ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th July 2017, 04:42 AM   #41
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,277
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Yes, it takes ordinary reading skills to notice the word "possible" does not affect my post.

Ain't this fun, Zig.
It obviously affects my post. If the contents of my post, to which you were responding, do not affect your response, well...
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2017, 09:01 AM   #42
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,052
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
And anyone using the barest critical thinking and context skills will generally avoid sources like Mother Jones.
This
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2017, 09:38 AM   #43
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,199
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
They probably think that it's environmental regulation that is causing the problem, and if they can get rid of 'Big Government' everything will be fine.

We used to have a poster here who claimed that the medical industry was deliberately poisoning us for profit, and thought that the way to fix it was to abolish the FDA and make the industry self-regulating.
That approach has worked so well for the "supplement" industry and homeopathic remedies [/sarcasm]
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2017, 01:07 PM   #44
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,137
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Originally Posted by Brainster
And anyone using the barest critical thinking and context skills will generally avoid sources like Mother Jones.
This is sorta the opposite of critical thinking.
FTFY.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2017, 12:16 PM   #45
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,341
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Does not address the argument made in the article or this thread.
Well, here's one of the jaw-droppers:

Quote:
23 May A three-month pause is put on landfill methane rules so they EPA can “reconsider certain aspects” of the regulation. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and is emitted from rotting garbage in landfills, as well as other sources such as agriculture.


A three-month pause? We're completely doomed!
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2017, 12:29 PM   #46
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,341
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
FTFY.
Perhaps you could share with us your opinion of Mother Jones' stellar reporting on GMO and Monsanto?

It's completely irrelevant that they're crackpots on GMO? And it's completely irrelevant that Alex Jones is a crackpot on 9-11, has nothing to do with his credibility on other issues.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2017, 12:48 PM   #47
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,137
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Well, here's one of the jaw-droppers:




A three-month pause? We're completely doomed!
First, it's a "jaw-dropping list," not a "list of jaw-droppers," and second, the purpose of the 90-day stay is to rewrite the regulations -- not because that would be a good thing to do, but because (1) it was an Obama regulation, and (2) methane suppression costs money. Which is to say, the degraded regulations will bring them into line with TrumpCo's overall environmental policies.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2017, 01:28 PM   #48
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,137
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Perhaps you could share with us your opinion of Mother Jones' stellar reporting on GMO and Monsanto?

It's completely irrelevant that they're crackpots on GMO? And it's completely irrelevant that Alex Jones is a crackpot on 9-11, has nothing to do with his credibility on other issues.
Well, I know that MJ reports frequently on Monsanto's dubious business practices and on the undeniable fact that Roundup Ready GMOs leads to more Roundup in our diets, as well as many other secondary results, and I don't have a problem with anyone reading factual articles from any source and reaching their own opinions. Show me a "crackpot" article at MJ.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 15th July 2017 at 01:30 PM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2017, 03:00 PM   #49
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,052
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
FTFY.
Sorta
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 01:28 AM   #50
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,149
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
A three-month pause? We're completely doomed!
If you really believe it's a three-month pause, I can sell you a three-month pass to go over the Brooklyn Bridge.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 08:21 AM   #51
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,971
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
First, it's a "jaw-dropping list," not a "list of jaw-droppers," and second, the purpose of the 90-day stay is to rewrite the regulations -- not because that would be a good thing to do, but because (1) it was an Obama regulation, and (2) methane suppression costs money. Which is to say, the degraded regulations will bring them into line with TrumpCo's overall environmental policies.
Methane has basically 3 potential pathways for removal. Rapid oxidation, slow oxidation, biotic oxidation.

Rapid oxidation is burning. Methane is essentially Natural gas and vice versa and will burn if exposed to an ignition source and concentrated enough.

Slow oxidation can be highly simplified into: Oxidation of methane ——> formaldehyde ——> carbon monoxide ——> carbon dioxide. [1] Sunlight triggers this reaction.

