Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

This is just to explain why I feel strongly on the subject, but of course few 
people will agree with it all; few see the sheer volume of evidence that I 
follow daily and have for years. And as Dan mentions below, the conclusion is 
too disturbing for so many. After all people have more urgent demands on 
their time and attention with all that's going on.

For my part I do accept the weight of the science on it, plus the 
overwhelming stats & evidence for financial decline due to economic idiocy 
and the industrial decline to follow peak energy and food production 
resources. Which I refer to as a Perfect Storm to engulf the planetary 
"civilization". My take on it is all empires fall eventually, and this time 
it's a globalized empire running on fumes. And our concerns will come down to 
the basic necessities, food, water, shelter. In particular, food, impacted by 
all of the above. It's not well understood but the immediate threat to dollar 
dominance in the oil trade is growing, and when that reaches a tipping point 
soon then everything we need to buy will cost far more, esp everything that 
depends on oil & other energy somewhere in the pipeline. This is due to a 
deal with the Saudis that made all oil trade in dollars (which we print a 
trillion at a time) and still makes our oil imports cost half what the rest 
of the world pays. $10 gal standard in Europe. But what is price elastic in 
response to oil price? Food comes to mind.


paul tradingpost@lobo.net


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 6/6/2011 at 5:37 PM dan conine wrote:

>> The models are based on human emissions alone, and do not include
>heat-amplifying feedbacks from melting ice or changes in carbon sinks.
>When those are factored in, it moves the timetable forward so that
>"reaching four degrees by 2060 is a plausible, worst-case scenario" with
>the median being 2070. By 2100, 5.5 degrees is possible, he said.
>If it only includes human emissions and doesn't consider melting
>hydrates, permafrost decay, or feedbacks, then it isn't even close to
>the worst case scenario.
>
>Everyone is so afraid to speak the whole truth on this topic because the
>whole truth is worse than the "alarmists".
>
>Dan C.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland