The U.N. and “Livestock’s Long Shadow” – July 8, 2011 by ppjg – Debbie Coffey
“By restricting access to grazing land, for example, land and related feed resources become relatively scarce, so technical change will move towards making more efficient use of these resources …”
The same applies to all other natural resources that feed into the livestock production process, such as water or nutrients.”
In 2006, the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Livestock Environment and Development (LEAD), supported by US AID and the World Bank, put out a 416 page report titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” Statements made in this document should make American ranchers and farmers look for the United Nation’s long shadow over their land and water.
We’ll start off with some points the FAO made in the report, then some of their solutions (which, by the way, seem a lot like communism). Then I’ll tell you why I think this report is, pardon the pun, bullshit.
THIS FAO REPORT STATES:
“The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.
The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.”
“The environmental impact per unit of livestock production must be cut by half, just to avoid increasing the level of damage beyond its present level.”
LAND DEGRADATION – “The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. The total area occupied by grazing is equivalent to 26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. In addition, the total area dedicated to feedcrop production amounts to 33 percent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of the planet.”
ATMOSPHERE and CLIMATE – “With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race. The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent.”
WATER – “The world is moving towards increasing problems of freshwater shortage, scarcity and Depletion…The livetock sector is a key player in increasing water use, accounting for over 8 percent of global human water use, mostly for the irrigation of feedcrops…in the United States, with the world’s fourth largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibioticuse, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater resources. Livestock also affect the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil, reducing infiltration degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables. Livestock’s contribution to deforestation also increases runoff and reduces dry season flows.”
BIODIVERSITY – “Livestock now account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the 30 percent of the earth’s land surface that they now pre-empt was once habitat for wildlife. Indeed, the livestock sector may well be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity, since it is the major driver of deforestation, as well as one of the leading drivers of land degradation, pollution, climate change, overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and facilitation of invasions by alien species.”
“…livestock actually detract more from total food supply than they provide. Livestock now consume more human edible protein than they produce. In fact, livestock consume 77 million tonnes of protein contained in feedstuff that could potentially be used for human nutrition…”
THE SOLUTIONS THAT FAO SUGGESTS:
“Many producers will need to find alternative livelihoods.”
“Small family-based livestock producers will find it increasingly difficult to stay in the market, unless effective organizational arrangements, such as contract farming or cooperatives, can be designed and used… the loss of competitiveness requires policy interventions, not necessarily to maintain smallholder involvement in agriculture, but to provide opportunities for finding livelihoods outside the agricultural sector and to enable an orderly transition.”
“By restricting access to grazing land, for example, land and related feed resources become relatively scarce, so technical change will move towards making more efficient use of these resources…The same applies to all other natural resources that feed into the livestock production process, such as water or nutrients. Likewise, new costs associated with… livestock production, such as emissions of ammonia or other forms of waste, will lead to increased efforts towards their avoidance.”
“Most frequently natural resources are free or underpriced, which leads to overexploitation and pollution. Often perverse subsidies directly encourage livestock producers to engage in environmentally damaging activities… One requirement for prices to influence behaviour is that there should be secure and if possible tradable rights to water, land, use of common land and waste sinks.”
“Public policies need to protect and enhance public goods, including the environment. The rationale for public policy intervention is based on the concept of market failures. These arise because many local and global ecosystems are public goods or “commons,” and the negative environmental impacts that livestock have on them are “externalities” that arise because individual economic decisions usually consider only private individual costs and benefits.”
“Achieving greater efficiency in irrigation in the broader sense may mean giving up water to other sectors where it has higher value uses, even if sometimes that implies reducing the value of agricultural output.”
“…the removal of subsidies has been shown to have a strong potential to correct some of the environmental damage caused by livestock production.”
WHY FAO’S REPORT IS BULLSHIT:
The United Nation’s FAO, along with its CODEX ALIMENTARIUS, has been PUSHING ANIMAL CLONING FOR YEARS. So this issue isn’t about too many animals on the earth, or the environment, or feeding the hungry – it’s most likely about who owns the patents for the cloned animals and biotechnology, and who will own and control all food (and people, land and resources) in the future.
FAO issued a statement about cloned animals:
“The statement was published in March 2000 on the occasion of the ‘Codex Alimentarius Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology’ meeting in Japan.
Biotechnology provides powerful tools for the sustainable development of agriculture…When appropriately integrated with other technologies for the production of food, agricultural products and services, biotechnology can be of significant assistance in meeting the needs of an expanding and increasingly urbanized population in the next millennium.”
(Apparently, this urbanized population would be increased after they run small farmers and ranchers off their land and force them to find “alternative livelihoods.”)
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – INTERNATIONAL OVERVIEW
On the U.S.D.A website, there is a page with an “International Overview” stating “All of agriculture has become global. For example, the success of the U.S. farm sector is increasingly dependent on our ability to trade and compete with other nations. Similarly, the science of agriculture depends on international research partnerships to address national issues of food safety, sustainability, resource management, biotechnology, and crop and livestock disease prevention.
In 2007, the U.S.D.A. signed an agreement with the FAO to support the development of sustainable agriculture (agricultural biotechnology) in developing countries.
U.S.D.A.’s CSREES has been actively promoting animal cloning and biotechnology. (It’s ironic that the U.S.D.A. also has the National Invasive Species Information Center.)
In a U.S.D.A. Foreign Agricultural Service document, Framework Agreement on Increased Cooperation between U.S.D.A. and the FAO, the U.S.D.A. was to agree to “further USDA’s goal of cooperating with international agricultural organizations in activities that promote and further develop the global agricultural system. USDA will provide funds and resources to support FAO projects that advance that goal, that advance FAO’s work towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in developing countries, and that contribute to the realization of FAO’s programme of work/mid-term strategy as approved by FAO’s Governing Bodies.”
U.S.D.A. was also to agree that “No member of the United States Congress will be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or any subsequent Programme Agreement, or to any benefit arising thereof.”
What about the U.S. Constitution? What about the American taxpayers, who pay for FAO’s projects while we have cuts to our Social Security?
The U.N.’s Agenda 21 (Chapter 38) states: “All agencies of the United Nations system have a key role to play in the implementation of Agenda 21.” Is the FAO, with the help of the U.S.D.A., implementing Agenda 21 in America?
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I’ve been going to the roundups of our wild horses (the Bureau of Land Management is removing the wild horses from their federally protected Herd Management Areas, then leasing the same land for $2 an acre for oil and gas lease sales, or permitting new mining and mining expansions to foreign owned companies). Some ranchers think these wild horse roundups will help them gain more grazing for their livestock. I think the wild horses are the canary in the coal mine. Ranchers, your cattle and sheep will be next. As go these American icons that stand as symbols of our freedom, so goes our freedom.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
How about this Americans, for a way out of the b.s. that is urban life now. Try a MASSIVE ‘Cattle Drive Trail (Highway)’ winding through the entire USA several time. Look at any herdsmen in the ‘3rd World’. They do not have issues with lack of food though living in tents and being constantly on the move . . . in fact pay the herdsmen in meat and perhaps land for subsistence farming – how about 1 acre for every 5 years of herding work (lots of younger men would be self sufficient in as soon as 5 years instead of having 100,000s in debt on compound interest – no education but subsistence farming is far better than being hoodlums and gang bangers etc.) and animal husbandry work including food and board sound fair? Better than the homeless food stamp culture dotted with criminals and prison culture paid for by the tax payer. Look at Libya’s Green Mountain Project, plenty of young people who do not need any education or education debt to be part of that and to at least be able to grow their own food. It’s just that simple.
The grazing being of limited periods will not hurt the environment then the entire herding group moves on to return in a few years when the foliage would have regrown. Cattle remain healthy, lots of REAL high paying jobs as Cowboys, so those on cattle drives probably only will need to work 3 months a year. Much better than being a bean counter, pen pusher or paper shuffler or ‘programmer’ producing nothing in the real world right? The same way Facebook and Internet is just electricity without any place in reality compared to REAL work as suggested above . . .
Best of all the men will be Marlboro healthy (oxymoron?), the cattle will be free range (happy), and the environment and wanderlust of both man and beast will be met, farms along the trails from state sequestered lands along the same trail to be distributed to the poor or homeless to subsist on at least. Try the below pic for an idea :
Welcome back to the frontier? Welcome back the frontier. At the same time, do read the below and understand that the Red Race of Men must have their rightful place as the representatives of the Americas with all non-colonial (who conned lands rather than shared the land from NAs) or non-pro-slavery (in the past) people of the White Race of Man as welcome guests and citizens under their laws.
USA is a rich nation, but stop sequestering the land which can be cultivated and used for ranching and framing, and create REAL jobs. Internet is rubbish once this system is up. And dot the land with 1000s of farms along the way, pay wages by the day, pay wages in food? USA needs to grow more food not produce more paper shuffling or computer obsessed jobs.