Biotic oxidation is accomplished by methanotrophs which are bacteria that eat methane as their only source of carbon and energy, which is then incorporated into organic compounds via the serine pathway or the ribulose monophosphate pathway. [2] Of all the natural methane sources and sinks, the biotic oxidation is the most responsive to variation in human activities. [3] It can be improved by proper management of upland oxic soils by proper grassland/savanna/open woodland management in agriculture. Essentially the healthy grassland soils are an overall net sink for methane, while closed canopy forests, wetlands, and degraded soils are generally not. [4]

So to lower atmospheric methane:

1) Reduce the leakage of Natural gas from wells and pipelines and inefficient incomplete burning. Collect the methane from landfills and other manmade concentrated sources, so it can be burned as an energy source. (rapid oxidation)

2) Change agricultural production methods to take advantage of biotic oxidation. Agriculture as it is most widely practised now is both reducing the natural processes that remove methane, and in some cases increasing methane emissions. So the net component of increasing atmospheric methane that agriculture is responsible for is dramatically rising due to the effect agriculture has on both sides of the methane cycle.

You claimed methane suppression costs money? Well starting with wetlands emissions, the primary agricultural component to that portion of the methane cycle is paddy rice production. So in the case of rice, a shift to SRI would be a significant improvement and yield greater profits.

Quote:
• Reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from paddy soils
  • Methane (CH4) is reduced by between 22%
    and 64%, as soils are maintained under mostly
    aerobic conditions [10,11,3]
  • Nitrous oxide (N2O) is only slightly increased
    or sometimes reduced as use of N fertilizers is
    reduced; N20 increases do not offset CH4
    reductions, so GWP is reduced [9,10,11,12]
  • Total global warming potential (GWP) from
    flooded rice paddies is reduced 20-30%
    [10,12,3], even up to 73% [11]

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)… … is climate-smart rice production
SRI has over 700 published journal articles which can be found here: JOURNAL ARTICLES ABOUT THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION (SRI)

Please note that yields per hectare are increased at the same time as the methane is reduced. You will also find that many of the outliers mentioned in the above quote are also the same outliers in yields too. In other words, the farmers that reduce emissions the most are also the same farmers yielding the most. (and the farmers sequestering the most carbon in the soil) And the farmers producing the record yields have little to no impact on AGW any longer at all. It can not be emphasized enough how important this breakthrough is, as the methane signature from rice cultivation goes back thousands of years according to the Ruddiman Early Anthropocene Hypothesis .

The next biggest agricultural component to methane increases is related to the way we currently practice animal husbandry. This component is primarily driven by reducing the natural processes that remove methane from the atmosphere. Since ruminants and other animals have been passing gas since the beginning of time, it is less an emissions problem but rather a symptom of soil degradation caused by the way we currently raise grains (largely to feed animals in confinement).

In my opinion methane is an animal husbandry problem primarily because of CAFO's. It is not a problem in a properly managed grassland/savanna biome. After all those biomes supported many millions and millions of grazers who were extirpated. The methane levels before they were extirpated were actually lower than now! According to the following studies those biomes actually reduce atmospheric methane due to the action of Methanotrophic microorganisms that use methane as their only source of energy and carbon. Even more carbon being pumped into the soil! Nitrogen too, as they are also free living nitrogen fixers.

Quote:
Grasslands and their soils can be considered sinks for atmospheric CO2, CH4, and water vapor, and their
Cenozoic evolution a contribution to long-term global climatic cooling. Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
Quote:
The subsurface location of methanotrophs means that energy
requirements for maintenance and growth are obtained from
CH4 concentrations that are lower than atmospheric. Soil Microorganisms as Controllers of Atmospheric Trace Gases
(H2, CO, CH4, OCS, N2O, and NO)
Quote:
Upland (i.e., well-drained, oxic) soils are a net sink for atmospheric methane; as methane diffuses from the atmosphere into these soils, methane consuming (i.e., methanotrophic) bacteria oxidize it. IMPACT OF METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY ON UPLAND METHANE
BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IN GRASSLAND SOILS
Quote:
Nevertheless, no CH4 was released when soil surface CH4 fluxes were measured simultaneously. The results thus demonstrate the high CH4 oxidation potential of the thin aerobic topsoil horizon in a non-aquatic ecosystem. Methane fluxes from differentially managed grassland study plots: the important role of CH4 oxidation in grassland with a high potential for CH4 production.
Quote:
Of all the CH4 sources and sinks, the biotic sink strength is the most responsive to variation in human activities. Environmental impacts on the diversity of methane-cycling microbes and their resultant function
Quote:
The CH4 uptake rate was only 20% of that in the woodland in an adjacent area that had been uncultivated for the same period but kept as rough grassland by the annual removal of trees and shrubs and, since 1960, grazed during the summer by sheep. It is suggested that the continuous input of urea through animal excreta was mainly responsible for this difference. Another undisturbed woodland area with an acidic soil reaction (pH 4.1) did not oxidize any CH4. Methane oxidation in soil as affected by land use, soil pH and N fertilization
I pulled a few quotes out to make my case, but I highly recommend you read the sources in their entirety and even find further educational materials, since this is a highly complex subject.

