I’ve been studying Peak Oil, climage change, etc., etc., for several years now – but this food crisis is getting to me…

Here on the West Coast (far North CA), we are having early warm weather, followed by killing frosts. Every fruit tree on our property bloomed, and was shortly thereafter killed by severe frost. The local farmers are currently deciding whether to declare it a disaster.

Global warming does not always mean warmer weather. Just really messed up weather that will affect our food supply.

However, we’ve argued before about population and whether resources should be periodically re-allocated per capita without regard for relative population growth. In a world of plenty or a world of local economies, if another group outbreeds their environment they harm only themselves (unless they decide to kill off their neighbors, a la Rwanda), so you will have only sympathy for them. You might even send food aid when they face famine. In a world of scarcity where per-capita rationing or distribution is globalized, even for “resources” such as the right to produce CO2 [thereby to use most available types of energy], another group’s population increase poses a direct threat to the well-being of your group’s children, and you will be much less sympathetic.

I would be inclined to agree that in a fair world, 300 million Americans should use the same amount of energy as 300 million Bangladeshis, outside of an extra winter-heating ration. But if a few decades down the road there were 400 million Americans and 800 million Bangladeshis, I don’t know that they should use twice the energy we did. That would advantage Bangladesh relative to the U.S. economically and militarily. [Yes, the U.S. already has excessive advantage in those areas, which I don't desire to perpetuate; I'm just using these countries as examples.] Also, assuming a fixed annual allotment of use, in this example the U.S. breeding rate would have led the next generation to have 75% as much energy per capita, but commingling the Bangladeshis means that the next generation gets only 50% as much as their parents had, which would mean real suffering. The Americans would not want their children to suffer for the shortsightedness of the Bangladeshis, any more than Bangladeshis threatened by global warming (among other environmental problems) want their children to suffer for American shortsightedness. Neither is just.

Dewey et al, you are right – but it is still possible to keep a fairly reasonable share – as you say, it doesn’t necessarily mean heating a whole large house, though.

Sharon

Most people don’t even know they need to change, much less think their little part could help anyone.

We had a record low temp the other day. Things are changing, and I’m not sure if it’s a good thing.

Patty who used to be on the yahoo group

Our weather here is heating up faster than usual with possible three digit (!) temps next week. Regarding fresh water, I’ve just started reading the Humanure book. He makes a good point in the very opening about how incredibly stupid it is for us to crap in purified fresh water.

I often think of our (western) ‘needs’ and how far removed from reality they are. We are coming out the other side (hopefully) of a very bad drought and our local goverment restricted water use to 140L per person per day, no outside water use and recommended 4 min showers. Oh the horror! – forget the fact that a large proportion of the worlds population struggle to have access to fresh water at all. The sooner people in the west realise that access to fresh food, fresh water, fresh air, adequate clothes and shelter are the only needs everyone has, the better.

As for energy use – australia contributes only a small percentage of the worlds total – something which our media/government are quite proud -they just neglect to mention that per capita it’s one of the highest…..