Bishop Hill Ditch the greens if you want to keep the wild places
Mar 9, 2015 Greens Matt Ridley's article in the Times (£) this morning looks at the continuing growth of grain harvests around the world and contrasts this good news with the weasel-worded claims of disaster from environmentalists and scientivists.
The whole thing is worth a read if you have access to it, but I want to pick up on one particular point. It turns out that harvests are not actually increasing everywhere. Th main exception is of course Europe and the reasons are plain:
The fault lies in European officialdom’s perpetual war on innovation in agriculture — its precautionary and bureaucratic de facto opposition, at the behest of what the former environment secretary Owen Paterson calls the Green Blob, to safer pesticides and genetic modification, both of which demonstrably boost yields, save inputs and spare land elsewhere in the world.
So once again it is the campaigns of environmental activists that are causing problems for mankind. And, counterintuitively, the result of the greens' efforts is to increase the pressure to convert wild land into farmland:
Jesse Ausubel, of Rockefeller University in New York, calculates that if we continue raising average yields at the current rate, stop putting 40 per cent of America’s maize into cars in the form of ethanol, and reduce food wastage, then, despite the rising population, an area the size of India could be released from agriculture over the next 50 years and handed back to Mother Nature.
But in the future that the greens want the opposite to happen. Farming in a green-run world will be less intense, more "organic" with the inevitable result that marginal lands will continue to fall to the plough.
There is a pattern here isn't there? The greens' campaigns against modern agriculture are leading to wild places being ploughed up for farmland. Their campaigns for "renewable" energy are leading to wild places disappearing under carpets of wind turbines and farmland being covered in solar panels. This represents an all out assault on the wildernesses that so many people cherish and leads to one clear conclusion.
If we want to keep our wild places we have to ditch the environmentalists.
Reader Comments (38)
Global warming is nothing more than a political campaign against "innovation in agriculture" and manufacturing industry through the proxy of "CO2".
The real truth is that CO2 haters tend to be left-wing, uneducated, gullible and most of all public sector and anti-industry.
They are the people who have houses full of consumer goods and then attack "industry" for being "bad".
"Farming in a green-run world will be less intense, more "organic" with the inevitable result that marginal lands will continue to fall to the plough."
Watch 10,000BC tonight at 10pm on channel five and see what the world would really be like if these green people took over. Hunger, starvation, ill health and certainly no consumer goods, no hope and annihilation of humans.
@Mike..
" no consumer goods, no hope and annihilation of humans."
Ah... the Green Blob agenda writ large... in a few succinct words !! Well done.
Either the green blob doesn't understand the law of unintended consequences and so pursues insane policies, or it understands the law of unintended consequences and wants to see willful destruction of the remaining wild places in the world. Take tour pick. In either case, the green blob should be ditched.
PS I don't like use of the term "environmentalist", as I consider myself as someone who cares about the environment, but wouldn't want to be associated with the idiotic green nutters.
There was a shock piece in the Grauniad yesterday about the clearance of native rainforest to make way for palm oil plantations. Amazingly, they quoted Greenpeace who provided them with a typical piece of faux outrage.
What they glaringly omitted to mention was that a large part of the increased demand for palm oil is its mandatory use as a biofuel additive.
What never ceases to amaze me is that these people take no responsibility at all for the destructive outcomes of the policies which they have foisted upon us. They just swivel 180º and turn up the "greedy corporations" volume, without missing a beat.
campaigns for "renewable" energy are leading to wild places disappearing under carpets of wind turbines.
Alan Sloman's blog could do with a plug here. He has several very detailed posts on the latest threats to remote areas of Scotland, such as the Caplich windfarm in the North-West.
I see the Lynx is to be reintroduced into Scotland & England after an apparent absence of 1,300 years. They made Sparrowhawks a protected spieces, then complained that the numbers of small birds were in decline, of course from AGW/CC & habitat destruction. Sparrowhawks hunt small birds! They made the Magpie a protected spieces, then the numbers of Thrushes started to delcine, all blamed on AGW/CC & habitat destruction. Magpies hunt Thrushes. They made the badger a protected spieces, then complained that the numbers of hedgehogs were in decline, all blamed upon, yep, you've guessed it. Badgers eat hedgehogs! They never think things fully through nor take responisbility for their actions!!!
RE the lynx business......splendid comment by James Kirkup at the bottom of the article about it in the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/11457882/Wild-lynx-to-return-to-Britain-after-1300-years.html
Alan the Brit
Yes, in 30 years in Derby I never actually saw a cat kill a song bird, on the other hand I saw a Sparrowhawk take three, not to mention the evidence of raptor kills on a regular basis. I think it liked the idea of feeding stations with lots of targets and Leylandii to cover the approach.
The other big predators seemed to be Grey Squirrels and Magpies who raided nests.
Yet mentioning this to Greens met with incredulity.
From Matt Ridley's article:
I wonder what newspaper that could be! Oh, look:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/24/world-food-crisis-closer
Who would ever have guessed???
This is the same newspaper that published an article in August 2008 headlined "The final countdown", which said that we had only 100 months left to save the planet:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
Moreover, that figure of 100 months was "based on a quite conservative estimate".
So we now have only 21 months left! I'm really scared. Does anyone have advice? How are people planning on spending their last few months on planet Earth?
Messenger
Any research on Lynx and Scottish Wildcat competition? My money would be on the Lynx replacing the Wildcat.
I've been getting "Server not found" on and off for the last hour with this site. Is this just me or are others getting the same?
Curious how when one introduces a hunter, the numbers of its former prey decline! I also recall some years ago The One Show or some such programme doing an article on declining bird populations in semi-rural & suburban areas. Of course one had the obligatory member of RSPB droning on about Climate Change & habitat destruction. A few weeks/months later a similar article was done on the same programme pointing out the number of ferel cats roaming around, giving the local bird populations a very hard time indeed!!! As said, thinking it through is not high on their agenda!
Another example that modern big green is, whatever their motives, resulting in misanthropic policies.
The Magpie is a real curse here in W. Mids. They hang about in groups of 4/5 (2 = lucky?) and these are the last years thuggish off spring that batter house guttering/pathways and hang off shrubs. Thats apart from a quick live take in the middle of a road. Real noisy MF's as well.
Had a Sparrowhawk nip off a bird on a fence 4 feet away...just heard a thump and gone. Another belly flopped, wings spread on the top of a row of viburnum...nabbed something? Sleek and very fast. Difficult to see.
Then there's freaking pigeons racing/wild. The latter breeding like flies till one cat takes a years task to knock most of them out. Cat suddenly becomes useful and for them its a very long play game I note.
RSPB bloke always hanging about B&Q with hand out...the bloke here is snot nosed...!!
I just posted this on unthreaded, it pertains more to transport than agricultural policy but it is kind of related -
Details emerge of what kind of cars the Green Party will permit after last week's policy change:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/475059460669493713/
Shouldn't we plant envionmentalists in some of these remote areas? If they survive, great! If they don't, I am sure that positive scientific conclusions could be drawn.
Alan
"They made Sparrowhawks a protected species"
And yet they couldn't guess what they like to eat.. :-)
This may relate to behavioural tendencies that have been discussed here by Lord Donahue and others. The left are driven by the need to confront problems and implement actions to fix the problem. Just consider Miliband’s recent pledge to enshrine future election TV debates in law.
If the problem is to save the planet then this presses all their buttons. Right wingers, on the other hand, do not seem to have the same ideological urge. This does not mean they care less about the problem but they are less single minded about the nature of the solution. They tend to consider the problem and solutions more widely.
We see that green solutions are often worse than the problems they seek to solve. Global warming and energy policy are littered with examples of this.
I wish people would not make this a left versus right issue; it does seem to me to be more complicated than that. We have had some long term very committed anti greens on this website who are/were left wingers. They have left us/are leaving us I believe because they get such a lot of agro.
Dung
I think you are wrong to use the term "left-wingers", as are those who claim to be but in reality are centre-left.Left wingers see problems which only need their input to fix — like passing laws making it compulsory for prime ministers to take part in election debates! The robber barons wouldn't do that; they would either ban debates altogether or, if they thought they kept the populace properly sedated, ignore them.
It is predominantly what we call "left wingers" who believe they have a calling to improve everyone else's life by interfering in it as much as possible. "Control freaks" is the other term.
"...They made the badger a protected spieces, then complained that the numbers of hedgehogs were in decline, all blamed upon, yep, you've guessed it. Badgers eat hedgehogs...!" -- Alan the Brit
Badgers? We don't need no steenkin' badgers.
Jorgekafkazar Yes, we do want badgers. We want ALL wild creatures. Leave them alone and everyone will be happy. There is too much interference from humans in all things to do with nature. Every species will find its own level. Just because you dont' want badgers doesn't mean everyone feels the same.
The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone Park improved the ecology of the area. The absence of wolves allowed an overpopulation of elk which negatively affected both plants and other animals. The reintroduction limited the elk population
I can testify that in one part of Canada that I lived in the wolf population had been effectively eradicated with bounties for the protection of farm animals etc. The deer population surged and they became a pest that over-browsed and damaged the forest. Therefore I must disagree with the negative views expressed here about re-wilding.
The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone Park improved the ecology of the area. The absence of wolves allowed an overpopulation of elk which negatively affected both plants and other animals. The reintroduction limited the elk population
I can testify that in one part of Canada that I lived in the wolf population had been effectively eradicated with bounties for the protection of farm animals etc. The deer population surged and they became a pest that over-browsed and damaged the forest. Therefore I must disagree with the negative views expressed here about re-wilding.
I do agree with with Dung about left/right partisanship affecting views on sources. But I feel very estranged from the left now and I don't think it's me who's moved.
I was looking up a rig today and was surprised to find this Guardian article taking a fairly positive , or at least sympathetic, view of the North Sea oil industry, or at least its workers:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/27/oil.business
But then I looked at the date and wondered: is this just because it was under a Labour government at the time? Or was the Guardian just less Green Lunatic back then?
Will people look at Matt Ridley and discount anything he has to say because coal heritage - fossil fuel - "denier" - Tory - Times = Murdoch = *shut eyes* *exterminate * exterminate* ... ?
The same with anything in the Telegraph or DM: = Tory = right wing = far right... no, EXTREME right wing - *shut eyes* *exterminate * exterminate*
Content just doesn't seem to matter any more.
Last week I received a campaign leaflet from the Labour Party pledging to extend moratoria on fracking in Scotland and oppose it at every turn.
I'm afraid that is it for me. The last, final straw. They no longer represent the workers and I've given up on them.
Competition is a feature of life. Nature rewards the better competitors. Competition and climate change are probably the primary drivers of evolution.
Nature will find a balance, whether humans are part of the game or not.
As Stanley Baldwin put in 80 years or so ago (though he was referring to the Press), "enjoying the privilege of the harlot down the ages - power without responsibility."
Mar 9, 2015 at 11:01 AM | Alan the Brit
Actually it is not quite as you say with the sparrowhawk. The sparrowhawks promised to turn vegetarian in return for the legal protection. Unfortunately, when the bird delegation signed the contract, it wasn't sparrowhawks, but crossbills in disguise. The environmentalists didn't spot the deception. Their gesture, of course, rendered the contract null and void.
In the real world, Michael Chrichton has a useful piece in State of Fear detailing the many cockups that have been made in Yosemite, over many decades, in the name of managing the wilderness (an oxymoron). (p575ff in the paperback)
Most Greens appear to be self-centred obsessives who have limited ability to think an issue through, which is why the oft-quoted 'Law of Unintended Conseqences' frequently upsets the 'intended consequnces'. My own first-hand observations of Greens and their actions leaves me very disturbed about the actual meaning of the term 'environmentalist'.
It goes back to the same issue. There is a need for attractive political alternatives. The so-called environmentalists do not stand for the environment, they stand for a specific view of the environment. As long as their view on the matter is the only one, as long as they are allowed to claim theirs is the only view acceptable, delusion is all what we can expect on the subject.
We have to expect more of ourselves and less of others.
Tragically, I think that naturelover was quite serious:
"We want ALL wild creatures....Every species will find its own level."
That is such an absurd statement, so evidently untrue. Many bird and mammal species in Great Britain have been introduced by mankind, over the centuries, while some have become extinct, usually by the same agency. I am not quite sure what the Grey Squirrel's "own level" is, but it seems to be taking its time to locate it. Ditto the Rabbit. Ditto the Brown Rat. Ditto the American Mink.
No deer species (most introduced by man) has any natural predator in Britain. Seeing them cantering down, or across, main roads is hardly unusual. It has long been established that an uncontrolled deer population is undesirable, even for deer, because of the competition for the food supply. Deer species in Britain show no sign, as yet, of "finding their own levels", although that will, I suppose, happen eventually, when they have stripped the island bare. Managing the population maintains a healthy population and a far healthier ecosystem.
As for Badgers, I assume that naturelover doesn't mind that the species finds its "own level" via TB and the roadside, or usually both.
Perhaps, naturelover will explain how bird-choppers fit in to his/her "balance of nature" idyll. It's a bit tricky for your entire species to "find its own level", when every individual is faced with extinction on a daily basis.
Yes I agree on the 2 main commenters posts here
- 1. BH website has been stalling a bit over the last couple of days ..I am the other side of the world in Borneo, but other websites work fine
- 2. @Dung "Lets not make this a left versus right issue; it does seem to me to be more complicated than that."
Exactly it is perfectly OK to be politically left and against green dogma and perfectly wrong of politically right people to fund politics with windfarm corruption etc. The simplistic mischaracterisiation of green opposition as pro fossil fuel Fox newswatchers is a lazy trick green activists use ..and we should not stoop to their level of argument being "all about the side" instead of "all about complex facts".
- March 8th, Bolt has an article about Greens not coming from the social group you might expect ..and their consumption lifestyles
The GreenBlob lives Outside Reality
The organic movement and the Greens are simply beyond any kind of reason,or reasoning.
I have in the past tried to explain to Greens and fans of organic farming how if we can intensify agriculture so that we grow all our food in a small factory, that will leave us with the maximum possible land for other uses, including forests or wilderness, but they just refuse to accept that.
The "organic" part outweighs all considerations, no matter what.
I have some regrets about raising the left-right subject and would agree that it is much more complicated than that.
There is merit in being proactive about addressing problems and also in protecting the vulnerable, caring for the environment and so on. Again, these are not exclusively left wing traits and generally they are to be welcomed. There are clearly other characteristics or dimensions which cause those we regard as members of the Green Blob to act in the way that they do.
This physician says the ban is a hoax and a lie based on human health concerns - http://yourlisten.com/jlcny/jlc-united-radio-show-12-18-2014 Dr. Theodore F. Them, Chief of Sayre, Pa Guthrie Medical Group’s Occupational and Environmental Medicine Dept. who has an M.D., PhD in theoretical inorganic and bioinorganic chemistry, and a Masters of Public Health. Dr. Them did research as an environmental analytical chemist specializing in forensic chemistry and has been in environmental and occupational medicine since 1991 who states that he has seen ZERO adverse human health issues after his 18 month study of 9 Marcellus Shale state's depts. of health and conservation data bases as well as email communications to those states or in his practice at Guthrie. A 4.5 minute video of Dr. Them - https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=20M-IbhOGDg Dr. Them's house is also situated among numerous drill pads with multiple gas wells in Bradford County and there has been no change in his health or his water or in any of the patients that he sees.