fighting tooth and nail to eliminate fossil fuels and our way of life as we know it. Why are we following the World Economic Forum’s 2030 agenda to save a planet that does not need saving? Why are we allowing our elected officials to spend endless funds on an imaginary cause? Everything has a cycle, including the weather. So while the climate may be changing, there is absolutely nothing humans can do to alter the course of nature, and those stating otherwise are lying.

There's more at the link.

So, when you hear politicians and pressure groups demanding that we sacrifice this, or that, or the other, in the name of "climate change" . . . remember that they're all lying through their teeth.

Peter

Following on from Wednesday's discussion about crops, technology and our food supply, Off-Guardian provides this overview of the worldwide food crisis that's currently unfolding.  Follow the links in the article for more information.

Today, a fifth (278 million) of the African population are undernourished, and 55 million of that continent’s children under the age of five are stunted due to severe malnutrition.

In 2021, an Oxfam review of IMF COVID-19 loans showed that 33 African countries were encouraged to pursue austerity policies. Oxfam and Development Finance International also revealed that 43 out of 55 African Union member states face public expenditure cuts totalling $183 billion over the next few years.

As a result, almost three-quarters of Africa’s governments have reduced their agricultural budgets since 2019, and more than 20 million people have been pushed into severe hunger. In addition, the world’s poorest countries were due to pay $43 billion in debt repayments in 2022, which could otherwise cover the costs of their food imports.

Last year, Oxfam International Executive Director Gabriela Bucher stated that there was a terrifying prospect that in excess of a quarter of a billion more people would fall into extreme levels of poverty in 2022 alone. That year, food inflation rose by double digits in most African countries.

By September 2022, some 345 million people across the world were experiencing acute hunger, a number that has more than doubled since 2019. Moreover, one person is dying of hunger every four seconds. From 2019 to 2022, the number of undernourished people grew by 150 million.

Billions of dollars’ worth of arms continue to pour into Ukraine from the NATO countries as US neocons pursue their goal of regime change in Russia and balkanisation of that country.

Yet people in those NATO countries are experiencing increasing levels of hardship. The US has sent almost 80 billion dollars to Ukraine, while 30 million low-income people across the US are on the edge of a ‘hunger cliff’ as a portion of their federal food assistance is taken away. In 2021, it was estimated that one in eight children were going hungry in the US. In England, 100,000 children have been frozen out of free school meals.

Due to the disruptive supply chain effects of the conflict in Ukraine, speculative trading that drives up food prices, the impact of closing down the global economy under the guise of COVID and the inflationary impacts of pumping trillions of dollars into the financial system between September 2019 and March 2020, people are being driven into poverty and denied access to sufficient food.

Matters are not helped by issues that have long plagued the global food system: cutbacks in public subsidies to agriculture, WTO rules that facilitate cheap, subsidised imports which undermine or wipe out indigenous agriculture in poorer countries and loan conditionalities, resulting in countries ‘structurally adjusting’ their agri sectors thereby eradicating food security and self-sufficiency – consider that Africa has been transformed from a net food exporter in the 1960s to a net food importer today.

Great game food geopolitics continue and result in elite interests playing with the lives of hundreds of millions who are regarded as collateral damage. Policies, underpinned by neoliberal dogma masquerading as economic science and necessity, which are designed to create dependency and benefit a handful of multi-billionaires and global agribusiness corporations who, ably assisted by the World Bank, IMF and WTO, now preside over an increasingly centralised food regime.

. . .

As a paper in the journal Frontiers noted in 2021, these corporations form part of a powerful alliance of multinational corporations, philanthropies and export-oriented countries who are subverting multilateral institutions of food governance. Many who are involved in this alliance are co-opting the narrative of ‘food systems transformation’ as they anticipate new investment opportunities and seek total control of the global food system.

This type of ‘transformation’ is more of the same wrapped in a climate emergency narrative in an attempt to move food and farming further towards an ecomodernist techno-dystopia controlled by big agribusiness and big tech, as described in the article The Netherlands: Template for Ecomodernism’s Brave New World.

There's more at the link.

Of course, all these problems combine to produce much wider consequences.  A shortage of a staple crop in Country A will lead it to buy as much as it can of that crop on the open market;  but that, in turn, will reduce the available supply of that staple crop, meaning that Country B can no longer get enough.  In its efforts to make up for the shortfall, Country B will bid up the price, which means that (poorer) Country C can no longer afford to buy it, even if supplies were available.  Thus, the starvation problem is transferred from Country A, through Country B, to Country C.  As Country C becomes politically and socially destabilized through hunger, its citizens will flee to neighboring countries in an attempt to get enough to eat, thereby destabilizing even more countries . . . and so the process continues.

Here in the USA, we're largely sheltered from most of those consequences, apart from the higher prices we'll have to pay at our supermarkets.  However, we're still importing a lot of our food, because we can afford to;  and that's causing problems for other countries that aren't as rich as we are, and have to compete with us for a reduced supply of foodstuffs.  It's a never-ending ripple effect, and it's going to cause us harm as well.

The article cited above inclines towards an acroecological solution, which I find unconvincing;  I see more moonbats than pragmatists in that field, and I don't trust their methodology.  Nevertheless, it's clear that the world food production model, as presently implemented, is unbalanced.  We have to find a better way.  The question is, what is it?  Right now, nobody seems to be offering a practical, pragmatic, efficient, effective solution.  There are plenty of ideological suggestions, but all fail when tested in practice.  We need new and better ideas.

Peter

I couldn't help smiling at this headline:

On the one hand, you have all those well-meaning aviation engineers trying to figure out how to make and distribute and use sustainable fuel, rather than regular ol' aviation kerosene or gasoline.

So far, so good.

On the other hand, you have all the green "save-the-earth" types trying to cut back on human farming activities and discourage the eating of meat - which, in the process, will raise fewer animals, that in turn will produce less manure.

What happens when the green, reduced-manure farms run headlong into the demand for more manure to fuel aircraft, and vice versa?  I suspect someone hasn't thought this all the way through . . .

There's also the small issue of aircraft design in an age of sustainable fuels.

"This damn airplane's useless!  Who designed it, anyway?  It's full of s***!"

"Er... well... yes, actually it is... or, at least, its fuel tanks are..."

Peter

I had to laugh when I came across a post on Gab claiming "That's how much you need to become self-sufficient".  Click the image for a larger view.

Um... not so fast.  That's an illustration of perfection, showing a garden with very fertile soil, a favorable climate, no pests to speak of, and enough people in the family to do all the work to keep it that neat and tidy.  Most of us don't have the benefit of all those blessings.  As one respondent on Gab wrote:

My garden had a mind of its own. 2 months of high 90s-low 100s with no rain. Hours spent watering before dawn or at dusk, and the squash, cukes, pumpkin, watermelon went EVERYWHERE, and carrots, celery, broccoli, beets, beans, peas, never sprouted or sprouted to die. That image is perfect, but my plants seem to resist regulation.

Our own (very minor) attempts at a garden have been rather unsuccessful, at least so far.  Cedar Sanderson, who now lives nearby, is also battling to develop a North Texas garden.  She's also learning about one of the less... ah... popular aspects of gardening around here.

It’s Monday, and I’m sitting at the desk feeling like my brain is oozing out through my tearducts. Not really, it’s the congestion causing me to weep gently and constantly. You see, it rained… 

Which is a good thing and I’m very grateful it did. I love that I can plant a fall garden, and have another harvest before winter sets in. God bless Texas! I now have a little flower bed, and leads on some native shrubs, perennials, and fruits that will navigate the harsh summers better than me importing what I’m familiar with. I’m adapting! And so is my immune system. I hope. Given time, because right now it feels like it’s under siege and for the last two weeks I’ve been quite literally under the weather as everything around me burst into jubilant bloom, pollen, spores and what-have-they for reproduction. It’s all part of life but ow, my poor sinuses. I could do with less holes in my head, at least if they’re going to keep filling up with mucus.

There's more at the link.

However, I'm not knocking gardening, not at all.  If you have favorite foods and you can grow your own supply, that's an excellent thing.  For example:  do you use a lot of tomatoes?  Are you aware that California's tomato harvest is in trouble?

