Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I hardly think it's "ego-centered" to focus on what's sustainable locally. I'm always a bit sceptical when people start talking in globals and absolutes.

True, some things need global solutions. But there's a Messianic sub-text that all too often creeps in when there's talk of how everyone, everywhere must act in this or that prescribed way and none other, or it's a one way ticket to the lake of fire, that makes me break out in hives.

From my point of view, one should focus on sustainable solutions at a local level first and foremost, as solutions that fit the bill one place might not in others. If that's "ego-centered", then I can live with that.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Alexander G Rubio (alexander.rubio@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 25th, 2006 at 10:44:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The sustainable solution you initially mentioned was happenstance population decline, and there was something about that that made me think of a smoker lighting a cigarette in a tiny, cramped room full of non-smokers, thus my reaction and eventually the ego-centered comment, sorry if this was a bit overblown.

For the rest, there is nothing particularly messianic about mentioning that current meat outputs are unsustainable. Me arguing that people should eat less meat may be messianic in tone, but the content behind the tone is factual. Maybe you are a little bit eager to see something messianic about the content itself because you feel an urge to be in disagreement with vegetarians (just a suggestion).

Factual dare I say? Well, let's look at this for a second. The first graph in my diary, representing necessary land surface vs percentage of meat consumption in Germany, shows two lines, one with an all-organic production (the dotted line), the other with regular industry-type production. You will have noticed that the all-organic solution requires as much surface land as is used today (18 million hectares) only if meat consumption is reduced by 39 to 23%. Per german person.

Now, since oil-base fertilizers are due to disappear together with oil, organic is soon going to be the only way to grow food, right?

And, Germany is due to lose 4 million (83 to 79) of its population by 2050, according to a recent study by the European Commission which we talked about here on ET.

So, if it's safe to say that by 2050 oil-based fertilizers will be all but gone, then can we expect that a 16% drop in meat consumption for a 4% population drop simply means that Germans will just have to eat less meat?

Germans could always use more arable land to maintain their meat consumption level, but deforestation and more land use defeats the purpose, particularly if more land will already be required to grow biofuels and such things that lack of oil will have made more important.

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:05:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree with you in general, but it's silly to talk about "deforestation" in Europe considering that forests occupy 40% more land than a century ago in Europe (and that trend is true pretty much everywhere).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 10:47:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutely. The deforestation is happening in Brazil, not in Europe.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 10:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And Thailand
by Fran on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 11:05:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mostly to grow soy beans to feed cattle.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 11:06:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's true that today's deforestation is happening mainly in Brazil (38% of Amazonian mass since 1960), but where would we find the additional 10-11% of German land (visually according to graph at top of page) required to maintain current meat consumption levels when oil-fertilizers will have disappeared and organic crops will be the norm? We'll have to use part of the 30% of land area occupied by forests in Germany, that's for sure.

And though those 30% of forest are more than what they were a century ago, a century ago they acted as carbon sinks for a world which didn't have the same level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Thus, since today's carbon schema is different, it's today's surface that we should use to measure carbon sink losses, not 1900's, don't you agree?

Also, you must be careful about what is called forest cover these days. Semi-urban areas can be considered as part of forests, depending on the tree implantation and model used.

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 11:08:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Semi-urban areas can be rich environmentally. I saw a story somewhere around that bees are much better off in suburbia because there's less pesticides than in the country side.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 11:10:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting point, but nevertheless you can't grow much crop in semi-urban areas, can you? Then again, maybe you can. Sorry I'm just tying this to my comment above, but your comment is really not about that, so let's just say I'm talking aloud to myself :)
by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 11:16:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's a thriving cottage industry around urban agriculture. Makes for a good diary topic, too.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 11:29:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Psst!!! you saw it on the European Breakfast. :-)
by Fran on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 11:24:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I just couldn't remember. Silly me.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 11:24:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wasn't arguing in favour of current meat consumption levels, I agree with you on that. But the deforestation argument doesn't really hold for Europe. It does at a global level. I'm dead against Brazil being encouraged (by the Doha Round at the WTO, for example) to go on slashing and burning virgin forest to grow soybeans for cattle feed. (It isn't even going to do anything to help feed Brazil's poor).
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 11:42:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But the deforestation argument doesn't really hold for Europe.

Ok, the thing is Jérôme replied to my comment on Germany in an all-organic world at current consumption levels, in which case it's unambiguous that deforestation would be necessary. So this is what I repeated.

But overall, you're right, deforestation in Europe doesn't hold. Then again, this all depends on what's been going on over the past century.

Meat production has gone up, crop production has gone up, housings have multiplied (the population has gone up), yet the forest surface has also gone up ... how did we pull this off in Europe?

Well naturally because progresses have been made in production levels, mainly through the use of better (stronger) fertilizers. Thus I don't think it's fair to say that deforestation is not an issue in Europe. It simply may not have been an issue so far because of the humongous progresses made since WWII in the oil-fertilizer department. Take that away (soon ...) and bam, we'll be just like third-world countries (which à priori do not use/afford as much fertilizer as we do) ...

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Besides, by the late 19th century European forests were in a sorry state, what with the industrial age and all ... so rebuilding a forest that's in a poor state (nota bene: that has not been converted to arable land, but that has only been logged for wood) is bound to increase forest surface areas over a century. What's important is what happens from now on ...
by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Spain cut down most of its trees to build ships. Britain cut down its entire stock of yew to make longbows. Deforestation in Europe by and large took place before the industrial revolution, which was fueled by coal and iron, not wood. So I don't know what a fair point of comparison would be, really. But it is clear why the lop point of deforestation should have happened in the 1800's (with cross-country variations of a few couple of decades).

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:16:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Coal and iron, but then what about charcoal? I'm sure you're totally right about pre-industrial age deforestation, but I still think that the industrial age was particularly nasty to our forests.
by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What about charcoal? Please enlighten me.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wasn't charcoal still used as a cheaper energy source than coal back then?

Anyhow about the industrial age, I found this on the CIDA forestry advisers network website:

Meanwhile, back in Europe, the arrival of the Industrial Revolution put tremendous pressure on the remaining forests to supply fuel for the smelters and foundries of the new industries. Before the end of the 19th century, most of the Europe's ancient forests were only distant memories.
by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:47:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia: Charcoal
Historically the massive production of charcoal (at its height employing hundreds of thousands, mainly in Alpine and neighbouring forrests) has been a major cause of deforestation, especially in Central Europe, but to a lesser extent even before, as in Stuart England. The increasing scarcity of easily harvested wood was a major factor for the switch to the fossil equivalents, mainly coal and brown coal for industrial use.
This is terrible: the switch to coal happened because we run out of wood...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ahh I thought coal was more efficient, which is why the main industries shifted to it. But this would also have meant that charcoal would have been used by all the poorer folk/industries, given the expenses surrounding coal extraction (as opposed to the easy way of producing charcoal).

But this bit you cite from Wikipedia clearly tells me that I was way off!!

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
After you take into account the cost of extraction, I wonder whether coal is really more efficient than charcoal.

It's like oil: at some point before it's totally depleted it will take more oil to power the extracion operations than is produced. At that point, oil ceases to be an energy source and becomes an expensive input to the chemical industry.

Remember the plan to build a nuclear power plant in order to get oil out of the Canadian oil sands?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:57:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't have hard data on this, but I think mountainous regions have been reforested after being abandoned by small peasant farmers. You know, mowers used to tie themselves to a stake on steep slopes so as to be able to lean back on the rope and be at the proper angle to use the scythe. That is a world that disappeared, true, partly with the advent of increasingly industrial farming. We will probably only go back to working such areas in the event of catastrophic environmental/ecomonomic collapse (which is possible). But, in that case, even the big meat-eaters will be forced to reduce their intake... (Let the happy hunter-gatherers get out there and try and catch a wild rabbit with their bare hands ;))

Don't think I don't agree with you that we produce and consume meat at unsustainable levels, I do. I'm just chipping at some of your arguments I find a bit wilder than others.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm just chipping at some of your arguments I find a bit wilder than others

This will be my demise, argh.

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 12:30:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well i'm reclaiming my 5 acre farm fro the creeping reforeststion that is happening to fields all over the area, as the meadows and spaces that humans cleared by hand over the centuries have been abandoned in the exodus to the cities.

the richer bottom lands are still treeless, whipped by chemicals into growing tobacco, but many of the hill farms are reverting fast.

when i saw de lang on tv overlooking france from a helicopter, saying that if it were not for the cap, all the farmland would be swallowed by woods quite quickly.

i have mixed feelings about this, as i imagine the woods would be cut pretty swiftly and unsustainably if heating prices continue to rise exponentially, and the wildlife is very sparse now, due to overhunting and chemicals in the ecosystem.

more woods would be good for them.

italy does have a very keen forest police -forestale- who do nothing but patrol looking for illegal cutting, issue permits for tree cutting -3 months to have permission to cut one tree to make a driveway.

but when you consider it took 2 years to have a landline connected, and i am less that 2k from the nearest phone, this may be proto-italian, in its glacial slowness.

i must say that the woods are healthy, and there are lots around me, providing sustainable work for families here.

you NEVER see the kind of nightmare clearcuts like some places; there are strict rules as to how many years between cutting, and how many trees must be left uncut, to minimise runoff and erosion.

i hear if you run into a tree in your car, the fine for killing the tree can be very steep, though this may be urban legend.

as fuel prices rise, i expect more will be done by hand, providing more jobs and more incentive not to damage the national patrimony....colour me optimistic on this perhaps!

maybe someone will come up with a solar panel-powered laser chainsaw, lol.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 01:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So, how much charcoal could be sustainably harvested from the average forest? And how much food grown organically fron the same land area? (clearly not both at the same time)

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 01:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series