Does Michelle Obama Know About This?
Thursday, July 7th, 2011
Oak Park, Michigan:
Their front yard was torn up after replacing a sewer line, so instead of replacing the dirt with grass, one Oak Park woman put in a vegetable garden and now the city is seeing green.
The list goes on: fresh basil, cabbage, carrots, tomatoes, cumbers and more all filling five large planter boxes that fill the Bass family’s front yard.
Julie Bass says, “We thought we’re minding our own business, doing something not ostentatious and certainly not obnoxious or nothing that is a blight on the neighborhood, so we didn’t think people would care very much.”
But some cared very much and called the city. The city then sent out code enforcement.
“They warned us at first that we had to move the vegetables from the front, that no vegetables were allowed in the front yard. We didn’t move them because we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong, even according to city code we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong. So they ticketed us and charged me with a misdemeanor,” Bass said . . .
City code says that all unpaved portions of the site shall be planted with grass or ground cover or shrubbery or other suitable live plant material. Tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers are what Basses see as suitable.
However, Oak Park’s Planning and Technology Director Kevin Rulkowski says the city disagrees. He says, “If you look at the dictionary, suitable means common. You can look all throughout the city and you’ll never find another vegetable garden that consumes the entire front yard.”
So what is suitable? From another local news report:
. . . we asked Rulkowski why it’s not suitable.
“If you look at the definition of what suitable is in Webster’s dictionary, it will say common. So, if you look around and you look in any other community, what’s common to a front yard is a nice, grass yard with beautiful trees and bushes and flowers,” he said.
God forbid your yard doesn’t include beautiful trees, bushes and flowers. It’s your job, Oak Park citizens, to give Kevin Rulkowski pretty things to look at. According to Bass’s blog, she’s demanding her right to a jury trial. So the city plans to throw the book at her.
our attorney spoke to the prosecutor today. (for the record, my crush on him is totally finished after today.)
his position: they are going to take this all the way.
officially, this means i am facing 93 days in jail if they win.
| peoplerrrstupid | July 8th, 2011 at 8:30 am
What a stupid, clueless f. ing city worker. THIS is what’s wrong with our country.
Come tell me what I can plant in my yard, and I’ll politely show you the quickest way to get the eff off property.
A) I applaud the woman for demanding her right to a jury trial.
B) the prosecutor’s office should be ashamed of itself.
C) The city planning guy should to, but he’s obviously too stupid.
D) I hope some nice lawyer will donate his/her services to this woman and offer to counter-sue the city for their malicious attack on common sense.
my letter to mayor:
After reading an article about your city and your prosecution of a woman for growing vegetables in her front yard, I am shocked and embarassed that this can happen in America. With all of the green initiatives that municipalities are pushing these days, this woman should be held as a model. Furthermore, your staff is an embarassment, especially with his statements that “suitable” means “common” according to his dictionary. He must have a completely different dictionary than the rest of America. As a matter of fact, the vegetable garden meets the very definition of the word in so many ways.
As a suburb of Detroit, I would think that there are more serious issues facing your community than whether or not a woman grows a vegetable garden in her front yard. With today’s budget issues, I am not sure why you are employing a staff that has nothing better to do. Its a waste of tax payers money, its bureaucracy run amock…you work for your citizens, not the other way around. Not that you guys are alone with that issue. Get rid of these wastes of space and possibly hire more police officers, or for heavens sake possibly stick the money in the bank. Now there is a novel concept for government.
As a citizen, I can tell you that I would respect and vote for a mayor who came out opposed to such ridiculousness and guided his overzealous desk jockeys back on task.
Please step back away from your ordinances and your red tape and your career municipal officials and just look at this issue and how ridiculous it is.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
I’m beginning to hate USA when I read articles like this. Where are the Hell’s Angels or Black Spades or even the Woodstock citizens of USA? Whats going on with you guys in ‘the West’? Run for candidacy and don’t let up fighting against such abusers and bullies. Sue the police department and Oak Park’s Planning and Technology Director! Can’t grow veggies?!? Whats wrong with them? This is psychological warfare, identify people who act like that and vote them to hell ! Oh heres an example of the same kind of behaviour in Malaysia too. See the link below :
I suggest Julie Bass go to Amnesty International and file for refugee status to see which country would allow her to migrate for being persecuted andf threatened with a jail term. Anyone from UNHCR want to contact Julie Bass? I think she needs help and that Oak Park needs to be sued for something related to Human Rights.