Monday, 17 October 2011

nature always wins

[a whole new kind of turf burn]

No matter what we do, Mother Nature will ruin our best laid plans.

It's one of my favourite environmental topics.

I really like to see how quickly nature takes over.

In Fukushima, which is unnaturally irradiated, has a golf
course that has already been swallowed up.

I heard about it on Radio 4, but they don't have any pictures.
All i got was the crappy one above.

agri-biz is designed to be destructive

I've always thought that agri-business is the place where farmers and chemists
poison their customers in the hopes of making a larger profit.

I think that encourages immorality.
Also, the trade restrictions on poor countries mean
that, even if they can export, the rich world won't take their products
and they'll, in turn, dump all the First World extra produce on poor countries,
undercutting local producers.

So, as HaJoon Chang says, we have to let poor countries operate the way
that they know how. Let small entrepreneurs thrive in those
countries and you'll see how the whole world will have food.

checkitout:
In agriculture, small is beautifulInvesting in small farmers brings a developmental double whammy, helping to put food into circulation while also boosting the income of some of the poorest people on the planet
2011 Blog Action Day on 16 October - World Food Day - is, naturally, themed around food
MDG : Food in Colombia : A Colombian fruit vendor in La Alameda market in Cali
A Colombian fruit vendor arranges strawberries at her stall in La Alameda market in Cali, Valle del Cauca department. Photograph: Luis Robayo/AFP/Getty Images
Small farmers get a bad press: developing country governments often see them as a throwback, and hanker after the glitter of modernity that surrounds large-scale investment in biofuels or export crops. Aid agencies and donor governments with more money than staff prefer the scale the big farms can offer. But there are at least two good reasons why, when it comes to agriculture, small is still beautiful.
First, investing in small farmers brings a developmental double whammy: it helps put food into circulation and at the same time boosts the income of some of the poorest people on the planet – small farmers. It is an enduring and horrible irony that the people who grow the food are often also the ones who go hungry, because their crops are too paltry, or prices too low, for their harvest to see them through the year. Jobless agribusiness growth won't help those people; boosting small farm output will.
Second, helping small farmers get access to the kinds of things big farmers take for granted – bank loans, technical support, land rights – can have a catalytic effect on their productivity. Forget all those myths about stick-in-the-mud peasants – most small farmers are businesspeople, keen to experiment, manage risk, break into new markets and better themselves.
That goes particularly for female farmers, who in many countries grow most of the food but have least access to such support. Worldwide, providing female farmers with equal rights to land and agricultural support could feed up to 150 million additional people.
Here's one example from dozens in Oxfam's work around the world. Small-farmers supply 67% of the food consumed in Colombia's capital, Bogotá (population: 7 million), but they don't earn a decent price for their produce. Much of the produce sold in urban markets is handled by commercial intermediaries, who buy from individual producers at low prices and then sell high.
So Oxfam teamed up with local NGOs and peasant organisations and tried to find out what the problem was. Government officials told us that the peasant economy was no longer viable and that "the peasants are lazy, they support the armed groups, they take advantage of the drug mafias, and take their cut growing coca". What emerged was the need to change attitudes towards peasant farmers, both among officials and the urban public.
The timing was propitious: in 2004, the office of the mayor of Bogotá had begun to speak openly for the first time about poverty and food security. It had drawn up a draft food supply master plan, but this failed to recognise the potential of small producers. The plan was based on obtaining food supplies for the minimum possible price, but did not consider the needs of producers or the potential for reducing rural poverty. Instead of a minimum price, campaigners suggested a "fair price" principle.
The mayor's office remained sceptical of small farmers' ability to supply food efficiently, so the project organised farmers' markets in strategic locations around the city, including the main square. Officials and shoppers were duly impressed by the level of organisation and capacity on display, but also by the prices. Monitoring showed that the average net increase in prices for farmers were 64% in wholesale markets and 52% in retail, while urban consumers also benefited, paying average prices that were some 15% lower.
Supported by political lobbying and savvy media work, the farmers' markets got the message home. The mayor agreed to revise the city's plan to one based on fair prices, and backed it up with some funding to help small producers supply the city and seats for small farmers on the relevant committees.
Since then, more than 30 municipalities in the area around Bogotá have organised their own local markets; Bogotá's mayor has signed contracts with five other regional governments, pledging to increase rural investment for food production. Oxfam is now trying to replicate the initiative in Medellín and Cali, the two other big mayoral cities in Colombia.
There are hundreds of millions of small farmers who could benefit from schemes like these. When it comes to ending hunger, how food is grown and marketed (and by whom) matters at least as much as growing more of it.

Tuesday, 13 September 2011

wax on, wacks off

I've always said that my apples should be sent around the world to receive the best
chemical treatment that money can buy.

