Without Money Reform, Say Good Bye To The Planet

[Stars]

Actually I disagree. I'd say that it is a responsible thing to do.

If you don't buy the land then it will either go unused

because it couldn't be used by the previous owner or indeed anyone else?

or be used by some farmer relying on unsustainable oil based methods rather than used in a sustainable way.

Yeah, those b@stard farmers, producing food to feed all the people who clearly don't deserve food

Anything you do with the land is also going to be 'oil based'; unless you are going to simply sit on it as an 'investment' while wearing no clothes.

If you establish a small-holding, not only are you not competing for the remaining resources with everyone else from the city,

You have just taken a heap of resources into ownership - and yet you are not competing for resources?.. logic meltdown.

but you are actually providing more goods that people will need.After all, you always end up with more food than you want from a successful crop that can be traded for other goods from people without their own land.

You mean like the farmers?

There is little need to be productive though (unless you have to as a short term necessity) - simply wait for the price to go up due to other people's productive activity and you will gain without producing a thing...and that's what buying land is all about

[Guest Skinty]

Anything you do with the land is also going to be 'oil based'; unless you are going to simply sit on it as an 'investment' while wearing no clothes.

Not at all.

If you run a small-holding then you don't need to use artificial fertilisers. You can recycle your own poo instead of flushing it down the drain and into the sea and you can compost everything. You can also farm a small bit of land more intensively and sustainably if you are not doing it commercially. The cost comes in human labour. This would be too costly if you were to do it commerically as a farmer and had to pay staff, hence the reason why commercial farming uses modern and unsustainable oil-based methods.

And please leave the whole idea of speculation by leaving the land empty. No one is suggesting that, only you. If you continue to use this as a basis of your argument then your argument is a straw-man.

You have just taken a heap of resources into ownership - and yet you are not competing for resources?.. logic meltdown.

OK let's think of it this way. This discussion is assuming that oil is going to run out and that we are not going to replace it with an alternative form of cheap energy. if we are then the whole discussion is moot.

Now in this scenario, we are going to have millions of people not able to look after themselves and relying on the state to look after them because they have not taken steps to become self sufficient. This is a transition phase to a society where people and small communities are more self sufficient. What's the alternative?

We can each try to be as self sufficient as possible, or we can make ourselves a burden on the state and give it a bigger problem than it will already be facing during this transition phase. And as I said before, a small-holding benefits the local community by providing cheap and healthy produce and allows other people with other skills (such as plumbing) to live off those skills.

Small-holdings take years to establish and so it's better to encourage land-use in this way before it becomes an absolute necessity. In the above scenario of oil running out, your modern day farming methods will come to an end anyway and have to revert to small scale farming. It's better to start sooner rather than later.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Actually I disagree. I'd say that it is a responsible thing to do.

If you don't buy the land then it will either go unused or be used by some farmer relying on unsustainable oil based methods rather than used in a sustainable way.

If you establish a small-holding, not only are you not competing for the remaining resources with everyone else from the city, but you are actually providing more goods that people will need. After all, you always end up with more food than you want from a successful crop that can be traded for other goods from people without their own land.

We need more small-holdings, allotments and crofts and to a greater or lesser degree the governments know this. For example in Scotland, croft land and property is much cheaper to buy but has to be used for its intended purpose. And if it goes un-used then the Crofter's commission can insist that it is re-let.

http://www.solicitor...ls-crofting.asp

I completely agree Skinty.

We both know that low impact horticulture is vastly more efficient and productive than hydrocarbon based farming

I just enjoy winding stars up. Besides, I thought I might try on the other side's underhand debating style for size. It's a piece of cake really. Just take the piss and affect a "so what" attitude.

Although, I would say this. My view is the the sheer scale of the crisis that is heading humanity's way is such that all the small-scale, efficient, highly productive local farming in the world will not support our populations when the hydrocarbons are no longer available for mass consumption. Hopefully we are several decades of that point. For the time being and into the medium-term future, this final end-crisis of our civilisation will hopefully not be something that needs to be faced. It will have to be faced before my kids have run their race, though. My grandkids will surely be in the thick of it.

You do what you can. That's all you can do.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Harry Sacks]

Basically, energy is under priced. When the cost of energy rises to a point where it is no longer viable to move food long distances from large commercial producers, then, small scale, local production becomes viable.

At the moment, the idea of "growing a few veggies", keeping pigs or any other "River Cottage" pursuit is a monetary nonsense. The effort it takes to produce veg to supermarket standard is huge, it takes hours. If you spent the same time working for minimum wage you could buy enough veg for a year. The supermarkets throw away thousands of tonnes of the stuff.

However, a few days of restricted oil supply and the shelves will be empty!

I agree that buying land is speculation - no question. I speculate that its true value (in a non monetary sense) will be realised at some unknown time in my life or my children's, maybe grand children's.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Basically, energy is under priced. When the cost of energy rises to a point where it is no longer viable to move food long distances from large commercial producers, then, small scale, local production becomes viable.

At the moment, the idea of "growing a few veggies", keeping pigs or any other "River Cottage" pursuit is a monetary nonsense. The effort it takes to produce veg to supermarket standard is huge, it takes hours. If you spent the same time working for minimum wage you could buy enough veg for a year. The supermarkets throw away thousands of tonnes of the stuff.

However, a few days of restricted oil supply and the shelves will be empty!

I agree that buying land is speculation - no question. I speculate that its true value (in a non monetary sense) will be realised at some unknown time in my life or my children's, maybe grand children's.

yep

[Kurt Barlow]

I completely agree Skinty.

We both know that low impact horticulture is vastly more efficient and productive than hydrocarbon based farming

I just enjoy winding stars up. Besides, I thought I might try on the other side's underhand debating style for size. It's a piece of cake really. Just take the piss and affect a "so what" attitude.

Although, I would say this. My view is the the sheer scale of the crisis that is heading humanity's way is such that all the small-scale, efficient, highly productive local farming in the world will not support our populations when the hydrocarbons are no longer available for mass consumption. Hopefully we are several decades of that point. For the time being and into the medium-term future, this final end-crisis of our civilisation will hopefully not be something that needs to be faced. It will have to be faced before my kids have run their race, though. My grandkids will surely be in the thick of it.

You do what you can. That's all you can do.

I hope you are saving your urine for feriliser then - well if you are not using it as cheap de-icer

[Guest Steve Cook]

I hope you are saving your urine for feriliser then - well if you are not using it as cheap de-icer

It keep my compost heap nice and active Kurt......

[Authoritarian]

Basically, energy is under priced. When the cost of energy rises to a point where it is no longer viable to move food long distances from large commercial producers, then, small scale, local production becomes viable.

At the moment, the idea of "growing a few veggies", keeping pigs or any other "River Cottage" pursuit is a monetary nonsense. The effort it takes to produce veg to supermarket standard is huge, it takes hours. If you spent the same time working for minimum wage you could buy enough veg for a year. The supermarkets throw away thousands of tonnes of the stuff.

However, a few days of restricted oil supply and the shelves will be empty!

I agree that buying land is speculation - no question. I speculate that its true value (in a non monetary sense) will be realised at some unknown time in my life or my children's, maybe grand children's.

Energy isn't the only thing thats underpriced. All the essentials and quite a few luxuries too can be bought for peanuts in this country, yet I've never met anybody that produces this stuff. What I'm saying is that there are so many things that we take for granted that are being produced by people in dead end jobs, being paid crap money, but whos efforts make living in a modern Western economy worthwhile.

We don't value these people enough either, they're definately under priced and sooner or later they'll just throw in the towel.

Edited January 4, 2010 by chefdave

[Guest Steve Cook]

Energy isn't the only thing thats underpriced. All the essentials and quite a few luxuries too can be bought for peanuts in this country, yet I've never met anybody that produces this stuff. What I'm saying is that there are so many things that we take for granted that are being produced by people in dead end jobs, being paid crap money, but whos effots make living in a modern Western economy worthwhile.