The main summary being, the current system used to raise animals in confinement has removed them from the farmland, where when managed properly their methane emissions are part of a larger agricultural system that oxidizes more methane than the animals emit. Since this biological oxidation of methane occurs below the soil surface where that carbon enters the soil food web, actually animals improve the BCCS systems even more than without them. This actually has been known for decades and is well vetted, but was never quantified for climate scientists. Sir Albert Howard, father of organic agriculture, noted this effect on soil biology (of removing farm animals from the land and replacing their impact with synthetic fertilizers) way back in the 1940s.

Quote:
“As the small trickle of results grows into an avalanche — as is now happening overseas — it will soon be realized that the animal is our farming partner and no practice and no knowledge which ignores this fact will contribute anything to human welfare or indeed will have any chance either of usefulness or of survival.” Sir Albert Howard
In my honest opinion one reason for the recent spike in atmospheric methane is simply the fruition of Sir Albert Howard's prediction, since we continue to ignore this. Loss of soil carbon would be another impact of ignoring this. But fixing it actually saves us billions and billions yearly as the reason we over produce corn is due to buffer stock scheme subsidies, not due to any efficiency or profit advantage.

The third major factor in increased emissions is from natural wetlands. I am less familiar with this portion of the methane cycle, but I can hypothesize that it could potentially be related in part to agricultural runoff causing anaerobic conditions (dead zones), since most decomposition under anaerobic conditions does produce large quantities of methane. Fertilizer Runoff Overwhelms Streams and Rivers--Creating Vast "Dead Zones" Ironically the "King Corn" lobby is so huge, that even though the above article from Scientific America admits the primary cause cropland runoff of synthetic nitrogen, they actually propose:

Quote:
the only way to increase ethanol production from corn and reduce nitrogen runoff would be for Americans to stop eating meat, thereby freeing up corn used as livestock feed for other uses.
While also stating:

Quote:
"That [also] means not utilizing all the land to grow crops."
Apparently they don't see the irony in these two statements. The solution of course is not to grow corn for ruminants at all and dramatically reduce its usage for other livestock. And not to use corn for ethanol production at all. (excepting a nice corn whiskey) There are other ways to feed animals and distill ethanol more efficiently than using "king corn" surpluses.

Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does

Soil Carbon Storage by Switchgrass Grown for Bioenergy

So step one is to stop subsidizing the over production of corn and soy and changing our production models to more efficient regenerative models of production that don't cause AGW or release more methane than they absorb. And ironically instead of agriculture contributing to the methane problem, we could use it to more rapidly oxidize methane coming from other sources too! This would increase profits for farmers and save the government billions.

3) Whatever gets past the first two measures will be slow oxidized. It takes about 10 years for this reaction. It is completely free.

image courtesy wiki commons

All three of these ways to reduce methane are either profitable and/or completely free. So your claim that it costs money is somewhat absurd. Sure there is ALWAYS some cost to ANYTHING. But that is not what the phrase really means. It is an equivocation. What "costs money" really means is that the NET cost is positive, and in the case of manipulating methane oxidation to lower atmospheric methane levels, the net cost is negative.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 16th July 2017 at 08:45 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 08:58 AM   #52
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,137
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
So to lower atmospheric methane:

1) Reduce the leakage of Natural gas from wells and pipelines and inefficient incomplete burning. Collect the methane from landfills and other manmade concentrated sources, so it can be burned as an energy source. (rapid oxidation)

2) Change agricultural production methods to take advantage of biotic oxidation...
While the rest of your post is interesting enough, you seem to have completely missed the point. Trump's EPA has delayed regulations that limit methane emissions from wells for two years, and from landfills for 90 days, your point 1, both of which were at the request of lobbyists whose patrons don't want to spend the money those regulations would cost. Pointing out that there are cost-effective ways to reduce biotic emissions is great, but it completely dodges my point, and it's no excuse whatsoever for not doing what we can to reduce man-made emissions.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 09:07 AM   #53
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,971
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
While the rest of your post is interesting enough, you seem to have completely missed the point. Trump's EPA has delayed regulations that limit methane emissions from wells for two years, and from landfills for 90 days, your point 1, both of which were at the request of lobbyists whose patrons don't want to spend the money those regulations would cost. Pointing out that there are cost-effective ways to reduce biotic emissions is great, but it completely dodges my point, and it's no excuse whatsoever for not doing what we can to reduce man-made emissions.
That could be true, or not true. It depends entirely on what the regulations will ultimately be replaced with. Do you have Trump's plan to reduce emissions so that a legit analysis can be made?

I believe I have shown that it is actually potentially profitable to reduce atmospheric methane. Obama's revisions were costly you claim. So that's not good. Ignoring the issue is letting profits fly by due to inaction. So that's not good. So what's Trump's plan? You first must analyse that to decide if it is better than either Obama's plan and/or doing nothing.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 16th July 2017 at 09:09 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 09:23 AM   #54
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,137
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
That could be true, or not true. It depends entirely on what the regulations will ultimately be replaced with. Do you have Trump's plan to reduce emissions so that a legit analysis can be made?

I believe I have shown that it is actually potentially profitable to reduce atmospheric methane. Obama's revisions were costly you claim. So that's not good. Ignoring the issue is letting profits fly by due to inaction. So that's not good. So what's Trump's plan? You first must analyse that to decide if it is better than either Obama's plan and/or doing nothing.
I wish I could be hopeful, but we're talking about Scott Pruitt's EPA. Trump himself seems to have few actual policies about anything -- he just "says stuff" -- but I believe Pruitt has a PhD in antiscience, and the only reason he has that job is that he is a reliable defender of corporate profits.

ETA: I just did some searching to see if Pruitt has made any specific proposals, and I see that the courts have ordered the EPA to proceed with the regulations.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 16th July 2017 at 09:29 AM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 09:32 AM   #55
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,971
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
I wish I could be hopeful, but we're talking about Scott Pruitt's EPA. Trump himself seems to have few actual policies about anything -- he just "says stuff" -- but I believe Pruitt has a PhD in antiscience, and the only reason he has that job is that he is a reliable defender of corporate profits welfare.
Sorry, fixed that for you. I personally don't consider it "profits" when it is subsidized by multiple billions of government subsidies. I do understand that corporate America has become the land of welfare, for both the poor and the ultra rich.....at the expense of the working middle classes. But I don't call welfare for the poor "profits", so why should I call corporate welfare "profits"? It's actually kind of a pet peeve of mine.

ETA: It also opens the way for a middle ground in some cases. For example, meet these criteria x,y,z and qualify for this subsidy. Don't meet these criteria x,y,z and not only do you not qualify for the subsidy, you pay the taxes in order to subsidize your competition. That should put an end to this silly nonsense and fast.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 16th July 2017 at 10:12 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:16 AM   #56
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,149
Regarding you send paragraph, it's not so simple. If the cost of meeting x,y,z criteria is greater than the subsidy, then your "middle ground" vanishes.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:18 AM   #57
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,611
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Perhaps you could share with us your opinion of Mother Jones' stellar reporting on GMO and Monsanto?
This doesn’t yield any results I find particularly problematic on the first page or two. In fact right off the top you see them reporting on data overturning an earlier report that Roundup is probably a carcinogen. The Fox et al rarely do that, and the web based extreme right would have simply doubled down on the original debunked claim.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:51 AM   #58
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,971
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Regarding you send paragraph, it's not so simple. If the cost of meeting x,y,z criteria is greater than the subsidy, then your "middle ground" vanishes.
Interesting "If". The reality of what "is", as opposed to some hypothetical "if", would be that we spend multiple billions subsidizing methane imbalances and without those billions in subsidies, the style of agriculture causing all the problems would collapse within a year or two. It is that inefficient, wasteful, and economically unsound. In fact you could say that is one reason we designed this style of agriculture, so it could be weaponized and used to bankrupt enemy nations by undermining their agricultural base, collapsing their societies*, unless they also could afford to massively subsidize it too.