Lack of water is shrinking production in a region responsible for a quarter of the world’s output, which is having an impact on prices of tomato-based products. Gains in tomato sauce and ketchup are outpacing the rise in US food inflation, which is at its highest in 43 years, with drought and higher agricultural inputs to blame. With California climate-change forecasts calling for hotter and drier conditions, the outlook for farmers is uncertain.

. . .

“Yields are way off this year,” Blankenship said in an interview. “Coupled with drought, we’ve had high temperatures and that in itself creates an issue where the tomatoes are so hot that they just don’t size properly — so you have a lot of tomatoes on a plant, but they are smaller.”

. . .

The California crop has been below the recent production peak of 14.4 million tons in 2015 for the past six years, and 2022 is shaping up to continue the trend, according to US Department of Agriculture data. The industry expects this year’s harvest to fall below the USDA’s 11.7 million tons estimate.

Again, more at the link.

I've heard from contacts in the farming areas of California that the tomato harvest this year may be as much as 50% below what's needed to meet national demand.  The news is spreading fast.  I laid in a few dozen extra cans of tomato products over the weekend.  Sams Club - which normally has pallets full of the stuff - was down to only a two-deep layer of 12-can cartons of diced tomatoes, and they were going fast.  The same went for tomato sauce, paste, etc.  Therefore, if you can grow part or all of your own supply of tomatoes, you're ahead of the game.  Those of us who can't are going to be paying a lot more for them, and will probably be restricted in the varieties and quantities that are available.

So, I loves me some good vegetable gardens:  but it's by no means as easy as the "perfect picture" above makes it out to be.  I daresay many of my readers can confirm that from long and bitter personal experience.

Peter

Sundance, writing at The Conservative Treehouse, posits that the governments of the Western world are engaged in a deliberate attempt to slow down the economies of, not just their own, but all nations, so as to accomplish their climate change goals.

Western governments’, specifically western Europe, North America (U.S-Canada) and Australia/New Zealand, are intentionally trying to lower economic activity to meet the intentional drop in energy production.

This is the core consequence of the Build Back Better agenda as promoted by the World Economic Forum.

Anyone who says there is a reference point to determine both the short-term and long-term consequences is lying. There is no precedent for nations’ collectively and intentionally trying to reduce economic activity.

Hiding behind the false justification that current inflation is driven by too much demand, central banks in Europe, the Bank of England, Bank of Canada and U.S. federal reserve are raising interest rates.  The outcome we are currently feeling is an intentional economic contraction and global recession.

. . .

As the collective west attempts to, using their words, “manage the transition,” they do not have mechanisms to control an outcome of this magnitude.  It is simply too big a situation to manage.  Where the rubber meets the road, the think-tanks and high-minded climate change ideologues do not have the ability to manage a transition and still meet the needs of people.  Beyond the esoteric thinking, there are real consequences from these actions.

Many people have discussed the potential for longer-term food shortages and recently, shorter-term winter heating.  However, beyond that, the downstream geopolitical consequences are seemingly being ignored.

. . .

Unemployment in Malaysia, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and even China, creates an entirely different set of regional stability issues on a geopolitical level.

There is no precedent for this.  Never before in the history of industrialized nations has any government intentionally tried to lower its economic activity.  It has never been done with intent before because within the contraction nations get more poor, people suffer.

Not only has no single nation ever tried to intentionally shrink its wealth, but there is no precedent whatsoever for an alliance of nations to join together with the same purpose. While this might seem like an academic economic modeling exercise, unfortunately it is very real.  What I am describing is happening right now, and we had better start talking about it before the unforeseen consequences start to become a crisis.

. . .

I have no idea what that big picture consequence looks like, but whatever “that” is, will be happening at the same time as people everywhere will be more desperate as an outcome of their economic position.  I don’t have the answers, but I sure as hell can see the problem coming.

There's more at the link.

Sundance's explanation fits the facts on the ground as I understand them.  I think he's right on target, as he usually is.  He's proving himself to be a commentator as astute and as well-informed as Tucker Carlson, or Victor Davis Hanson, or others of their ilk.  If you aren't already reading The Conservative Treehouse every day, you should be.

C. S. Lewis' famous dictum comes to mind.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

That's what the climate change evangelists, and their pet politicians, are doing to us right now:  trying to exercise tyranny over us.  They truly believe that only they have the truth, and so the rest of us must be forced willy-nilly to follow their dictates, whether we like it or not.  Resistance to them is resistance against Nature itself, which has taken over in their minds the place former ages reserved for God.

We know what they're doing.  We can see it all around us.  The question is, are we going to tolerate it?  Put up with it?  Submit to it?

God forbid!

Peter

The late George Carlin left us (among many other performances) this eight-minute rant on "saving the planet".  It had me in stitches.  As always, he releases numerous F-bombs, and is rather blunt-spoken, but he's very much to the point.  If you can stand the profanity, I highly recommend watching this video clip.

Inimitable!

Peter

That's the question asked by Kit Knightly at Off-Guardian.  Writing about the farmers' protests in the Netherlands, he points out:

While the scheme is allegedly about limiting nitrogen and ammonia emissions from urine and manure it’s hard not to see this in the broader context of the ongoing created food crisis.

The Netherlands produces a massive food surplus and is one of the largest exporters of meat in the world and THE largest in Europe. Reducing its output by a third could have huge implications for the global food supply, especially in Western Europe.

Perhaps more troubling is how this could act as a precedent.

This isn’t the first “pay farmers not to farm” scheme launched in the last year – both the UK and US have put such schemes in place – but a government paying to reduce it’s own meat production? That is a first.

That it is (allegedly) being done to “protect the environment” makes it a big warning sign for the future. Denmark, Belgium and Germany are already considering similar policies.

The Western world seems to be enthusiastically embracing quasi-suicidal policies.

I mean, paying farmers to reduce the amount of food they produce…while (notionally) threatened with war…in the midst of a recession…facing record inflation as the cost of living spirals.

Does that really make any sense?

That’s almost as crazy as refusing new oil and gas leases while the cost of petrol is going up.

Indeed, in a world beset by a shortage of fertiliser due to sanctions against Russia and Belarus, it would seem almost mad to complain about a manure surplus, let alone try to reduce it.

We’re well past the point where any of this could be considered accidental, aren’t we?

Put it this way – if the collective governments of the Western world were trying to impoverish and starve their own citizens, what exactly would they be doing differently?

There's more at the link.

To that I'd add:  consider the anti-farm-animal and anti-meat propaganda being spouted by Bill Gates and his cronies . . . at a time when Mr. Gates is investing heavily in the production of artificial meat, made from plants, and has become the largest individual owner of farmland in the USA.  Interesting coincidence, isn't it?  Western Journal quotes him as saying:  "“I do think all rich countries should move to 100 percent synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time ... Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”  Aren't the regulations we're seeing European governments trying to impose on their farmers likely to achieve precisely that?  And isn't Bill Gates one of the biggest supporters of the so-called "Great Reset" and environmental causes?

Reading between these lines, it’s plausible that what we face isn’t moving away from the horrors of factory farming toward either lab-meat or regenerative agriculture. Rather, what we’ll see (like the restriction of aviation to the ultra-rich) is both, depending on social status. Vat-meat for the masses; and ethically raised, environmentally sustainable steak from the Bill Gates eco-pasturelands for those that can afford it.

One suspects the protesting farmers in Europe - the Netherlands protests have spread to Germany and Italy already, and will probably spread further - are all too well aware of that . . . as they should be.  It's only their livelihood, and the food needed by their fellow citizens, that's at stake, after all.

Peter

Cabot Phillips, senior editor at The Daily Wire, has published a series of tweets outlining why Bill Gates is so heavily promoting "synthetic meat".  Here's part of the Threadreader digest of the discussion.

Bill Gates has quietly become the largest farmland owner in America. At the same time, he’s become a leading voice in the push for “synthetic meat.”

Here’s the story of how Bill Gates is waging a war on meat to make millions - and hiding behind “climate change” to do it. 

Gates now owns over a quarter million acres of U.S. farmland across 19 states. One of his potato farms is so large it can be seen from space.

He’s purchased much of the land through a variety of shell companies to hide that he was the buyer.

. . .

Gates is no stranger to agriculture - in the past, his foundation invested tens of millions into GMO technology, including 23 million in Monsanto in 2010.

But his transition from investing in farming technology, to becoming the leading owner of farmland itself is important.

At the same time Gates began investing in agriculture, he also emerged as one of the world’s leading voices for synthetic meat and other plant based alternatives.

Gates says meat must be abandoned to save the planet.

In the words of Bill Gates, “All rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef.” It’s so important, he says, that government coercion could be necessary to change attitudes.

“You can sort of change the behavior of people or use regulation to totally shift demand.”

If it were up to Bill Gates the world would abandon meat for synthetic and plant-based alternatives.

It just so happens that all the crops used for plant-based meat are grown on farmland now owned by Gates. Oh, and he's also invested tens of millions in synthetic meat companies.

So how do you get people to leave meat behind? You convince them it’s crucial for fighting climate change.

There's more at the link, including details of how Gates is funding "studies" that all support the use of synthetic meat while decrying the consumption of "natural" meat.

I'd very much like to know how many of those who've invested large sums in "alternative" or "ecological" agriculture are also active in the climate change discussion.  I'd also like to know how many of the same people/institutions have their fingers in the various and sundry pies affecting the current food production crisis in various ways.  Could there be a link?  Looking at the sums involved, frankly, I'll be surprised if there isn't.

Looks like the old rule of "follow the money" works for climate change, too.  Who's promoting it?  Who benefits?  All too often, the names uncovered by each question are the same.

Peter

The BBC has an interesting article (if you're interested in natural and human history) about Bird Island in the Seychelles, which has been transformed into a nature reserve and bird sanctuary.  Its focus is the sooty tern, a bird of which I'd never heard before.

Sooty terns are remarkable birds. They have no oil in their feathers and are, therefore, unable to float. Most sooty terns only land when nesting and rearing their young. At Bird Island, that's from April or May to October.

"Between seasons, they spend the whole time on the wing: they do not return to land to roost or to rest," said Rachel Bristol, an expert in sooty terns with extensive experience of Bird Island and its breeding colonies; she is currently collaborating with the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behaviour to track around 250 sooty terns. "They obviously do sleep, but they probably sleep for short bursts frequently while flying, and may be able to shut down the two halves of the brain separately so that they are always aware of what is around them." Just as incredibly, she said, "they can clearly spend years airborne: when they fledge, they possibly do not return to land until they reach breeding age, which is around five years old."

The sooty terns on Bird nest ... at a density of seven nests per square metre, spread across the 13-hectare breeding colony. Bird Island is now one of the world's largest bird breeding colonies – and, said Bristol, one of the most important and best-managed such colonies anywhere in the Seychelles archipelago.

With so many sooty terns on an island that covers less than 1 sq km of land, it's easy to imagine that there would be little room for anything else. But the island's portfolio of resident and migrant avifauna is rich and varied and includes terns and tropicbirds, plovers and ruddy turnstones, shearwaters and even a resident population of the handsome Seychelles blue pigeon. Even the island's shape resembles a bird: if you look at a satellite image of Bird Island, it resembles in outline a coquettish dove adrift in the Indian Ocean. And so rich is the birdlife here that Bird took on a starring role in two episodes of Sir David Attenborough's classic The Life of Birds, broadcast in 1998 and 1999.

There's more at the link.

I visited the Seychelles way back when, but I'd never heard of Bird Island before.  (At the time of my visit it hadn't yet been fully cleared of invasive species or rehabilitated into a bird sanctuary, so perhaps that's not surprising.)  I'd love to visit it and experience the peace and quiet for myself (well, "quiet" is perhaps relative, with hundreds of thousands of birds all over the place!).  If you're ever in that part of the world, it might be worth a detour.

Peter

The winners of the 2022 Underwater Photographer of the Year have been announced.  Here's the first place winner, by Rafael Fernandez Caballero, showing a group of 5 whale sharks feeding near the Maldives.  Click the image for a larger view.

And here, from Alex Dawson, is the wreck of the Tyrifjord near the Gulen dive-resort area of Norway.

There are many more images at the link.  You can download a free Yearbook of all the winning photographs at this link.  I plan to do so myself.

Peter