Author Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)  (Read 368460 times)

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,618
Pretty sobering reading in the NYmag from David Wallace-Wells: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Offline Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,800
  • Trada
The biggest ever iceberg recorded has broken free from the Arctic 4 times the size of London and weighing over a Trillion tonnes.

I guess that will take years to melt and I wonder how far it will drift. 
Don't blame me I voted for Jeremy Corbyn!!

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.

Offline Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,800
  • Trada
 All hell breaks loose as the tundra thaws

A recent heatwave in Siberia’s frozen wastes has resulted in outbreaks of deadly anthrax and a series of violent explosions

Strange things have been happening in the frozen tundra of northern Siberia. Last August a boy died of anthrax in the remote Yamal Peninsula, and 20 other infected people were treated and survived. Anthrax hadn’t been seen in the region for 75 years, and it’s thought the recent outbreak followed an intense heatwave in Siberia, temperatures reaching over 30C that melted the frozen permafrost.

Long dormant spores of the highly infectious anthrax bacteria frozen in the carcass of an infected reindeer rejuvenated themselves and infected herds of reindeer and eventually local people.

More recently, a huge explosion was heard in June in the Yamal Peninsula. Reindeer herders camped nearby saw flames shooting up with pillars of smoke and found a large crater left in the ground. Melting permafrost was again suspected, thawing out dead vegetation and erupting in a blowout of highly flammable methane gas.

Over the past three years, 14 other giant craters have been found in the region, some of them truly massive – the first one discovered was around 50m (160ft) wide and about 70m (230ft) deep, with steep sides and debris spread all around.

There have also been cases of the ground trembling in Siberia as bubbles of methane trapped below the surface set the ground wobbling like an airbed. Even more dramatic, setting fire to methane released from frozen lakes in both Siberia and Alaska causes some impressive flames to erupt.

Methane is of huge concern. It is more than 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and a massive release of methane in the Arctic could pose a significant threat to the global climate, driving worldwide temperatures even higher.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/20/hell-breaks-loose-tundra-thaws-weatherwatch?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

« Last Edit: July 22, 2017, 05:50:39 pm by Trada »
Don't blame me I voted for Jeremy Corbyn!!

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.

Offline Sudden Death Draft Loser

  • old and annoying
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,483
"The greatest argument against democracy is to have a five minute conversation  with the average voter. "

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,618
Out of curiosity, is anyone who's not a vegan/veggie trying to reduce meat intake? Found it tough going full veggie but I'm down to 2 meat eating days per week at most (with 'ethically' farmed meat). Some days I go full Vegan. Some of my veggie friends think it's a cop out, but surely every little helps.

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
Out of curiosity, is anyone who's not a vegan/veggie trying to reduce meat intake? Found it tough going full veggie but I'm down to 2 meat eating days per week at most (with 'ethically' farmed meat). Some days I go full Vegan. Some of my veggie friends think it's a cop out, but surely every little helps.

That's great, well done to you.

I eat mostly a plant based diet, simply because it's more healthy, cheaper (good, ethical, healthy meat is expensive), and better for the environment.

I very rarely eat meat, the meat I do eat is always organic or free-range.  I like fish, but will only buy MSC certified products, or from small, local fisheries that only use day boats.

Here's a couple of links that might be of interest:


https://www.msc.org/

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/26/greenhouse-gas-emissions-livestock


« Last Edit: July 23, 2017, 12:40:58 pm by Red-Soldier »

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 93,660
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
That's great, well done to you.

I eat mostly a plant based diet, simply because it's more healthy, cheaper (good, ethical, healthy meat is expensive), and better for the environment.

I very rarely eat meat, the meat I do eat is always organic or free-range.  I like fish, but will only buy MSC certified products, or from small, local fisheries that only use day boats.

Here's a couple of links that might be of interest:


https://www.msc.org/

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/26/greenhouse-gas-emissions-livestock



Hmm, eating organic or free range meat is a less intensive method of rearing meat.  It's producing lesss product per acre so is almost certainly worse for climate change...
More ethical though..
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Online Elmo!

  • Spolier alret!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,335
Hmm, eating organic or free range meat is a less intensive method of rearing meat.  It's producing lesss product per acre so is almost certainly worse for climate change...
More ethical though..

On the face of it yes, but on the other hand if the whole world went organic there would be famine on a massive scale.... we wouldn't be able to produce enough food.

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 93,660
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
On the face of it yes, but on the other hand if the whole world went organic there would be famine on a massive scale.... we wouldn't be able to produce enough food.
Quite true..
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
That's great, well done to you.

I eat mostly a plant based diet, simply because it's more healthy, cheaper (good, ethical, healthy meat is expensive), and better for the environment.

I very rarely eat meat, the meat I do eat is always organic or free-range.  I like fish, but will only buy MSC certified products, or from small, local fisheries that only use day boats.