How American Food Aid Keeps the Third World Hungry

Food Dumping [Aid] Maintains Poverty

Behind India’s ‘Epidemic’ Of Farmer Suicides

American Food Aid: Disruption and Development in Haiti

Drought, Corruption, and War: Syria's Agricultural Crisis

Remember this? And what happened just a few years later?

GRAIN SALES TO SOVIET INCREASING

*eta hopefully to be rebuilt in our image.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 17th July 2017 at 07:05 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:09 AM   #59
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,277
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
In fact you could say that is one reason we designed this style of agriculture, so it could be weaponized and used to bankrupt enemy nations by undermining their agricultural base, collapsing their societies*, unless they also could afford to massively subsidize it too.
There's really no reason to believe that US agricultural subsidies are deliberately designed to achieve any sort of foreign policy objective. First off, while there are certainly effects from it, they're scatter-shot and indiscriminate. It primarily affects poor and weak nations, many of which are not hostile (such as Haiti), while leaving the significant US enemies (Russia, China) basically untouched. Second, why look for explanations in complex foreign policy machinations, when there is an obvious and sufficient reason for their existence right here at home: to cater to domestic special interests. US politics is full of rent-seeking behavior from special interest groups. There's really no reason to look beyond that. US politicians don't even care enough about foreign policy to get that Machiavellian about it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:14 AM   #60
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,971
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There's really no reason to believe that US agricultural subsidies are deliberately designed to achieve any sort of foreign policy objective. First off, while there are certainly effects from it, they're scatter-shot and indiscriminate. It primarily affects poor and weak nations, many of which are not hostile (such as Haiti), while leaving the significant US enemies (Russia, China) basically untouched. Second, why look for explanations in complex foreign policy machinations, when there is an obvious and sufficient reason for their existence right here at home: to cater to domestic special interests. US politics is full of rent-seeking behavior from special interest groups. There's really no reason to look beyond that. US politicians don't even care enough about foreign policy to get that Machiavellian about it.
But they care enough to spend billions yearly on it? Not sure I can believe that degree of incompetence.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:48 AM   #61
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,277
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
But they care enough to spend billions yearly on it? Not sure I can believe that degree of incompetence.
Yes, they care enough about catering to a domestic special interest to subsidize it for billions of dollars. Foreign policy considerations don't matter, because the foreign policy consequences of agricultural subsidies are irrelevant to voters. And politicians care about getting elected. No incompetence is involved, merely dysfunctional incentive structures.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:08 AM   #62
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,971
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes, they care enough about catering to a domestic special interest to subsidize it for billions of dollars. Foreign policy considerations don't matter, because the foreign policy consequences of agricultural subsidies are irrelevant to voters. And politicians care about getting elected. No incompetence is involved, merely dysfunctional incentive structures.
I guess you are more charitable.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:11 PM   #63
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,239
I'm not sure how Ziggurat's view is more charitable. Your view at least posits a rational strategic motivation. Ziggurat blames the whole situation on venal and blinkered political self-interest.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:25 PM   #64
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,971
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not sure how Ziggurat's view is more charitable. Your view at least posits a rational strategic motivation. Ziggurat blames the whole situation on venal and blinkered political self-interest.
I think you can find a little of both in US politics. But I said charitable because I personally consider using food as a "weapon" or "tool" to collapse the foundation of some country over political differences is largely immoral. Analogous to the difference between premeditated murder versus manslaughter. It's a fine enough line though that it is pedantic to argue it, so I won't.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.