Environmental/social Concerns

[Neal.F.]

Several months ago, Lost In Manitoba , with whose socially liberal politics I strongly disagree, posted a thread wherein he wanted to discuss environmental issues. I wanted to respond to that back then, but got sidetracked.

Here are some thoughts on this highly important, but often forgotten subject from my perspective. Unfortunately the left wing green party has hijacked the issue, and the far better, balanced policy represented by the Christian Heritage Party is rarely heard.

I also think it would be folly on the part of the new Conservative party to ignore it either.

I believe that we have a responsibility to exercise stewardship over the earth and its resources, that we are not free to consume and destroy leaving scraps for future generations. As individuals we must do what we can to keep the world clean, and not denude it of resources, and government has a responsibility to enforce penalties, preferably of a restoratory nature on those who do abuse the environment, via pollution or wanton rape of land and resources. I also think that the government has the right to use tax dollars to help repair damage done by others when their resources are insufficient to repair damage.

I do not support artificial birth control of any kind as a means of population control. Properly used and distributed, we could feed the world many times over.

What prevents equitable food and resource distribution at the moment? Corporate greed, for the most part. An article in a recent national geographic concludes that there is enough water UNDER the Sahara and Sahel, that if it could be brought to the surface a,and the land irrigated, that area would teem with vegetation, and would become the best farmland in the world. It would not even have to fertilized for several generations, as it is that rich in nutrients.

The cost of bringing this water to the service is estimated at 50 Billion US dollars. The only reason I can see why this is not being done, is that corporate interests in North America and Europe do NOT want this land to be farmed. Their bottom line is more important than saving human lives. They are very happy with keeping food prices high.

This is an obscenity, especially when US Congress is capable of voting larger sums than that for space exploration, Arms manufacturing, and other things. Under Trudeau, Canada ran Budget DEFICITS close to $50 Billion. But the corporate interests that pay for politicians re-election bids will have none of it.

Another obscenity is how much food is THROWN AWAY every year! We have people starving in our own streets, and in other parts of the world, yet I heard that enough food is thrown away in the United States ALONE every year to sufficiently feed every man, woman and child on the planet...and then some.

Why does this happen? Once again corporate greed. The corporations generally would prefer to throw away food, than to give it away. Here's how it was put to me once. "If you start to give it away, they won't ever want to pay for it!" sometimes farmers are even paid NOT to produce! land goes to waste while people go hungry. All so some damned executives can drive a BMW.

Why not offer massive tax credits for companies who will give the surpluses to homeless shelters, soup kitchens or put the goods in containers and ship them overseas?

This is a worldwide situation that will ultimately affect everyone, so it needs to be addressed globally, by individuals, corporations and governments. I think this is best addressed at the local and international levels by a wide variety of parties, and sovereign countries, not through a one world government, or the United Nations.

[Hugo]

The cost of bringing this water to the service is estimated at 50 Billion US dollars. The only reason I can see why this is not being done, is that corporate interests in North America and Europe do NOT want this land to be farmed.

It's not really that simple, Neal. Most of the Sahara is the territory of countries such as Algeria and Libya. It's for certain that they have no commercial enterprises capable of undertaking such a project, which means that either those $50bn have to go to the countries that will undertake the project (and I guarantee that will mean a $50bn investment for the armies and secret police of those countries and not a red cent for the project), or Western enterprise must go over there to complete the project. That latter means losses due to corruption, harassment (including theft and murder) by local warlords and government and so forth. Without protection, very few people would want to do that, and protection means troops, which increases costs astronomically, and means that you are now asking Western countries to pay probably hundreds of billions of dollars and to risk the lives and well-being of civilian contractors and military personnel to attempt a project that may not succeed and will not benefit them.

Ain't gonna happen. The bottom line has little to do with it, the details are going to ground that plan before it even starts rolling down the runway.

Why does this happen? Once again corporate greed. The corporations generally would prefer to throw away food, than to give it away.

The cost and logistics involved in redistributing food that would otherwise be wasted is similarly prohibitive, and once again, as we have already seen in the Third World, most of what we send there does not end up in the hands of those who need it anyway. Without massive armed intervention and, at least in the long-term, drastic political and social restructuring of the Third World (which, I hardly need to tell you, is utterly impossible), it won't matter if you throw food in the garbage or ship it to Africa at enormous cost. Millions will still die of famine because the food won't get to where it needs to go. A miss is as good as a mile, and getting food to the right continent is just a waste of time and money if it ends up going to warlord armies instead of starving children.

Why not offer massive tax credits for companies who will give the surpluses to homeless shelters, soup kitchens or put the goods in containers and ship them overseas?

Regarding food shortages in our own country, I think you would be surprised by what companies already do off their own bat. The Gates Foundation (founded and run with money Bill Gates got from "corporate greed") gave $800.8m to charitable causes in 2002. But I agree that the idea is a good one, and one of the best incentives is the right for a company to advertise it's good deeds.

As individuals we must do what we can to keep the world clean, and not denude it of resources, and government has a responsibility to enforce penalties, preferably of a restoratory nature on those who do abuse the environment, via pollution or wanton rape of land and resources.

That's hardly fair. For the government to come down like a ton of bricks on a particular industry renowned for pollution problems (e.g. the paper or textile industry) is not a good option. Large companies will be heavily hit by this, will need to put large sums into R&D to find new, clean methods which will probably mean job losses, closures and so forth. Smaller companies may just fold entirely.

It is more ethical for the government to be part of the solution. I would say that a better approach would be for tax dollars to be used for research grants when said research is to be made into cleaner modes of industry. Ford revamped their Rouge plant at the cost of $2bn with the help of environmental consultants including Michigan State University. The local government, at least, should have helped with that. It benefits the environment and provides an incentive for other companies to do likewise.

[Lost in Manitoba]

What you guys are talking about is really a discussion of what's wrong with the world. I do agree with what Neal says.

This summer, living on the prairies, I was very thoughtful of the BSE crisis. The idea of sending the unsellable, costly, excess beef to impoverished areas of the world was brought up but there seemed to be no political will. I wondered why? Farmers are getting relief money from the Gov't, they want to reduce the herds, people around the world are hungry, the gov't donates money to 3rd world nations. To me, it sounded logical. Instead of giving $$$$ to country's in need, give beef. I heard that insect-damaged timber from BC will be going to Afganistan because it is worthless here in N.America.