Negative Climate Change
[Part III of 3; Parts I & II above]
Statement # 8 (Proposed)
If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").
Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1603 - 23/8/7
Executive Summary by Bob (As Group Secretary) - Organic Farming has been tried and failed. Also, farming has no effect on global negative climate change.
Defence - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1606 - 23/8/7
The definition of sustainable agriculture used does not explicitly say that this involves necessarily only organic farming. The definition leaves open the possibility that Non-Organic farming could be "sustainable". You yourself have argued that used correctly, certain fertilizers have no effect on health or the environment (With which I happen to disagree).
Secondly, the statement does not take any position on whether or not farming DOES have a negative effect on climate. It is clear that this requires an entirely new separate statement, if any version can gain general acceptability.
5. CT'ers Immediate Task
CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to choose between. You can also just post confirmation that you believe the particular statement to be true.
Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements"!
6. CT'ers' Local Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change
You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!
a. When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!
b. You can also re-post the tentative STATEMENTS above.
~ Bob A. (Anthropogenicist)
-
Negative Climate Change
[Part II of 3 – see Part I above]
4. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project
All sides have been trying to come up with accurate statements on climate change that will gain general acceptance....we are using the "Conversation Format" protocol.
Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.
Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger. The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the defence to the first Challenge.
The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted
We have reached now 8 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).
All are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are no outstanding proposed revisions, and so they currently stand unchallenged, or challenges have previously been defeated. So, for this forum, a number of the statements are now “generally accepted” as “fact”.
"Generally-Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"
(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)
Statement # 1
Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.
Support - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1453 – 23/7/20 - slightly edited) - "Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a “problem”. It merely states the fact that Naturalists agree with - their fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is "rising" temperature."
Statement # 2
Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.
Support 1 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1485 – 23/7/22 [Lightly Edited]
“The post of Sid Belzberg (Post # 1296 – 23/4/29) "supports" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time".
Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.”
Support 2 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1523 – 23/7/27
“The New Warming Climate State/Multi-Century Temperature Periods
Scientists concluded a few years ago that Earth had entered a new climate state not seen in more than 100,000 years. As fellow climate scientist Nick McKay and I recently discussed in a scientific journal article, that conclusion was part of a climate assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021.
Earth was already more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were high enough to assure temperatures would stay elevated for a long time.
https://theconversation.com/is-it-re...=pocket-newtab “
Support 3 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1526 23/7/27
“This [July] Looks Like Earth’s Warmest Month. Hotter Ones Appear to Be in Store.
July is on track to break all records for any month, scientists say, as the planet enters an extended period of exceptional warmth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/c...d396a4debfd6ce “
Statement # 3
Bob Armstrong (As Group Secretary) – Post # 1548 - 23/7/31
“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”
Status re Processing: If unchallenged for one week, our protocol is that the Statement is “generally accepted”. Deadline is 23/8/7 @ 11:59 PM EDT.
Statement # 4:
Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.
Support 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1468 – 23/7/19)
"Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."
Support # 2 - Fred Harvey (Post # 1470 - 23/7/19)
"I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."
Support # 3 - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1451 - 23/7/11)
"I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising)."
Statement # 5
Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.
Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)
"Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”
Statement # 6
For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]
Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)
"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)
Statement # 7
It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.
Support # 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1415 – 23/7/2)
“Scientists have been warning us about climate change (global warming) for decades. The science is very complicated, but we now have 50 years of data to support the premise that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. We need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear.”
Support # 2 - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 1417 – 23/7/2)
“It is essential to have alternate sources of energy, as fossil fuels, including coal, won't last for very long.”
Support # 3 – Sid Belzberg (Post # 1419 – 23/7/2)
“In theory, this is a finite resource, but it is not scarce and likely would take several hundred years to deplete entirely.”
Support # 4 – Bob Armstrong (Post # 1423 – 23/7/2)
“Please note that I have introduced ....... including in renewables, "tidal" & "water turbines".”
[See Part III Below; Parts I & II are above]
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
Leave a comment:
-
ChessTalk
Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread
(Started: 21/12/9)
Overview & Update
[Part I of 3 – see Parts II & III/3 below]
1. Weekly Stats:
Week # 31 (23/7/31 – 23/8/6: 7 days)
Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(31 wks.)___________
........55...................86.........................33....................44
Responses (Posts)
......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average
....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day
Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (31wks.)__________________
.............8.......................7.......................3............................5.
Analysis of Last Week's Stats
Last week's stats continue to be well ahead of the 2023 average so far. There is much more “response” activity, though viewership is down a bit.
There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!
Climate Change Thread “Responses”
There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.
This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.
Note:
1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.
2. The Anthropogenicist Position
The Pressing Climate Change Issue
The core issue:
Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!
The public is aware of the climate change issue.......
BUT.....
climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.
It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........
The Time Line
Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.
Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.
Our window of opportunity is fast closing.
The Large Picture Solutions
Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?
3. The Naturalists' Position
Negative “Natural” Climate Change
This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.
We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.
[See Part II below]
Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
Leave a comment:
-
Statement 2A (Proposed)
Bob Armstrong (As Group Secretary) – Post # 1548 - 23/7/31
“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”
Processing Status: The proposed Statement 2A has been unchallenged for one week.
Conclusion: Our protocol is that the Statement is now “generally accepted”.
Statement Renumbering
The list of Statements are now renumbered, and set out below (Without the Supports normally attached):
Statement # 1
Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.
Statement # 2
Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.
Statement # 3
“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”
Statement # 4
Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.
Statement # 5
Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.
Statement # 6
For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]
Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)
"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)
Defence - none yet entered - Challenge just stands until someone defends the statement, but it is noted that it is always noted that it is under challenge. Once the statement is "defended", then the one-week processing will start. CT'ers can then choose the option they agree with, and post with reasons.
Statement # 7
It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.
Statement # 8 (Proposed)
If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").
Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1603 - 23/8/7
Defence - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1606 - 23/8/7
I, personally, as Participant, accept all 8 Statements (2 of which are under Challenge).
Bob A (As Group Secretary)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 8th August, 2023, 05:05 AM.Leave a comment:
-
I am more interested in waking people up and exposing the dangerous steaming pile of dogshit you have spent three years pushing here. If youOriginally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
can disprove any of my positions on methane and nitrous oxide go for it, I am all ears. Just do it instead of yapping about it and putting up ridiculous statement
polls that no one reads and few participate in.
You called the UK meteorological data "horsecrap" but have offered nothing to disprove that the average temp within this data set rose on average .5 degrees every 100 years with or without industrial carbon emissions.
Here we are with other unassailable facts on Methane and Nitrous Oxide and so far ZERO to disprove these two papers.
However, we have finally got to the heart of the matter as to what the motivation of the climate scam is.
The Global War on Farmers, and Push to ‘Eat the Bugs’
https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/...56851457212416
ROMAN BALMAKOV
FACTS MATTER: UNCOVERING TRUTHS, REPORTER AND HOST OF ‘FACTS MATTER’ AT THE EPOCH TIMES
There are currently MAJOR schemes being hatched behind-the-scenes that will affect you and YOUR FAMILY’S lives. These “Green Policies” at the international level (the UN, the EU, the World Economic Forum) are billed as necessary to “save the planet”—and are now starting to GO INTO EFFECT around the world … including right here in AMERICA. These policies sound beautiful on paper: save the planet, end hunger, and have gender equality. But in practice, they undermine our food security, and represent a true EXISTENTIAL risk to our liberties as FREE citizens.
We traveled the WORLD to figure out what’s behind the GLOBAL war on farmers, as well as the truth behind the push to get people to EAT THE BUGS. If you want to find out about the coming Global Food Crisis and what you can do about it, don’t miss this episode.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epocht...ideawake_media
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 7th August, 2023, 04:15 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Sid - try for a generally accepted Statement # 8 that farming has no effect on climate change, neither beneficial nor harmful. Of course it will be Challenged, and then you, and others of your opinion can try to defend the Statement...just a suggestion since you obviously feel your position is unassailable.
Bob A (As Group Secretary)Leave a comment:
-
The above statement answered my initial question in the following post with a tacit no.https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...137#post228137Originally posted by Bob ArmstronggLeave a comment:
-
Proposed Generally Accepted Statement # 7 (On Farming)
If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").
Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1603 - 23/8/7
Executive Summary by Bob (As Group Secretary) - Organic Farming has been tried and failed. Also, farming has no effect on global negative climate change.
Sid - please amend this Challenge if it is not suitable.
Defence - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1606 - 23/8/7
The definition of sustainable agriculture used does not explicitly say that this involves necessarily only organic farming. The definition leaves open the possibility that Non-Organic farming could be "sustainable". You yourself have argued that used correctly, certain fertilizers have no effect on health or the environment (With which I happen to disagree).
Secondly, the statement does not take any position on whether or not farming DOES have a negative effect on climate. It is clear that this requires an entirely new separate statement, if any version can gain general acceptability.
Bob A (As Participant)Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Monday, 7th August, 2023, 10:13 AM.Leave a comment:
-
Do you read much?????Originally posted by Bob Armstrong
Methane and Climate
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Methane-and-Climate.pdf
Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008.
So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts
Nitrous Oxide and Climate
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...rous-Oxide.pdf
C. A. de Lange1, J. D. Ferguson2, W. Happer3, and W. A. van Wijngaarden4
1Atomic, Molecular and Laser Physics, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA
4Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada
November 10, 2022
Abstract
Higher concentrations of atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to slightly warm Earth’s surface because of increases in radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation flux from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally measured in W m−2, depends on lati- tude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for the tropopause, about 11 km of altitude for temperate latitudes, or for the top of the atmosphere at around 90 km. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the relatively abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, compared to the much smaller saturation of the absorption bands of the trace greenhouse gas N2O. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.5 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 3000 times larger than the rate of increase of N2O molecules, which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 K per year or 0.064 K per century of warming from N2O.
Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions because of warming fears are not justified by these facts. Restrictions would cause serious harm; for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 7th August, 2023, 10:07 AM.Leave a comment:
-
Experts are now predicting even greater hardship in Sri Lanka.
Food inflation, which is currently hovering at about 30 percent, could rise even further.
“Food availability is at a crossroads and food accessibility is at a crossroads,” said Jeewika Weerahewa, professor of agriculture at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka.
Describing Sri Lanka’s food crisis as “a man-made disaster,” she said the country will have “serious problems with respect to childhood malnourishment and malnutrition among pregnant women and lactating mothers”.
She added, “In the next four to six months, I think we will be facing more hardship than what we face right now.”
Back in Walsapugala, farmers said they are worried about the future.
Despite the government reversing its ban on agrochemicals, they said they are unable to find adequate fertiliser supplies or afford the market-rate prices.
“Our lifestyle has been destroyed,” said Ajith Kumar, who like Samarawickrema, grows bananas.
“We are relatively small-scale farmers,” he said. “We don’t have any savings. We sustain ourselves from this land. But because we are unable to afford farming, we now have no way to pay back our loans and no way to pay for our children’s education.
“There’s no hope for us.”
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View PostHERE IS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD WHEN BOB'S GENOCIDAL: CCP CONTROLLED WEF UTOPIAN BULLSHIT IS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTEDOriginally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
Sri Lanka faces ‘man-made’ food crisis as farmers stop planting
Once self-sufficient nation reels from fall-out of ill-conceived shift to organic agriculture, economic crisis.
By Zaheena Rasheed, Rathindra Kuruwita
May 18, 2022 05:25 AM
6 min. read
View original
Walsapugala, Sri Lanka – Mahinda Samarawickrema, 49, will not be planting paddy this season.
After a government ban on chemical fertilisers cut his rice yield in half during the March harvest, the farmer, who owns eight hectares (20 acres) of paddy and banana, said he no longer has the income to maintain a farm. Especially as his banana crop also looks set to fail.
“It’s a total loss,” the father of five said in mid-April, standing in a field of stunted banana trees in Sri Lanka’s southern Hambantota district. “When I look at this, I know I cannot get the usual yield.”
By this time of the year, most of Samarawickrema’s trees should be twice their height and in bloom, but only a few of the 1,300 trees in the weed-strewn fields have any flowers. The famer says he used to get up to 37,000kg (81,571 pounds) of bananas a year, but this time, he expects only 6,000kg (13,228 pounds).
“Everything has collapsed,” he said. “I don’t know what to do, but to look up at the sky, look down at the ground and just wait.”
Most smallholder farmers in Samarawickrema’s Walsapugala village also say they will not be irrigating their fields in the current growing season, which runs from May to August and is known as the Yala season. They say the fertiliser ban induced crop failures, coming amid nationwide fuel shortages, make farming untenable.
“There’s no point in farming any more,” said KA Sumanadasa, who grows brinjals (aubergine) on a his quarter of a hectare (0.6-acre) field. Taking out a bag of puny vegetables, many streaked with fungus, the 70-year-old says the switch to organic agriculture has brought down his yield from 400kg (882 pounds) per season to 50kg (110 pounds).
With this output, Sumanadasa said he cannot recover the money he has invested in his farm.
“I can’t take the risk of farming now. I will only be growing enough to feed my family.”
Farmers in Walsapugala say they do not plan to irrigate their fields in the current season [Zaheena Rasheed/ Al Jazeera]
The Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR), a non-government organisation, says most smallholder farmers in the surrounding Hambantota district, and in key agricultural regions in the north, such as Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa districts, are also halting operations this season.
That could leave Sri Lanka, which is already grappling with shortages of imported foodstuffs amid its worst-ever economic crisis, facing widespread shortages of domestically grown and produced food, too.
“There will be a very hard period in the coming few months in terms of the food aspect,” said Gamini Senanayake, president of the Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy. “There will be food shortages … We have to be prepared.”
Fertiliser ban
An island nation of 22 million people, Sri Lanka used to be self-sufficient in food.
But President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s drive to make the country the world’s first to fully adopt organic agriculture – by banning all synthetic agrochemicals, including fertilisers and pesticides – has proved disastrous for Sri Lanka’s food security. Sold as a bid to improve soil health and tackle a mysterious kidney disease among farmers that is believed to be linked to excessive nitrate exposure, the ban was imposed overnight in May of last year.
The country’s 2 million farmers, who make up 30 percent of its labour force and who until then were dependent on subsidised chemical fertilisers, suddenly found themselves left to their own devices. They said the government neither increased production of organic fertiliser nor imported sufficient soil nutrients to meet their needs.
The result has been a dramatic fall in agricultural output during the growing season that ended in March, known locally as the Maha season.
Official figures are not yet available for the Maha harvest, but experts estimate a drop of between 20 to 70 percent, depending on the crop.
For rice, a staple of the Sri Lankan diet, output fell by between 40 and 50 percent nationwide during Maha, according to estimates. The drop has resulted in the island nation importing some 300,000 metric tonnes of rice in the first three months of the year – a sharp rise compared with the 14,000 metric tonnes it imported in 2020.
All of this comes as Sri Lanka also reels from a foreign exchange crisis that has left the government unable to pay for essential imports, including fuel and medicines. Shortages have led to sky-high inflation, long queues for diesel, rolling electricity cuts of up to 13 hours and warnings of a “catastrophic number of deaths” from doctors.
Tens of thousands of people have also taken to the streets in protest, blaming government mismanagement for Sri Lanka’s woes and demanding that Rajapaksa and his powerful brothers step down from their government posts. As protests intensified, the president’s brothers, Basil Rajapaksa and Chamal Rajapaksa, as well as his nephew Namal Rajapaksa quit the cabinet in March.
Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, another brother of the president, was also forced to resign earlier this month after a night of deadly riots, during which protesters set fire to properties linked to the Rajapaksa family and other governing party politicians.
The president, however, has continued to reject calls for his resignation.
He previously denied any responsibility for Sri Lanka’s economic crisis, blaming it on the country’s high debt burden and the COVID-19 pandemic, which hit its lucrative tourism sector hard. But as public anger grew, the president admitted on April 18 that he had made “mistakes” that need to be “rectified”.
His government has since turned to the International Monetary Fund for a bailout and promised to reinstate subsidies on fertilisers, although it is yet to provide any details of the policy.
“The president has agreed that the shift to organics was done too hastily. We have understood the errors and we will provide the fertiliser required by the farmers soon,” Janaka Wakkumbura, who was appointed as agriculture minister in April, told Al Jazeera in early May.
Wakkambura, who has since stepped down, also said that “The World Bank has given us money to buy fertiliser and a few other agencies and countries are to help us too”.
He did not provide further details.
‘Man-made disaster’
But with Sri Lanka’s foreign reserves having dwindled to $1.8bn at the end of April and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine pushing up fertiliser prices in the world market, experts said it is not clear how the government can afford to import enough soil nutrients for its two million farmers, much less subsidise them.
Lionel Weerakoon, former senior scientist at Sri Lanka’s Department of Agriculture, said the government and private parties had spent about $259m on importing fertiliser in 2020. The bill for 2021 could be between $300m-440m and potentially double that this year.
“The situation is even worse now because Russia, Belarus and China have limited fertiliser exports. If we are to purchase a similar quantity of fertiliser as we did in 2020, we might have to spend $600m,” he said. “The overall management of the country under this government has been disastrous.”
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 7th August, 2023, 09:52 AM.Leave a comment:
-
Proposed Generally Accepted Statement # 7 (On Farming)
If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").
Processing Protocol
If not Challenged within one week (Deadline: 23/8/14 @ 11:59 PM EDT), the Statement joins the list of generally accepted Statements.
Bob A (Anthropogenicist - As Participant)Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Monday, 7th August, 2023, 08:22 AM.Leave a comment:
-
Hi Dilip:
It seems to me our discussion of Libertarianism has left Climate Change far behind now. We are hijacking the thread. But, of course, Libertarianism does have a position on negative climate change.
In future, I will deal with Libertarianism in the Human Self Governance (NWO/GR) thread. Seem like a good idea? Bob Gillanders?
Bob ALeave a comment:
-
You need to have an open mind to be able to grasp even simple concepts: running a red light gets fined even when there are is no traffic and you are rushing your wife to the hospital; the red light law is not necessary, because the Natural law is clear that you cannot harm others sharing the road with you. And a company which creates noise does have to compensate those who suffer from it, whatever time of the day someone's sick mom has to rest, even without the noise by-law.Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
'Bio-diversity is the key to future human survival' is a highly exaggerated statement, but again, if and when harm to humans is clear, the Natural Law would apply here too...
Libertarianism will bring order and smooth functioning to society, unlike the chaos we see all around us because of 'laws, laws, laws' (just ask the politicians like Imran Khan or your work colleagues who refuse to lick the boss' a--s, against whom laws get weaponized), and absence of the Natural Law...Leave a comment:
-
Carnivore-directed farming exists for one simple reason: there is a market for it... so if you are so much against it, try and convince at least one of the chesstalkers (Neal F or Bob G ?) to become a vegan... I think you are likely to get a simple response from them: NO, unless some appropriate compensation tax gets implemented on it for the pollution it causes...Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View PostLeave a comment:
Leave a comment: