Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ORGANUTAN . Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ORGANUTAN . Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Bio Fuels = Eco Disaster


The production of biofuels, long a cornerstone of the quest for greener energy, may sometimes create more harmful emissions than fossil fuels, scientific studies are finding.

Says the NYTimes in an article on Palm Oil. Once a Dream Fuel, Palm Oil May Be an Eco-Nightmare

As I have blogged here, Palm Oil production is creating an eco disaster in Indonesia and Malaysia with wildfires and threats to the endangered Organutan population.

And with both the Bush and Harper regimes promoting biofuels in grains and corn the result is increasing prices for these commodities which adversely affect other farm commodities like pork.

The Chair of Manitoba Pork Council says swine producers on the two sides of the Canada U.S. border share a common concern over rapidly rising feed prices resulting from expanded ethanol production.

And this is why the Harpocrites want to open the market up to the big Agribusiness giants like ADM and Cargill who also produce soya, palm oil, etc. But to do that they must eliminate the Wheat Board.

Biofuels are not ecologically sound alternatives to petroleum, they are just another capitalist band-aid, like Kyoto with its carbon exchange marketing.

Capitalism can only offer 'profit based' ways of adjusting to the current ecological and environmental crisis we face. That is because this crisis is about capitalism, which is not sustainable.

That is the real problem of Green Capitalism and all the so called Green alternatives, they are not alternatives at all, merely attempts to ameliorate the worst excesses of capitalism.

Without the development of democratic self managed (worker community control) socialism, capitalism Green or otherwise will continue to lead to planetary entropy.


See

GMO News Roundup

Lost and Found

Boreno is Burning

Bio-Fuels


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 15, 2007

Big Oil Rips Off Ethanol Subsidies


Bloggers Unite - Blog Action Day

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Big Oil is using Ethanol subsidies, corporate welfare, to fight Ethanol blending. The U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing big oils fight against Ethanol another good reason NOT to have corporate welfare for Ethanol.

For some industries, the prospect of $3.5 billion in federal subsidies now, and double that in three years, might be a powerful incentive. But not, apparently, for the oil industry, which is seeing crude oil prices soar to record highs. Despite collecting billions for blending small amounts of ethanol with gas, oil companies seem determined to fight the spread of E85, a fuel that is 85% ethanol and 15% gas. Congress has set a target of displacing 15% of projected annual gasoline use with alternative fuels by 2017. Right now, wider availability of E85 is the likeliest way to get there.

At the same time the industry is collecting a 51 cents-per-gallon federal subsidy for each gallon of ethanol it mixes with gas and sells as E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gas), it's working against the E85 blend with tactics both overt and stealthy. Efforts range from funding studies that bash the spread of ethanol for driving up the price of corn, and therefore some food, to not supporting E85 pumps at gas stations. The tactics infuriate a growing chorus of critics, from the usual suspects—pro-ethanol consumer groups—to the unexpected: the oil industry's oft-time ally, the auto industry.

The industry collects the subsidies, but didn't lobby for them—Congress created them to encourage a larger ethanol market. While oil reps say they aren't anti-ethanol, they are candid about disliking E85. Says Al Mannato of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the chief trade group for oil and natural-gas companies: "We think [ethanol] makes an effective additive to gasoline but that it doesn't work well as an alternative fuel. And we don't think the marketplace wants E85."

One prong in the oil industry's strategy is an anti-ethanol information campaign. In June the API released a study it commissioned from research firm Global Insight Inc. The report concludes that consumers will be "losers" in the runup to Congress' target of 35 billion gallons of biofuel by 2017 because, it forecasts, they'll pay $12 billion-plus a year more for food as corn prices rise to meet ethanol demand. The conclusions are far from universally accepted, but they have been picked up and promoted by anti-ethanol groups like the Coalition for Balanced Food & Fuel Policy, made up of the major beef, dairy, and poultry lobbies. Global Insight spokesman Jim Dorsey says the funding didn't influence the findings: "We don't have a dog in this hunt."
SEE:

Bio-Fuel B.S.

nd blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Saturday, January 18, 2020

To defuse palm row, Davos diplomacy likely between India, Malaysia


By Joseph Sipalan and Neha Dasgupta, Reuters•January 17, 2020


FILE PHOTO: A worker unloads palm oil fruits from a lorry inside a palm oil factory in Salak Tinggi, outside Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaMore

By Joseph Sipalan and Neha Dasgupta

KUALA LUMPUR/NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Trade ministers from India and Malaysia are likely to meet on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos next week amid a palm oil spat between the two countries, a Malaysian government spokesman told Reuters on Friday.

Hindu-majority India has repeatedly objected to Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad speaking out against its recent policies which critics say discriminate against Muslims.

Malaysia, a Muslim-majority nation, is the second biggest producer and exporter of palm oil and India's restrictions on the refined variety of the commodity imposed last week have been seen as a retaliation for Mahathir's criticism of New Delhi's actions.

India's trade minister Piyush Goyal denied on Thursday that the government was trying to hit out at Malaysia in particular.

The row between the countries, nevertheless, pushed benchmark Malaysian palm futures to its biggest weekly decline in more than 11 years on Friday.

No agenda has been set for the proposed meeting between Goyal and his Malaysian counterpart Darell Leiking on Friday, the spokesman for Malaysia's Ministry of International Trade and Industry said, adding that the request for a meeting had come from India.

An Indian government source said a meeting was indeed likely with Leiking. A spokeswoman for India's trade ministry did not respond to a request for comment.

Reuters reported on Thursday that Malaysia did not want to escalate the palm spat with India by talking of any retaliation for now, after Mahathir's media adviser called for tighter regulations on Indian expatriates and products. Malaysia instead wants to rely on diplomacy.

A separate Indian government source said it was important for New Delhi also to talk things out with Malaysia.

"We too have a lot to lose in Malaysia, there are 2 million Indian-origin people there," the source said.

There were a total of 117,733 Indian nationals registered as foreign labor in Malaysia as at June 2019, accounting for nearly 6% of the total foreign workforce in the country. Ethnic Malaysian-Indians are the third-largest community in the Southeast Asian country.

Another reason for frosty ties between the countries is the continued presence of controversial Indian Islamic preacher Zakir Naik in Malaysia, said one of the sources.

Naik, who faces charges of money laundering and hate speech in India, has lived in Malaysia for more than three years and has permanent residency in the country. He denies the Indian accusations.

The sources declined to be identified as they were not authorized to talk to the media.

(Reporting by Krishna N. Das, Joseph Sipalan in Kuala Lumpur and Neha Dasgupta in New Delhi, Editing by William Maclean and Muralikumar Anantharaman)

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Global Farmers Fight Back


My comrades who are Free Market Libertarians and mutualists who oppose capitalism in favour of a cooperative marketplace, will find much to praise in this new farmers movement. It poses a real alternative to capitalist globalization and corporatist free trade. None other than creation of a new movement for a cooperative commonwealth.

The latest attempt to destroy the Wheat Board in Canada is an example of the attack by the State on small farmers in favour of the Agribusiness cartels in the developed world. The Green Revolution, the push for GMO crops and patents on crops as well as using arable land for production for export; palm oil, are examples of non sustainable agribusiness versus the sustainable production of local farmers.

The recent Fraser Institute report by Preston Manning and Mike Harris calling for the end of supply management, the Wheat Board , and subsidies in the market place for farmers, does nothing but open up the farm marketplace to the agribusiness oligopolies. Ironic since Manning's daddy ran a party; Social Credit, made up of farmers that saw these same oligopolies as enemies of a producer run economy.


The fact is that the majority of farmers in the world are family farmers, not far removed from their peasant roots. It is the peasantry that provides the basis for the survival of the food economy. But with the advent of capitalist globalization the peasantry has become a new force in the world economy as Warren Bellow points out.

It is agricultural reform, the privatization of the inherent collectivism of peasant farming, the enclosure of common lands that led to the creation of capitalism in Britain. Forced off the land the peasants move to the cities to look for work becoming the proletariat.

But not all have done so, since it is the farmers who support the cities with their food production. And forced by globalization to collectivize farmers are reforming cooperatives to deal with the new demands of the marketplace.

Thai pig farmers protest at CPF headquarters

S. Korea may allow farmers to export locally grown rice: gov't source

Farmers Cooperative Extends Rollout Of SOA Tool

Connecting Coffee Growers and Drinkers

Cameroon: Coffee - Reasons Behind Poor Performance

Phoenixville Farmer's Market returns to town for sixth season

Innovations in rural financial system inPunjab


What began in England over 400 hundred years ago is now writ wide across the globe. It is not Free Trade nor Free Markets but the concentration of capital and its power to monopolize the market. It is the transformation of agriculture from sustainable economics to the economics of unrestrained growth. Thus the land, people and environment suffer as we see in Indonesia as the islands there burn for the sake of the agribusiness palm oil industry.

Whereas export crops like organic and fair trade coffee have become a basis for sustainable export farming, which can support sustainable agriculture as well as meet the farmers need to be part of a global market place.


Free Trade vs. Small Farmers

Walden Bello is Executive Director of Focus on the Global South, a Bangkok-based research and advocacy institute, and a Professor of Sociology at the University of the Philippines at Diliman.

The main battle cry of Via Campesina, whose coordinating center is located in Indonesia, is “WTO Out of Agriculture” and its alternative program is food sovereignty. Food sovereignty means first and foremost the immediate adoption of policies that favor small producers. This would include, according to Indonesian farmer Henry Saragih, Via's coordinator, and Ahmad Ya'kub, Deputy for Policy Studies of the Indonesian Peasant Union Federation (FSPI), “the protection of the domestic market from low-priced imports, remunerative prices for all farmers and fishers, abolition of all direct and indirect export subsidies, and the phasing out of domestic subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture.”

Via's program, however, goes beyond the adoption of pro-smallholder trade policies. It also calls for an end to the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights regime, which allows corporations to patent plant seeds, thus appropriating for private profit what has evolved through the creative interaction of the natural world with human communities over eons. Seeds and all other plant genetic resources should be considered part of the common heritage of humanity, the group believes, and not be subject to privatization.

Agrarian reform, long avoided by landed elites in countries like the Philippines, is a central element in Via's platform, as is sustainable, ecologically sensitive organic or biodynamic farming by small peasant producers. The organization has set itself apart from both the First Green Revolution based on chemical-intensive agriculture and the Second Green Revolution driven by genetic engineering (GE). The disastrous environmental side effects of the first are well known, says Via, which means all the more that the precautionary principle must be rigorously applied to the second, to avoid negative health and environmental outcomes.

The opposition to GE-based agriculture has created a powerful link between farmers and consumers who are angry at corporations for marketing genetically modified commodities without proper labeling, thus denying consumers a choice. In the European Union, a solid alliance of farmers, consumers, and environmentalists prevented the import of GE-modified products from the United States for several years. Although the EU has cautiously allowed in a few GE imports since 2004, 54% of European consumers continue to think GE food is ”dangerous.” Opposition to other harmful processes such as food irradiation has also contributed to the tightening of ties between farmers and consumers, large numbers of whom now think that public health and environmental impact should be more important determinants of consumer behavior than price.

More and more people are beginning to realize that local production and culinary traditions are intimately related, and that this relationship is threatened by corporate control of food production, processing, marketing, and consumption. This is why Jose Bove's justification for dismantling a MacDonald's resonated widely in Asia: “When we said we would protest by dismantling the half-built McDonald's in our town, everybody understood why -- the symbolism was so strong. It was for proper food against malbouffe [awful standardized food], agricultural workers against multinationals. The extreme right and other nationalists tried to make out it was anti-Americanism, but the vast majority knew it was no such thing. It was a protest against a form of production that wants to dominate the world.”

Many economists, technocrats, policymakers, and urban intellectuals have long viewed small farmers as a doomed class. Once regarded as passive objects to be manipulated by elites, they are now resisting the capitalist, socialist, and developmentalist paradigms that would consign them to ruin. They have become what Karl Marx described as a politically conscious “class-for-itself.” And even as peasants refuse to “go gently into that good night,” to borrow a line from Dylan Thomas, developments in the 21st century are revealing traditional pro-development visions to be deeply flawed. The escalating protests of peasant groups such as Via Campesina, are not a return to the past. As environmental crises multiply and the social dysfunctions of urban-industrial life pile up, the farmers' movement has relevance not only to peasants but to everyone who is threatened by the catastrophic consequences of obsolete modernist paradigms for organizing production, community, and life.

Farmers hungry for change


At this week's intergovernmental meeting in Rome to assess progress towards the pledge to halve hunger by 2015, the mood was sombre. Figures from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) show not a reduction but an increase of more than 25 million chronically undernourished people since 1996. The figure, now at more than 850 million, is testament to how current global policies are consigning the hungry to stay hungry.

So what is going wrong? In 2002, when the UN World Food Summit pledge was last reviewed, the parallel Forum for Food Sovereignty, organised by non-governmental groups representing small farmers and those who feel the sharp end of hunger directly, concluded that the problem was not a lack of political will, as the FAO asserted, but the opposite. Trade liberalisation, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering and military dominance, it said, were now the main causes of hunger.

The farmers, from 30 countries, who participated in the conference were eloquent about how farming for small producers is more than just a food production system. Edgar Gonzales Castro, from Peru, said his vision of the future was "traditional" agriculture aimed at satisfying the needs of farmers, rather than generating profit. "What matters is that, on the family plot of land, farmers and their families have a range of crops to fill the cooking pot," he said.

"When governments decide to hold public consultations to help guide their decisions, policy experts as well as representatives of large farmers and agrifood corporations are usually centre stage, not small-scale producers, consumers and their organisations," says Pimbert.

The message of the report is that small-scale farmers - the majority of growers in the world - want radically different policies from those being promoted by their governments. The call is for policies to start from the perspectives of food producers and consumers rather than the demand for profit.

If "one-planet farming" means that western governments will only support farming practices that provide healthy, local food, maintain livelihoods for local producers and conserve resilient landscapes, then there is common ground with small-scale farmers. But if it means a uniform system for all, this will accelerate the hunt to source food globally and as cheaply as possible.

This will result in a continuing decline in food quality, with ever higher social and environmental costs, and be lorded over by fewer and fewer transnational agribusinesses. It would lead both to greater obesity and greater starvation, and see the eradication of more farmers and further loss of farmland.

Farmers' Views on the Future of Food and Small Scale Producers is at http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14503IIED.pdf

Friends of African Farmers & Fishermen

Friends of African Farmers & Fishermen is a Non Profit local community organisation formed by local women and men who are farmers and fishermen. Due to increasing poverty in the area, the local people formed this organisation of Volunteers to help themselves. Due to lack of money and machinery for farming and fishing, wish to appeal for donations of Farm Machinery ie, tractors, irrigation equipment etc. Donations for our Agricultural and development projects in Volta Region of Ghana. To help women and children to have food to eat.Train the young women and youth to acquire the needed skills. To also help farmers with farming machinery and fishing equipment. This would generate income for the local people.Non Profit Organisation.

SEE:

Free Trade Not Aid

Free Trade and Africa

The War For Chocolate

IWD Economic Freedom for Women

Water War

Development Versus Population Growth


WTO: Privatization of Water

Is There a Silver Lining to the WTO Talks? No





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , ,, , ,

Friday, July 06, 2007

Bio-Fuel B.S.

Another excellent post on the real story behind bio-fuels.

Biofuels: The Five Myths of the Agro-fuels Transition

The agro-fuel transition closes a 200-year chapter in the relation between agriculture and industry that began with the Industrial Revolution. Then, the invention of the steam engine promised an end to drudgery. However, industry’s take-off lagged until governments privatized common lands, driving the poorest peasants out of agriculture and into urban factories. Peasant agriculture effectively subsidized industry with both cheap food and cheap labor. Over the next 100 years, as industry grew, so did the urban percentage of the world’s population: from 3% to 13%. Cheap oil and petroleum-based fertilizers opened up agriculture itself to industrial capital. Mechanization intensified production, keeping food prices low and industry booming. The next hundred years saw a three-fold global shift to urban living. Today, the world has as many people living in cities as in the countryside. [10] The massive transfer of wealth from agriculture to industry, the industrialization of agriculture, and the rural-urban shift are all part of the “Agrarian Transition,” the lesser-known twin of the Industrial Revolution. The Agrarian/Industrial twins transformed most of the world’s fuel and food systems and established non-renewable petroleum as the foundation of today’s multi-trillion dollar agri-foods complex.

The pillars of the agri-foods industry are the great grain corporations, e.g., ADM, Cargill and Bunge. They are surrounded by an equally formidable phalanx of food processors, distributors, and supermarket chains on one hand, and agro-chemical, seed, and machinery companies on the other. Together, these industries consume four of every five food dollars. For some time, the production side of the agri-foods complex has suffered from agricultural “involution” in which increasing rates of investment (chemical inputs, genetic engineering, and machinery) have not increased the rates of agricultural productivity—the agri-foods complex is paying more and reaping less.

Agro-fuels are the perfect answer to involution because they’re subsidized, grow as oil shrinks, and facilitate the concentration of market power in the hands of the most powerful players in the food and fuel industries. Like the original Agrarian Transition, the present Agro-fuels Transition will “enclose the commons” by industrializing the remaining forests and prairies of the world. It will drive the planet’s remaining smallholders, family farmers, and indigenous peoples to the cities. It will funnel rural resources to urban centers in the form of fuel, and will generate massive amounts of industrial wealth.

See

Real Costs of Bio-Fuels

Conrad Black and ADM

Bio Fuels = Eco Disaster

GMO News Roundup

Lost and Found

Boreno is Burning

Agribusiness

Desertification

BioFuel and The Wheat Board

The Ethanol Scam: ADM and Brian Mulroney

ADM

Wheat Board

Farmers



ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Primate Torture Ok


Once again academics expose themselves as apologists for torturing our relatives; primates. Report backs use of monkeys in research

"There is a scientific case for careful, meticulously regulated non-human primate research, at least for the foreseeable future, provided it is the only way of solving important scientific or medical questions," says inquiry chairman David Weatherall of the University of Oxford.

Hmm wonder what would happen if we replaced non-human primate with human in this statement.

"There is a scientific case for careful, meticulously regulated human research, at least for the foreseeable future, provided it is the only way of solving important scientific or medical questions,"

Yep seems justifiable to me to continue to experiment on humans, after all there are more of us than there are dwindling species of endangered primates. However despite the reports glossing over the issue of torture, its not like they are only experimenting on just a few of our cousins.

Who are imprisoned in cages for the rest of their short lives.


Captive rhesus macaques are not naturally aggressive, but poor husbandry and handling practices can trigger their aggression toward conspecifics and toward the human handler. The myth of the aggressive monkey probably is based on often not taking into account basic ethological principles when managing rhesus macaques in the research laboratory setting.

Macaca mulatta
is the most common nonhuman primate species found in biomedical research facilities in the United States. Of the 57,000 or so primates (United States Department of Agriculture, 2000), approximately 33,000 (58%) animals are rhesus macaques (National Center for Research Resources, 2002) of whom an estimated 16,500 (50%) are living in cages.

After all how many humans would not voluteer for this experiment. What You can learn from drunk monkeys

And it is going to be 'meticulously regulated' research so it should be non leathal and perfectly safe. Not.

Of course most of us would not volunteer to really be put in this monkeys place no matter how meticulous the regulations......



Monkeys Tortured with Shocks Humans Found Unbearable

In the 50's and 60's, much work on "pain centers" and "pleasure centers" in the brain was carried out at Yale by José Delgado, a picaresque neuropsychologist who would like to see "human society 'psychocivilized' through brain stimulation and other influencing techniques." (Lausch, E.,1972, p. 121). Some of his experiments involved electroshocking monkeys in brain areas known to produce intense pain. (Delgado, J.,1966).

An idea of the pain suffered by these monkeys may be obtained by comparison with experiments in which the same brain areas were stimulated in man by B. Nashold and other neurosurgeons. The surgeons implanted electrodes in patients in the course of operations and recorded the sensations reported by the latter during electrical stimulation. In the area of the central gray matter at the level of the superior colliculus in the midbrain, stimulation produced bodily sensations of pain, burning, vibration and cold. In addition, a patient would experience feelings which were "described as 'fearful,' 'frightful,' or 'terrible,' and he would become apprehensive and not allow further stimulations." (Nashold, B., 1969).

Delgado implanted an electrode in the same place (the central gray area near the superior colliculus) in the brain of a rhesus monkey named "Harry." First, with the monkey in restraint, 1.2 milliampere shocks were given. Harry tried to grab anything in reach, bit the chair after every shock, then, released into a small cage, bit the swing as the shocks continued, attacked other monkeys, and finally climbed the wall and clung there.

Although humans, once they had experienced it, could not stand a second stimulation in this brain area, Harry was subjected to 40 minutes of intermittent shocks and 2 minutes of continuous shocks. Other monkeys shocked in the same area responded with screams, grimaces and "signs of aggressiveness directed against the investigator." Through multiple electrodes implanted in their brains, Delgado tested various areas known to cause offensive-defensive reaction when stimulated, and over a period of two days he subjected the monkeys to more than 120 stimulations at each cerebral point, after which they were killed and autopsied.

Although he proposes a hypothesis that brain mechanisms for perception of pain and aggressive behavior have different anatomical and physiological systems, he admits that the evoked aggression was often secondary to electrical excitation of the pain pathways, and that the monkeys demonstrated this by their screams ("high-pitched vocalizations"), dilated pupils, snarling expressions and efforts to escape.


Delgado's experiments were then used on humans to change behaviour, including their use on depressed women and homosexuals. It was used to torture political prisoners under the care of the CIA and their client states in Latin America. Of course under 'meticulous regulations'.



See


Primates

Monkeys

Great Apes

Organutan



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,