Perhaps instead you were considering an effective decrease in EU independence on raising its own food, or the decrease of number of jobs in agriculture, or a decrease in the culture of cooking. After all, cooking is a traditional thing; where we live each family keeps a record of antique recipes (unless they have become culturally uprooted, live in suburbia and eat fast food and deserve to be ironically hinted for their ignorance at every occasion - after all this is a war).
I felt very distressed when you said that numbers don't matter. Of course, you must have been fighting their numbers with your numbers a large portion of your adult life, and certainly nearly almost every day here at ET. By the n-th time, my conclusion - reflecting as i write - is that the fight against the contemporary exploration of man, by reducing its autonomy, moving him away of its environment, virtualisation of its experience, and de-localising its activities [1] - requires to use the simplest numbers. But What May Those Numbers Be About?
Scarcity evaluation, which you used, is a nice solution. What do we have that is more scarce? Time (fractions of the 24-hour cycle)? How much hours per day take to properly educate a child for him to develop an adequate social network which allows exchange (multiplication) of knowledge? Just thinking.
an increase in the imports of food?
I'm saying that, if we pursue the 10% biofuels target, we must either increase our imports of food, or import biofuels.
you were considering an effective decrease in EU independence on raising its own food, or the decrease of number of jobs in agriculture, or a decrease in the culture of cooking.
Not me, never! I am staunchly in favour of food self-sufficiency coupled with respect for good nutrition, high quality, culinary traditions, flavour: Europe, damn it!!!
I felt very distressed when you said that numbers don't matter.
That was a rhetorical flourish. I thought I was arguing against Luis (when I wasn't, duh). So I said that to underline the nitty-gritty aspects of real land use. I do think numbers matter. I also put quite a few in my diary.
How much hours per day take to properly educate a child for him to develop an adequate social network which allows exchange (multiplication) of knowledge?
And to become an autonomous, critically aware individual? Now that's a huge question and one that matters more than biofuels. It's the most important time we can spend, out of our time that is farmed and mined, because it's perhaps the most important thing we can leave behind us.
an increase in the imports of food? I'm saying that, if we pursue the 10% biofuels target, we must either increase our imports of food, or import biofuels.
Is the Danube being fully explored?
Also notice that in Europe transportation of cargo by train is smaller than in the US; much more is done by road. In fact, i think it was Matthew Simmons who pointed out that turned Europe as vulnerable to peak oil as much as the US. A correction is probably not simple. Requires coordination of policies and some scheduling technology. Is there political will for the first? It is perhaps a question of showing how big can be the benefits.
Re whether Europe or the U.S. is more vulnerable to a liquid energy supply shortage, one thing to keep in mind is the "hardening of demand" effect that goes along with conservation. Since we waste so much over here, we could implement a substantial degree of conservation with relatively small economic effect. But if you're already taking a bus, or carpooling in a small diesel car, or riding a bike or walking to work, how do you further reduce your personal need for fuel?
The impact on society of a step towards yet greater industrialisation of farm land use (biofuels, GMOs) is an important subject I'll try to come back to another time.