Since fuel is still very cheap, we can get New Zealand lamb and Fijian bottled water.
Doesn't mean it's right.

checkitout:

AlterNet / By Tara Lohan
Economics of happiness movie
Vision: 8 Reasons Global Capitalism Makes Our Lives Worse -- And How We Can Create a New Kind of Economy
A new film explores how globalization has resulted in crises of the economy, the environment and the human spirit -- and points the way to a new path.
... 3. Globalization wastes natural resources. Consumerism is threatening the planet, natural resources are stretched to the breaking point and yet we have an economic system that encourages us to consume more and more, says Norberg-Hodge. Consumer culture is increasingly urban and when rural people move to the city the food they used to grow themselves is now grown on industrial-sized chemical-intensive farms. Food must be trucked to cities, waste must be trucked out. Large dams are needed to provide water and huge centralized power plants must be fueled by coal and uranium mines.
4. Globalization accelerates climate change. Globalization's "success" is often attributed to efficiencies of scale, but mostly it is fueled by deregulation and hidden subsidies that make food from around the globe cost less than food from down the street. With efficiencies of scale, it's really the opposite, says British MP Zac Goldsmith, "Tuna caught off the east coast of America is flown to Japan, processed and flown back to America to be sold to consumers; English apples are flown to South Africa to be waxed, flown back to England to be sold."
Treaties like NAFTA promote international growth through economic trade, which sounds good on paper, except that you end up with countries importing and exporting nearly identical amounts of the same products -- which means we're needlessly shipping goods across the world that we are already producing at home.
... 7. Globalization is built on handouts to big business. "If there is one thing that political parties from the left to the right seem to agree on today, it is the power and value of the free market," says Goldberg. "But the irony is that the majority of really polluting things that happen today wouldn't exist in a genuinely free market -- nuclear power, for example, wouldn't exist without massive state support ... We're about as far away from a free market as it's possible to be."

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

simplicity is the key to brilliance


this stuff is from CNBC's website:

I like new gadgets especially since they can
change the way we conduct our lives.

The great ones always seem to simple.

There's the fanbrella with the fan installed, to protect against
sun and heat.



however, if you're unavoidably stuck in the heat, strap on an i-pod
and plug it into your bathing suit. Yup. the solar rack.
I say, old boy: "top shelf"

the UFO alarm clock
You gotta chase it around the room, so no easy snooze function for you, no more.

cycles, the grandfathers of the tarmacadam

If it weren't for bikes, cars would have had it tougher.

bikers were organised and seeking smooth roads way before
the car people even started.

the implied message is that cars have to share the road.
They don't own it, although I know some drivers who believe they do.

Here's an interesting Guardian story that sets the record straight.

checkitout:
19th century cyclists paved the way
by Carlton Reed

Wooden hobbyhorses evolved into velocipedes; velocipedes evolved into safety bicycles; safety bicycles evolved into automobiles.

It's well known that the automotive industry grew from seeds planted in the fertile soil that was the late 19th century bicycle market. And to many motorists it's back in the 19th century that bicycles belong. Cars are deemed to be modern; bicycles are Victorian.

Many motorists also assume that roads were built for them. In fact, cars are the johnny-come-latelies of highways.

The hard, flat road surfaces we take for granted are relatively new. Asphalt surfaces weren't widespread until the 1930s. So, are motorists to thank for this smoothness?

No. The improvement of roads was first lobbied for – and paid for – by cycling organisations.

In the UK and the US, cyclists lobbied for better road surfaces for a full 30 years before motoring organisations did the same. Cyclists were ahead of their time.

When railways took off from the 1840s, the coaching trade died, leaving roads almost unused and in poor condition. Cyclists were the first vehicle operators in a generation to go on long journeys, town to town. Cyclists helped save many roads from being grubbed up.

Roads in towns were sometimes well surfaced. Poor areas were cobbled; upmarket areas were covered in granite setts (what many localities call cobbles). Pretty much every other road was left unsurfaced and would be the colour of the local stone. Many 19th century authors waxed lyrical about the varied and beautiful colours of British roads.

Cyclists' organisations, such as Cyclists' Touring Club in the UK and League of American Wheelmen (LAW) in the US, lobbied county surveyors and politicians to build better roads. The US Good Roads movement, set up by LAW, was highly influential. LAW once had the then US president turn up at its annual general meeting.

The CTC individual in charge of the UK version of the Good Roads movement, William Rees Jeffreys, organised asphalt trials before cars became common. He took the reins of the Roads Improvement Association (RIA) in 1890, while working for the CTC.

He later became an arch motorist and the RIA morphed into a motoring organisation. Rees Jeffreys called for motorways in Britain 50 years prior to their introduction. But he never forgot his roots. In a 1949 book, Rees Jeffreys – described by former prime minister David Lloyd George as "the greatest authority on roads in the United Kingdom and one of the greatest in the whole world" – wrote that cyclists paved the way, as it were, for motorists. Without the efforts of cyclists, he said, motorists would not have had as many roads to drive on. Lots of other authors in the early days of motoring said the same but this debt owed to cyclists by motorists is long forgotten.

