Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Libertarianism

In Summary - Libertarianism is optimistic and believes in the "good". It is a pipe-dream. Do not swallow this fairy-tale politics. It is a recipe for disaster wherever a Libertarian party might be elected (And it is almost never (Never?) successful.........people are not stupid, and see past its well-intentionedness).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Of course, one has to believe that there can be good in humans, if they are not tortured by government waste and stupidity. And it is not a fairy-tale, because adequate measures would be in place to ensure that the evil amongst us end up paying to their victims appropriately. So in summary, you need to learn that Marxism has always failed, while Libertarianism, which already exists within friends and families is yet to be tried globally... it will happen one day, as people are not so stupid as not to eventually see its potential, despite folks like you and Bob G still being stuck with looking forward to enjoy the torture inherent in Marxism. The reason politicians are petrified at the thought of Libertarianism is that they would be the ones to lose their obnoxious pomp and false glamour.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Libertarianism



3. Evil can be stopped by mere "compensation taxation".

Response - Even the fines imposed for law-breaking civilly by today's "meddling" governments have no deterrent effect. Law-breaking reaps huge profits. Fines, to the evil-doers, are just chump-change - a licence to keep acting illegally.



Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Don't you think that the Carbon tax is a sensible approach? Well, that is a 'compensation tax'. It has already had a deterrent effect on the use of gasoline, and the proceeds can be diverted to the legitimate users of gasoline to ensure that inflation in suppressed. Nobody can evade the carbon tax, right? It takes a Libertarian government to understand that compensation taxes cannot be chump-change... Marxist politicians cannot even understand the concept, let alone ensure that the taxation appropriately compensates the damage caused.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Libertarianism


2. "The only law you need is the "Natural Law". And court enforcement is not necessary for this wonderful law.

Response - This fuzzy concept is never set out in detail - it seems to be some variation of the "Golden Rule" of various religions re how to treat the stranger. Under this concept it will be rule by the strongest.


Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Again, it seems you think that only Marxism can 'enforce laws'. Marxism is so full of silly and nasty and contradictory laws that nothing sensible can be enforced in courts. Only in Libertarianism, court enforcement of the Natural Law is the focus of the government.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Libertarianism

1. Oversight of human activity is unnecessary because humans are naturally good, and will self-regulate.

Response - already proven false; see multitude of Anti-combines cases in court.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Who said oversight is not necessary? Some of us are nasty and crooked, and break the Natural Law, and need to be caught and punished. Only in Libertarianism can this be done effectively. We all know that attempts at oversight have failed in all other systems, especially Marxism, where the lazy or stupid bums get rewarded as much, if not more (as they use their time in buttering the powerful) as the hard-working or smart ones.

[Bob Armstrong]

Non-Carnivore-Directed/Organic Farming

1. Viable

a. Small rice farming in India

file:///C:/Users/Bob/Downloads/sustainability-10-04424.pdf

b. Organic farming in Nepal: A viable option for food security and agricultural sustainability

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/335017097.pdf

2. Sustainable

Organic farming is widely considered to be a far more sustainable alternative when it comes to food production.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/20...r-environment/


3. More Profitable than non-organic farming

https://www.dal.ca/faculty/agricultu...itability.html

4. Challenges for Organic Farming can be Overcome

"...organic farming presents its own unique set of challenges, from pests and diseases that can damage crops to lack of access to water and other resources. Here we will explore some of the biggest challenges faced by organic farmers and offer some possible solutions."

https://ryansproduce.com/the-challen...overcome-them/


5. Some Negatives to Organic Farming

Organic food is more expensive because farmers do not get as much out of their land as conventional farmers do. Production costs are higher because farmers need more workers. Marketing and distribution is not efficient because organic food is produced in smaller amounts.

https://byjus.com/ias-questions/what...ganic-farming/

6. Organic Food Really Is Better for the Environment

The gradual shift towards organic farming has been mainly because we as consumers have become increasingly concerned about the health impacts of accidentally consuming pesticides and chemical fertilizers. During the 1990s, the USDA first standardized the meaning of the term “organic” — basically, farmers do not use any form of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides to grow their produce.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/20...r-environment/

7. Growing World Population & Food Security - Organic Farming is the Answer

Problem - producing enough food for a population that could reach 10 billion by 2050, without the extensive deforestation and harm to the wider environment.
Solution - Organic agriculture occupies only 1% of global agricultural land, making it a relatively untapped resource for [future food security], one of the greatest challenges facing humanity.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...e-world-hunger

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

There is prior post reference to a future of starvation of some.........false totally.

Farming can produce enough food to feed many more than are currently populating the Earth.

But to maximize productivity, and to maintain fairness (Libertarian "Natural Law"?), carnivore-directed farming must be stopped from gobbling up tremendously more production resources than non-carnivore-directed farming. This is not happening.........why?.........Carnivore-directed farmers, as a force in the world, is quite influential, and backed by whole industries based on the products of carnivore-directed farming. This lobby works hard at justification to the public of this unfairness, and its limiting of food security, which is best maintained by non-carnivore-directed farming......many articles on the great disparity between the two types of farming.

Again, it is going to be up to the elector to elect parties that are not beholden to this lobby, and who will pass laws to achieve full food security.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

There is prior post reference to a future of starvation of some.........false totally.

Do you expect us to take you seriously?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05...arming-crisis/

In Sri Lanka, Organic Farming Went Catastrophically Wrong

A nationwide experiment is abandoned after producing only misery.

MARCH 5, 2022, 7:00 AM
By Ted Nordhaus, the executive director of the Breakthrough Institute, and Saloni Shah, a food and agriculture analyst at the Breakthrough Institute.Tea pickers remove weeds at an organic tea plantation.Tea pickers remove weeds at an organic tea plantation in the southern district of in Ratnapura, Sri Lanka, on Aug. 3, 2021. ISHARA S. KODIKARA/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
Faced with a deepening economic and humanitarian crisis, Sri Lanka called off an ill-conceived national experiment in organic agriculture this winter. Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promised in his 2019 election campaign to transition the country’s farmers to organic agriculture over a period of 10 years. Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.

The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange.

By November 2021, with tea production falling, the government partially lifted its fertilizer ban on key export crops, including tea, rubber, and coconut. Faced with angry protests, soaring inflation, and the collapse of Sri Lanka’s currency, the government finally suspended the policy for several key crops—including tea, rubber, and coconut—last month, although it continues for some others. The government is also offering $200 million to farmers as direct compensation and an additional $149 million in price subsidies to rice farmers who incurred losses. That hardly made up for the damage and suffering the ban produced. Farmers have widely criticized the payments for being massively insufficient and excluding many farmers, most notably tea producers, who offer one of the main sources of employment in rural Sri Lanka. The drop in tea production alone is estimated to result in economic losses of $425 million.

Human costs have been even greater. Prior to the pandemic’s outbreak, the country had proudly achieved upper-middle-income status. Today, half a million people have sunk back into poverty. Soaring inflation and a rapidly depreciating currency have forced Sri Lankans to cut down on food and fuel purchases as prices surge. The country’s economists have called on the government to default on its debt repayments to buy essential supplies for its people.

The farrago of magical thinking, technocratic hubris, ideological delusion, self-dealing, and sheer shortsightedness that produced the crisis in Sri Lanka implicates both the country’s political leadership and advocates of so-called sustainable agriculture: the former for seizing on the organic agriculture pledge as a shortsighted measure to slash fertilizer subsidies and imports and the latter for suggesting that such a transformation of the nation’s agricultural sector could ever possibly succeed.

---

A worker carries leaves at a tea plantation in Ratnapura, Sri Lanka.
A worker carries leaves at a tea plantation in Ratnapura, Sri Lanka, on July 31, 2021. ISHARA S. KODIKARA/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

Sri Lanka’s journey through the organic looking glass and toward calamity began in 2016, with the formation, at Rajapaksa’s behest, of a new civil society movement called Viyathmaga. On its website, Viyathmaga describes its mission as harnessing the “nascent potential of the professionals, academics and entrepreneurs to effectively influence the moral and material development of Sri Lanka.” Viyathmaga allowed Rajapaksa to rise to prominence as an election candidate and facilitated the creation of his election platform. As he prepared his presidential run, the movement produced the “Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour,” a sprawling agenda for the nation that covered everything from national security to anticorruption to education policy, alongside the promise to transition the nation to fully organic agriculture within a decade.

Despite Viyathmaga’s claims to technocratic expertise, most of Sri Lanka’s leading agricultural experts were kept out of crafting the agricultural section of the platform, which included promises to phase out synthetic fertilizer, develop 2 million organic home gardens to help feed the country’s population, and turn the country’s forests and wetlands over to the production of biofertilizer.

Following his election as president, Rajapaksa appointed a number of Viyathmaga members to his cabinet, including as minister of agriculture. Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Agriculture, in turn, created a series of committees to advise it on the implementation of the policy, again excluding most of the nation’s agronomists and agricultural scientists and instead relying on representatives of the nation’s small organic sector; academic advocates for alternative agriculture; and, notably, the head of a prominent medical association who had long promoted dubious claims about the relationship between agricultural chemicals and chronic kidney disease in the country’s northern agricultural provinces.

[Bob Armstrong]

I'd like to add to my Post # 1590 (23/8/6) assessing Libertarianism:

3. - Compensation Tax - Addendum - I am unclear whether Libertarians assign this judgment to the Government or the Courts. In any event, it is simply a fancy word for fining illegal action, which all governments of every stripe do routinely.

4. Freedom of the Individual in Society is paramount. All actions can be done that are not "anti-societal" or, I think, against the "Natural Law" (To be clarified).

Response - This overstates the case. Society limits freedom of the individual in many ways in order to protect society generally and to attempt equality for all. Thus one is not free to run a red-light. A company that does demolition cannot start in the morning whenever it wishes........a noise by-law determines the starting time, given the neighbourhood. I am not free to kill something on an endangered species list - bio-diversity is a key to future human survival. I could go on ad nauseam. Libertarianism doing away with this type of regulation, for the benefit of society as a whole, will leave civilization in total chaos.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Gillanders]

Libertarianism

1. Oversight of human activity is unnecessary because humans are naturally good, and will self-regulate.

Response - already proven false; see multitude of Anti-combines cases in court.

2. "The only law you need is the "Natural Law". And court enforcement is not necessary for this wonderful law.

Response - This fuzzy concept is never set out in detail - it seems to be some variation of the "Golden Rule" of various religions re how to treat the stranger. Under this concept it will be rule by the strongest.

3. Evil can be stopped by mere "compensation taxation".

Response - Even the fines imposed for law-breaking civilly by today's "meddling" governments have no deterrent effect. Law-breaking reaps huge profits. Fines, to the evil-doers, are just chump-change - a licence to keep acting illegally.

In Summary - Libertarianism is optimistic and believes in the "good". It is a pipe-dream. Do not swallow this fairy-tale politics. It is a recipe for disaster wherever a Libertarian party might be elected (And it is almost never (Never?) successful.........people are not stupid, and see past its well-intentionedness).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

I agree, thanks Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

1. Oversight of human activity is unnecessary because humans are naturally good, and will self-regulate.

Response - already proven false; see multitude of Anti-combines cases in court.

2. "The only law you need is the "Natural Law". And court enforcement is not necessary for this wonderful law.

Response - This fuzzy concept is never set out in detail - it seems to be some variation of the "Golden Rule" of various religions re how to treat the stranger. Under this concept it will be rule by the strongest.

3. Evil can be stopped by mere "compensation taxation".

Response - Even the fines imposed for law-breaking civilly by today's "meddling" governments have no deterrent effect. Law-breaking reaps huge profits. Fines, to the evil-doers, are just chump-change - a licence to keep acting illegally.

In Summary - Libertarianism is optimistic and believes in the "good". It is a pipe-dream. Do not swallow this fairy-tale politics. It is a recipe for disaster wherever a Libertarian party might be elected (And it is almost never (Never?) successful.........people are not stupid, and see past its well-intentionedness).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

There is prior post reference to a future of starvation of some.........false totally.

Farming can produce enough food to feed many more than are currently populating the Earth.

But to maximize productivity, and to maintain fairness (Libertarian "Natural Law"?), carnivore-directed farming must be stopped from gobbling up tremendously more production resources than non-carnivore-directed farming. This is not happening.........why?.........Carnivore-directed farmers, as a force in the world, is quite influential, and backed by whole industries based on the products of carnivore-directed farming. This lobby works hard at justification to the public of this unfairness, and its limiting of food security, which is best maintained by non-carnivore-directed farming......many articles on the great disparity between the two types of farming.

Again, it is going to be up to the elector to elect parties that are not beholden to this lobby, and who will pass laws to achieve full food security.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

The WEF, in terms of the majority influence, sees itself as "Benevolent".........it seeks a better quality of life for all........but its priorities are screwed.

It is asking society to trade off freedom for material gain, and an easy lifestyle. This is a wrong ordering of the values critical to maintaining our human nature.

And yes, there is a minority involved, as always, that is working with the majority, but has its very own hidden agenda of establishing a dictatorship, where they will be the dictators. This is simply unavoidable with human nature in its current stage of evolution (Libertarianism is somehow going to impose a "compensation tax" to counter this........best of luck......)

This is why the Anti-New World Order/Anti-Great Reset movement is so critical. The forces, well-intentioned, and ill-intentioned, have much influence in choosing the human path forward. It will take a collective action on the part of ordinary people to prevent us from going down the path proposed by the WEF, and those behind it.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Dilip Panjwani]

a straight flush of nonsense fed to you by the WEF-controlled MSM and the so-called group that you consider "benevolent" all in the name of "climate change".

Sid, I think Bob was calling WEF 'benevolent' just sarcastically ... is that right, Bob?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip (Post # 1580 - 23/8/7) - Yes!!

There was a time when farmers recognized that the land had to be sustainably used. Thus crop fields, having had much of the nutrients removed from a number of years of use, rotated leaving one field "fallow" for one year's regeneration. Green fertilizers, such as clover, were sown during that year, and in the late summer/fall, were "mulch cut" in order to have organics deteriorate in the field and rejuvenate that one field. Done in rotation, the system was sustainable.

Sid is absolutely right in one thing - chemical fertilizers increased both yield and profit (Yes humans in many areas destroy what they have in the headlong rush after the "Sacred Dollar"; and usually it is not "just to make a little more profit temporarily" - big profits come, and the problem of "sustainability" falls off the radar; the capitalist system demands that you maximize your profit, and we see all over the place that the negative consequences of such headlong rush to "wealth" are ignored, until the chickens (Farm animals!) come home to roost.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

No, Bob, farmers are not at all stupid as far as sustenance of their beloved land is concerned; they are already following the six good farming practices Sid has listed.
Let us thank them for producing the large quantities of food that they are producing, so that some of us do not starve to death from lack of it...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Have you heard of any problem in the Amazon and the rain forests, due to the headlong rush for profit of the Brazilian cattle ranching industry? No? Google "Deforestation - South America"!

Dilip - this is your "natural law" consequence when Libertarians crow about the great societal consciousness of "ALL" humans, and that self-regulation for the benefit of all society will be the gold standard. Read some of my earlier posts on the fining of companies in the grocery industry for "price fixing" (A Capitalist strategy to maximize profit, and screw the consumer).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Bob, Libertarianism does not need a slew of imperfect and inefficient laws to prevent damage to Nature. A simple and appropriate 'compensation tax' (like the Carbon tax) does the trick better than 'laws, laws, laws'. The only law you need is the Natural Law!

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid's Post # 1582 - 23/8/6

My Post # 1581 (23/8/6) makes not one single reference to "negative climate change".

Yet Sid's post refuses to address the issue of "sustainable farming" raised therein. He uses the deflection tactic in order not to address it, by changing the essence of my post to being one of "Farming and Climate Change", which it clearly is not.


Does anyone have a challenge to the main issue I am raising, that the goal of the future farming industry must be "Sustainable Farming"?

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

I just edited my post 1582. that answers this very question you pose. it is you that is "deflecting" not me. Now that the false narrative of climate change and methane and nitrous oxide do not figure into the equation you change the subject to good farming practices that happen to not conflict with the use of Nitrogen fertilizers. '

Be intellectually honest with yourself, do you think inducing a famine using a false narrative is a good idea?

I happen to agree with you on good farming practices. However, it does not preclude the use of nitrogen fertilizers especially when they do not cause climate change:

As I said you have parrotted a straight flush of nonsense fed to you by the WEF-controlled MSM and the so-called group that you consider "benevolent" all in the name of "climate change".