We don't value these people enough either, they're definately under priced and sooner or later they'll just throw in the towel.

Cheap energy is the reason they are underpriced.

I'll give you an idea of the type of thing I mean

Before the invention of the internal combustion engine, farms were worked by horses. A tractor is worth many, many tens of horses in terms of the power it can produce. Although it took lots of energy to mine the raw materials and then process them into a tractor and then fuel and maintain the tractor thoughout its lifetime, as long as energy is cheap, the numbers add up. Thus, all farming is now done with tractors. However, as the price of energy rises, there will eventually come a point where using horses will once more make more economic sense for a farmer. It won't matter that a tractor can do the job twenty times faster if it energetically costs forty times as much. It wont even matter if, overall, as a consequence of having to set some land aside for the horse to live on, less land is available for human food production. If it makes more sense for the farmer, a horse is what he will use.

This is the fatal flaw in the arguments of people who think technology will save us from what is to come. Technology uses energy. Not the other way around.

Without continued access to truly massive amounts of incredibly cheap energy, much of the technology of the modern world makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The best we can hope to do over the coming crisis is to hold onto those technologies and discoveries that, whilst the luxury of their discovery was an artefact of the hydrocarbon age, their relatively low energy profiles means that we can carry them with us into the post-hydrocarbon world

Edited January 4, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Kurt Barlow]

Cheap energy is the reason they are underpriced.

I'll give you an idea of the type of thing I mean

Before the invention of the internal combustion engine, farms were worked by horses. A tractor is worth many, many tens of horses in terms of the power it can produce. Although it took lots of energy to mine the raw materials and then process them into a tractor and then fuel and maintain the tractor thoughout its lifetime, as long as energy is cheap, the numbers add up. Thus, all farming is now done with tractors. However, as the price of energy rises, there will eventually come a point where using horses will once more make more economic sense for a farmer. It won't matter that a tractor can do the job twenty times faster if it energetically costs forty times as much. It wont even matter if, overall, as a consequence of having to set some land aside for the horse to live on, less land is available for human food production. If it makes more sense for the farmer, a horse is what he will use.

This is the fatal flaw in the arguments of people who think technology will save us from what is to come. Technology uses energy. Not the other way around.

Without continued access to truly massive amounts of incredibly cheap energy, much of the technology of the modern world makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Have you thought how you will farm your 15 acres Steve?

Edit

Horses are not very energy efficient. A better alternative is to produce ammonia - ideally way of soaking up surplus wind production. ICE's can easily be converted to run on ammonia so no major technological barriers to cross. Likewise production of ammonia.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Kurt Barlow

[Authoritarian]

Cheap energy is the reason they are underpriced.

I'll give you an idea of the type of thing I mean

Before the invention of the internal combustion engine, farms were worked by horses. A tractor is worth many, many tens of horses in terms of the power it can produce. Although it took lots of energy to mine the raw materials and then process them into a tractor and then fuel and maintain the tractor thoughout its lifetime, as long as energy is cheap, the numbers add up. Thus, all farming is now done with tractors. However, as the price of energy rises, there will eventually come a point where using horses will once more make more economic sense for a farmer. It won't matter that a tractor can do the job twenty times faster if it energetically costs forty times as much.

This is the fatal flaw in the arguments of people who think technology will save us from what is to come. Technology uses energy. Not the other way around.

Without continued access to truly massive amounts of incredibly cheap energy, much of the technology of the modern world makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I agree, if all the cheap accessible energy gets used up then things will become more expensive if we fail to find alternatives, this is inevitable. What you're saying is both logical and straightforward, at some point all this stuff is going to get dug up and used and then they'll be nothing left.

Here's what might drive you crazy though, I don't think that it'll necessarily lead to the end of the world as we know it. The human is an inventing animal if nothing else, so there's always a chance that we'll get through it. If not, then there's nothing we can do anyway so we may as well use up those cheap hydrocarbons while they're there.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Have you thought how you will farm your 15 acres Steve?

I will probably plant much of it out with fruiting trees and naturally wild growing edible legumes. The rest will be planted out with timber and/or fuel grade forestry. For the moment, there is little to be gained from farming apart from helping to maintain one's sanity. For the moment, I intend to squeeze as much out of the old economy as is possoble while I still can. 10 years from now, I would hope to be in a position to be able to grow most of the food I would need.

Beyond the above I have to play it by ear. The timescale of the this long emergency is impossible to predict

Edited January 4, 2010 by Steve Cook

[wren]

And you need so many acres of land to feed the horses.

I believe oxen are easier to keep as they are easier to feed (less fussy, stronger digestive system).

[Kurt Barlow]

I will probably plant much of it out with fruiting trees and naturally growing edible legumes. The rest will be planted out with timber and/or fuel grade forestry. For the moment, there is little to be gained from farming apart from helping to maintain one's sanity. For the moment, I intend to squeeze as much out of the old economy as is possoble while I still can. 10 years from now, I would hope to be in a position to be able to grow most of the food I would need.

Beyond the above I have to play it by ear. The timescale of the this long emergency is impossible to predict

Sounds like a good plan.

Planting out with decent hardwood timber - oak, chestnut, ash will be an investment for the grandchildren. Perhaps plant some yew - it makes excellent bows and could be useful if TSHTF big time

Alders are nitrogen fixing although the firewood is pretty low quality.

Chestnuts good for timber and the nuts are highly calorific

Another thing worth thinking about is a lake - once you extablish carp they are pretty much self sustaining and a good source of protein and as important Omega 3 oils.

[Kurt Barlow]

And you need so many acres of land to feed the horses.

I believe oxen are easier to keep as they are easier to feed (less fussy, stronger digestive system).

Besides it would take centuries to breed up enough horses and Oxen to porovide enough motive power to farm the UK.

Horse or Ox power is a dead end.

[Guest Steve Cook]

I agree, if all the cheap accessible energy gets used up then things will become more expensive if we fail to find alternatives, this is inevitable. What you're saying is both logical and straightforward, at some point all this stuff is going to get dug up and used and then they'll be nothing left.

Here's what might drive you crazy though, I don't think that it'll necessarily lead to the end of the world as we know it. The human is an inventing animal if nothing else, so there's always a chance that we'll get through it. If not, then there's nothing we can do anyway so we may as well use up those cheap hydrocarbons while they're there.

Were it not for climatic issues, I would tend to agree with you on the matter of hydrocarbon consumption. I would argue that we have so painted ourselves into a corner in terms of our population explosion on the back of hydrocarbons that there is no easy climb down from this position and so it hardly matters now what saving we attempt to make. It's all too late for that. Whether our consumption of the remaining hydrocarbons pushes our climate over the edge before we have got through them remains to be seen. In terms of our effect on the climate, we are effectively pocking a very fickle beast with a very big stick.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Guest Steve Cook]

Besides it would take centuries to breed up enough horses and Oxen to porovide enough motive power to farm the UK.

Horse or Ox power is a dead end.

It depends what you mean by a dead-end Kurt. In terms of being used to provide farming produce that will feed our current poulations, they are of course a dead end. However, a farmer does not grow food to feed the world. He grows it to make money. If a particular farming technology makes the number add up for the farmer, then that is the technology he will use.

I am not saying here that the use of horses or oxen will necessarily make sense for a farmer at some point in the future Kurt. What I am saying, though, is whether they do or not will have nothing to do with the wider food supply implications.

[wren]

Besides it would take centuries to breed up enough horses and Oxen to porovide enough motive power to farm the UK.

Horse or Ox power is a dead end.

Well, a few decades.

Maybe you could harness up the pensioners and make use of them before they croak.

Chavs too.

[Kurt Barlow]

Well, a few decades.

Maybe you could harness up the pensioners and make use of them before they croak.

Chavs too.

Unlikely

The only suitable horses are shires / Suffolk Punches. Don't know the numbers but their cant be more than a few thousand in the Uk.

Horse gestation period is 11 months - 1 foal is normal.

Oxen - well bog standard Freisans will be no good. Gestation period 9-10 months for cattle. 1-2 calves

Plus training Animals as well as drivers

Timescale is centuries

[Authoritarian]

Were it not for climatic issues, I would tend to agree with you on the matter of hydrocarbon consumption. I would argue that we have so painted ourselves into a corner in terms of our population explosion on the back of hydrocarbons that there is no easy climb down from this position. Whether our consumption of the remaining hydrocarbons pushes our climate over the edge before we have got through them remains to be seen. In terms of our effect on the climate, we are effectively pocking a very fickle beast with a very big stick.

It terms of climate change I think that its a gamble. Can humans alter the natural course of the earths climate? Absolutely, but even without a human presence the earths climate would still be subject to violent changes because the climatic equation is so complex and nature is unforgiving.

I think its worth pushing progress as far as it will and put aside climate concerns because the alternative is certain failure. If the species is to survive we're going to have to get off of this rock at some point, and that means putting the human race over worries of the impact of Co2 emissions.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Unlikely

The only suitable horses are shires / Suffolk Punches. Don't know the numbers but their cant be more than a few thousand in the Uk.

Horse gestation period is 11 months - 1 foal is normal.

Oxen - well bog standard Freisans will be no good. Gestation period 9-10 months for cattle. 1-2 calves

Plus training Animals as well as drivers

Timescale is centuries

You are talking about the "greater good" here Kurt. This doesn't necessarily mean that, very early on, it doesn't make more economic sense for the farmer.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Guest Steve Cook]

It terms of climate change I think that its a gamble. Can humans alter the natural course of the earths climate? Absolutely, but even without a human presence the earths climate would still be subject to violent changes because the climatic equation is so complex and nature is unforgiving.

I think its worth pushing progress as far as it will and put aside climate concerns because the alternative is certain failure. If the species is to survive we're going to have to get off of this rock at some point, and that means putting the human race over worries of the impact of Co2 emissions.

Time will tell I guess

[Kurt Barlow]

It depends what you mean by a dead-end Kurt. In terms of being used to provide farming produce that will feed our current poulations, they are of course a dead end. However, a farmer does not grow food to feed the world. He grows it to make money. If a particular farming technology makes the number add up for the farmer, then that is the technology he will use.

I am not saying here that the use of horses or oxen will necessarily make sense for a farmer at some point in the future Kurt. What I am saying, though, is whether they do or not will have nothing to do with the wider food supply implications.

I am fairly convinced that the most practical fuel source for agricultural vehicles is ammonia. It is not as energy dense but can be used in ICE's with only minor modifications

A 3 MW wind turbine in a reasonable location generates enough power to synthesis about 330,000 litres of diesel equivalent.

A wind turbine only takes up a very small patch of land relative to its power output. The process of producing ammonia lends itself very well to intermittant wind power,

Electrolysis of water

Compression and refrigeration of air

Fractional distillation of air

catalysing into ammonia

Its quite feasible that a 30MW wind farm in a rural area could directly power an ammonia plant producing 3-4 million litres of diesel equivalent.

[Kurt Barlow]

You are talking about the "greater good" here Kurt. This doesn't necessarily mean that, very early on, it doesn't make more economic sense for the farmer.

For farming 15 mixed acres a horse maybe ideal.

Out here in windy Cambridge to maintain large scale agriculture the ammonia plan would be far more practical as the fuel can run all the vehicles we currently use albeit with more frequent stops for refuelling.

[Guest Steve Cook]

For farming 15 mixed acres a horse maybe ideal.

Out here in windy Cambridge to maintain large scale agriculture the ammonia plan would be far more practical as the fuel can run all the vehicles we currently use albeit with more frequent stops for refuelling.

I wouldn't think (or hope) that things will get sufficiently bad sufficienbtly quickly that the use of horses will come back to profitability in my lifetime kurt