The CTC created the RIA in 1885 and, in 1886, organised the first ever Roads Conference in Britain. With patronage – and cash – from aristocrats and royals, the CTC published influential pamphlets on road design and how to create better road surfaces. In some areas, county surveyors took this on board (some were CTC members) and started to improve their local roads.

Even though it was started and paid for by cyclists, the RIA stressed from its foundation that it was lobbying for better roads to be used by all, not just cyclists.

However, in 1896 everything changed. Motoring big-wigs lobbied for the Locomotives Amendment Act to be repealed. This act made a driver of a road locomotive drive very, very slowly and the vehicle had to be preceded by a man waving a red flag. When the act was jettisoned, speeds increased, automobilists demanded better road surfaces to go even faster on, and "scorchers" and "road hogs", terms first used against cyclists, took over the roads.

By the early 1900s most British motorists had forgotten about the debt they owed to prehistoric track builders, the Romans, turnpike trusts, John McAdam, Thomas Telford and bicyclists. Before even one road had been built with motorcars in mind (this wasn't to happen until the 1930s), motorists assumed the mantle of overlords of the road.

A satirical verse in Punch magazine of 1907 summed up this attitude from some drivers:

"The roads were made for me; years ago they were made. Wise rulers saw me coming and made roads. Now that I am come they go on making roads – making them up. For I break things. Roads I break and Rules of the Road. Statutory limits were made for me. I break them. I break the dull silence of the country. Sometimes I break down, and thousands flock round me, so that I dislocate the traffic. But I am the Traffic."

At the time, the CTC had little inkling cyclists would soon be usurped. An editorial in the CTC Gazette of July 1896 admitted the "horseless carriage movement will make an irresistible advance" and asked members whether motorists should be admitted to membership. Such a move was declined by members but cyclists were later instrumental in the foundation of the Automobile Association, an organisation created to foil police speed traps.

Motoring and cycling soon developed in very different directions and by the 1950s it was clear the future was to be one of mass ownership of cars. Car mileage increased, roads were now always designed with motors in mind, and, rider by rider, cyclists – once dominant on Britain's roads – started to disappear. In the evolutionary timeline of hobbyhorse-to-velocipide-to-bicycle-to-automobile, the riding of bicycles should have been all but extinguished by the 1970s. Town planners certainly thought that way, and declined to design for anything other than motorcars.

But there's a problem with mass car ownership: there's not enough space to put them all. Gridlock is the unforeseen outcome of planning solely for cars. When a city grinds to a halt, that's money down the drain. Cities are waking up to the fact that unrestrained car use is bad for people, and bad for the local economy. Unrestrained car use leads to ugly cities.

Now, the cities that first woke up to this are the bicycle-friendly cities beloved by cycle campaigners.

Towns and cities that design for people, not machines, will be the most progressive of the next 150 years, the towns and cities where people will most want to live, work and play. Far from being a 19th century anachronism, the bicycle is fast becoming a symbol of urban modernity, and cyclists are again at the vanguard of making cities better places. Cyclists have always been ahead of their time.

• Carlton Reid is executive editor of cycling trade magazine BikeBiz and is writing a book on cyclists' contribution to better roads. He has received writing grants from the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund and the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

BP cannot whitewash its image anymore

Praise Jesus, Reverend Billy is in town. London, that is.

He went to the Tate Modern gallery, which is being sponsored by BP,

and he did his big religious show to exorcise the demons of BP.

BP has just left the building.


Friday, 17 June 2011

if the third world can build solar homes...

I wonder why things are going so slowly in the West. Perhaps, we haven't gone broke trying to power and heat our homes, yet. YET!
Once it starts to bite, lots more will switch, and follow the lead of
Bangladesh!


checkitout:
from e360 digest yale .edu
One Million Households Powered by Solar Energy in Bangladesh
16 Jun 2011:
The number of households powered by solar energy in Bangladesh has passed the one million mark — the fastest expansion of solar power in the world, according to Bangladeshi officials. Aided by non-governmental organizations that provide low-cost loans to install solar panels, Bangladesh’s rural households — most of which are off the electricity grid — have driven a dizzying expansion of solar power in recent years. In 2002, only 7,000 households were using solar panels. The country reached the 1 million-household milestone 18 months ahead of schedule, and by 2014 Bangladeshi officials are aiming to power 2.5 million homes with solar energy. “It’s the fastest expansion of solar energy anywhere in the world,” said Nazmul Haq, of Bangladesh’s Infrastructure Development Company. An estimated 60 percent of Bangladesh’s 150 million people have no access to reliable electricity, and a World Bank report last month said that solar panels had “changed the face of the remote, rural areas of Bangladesh.”