Here's a couple of links that might be of interest:


https://www.msc.org/

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/26/greenhouse-gas-emissions-livestock


Organic farming isn't better for the planet. It's largely ideological nonsense and as others have pointed out uses far more land and resources to produce the same amount of food.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-farming-is-bad-for-the-environment/

The best hope for feeding the planet is GMO not organic. It's not as touchy-feely though.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Online Elmo!

  • Spolier alret!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,335
In addition to not being able to produce enough food for humans, the extra farmland needed to produce food would result in the destruction of more and more natural habitats of already endangered animals. We need to produce food as efficiently and using as little space as possible.

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
Hmm, eating organic or free range meat is a less intensive method of rearing meat.  It's producing lesss product per acre so is almost certainly worse for climate change...
More ethical though..

Yes and no, you have to look at the inputs too, feed etc.

Organic / subsistence farming is a low input, low output system.

Intensive farming is a high input, high output system.


Being good for the environment is not just about direct impacts on climate change, it's about reducing the number of harmful chemicals and monocultures too, which result "green deserts," harming our pollinators and polluting our water systems.

There can be issues from ammonia runoff from free range chickens though, no system is without it's issues.

There is a genral consesus that we all should be consuming less meat though.

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
In addition to not being able to produce enough food for humans, the extra farmland needed to produce food would result in the destruction of more and more natural habitats of already endangered animals. We need to produce food as efficiently and using as little space as possible.

We already produce enough food for everyone, it just doesn't get to all the people.

I never said that organic / free range is the future, because you will never produce enough food using that method to feed everyone, it's common sense.

But there is little doubt that it's better for the animal and us.

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
Organic farming isn't better for the planet. It's largely ideological nonsense and as others have pointed out uses far more land and resources to produce the same amount of food.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-farming-is-bad-for-the-environment/

The best hope for feeding the planet is GMO not organic. It's not as touchy-feely though.

Can you point out where I said that it was the best hope to feeding the planet?????

There is already more than enough food produced in the world at the moment, it just doesn't get to everyone that needs it.

I agree that GM is one of the answers when it comes to food security.  I wrote a 3,500 word essay on it last last.

I've been working in the conservation and agriculture industry for the past 7 years, and would currently call myself an ecologist.

I don't need to be patronised and taught how to suck eggs by people who probably know less than what I do.  Don't take that the wrong way.


In reference to the first bolded part, that's a lovely sweeping statement there.  I have to disagree that it is "largely idelogical nonsense."

I've already stated in one of my other posts, there are pros and cons to all farming systems, there is not a simple "good or bad " answer.

Here's the abstract from the paper below:

Organic farming practices have been promoted as,inter alia, reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture. This meta-analysis systematically analyses published studies that compare environmental impacts of organic and conventional farming in Europe. The results show that organic farming practices generally have positive impacts on the environment per unit of area, but not necessarily per product unit. Organic farms tend to have higher soil organic matter content and lower nutrient losses (nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions and ammonia emissions) per unit of field area. However, ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic systems. Organic systems had lower energy requirements, but higher land use, eutrophication potential
and acidification potential per product unit. The variation within the results across different studies was wide due to differences in the systems compared and research methods used. The only impacts that were found to differ significantly between the systems were soil organic matter content, nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions per unit of field area, energy use and land use. Most of the studies that compared biodiversity in organic and conventional farming demonstrated lower environmental impacts from organic farming. The key challenges in conventional farming are to improve soil quality (by versatile crop rotations and additions of organic material), recycle nutrients and enhance and protect biodiversity. In organic farming, the main challenges are to improve the nutrient management and increase yields. In order to reduce the environmental impacts of farming in Europe, research efforts and policies should be targeted to developing farming systems that produce high yields with low negative environmental impacts drawing on techniques from both organic and conventional systems.

https://host.cals.wisc.edu/agronomy/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/04/Tuomisto-et-al-2011.pdf
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 09:32:10 am by Red-Soldier »

Online Elmo!

  • Spolier alret!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,335
We already produce enough food for everyone, it just doesn't get to all the people.

I never said that organic / free range is the future, because you will never produce enough food using that method to feed everyone, it's common sense.

But there is little doubt that it's better for the animal and us.

We produce enough food to feed the world where the majority of it is not organic.....

It may be better for you as an individual, but is it better for animals and humans as a whole?

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 93,660
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
We produce enough food to feed the world where the majority of it is not organic.....

It may be better for you as an individual, but is it better for animals and humans as a whole?
Organic probably isn't even better for you as an individual...
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Online Elmo!

  • Spolier alret!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,335
Organic probably isn't even better for you as an individual...

Yeah I'm not an expert but have heard such claims. Wasn't going to pretend I know one way or another though.

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
We produce enough food to feed the world where the majority of it is not organic.....

It may be better for you as an individual, but is it better for animals and humans as a whole?

Can you please point out where I said we should produce all our food organically?????

That would be impossible to do.

Online Elmo!

  • Spolier alret!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,335
Can you please point out where I said we should produce all our food organically?????

That would be impossible to do.

So you want to eat organic food for yourself because it is better for you but don't support everyone else getting the same benefit?

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
So you want to eat organic food for yourself because it is better for you but don't support everyone else getting the same benefit?


???????

Not at all, you seem to be trying to create and argument that isn't even there or warranted.

Organic farming is a niche farming practice thast will probably always remain that way, however, it still has a role to play in our current and future agriculture industries.

Offline RedRabbit

  • Rampant but without the batteries.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,045
  • این نیز بگذرد

???????

Not at all, you seem to be trying to create and argument that isn't even there or warranted.

Organic farming is a niche farming practice thast will probably always remain that way, however, it still has a role to play in our current and future agriculture industries.

What role do you see it playing, as a matter of interest?

Online Elmo!

  • Spolier alret!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,335

???????

Not at all, you seem to be trying to create and argument that isn't even there or warranted.

Organic farming is a niche farming practice thast will probably always remain that way, however, it still has a role to play in our current and future agriculture industries.

Sorry not trying to create an argument....

But the logical conclusion if you believe organic farming to be good for you is that either 1) you would want other people to benefit from it, in which case organic farming would no longer be a niche practice and would lead to the issues raised in this thread or 2) you don't want others to get those health benefits (if they actually exist)

Who decides who gets to benefit from this niche practice?

For the record, I grew up in a household that ate organic food since long before it became a thing and was widely available in supermarkets. I understand the appeal but I've come the conclusion that unfortunately it is not sustainable with current world population growth.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Can you point out where I said that it was the best hope to feeding the planet?????

There is already more than enough food produced in the world at the moment, it just doesn't get to everyone that needs it.

I agree that GM is one of the answers when it comes to food security.  I wrote a 3,500 word essay on it last last.

I've been working in the conservation and agriculture industry for the past 7 years, and would currently call myself an ecologist.

I don't need to be patronised and taught how to suck eggs by people who probably know less than what I do.  Don't take that the wrong way.


In reference to the first bolded part, that's a lovely sweeping statement there.  I have to disagree that it is "largely idelogical nonsense."

I've already stated in one of my other posts, there are pros and cons to all farming systems, there is not a simple "good or bad " answer.

Here's the abstract from the paper below:

Organic farming practices have been promoted as,inter alia, reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture. This meta-analysis systematically analyses published studies that compare environmental impacts of organic and conventional farming in Europe. The results show that organic farming practices generally have positive impacts on the environment per unit of area, but not necessarily per product unit. Organic farms tend to have higher soil organic matter content and lower nutrient losses (nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions and ammonia emissions) per unit of field area. However, ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic systems. Organic systems had lower energy requirements, but higher land use, eutrophication potential
and acidification potential per product unit. The variation within the results across different studies was wide due to differences in the systems compared and research methods used. The only impacts that were found to differ significantly between the systems were soil organic matter content, nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions per unit of field area, energy use and land use. Most of the studies that compared biodiversity in organic and conventional farming demonstrated lower environmental impacts from organic farming. The key challenges in conventional farming are to improve soil quality (by versatile crop rotations and additions of organic material), recycle nutrients and enhance and protect biodiversity. In organic farming, the main challenges are to improve the nutrient management and increase yields. In order to reduce the environmental impacts of farming in Europe, research efforts and policies should be targeted to developing farming systems that produce high yields with low negative environmental impacts drawing on techniques from both organic and conventional systems.

https://host.cals.wisc.edu/agronomy/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/04/Tuomisto-et-al-2011.pdf

Deleted my last post as I'd missed this one. Fair enough and happy to read alternative views. I'd stand by the ideological comment because the principle of organic farming does not allow for mixing of organic and conventional farming methods.

The problem with discussing a subject like this is that there is a wide variation in experience and knowledge and most of us are anonymous. I made a sweeping statement because this is a football website and getting a broad idea across to non-scientists is more useful than a nuanced discussion. The big message that I think is worth stating is that organic food has no significant health benefits and uses more land than conventional farming. And the corollary is that GMOs are not the work of the devil.

No one was patronising you because no one knows what your qualifications and experience are.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Devon Red

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,639
GM versus organic is a false dichotomy. One of the most promising uses of GM is in growing pest and disease resistant strains which reduce the need for pesticides or other chemicals. Ideology is getting in the way of rigorous science.

People are going to have to start getting their heads around nuance because the whole area of food security is massively complicated.

IN GENERAL farming animals is more resource intensive (inputs v outputs) than farming crops, BUT there are some landscapes such as hill areas or moorland where animal farming is far more practical than growing vegetables.

IN GENERAL we over-exploit the oceans and the fishing industry globally is unsustainable, BUT there are many fisheries which are totally sustainable and in order to feed everyone we are going to have to harvest food from the seas.

IN GENERAL organic certified food is better from a biodiversity point of view and, yes, there is some evidence for health benefits, BUT there are a huge amount of variables (large or small scale, which standard of certification, grass fed or grain fed, food miles travelled, water usage etc) that are more important than certification. Personally I look at local, less intensive and higher welfare standards before I look at organic.

IN GENERAL we all need to eat less meat, BUT veganism has it's own shortcomings and removing all animal products from our diets would hugely restrict our opportunities to farm, hunt and fish in areas of the world where crop growing is restricted or impossible.

IN GENERAL intensive systems produce more food, BUT they are also tend to be more energy intensive, produce more waste, reduce biodiversity, result in poorer soil quality (a big issue in long term viability) and have lower welfare standards.

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
Deleted my last post as I'd missed this one. Fair enough and happy to read alternative views. I'd stand by the ideological comment because the principle of organic farming does not allow for mixing of organic and conventional farming methods.

The problem with discussing a subject like this is that there is a wide variation in experience and knowledge and most of us are anonymous. I made a sweeping statement because this is a football website and getting a broad idea across to non-scientists is more useful than a nuanced discussion. The big message that I think is worth stating is that organic food has no significant health benefits and uses more land than conventional farming. And the corollary is that GMOs are not the work of the devil.


No one was patronising you because no one knows what your qualifications and experience are.

That's true, I was just a bit irate as I had three people questioning me at the same time.  I know it's just a footie forum, but it's always good to try to educate and spread the good word.  :)

It's a subject that I know a fair amount about and something that I'm very interested in.

It's ironic that we now seperate organic and conventional farming, as organic farming was the convention, right until The Industrial Revolution.

One of the big issues facing us as a species in the near future is "Feeding the 9 Billion."  By 2050, there are predicted to be over 9 billion people on the planet and we will need to use a multitude of methods in order to feed those people in an environmentally and sustainable way.

GM crops will be one of those tools required.  Of all the research I have read, I haven't come across any that provided evidence of GM crops being bad for us, or bad for the environment.

Again, I disagree with your broad statement that "organic food has no significant health benefits."  There is no definitive "yes / no" answer, lots of variables involved.

Here's an abstract from the paper below:

Organic foods contain higher levels of certain nutrients, lower levels of pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer

The multi-billion dollar organic food industry is fueled by consumer perception that organic food is healthier (greater nutritional value and fewer toxic chemicals). Studies of the nutrient content in organic foods vary in results due to differences in the ground cover and maturity of the organic farming operation. Nutrient content also varies from farmer to farmer and year to year. However, reviews of multiple studies show that organic varieties do provide significantly greater levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus than non-organic varieties of the same foods. While being higher in these nutrients, they are also significantly lower in nitrates and pesticide residues. In addition, with the exception of wheat, oats, and wine, organic foods typically provide greater levels of a number of important antioxidant phytochemicals (anthocyanins, flavonoids, and carotenoids). Although in vitro studies of organic fruits and vegetables consistently demonstrate that organic foods have greater antioxidant activity, are more potent suppressors of the mutagenic action of toxic compounds, and inhibit the proliferation of certain cancer cell lines, in vivo studies of antioxidant activity in humans have failed to demonstrate additional benefit. Clear health benefits from consuming organic dairy products have been demonstrated in regard to allergic dermatitis. (Altern Med Rev 2010;15(1):4-12) Introduction Organic food consumption is one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. domestic foodstuffs. Sales of organic food and beverages grew from $1 billion in 1990 to $21.1 billion in 2008 and are on track to reach $23 billion in 2009. (1) Consumers generally perceive these foods to be healthier and safer for themselves and the environment. (2,3) A plethora of studies in the last two decades have assessed whether organic foods have higher levels of vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals than conventionally raised foods and whether they have fewer pesticide residues. Far fewer studies have been conducted to assess either the potential or actual health benefits of eating organic foods. Factors Affecting Nutritional Content of Produce Determining the potential nutritional superiority of organic food is not a simple task. Numerous factors, apart from organic versus inorganic growing, influence the amount of vitamins and phytochemicals (phenols, flavonoids, carotenoids, etc.) in a crop. These factors include the weather (affecting crops year-to-year), specific environmental conditions from one farm to the next (microclimates), soil condition, etc. Another major factor not taken into account in the published studies was the length of time the specific plots of land had been worked using organic methods. Since it takes years to build soil quality in a plot using organic methods and for the persistent pollutants in the ground to be reduced, this can significantly affect the outcome of comparative studies. The importance of these different factors is apparent from a review of the recent studies examining the nutrient content in tomatoes. Differences between Growers and Soil Quality Of six recent studies of nutrient content of organic tomatoes, only one showed no significant differences between organic and conventional farms. (4) This study, conducted in Taiwan, did find that while there was no difference...

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA225739685&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=10895159&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=true
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 05:07:16 pm by Red-Soldier »

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Organic farming isn't better for the planet. It's largely ideological nonsense and as others have pointed out uses far more land and resources to produce the same amount of food.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-farming-is-bad-for-the-environment/

The best hope for feeding the planet is GMO not organic. It's not as touchy-feely though.

Interestingly enough, I have done a fair amount of work for organisations in this fields. They attempted to adopt a neutral stance, expecting that the evidence would lead to pressure for GMO. GMO has a role to play in certain environments - crops such as Golden Rice meet very real local nutritional needs. Surprisingly enough, the consensus after the project I was tangentially involved in, was that there was a pressing need to make more use of traditional plant sciences. Seed producers tended not to tailor varieties to local conditions, leading to monoculture and reduced yields. Also education was the key factor. On the ground in much of the developing world, the poorest farmers are not particularly knowledgeable about their crops. And an education program to spread basic farming information - and enable better access to markets had a far bigger impact than simply switching seeds. GMO is a tool, not a panacea.

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
Interestingly enough, I have done a fair amount of work for organisations in this fields. They attempted to adopt a neutral stance, expecting that the evidence would lead to pressure for GMO. GMO has a role to play in certain environments - crops such as Golden Rice meet very real local nutritional needs. Surprisingly enough, the consensus after the project I was tangentially involved in, was that there was a pressing need to make more use of traditional plant sciences. Seed producers tended not to tailor varieties to local conditions, leading to monoculture and reduced yields. Also education was the key factor. On the ground in much of the developing world, the poorest farmers are not particularly knowledgeable about their crops. And an education program to spread basic farming information - and enable better access to markets had a far bigger impact than simply switching seeds. GMO is a tool, not a panacea.

Agree with this, GM is just one of a variety of tools that we need to use to ensure our food security moving into the future.

Offline Buggy Eyes Alfredo

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,481
  • ¤Ginger◇Drapes¤
Re: Climate change is already here. How bad it gets is still up to us - Discuss
« Reply #1987 on: September 23, 2017, 06:02:27 am »

We Charted Arctic Sea Ice for Nearly Every Day Since 1979.
You’ll See a Trend.

By NADJA POPOVICH, HENRY FOUNTAIN and ADAM PEARCE SEPT. 22, 2017

Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Data on the extent of Arctic sea ice was collected every other day in years 1979 through 1987, but daily thereafter. In the charts, daily data is based on a five-day running average.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/22/climate/arctic-sea-ice-shrinking-trend-watch.html

Offline hide5seek

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,300
  • We all live in THE 5 EUROPEAN CUPS
Re: Climate change is already here. How bad it gets is still up to us - Discuss
« Reply #1988 on: September 26, 2017, 11:03:51 pm »
Not sure if this has been posted before. It's only just come up onmy facebook page.

http://truthcommand.com/2017/09/heres-world-will-look-like-ice-melted-terrifying/

Offline Buggy Eyes Alfredo

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,481
  • ¤Ginger◇Drapes¤
Re: Climate change is already here. How bad it gets is still up to us - Discuss
« Reply #1989 on: November 3, 2017, 06:39:20 pm »

Quote
The Earth is experiencing the warmest period in the history of civilization and humans are the dominant cause of the temperature rise that has occurred since the start of the 20th century, according to an exhaustive scientific report unveiled Friday by 13 federal agencies. The report was approved by the White House, but it directly contradicts much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change.

Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” the report says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.

The findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies on several fronts. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the Trump delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris accord on climate and top American officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.

“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”

The Earth has set temperature highs for three years running, and six of the last 17 years are the warmest years on record for the globe. Weather catastrophes from floods to hurricanes to heat waves have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980, the report says, and it warns that such phenomena may become common.

“The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases,” the report notes. “Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world.”

In the United States, the report finds that every part of the country has been touched by warming, from droughts in the Southeast to flooding in the Midwest to a worrying rise in air and ground temperatures in Alaska, and conditions will continue to worsen.

“This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence,” the report states.

“Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases emitted globally and on the remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to those emissions,” it adds.

The climate science report is part of a congressionally mandated review conducted every four years known as the National Climate Assessment. The product of hundreds of experts and scientists within the government and academia and peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, it is considered the United States’ most definitive statement on climate change science.

But the Environmental Protection Agency has wiped references to climate change from its website and barred its scientists from presenting scientific reports on the subject, and its administrator, Scott Pruitt, does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to warming. Rick Perry, the energy secretary, asserted Wednesday that “the science is out” on whether humans cause climate change.

Jim Bridenstine, the Oklahoma congressman whom President Trump nominated to lead NASA, came under fire this week from multiple lawmakers demanding to know his position on climate change. “Carbon dioxide is in fact a greenhouse gas,” Mr. Bridenstine allowed, but declined to say if he accepted it as the primary cause of climate change. He did pledge that scientists would not be punished or reassigned for working on or speaking about global warming.

Yet none of those agencies nor the White House moved to stop the report’s publication, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy signed off on the final release, despite fear among some scientists involved in the research that the Trump administration would block it or seek to water it down. That, researchers said, now creates an unusual situation in which government policies are in direct opposition to the science it is producing.

Christopher Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, called that “tragic.”

“This profoundly affects our ability to be leaders in developing new technologies and understanding how to build successful communities and businesses in the 21st century,” Mr. Field said. “Choosing to be dumb about our relationship with the natural world is choosing to be behind the eight ball.”

Critics of climate change science attacked the report as the product of holdovers from former President Obama’s administration, and also chastised the Trump administration for allowing it to be published. Others said the science may be valid but those findings should not affect laws to address the rise of emissions.

“I really don’t think that determines policy at all,” said Marlo Lewis Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mr. Lewis said he does not deny that the majority of warming is caused by man-made emissions. But, he said, “The thing is, I’m also going to affirm that there are risks of climate policy as well as climate change. To me the real issue is, where do the risks lie? Suppressing your economy is never a good solution.”

The report finds with very high confidence that the average annual temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.7 degrees Celsius) since 1986, relative to the previous century. It is projected to rise, scientists said with an equally high degree of confidence, about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.4 degrees Celsius by midcentury. That will mean hotter days and nights, particularly in urban and densely populated areas.

The report finds with high confidence that if greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilized at their current level, the world will still see at least an additional 1.1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degree Celsius) of warming over this century.

“This new report simply confirms what we already knew. Human-caused climate change isn’t just a theory, it’s reality,” said Michael E. Mann, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science and the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. “Whether we’re talking about unprecedented heat waves, increasingly destructive hurricanes, epic drought and inundation of our coastal cities, the impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. They are upon us. That’s the consensus of our best scientists, as laid bare by this latest report.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html

Offline Buggy Eyes Alfredo

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,481
  • ¤Ginger◇Drapes¤
Re: Climate change is already here. How bad it gets is still up to us - Discuss
« Reply #1990 on: November 27, 2017, 09:41:47 am »



Quote
In Peru, farmers are living off a glacier, while it lasts


Viru, Peru: The desert blooms now. Blueberries grow to the size of Ping-Pong balls in nothing but sand. Asparagus fields cross dunes, disappearing over the horizon.

The desert produce is packed and shipped to places like Denmark and Delaware. Electricity and water have come to villages that long had neither. Farmers have moved here from the mountains, seeking new futures on all the irrigated land.

It might sound like a perfect development plan, except for one catch: The reason so much water flows through this desert is that an ice cap high up in the mountains is melting away.

And the bonanza may not last much longer.

"If the water disappears, we'd have to go back to how it was before," said Miguel Beltran, a 62-year-old farmer who worries what will happen when water levels fall. "The land was empty, and people went hungry."

In this part of Peru, climate change has been a blessing - but it may become a curse. In recent decades, accelerating glacial melt in the Andes has enabled a gold rush downstream, contributing to the irrigation and cultivation of more than 40,000 hectares since the 1980s.

Yet the boon is temporary. The flow of water is already declining as the glacier vanishes, and scientists estimate that by 2050 much of the ice cap will be gone.

Throughout the 20th century, enormous government development projects, from Australia to Africa, have diverted water to arid land. Much of Southern California was dry scrubland until canals brought water, inciting a storm of land speculation and growth - a time known as the "Water Wars" depicted in the 1974 film Chinatown.

Yet climate change now threatens some of these ambitious undertakings, reducing lakes, diminishing aquifers and shrinking glaciers that feed crops. Here in Peru, the government irrigated the desert and turned it into farmland through an $US825 million ($1 billion) project that, in a few decades, could be under serious threat.

"We're talking about the disappearance of frozen water towers that have supported vast populations," said Jeffrey Bury, a professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz who has spent years studying the effects of glacier melt on Peruvian agriculture. "That is the big-picture question related to climate change right now."

A changing climate has long haunted Peru. One past civilisation, the Moche people, built cities in the same deserts, only to collapse more than a millennium ago after the Pacific Ocean warmed, killing fish and causing flash floods, many archaeologists contend.

Now dwindling water is the threat. While more than half of Peru sits in the wet Amazon basin, few of its people ever settled there. Most inhabit the dry northern coast, cut off from most rain by the Andes range. While the region includes the capital, Lima, and 60 per cent of Peruvians, it holds only 2 per cent of the country's water supply.

The glaciers are the source of water for much of the coast during Peru's dry season, which extends from May to September. But the ice cap of the Cordillera Blanca, long a supply of water for the Chavimochic irrigation project, has shrunk by 40 per cent since 1970 and is retreating at an ever-faster rate. It is currently receding by about 30 feet a year, scientists say.

Farmers along the 160-kilometre watershed that winds its way from the snowcapped peaks to the desert dunes say they are already feeling the effects of the change.

The retreat of the ice cap has exposed tracts of heavy metals, like lead and cadmium, that were locked under the glaciers for thousands of years, scientists say. They are now leaking into the ground water supply, turning entire streams red, killing livestock and crops, and making the water undrinkable.

Temperatures in this area have risen sharply, leading to strange changes in crop cycles, farmers say. Over the past decade, corn - which since pre-colonial times was grown only once a year in the mountains - can now be harvested in two cycles, sometimes three.

That would be a windfall, said farmers like Francisco Castillo, if it were not for all the pests that now thrive in the warmer air.

For Castillo, who plants corn and rice near the Santa River in Chimbote, it was a worm that became the scourge for him and neighbouring farmers. It suddenly started devouring their crops in the early 2000s.

Then, last year, came the rats.

"This wasn't a place you had rats before," Castillo said.

For Justiniano Daga, a 72-year-old farmer, the breaking point for his cotton crops came when red ants ate away the buds. This year, he has decided to plant sugar cane instead and move some of his production to higher altitudes where it is colder.

"But the pests will arrive there, too," as temperatures keep rising, Daga said.

The Chavimochic project, which lies just north of where the Santa River meets the Pacific Ocean, is a crown jewel of Peruvian agriculture and civil engineering.

The government aimed to create industrial-scale agriculture in Peru's northern deserts through a sprawling system of locks and canals. The idea's supporters promised profits through exports to markets in North America, Asia and Europe, where the fruit seasons were reversed.

The first phase of the project started in 1985 with a 80-kilometre canal that irrigated a valley and brought a large hydroelectric plant, providing electricity to residents. In the early 1990s, Peru began a second phase, which irrigated two more valleys and created a water treatment plant that served 70 per cent of the surrounding population.

All told, more than 40,000 hectares of desert were brought into cultivation.

"Years ago, if I gave you a plot of land here, you'd have said, 'What do I do with this?'" said Osvaldo Talavera, a spokesman for the water district. "Now you'd say, 'Do you have another plot for me?'"

Among the investors was Rafael Quevedo, a wealthy Peruvian landowner who began snapping up arid tracts after studying desert hydroponic techniques in Israel. His proposition was simple: With enough water and fertilizer, asparagus could be grown directly in the sand - and at yields far higher than in the United States because Peru has no cold season and more days of sun.

"We've started a new chapter in the history of cultivation," said Quevedo, who runs a farming company called Talsa.

Blueberries on a sandy hillside here grow to be five times as big as a normal-size blueberry before being sent to China, where they are prized for their size. A form of white asparagus, favoured by Europeans, is grown by burying the stalks in sand. A reservoir was created out of a dune. More than 8000 tonnes of produce grows here every year.

Yet at the headwaters of the Santa River, in the mountain city of Huaraz, Cesar Portocarrero, a Peruvian climatologist, sees problems afoot for those downstream.

The temperature at the site of the glaciers rose 0.5 to 0.8 degrees Celsius from the 1970s to the early 2000s, causing the glaciers of the Cordillera Blanca to double the pace of their retreat in that period, Portocarrero said. Several times a year, he and other scientists would make brutal hikes into the glacial valleys, where they found entire sections of the ice cap gone. One part of an exposed glacier revealed fossils of dinosaur footprints.

A 2012 study by scientists from the US and Canada showed that water flow in the Santa River was falling, and that at current rates, the river could lose 30 per cent of its water during Peru's dry season.

"Each year, there is less water; each day, there is less water," Portocarrero said.

When Odar Gimez headed to Chavimochic to look for work in 1997, he was only the third person to do so from his impoverished mountain town, where many eked out a living with the subsistence farming of corn.

It was the start of a wave of migration from the mountainside to the coast set off by the arrival of the water.

One coastal town, Viru, went from a population of 9000 in the 1990s to 80,000 today. Another, Valle de Dios, was an empty desert canyon until it was invaded by squatters in the early 2000s. The new arrivals were mainly agricultural workers and transformed it into a full-fledged town with a pharmacy, a grocery store and a mechanic's garage.

Gomez began to work at Talsa, and he headed to the mountains on weekends to recruit others to join him.

"Now in my village you have empty homes where whole families have left," he said. "People are coming from the Amazon. Chavimochic was our salvation."

The water has also transformed life on the coast.

About a decade ago, a Danish-Peruvian operation installed running water and electricity in the town of Huancaquito Alto, where the business was employing many residents in its packing plant. The town of 2500 now has a municipal cleaning system that employs trash collectors.

"This was all grassland," said Edgar Garcia, a member of the town council, pointing at a new public plaza that was opened last year.

Mercedes Beltran grew up in San Bartolome, which was barely a village, with only three families. Her grandfather fished from a traditional reed raft. "There was no market, we bartered between ourselves," she said.

Now her family plants asparagus for the US market, benefiting from competition between buyers that keeps prices high, she said.

Even the slightest reduction in the flow of the Santa River causes alarm here. The hydroelectric plant now provides power to 50,000 people; treated river water supplies 700,000 people.

"In years to come, we will be fighting over water," said Gomez.

The government has struggled to offer solutions. One proposal would try to capture rain runoff from the Andes during the wet season in a large dam. But construction on the dam was led by Odebrecht, a Brazilian construction company that admitted to paying $US800 million ($1 billion) in bribes throughout Latin America.

The dam is now "completely paralysed," with few signs that it will be starting again soon, said Miguel Chavez Castro, the director of the project.

Meanwhile, planners here continue to push for more irrigation. They are now eyeing desert tracts farther to the south for a new canal that would, at least for now, supply another 20,000 hectares of desert with water.

But Garcia, the council member in Huancaquito Alto, is not taking any chances. He has refurbished an old well used by his father to hold water in the days before this area was irrigated, and he is building a new one near his asparagus fields.

"Because of this water, our children have been able to go to university," he said. "But if there is no water from the Santa River, that all changes."

He added: "We have to get our wells ready. Sure, it's like going back in time, but what can we do?"

http://www.watoday.com.au/world/in-peru-farmers-are-living-off-a-glacier-while-it-lasts-20171126-gztdaa.html

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 93,660
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Climate change is already here. How bad it gets is still up to us - Discuss
« Reply #1991 on: November 27, 2017, 06:47:24 pm »
We’re dead....


https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf


Latest report from the royal society


Deals with the nonsense arguments some put forwards.
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/11/critical-gulf-stream-current-weakest-for-1600-years-research-finds

The warm Atlantic current linked to severe and abrupt changes in the climate in the past is now at its weakest in at least 1,600 years, new research shows. The findings, based on multiple lines of scientific evidence, throw into question previous predictions that a catastrophic collapse of the Gulf Stream would take centuries to occur.

Such a collapse would see western Europe suffer far more extreme winters, sea levels rise fast on the eastern seaboard of the US and would disrupt vital tropical rains. The new research shows the current is now 15% weaker than around 400AD, an exceptionally large deviation, and that human-caused global warming is responsible for at least a significant part of the weakening.



AMOC is part of the Thermohaline Circulation or Great Ocean Conveyor.  This process is responsible for distributing heat all over the world.  If it shuts down, or even slows down to a significant level, we are fooked.

It has shut down in the past causing a mass exinction event.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 07:29:43 pm by Red-Soldier »

Offline CornerFlag

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,625
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
My Twitter

Last time I went there I saw masturbating chimpanzees. Whether you think that's worthy of £22 is up to you. All I'll say is I now have an annual pass.

Offline Trendisnotdestiny

  • Finally, the custom title that cannot be beat
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,630
  • Go for Goal Sunshine! - N Saunders
THIS IS ANFIELD SIGN:
It’s there to remind our lads who they’re playing for and to remind the opposition who they’re playing against! - Bill Shankly

We have everything we need - Jurgen Klopp

You need to get more wives mate, it fixes everything. Apart from then you have loads of wives, which is a nightmare.  -  Djozer

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Naomi Klein -- Writing against Empire

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/03/climate-change-new-york-times-magazine/


I’m not sure what the point of that is or where it gets us.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
I’m not sure what the point of that is or where it gets us.

The point is we have to change our political thinking if we want to tackle the issues that face us over the next 25, 50, 100 years.

Capitalism, economic growth and profit, cannot be the main drivers in decision making.
« Last Edit: August 5, 2018, 11:09:33 am by Red-Soldier »

Offline killer-heels

  • Hates everyone and everything. Including YOU! Negativity not just for Christmas. Thinks 'irony' means 'metallic'......
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 75,608
The point is we have to change our political thinking if we want to tackle the issues that face us over the next 25, 50, 100 years.

Capitalism, economic growth and profit, cannot be the main drivers in decision making.

How is that even possible with the human race?

Offline Red-Soldier

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,636
How is that even possible with the human race?

It's going to require a collective effort in behavioural change, from government and industry, right through to individuals.

Governments need to start by making legislative changes.  For example: the construction industry needs wholehearted changes in regards to sustainability; water usage, carbon emissions etc.
« Last Edit: August 5, 2018, 11:48:14 am by Red-Soldier »

Offline Giono

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,901
  • And stop calling me Shirley
How is that even possible with the human race?

There was a time before capitalism. Capitalism was built on mining exploration and extraction in the ‘new world’. It’s about sharing and limiting risks for some ventures with big big payoffs.

We currently have right wing goverrnments around the world thinking that the answer going forward is to go back to deregulation and the free for all of the 19th century. Yet at the same time people are dematerialising (when is the last time you bought a calendar) and the world is starting to tell us that our use of fossil fuels. Mother naturue is starting to reply to the infection that is the human race.

Look at Trump. He is all about the extraction industries. What a dead end. There are more Yoga instructors in the US than people who work in coal...


You don’t need hordes of capital to be a yoga instructor, you need skill, time, effort.







"I am a great believer in luck and the harder I work the more of it I have." Stephen Leacock