admin answers:

For one perspective, read Eating Fossil Fuels: Oil, Food And the Coming Crisis in Agriculture by Dale Allen Pfeiffer. Unfortunately, I think this book is an example of “preaching to the choir.” I’m fairly out there in my thoughts on oil, the environment, and farming, but he had me shaking my head at times with his statements that, although cited, were never quoted. I also think that, for a nation steeped in individualism and entrenched in its ideas, pushing socialism as a way of recovery is simply not going to work. People immediately put up their mental blocks and dismiss any related ideas. But it’s a quick read and gives a bit of background to the oil and food connection.

Anyway, on to my own ideas of what will happen. Our nation is extremely dependent on a cheap and plentiful food supply, and the ability to have any type of food at any time of the year. We’ve forgotten about seasons. We’ve forgotten the taste of a fresh strawberry in June and squash in November. Why? Because we have them all the time. Already people are having hissy fits about the cost of food rising. It’s rising because we truck it in from all over–not only all over the country, but all over the world. Do I really need a banana from Chile? No. But we’ve come to expect it.

At the same time, we’re pouring oil over our crops. People are lifting up ethanol as the next big thing to replace petroleum. Ethanol from corn…corn that we douse with petroleum. How does that help? Ethanol is not a worthy replacement. As we cut back on petroleum, it seems to me we’ll have to stop using as much chemically-produced pesticide on our crops. In this society of industrial agriculture, that will mean lost crops. It will mean less corn to feed the cows. It will mean a rise in prices and a decrease in the shipping of food all over the world.

What can we do to prevent a collapse of our industrial agricultural model? Well, ok, I’m all for a collapse, but not for starving people. We need to change our system and mindset before we reach this point. First, we need a return to eating locally produced food. The fewer miles your food has traveled, the less petro is consumed. When we return to eating locally produced food, we will probably be supporting more small farms, most of whom use more sustainable methods–more crop rotation, less chemicals. We need to start planting community gardens so that people in the cities will have access to fresh produce. Urban communities are often poorer and often have less access to fresh vegetables and fruit. So when the cost of food goes up due to the price of oil, poor people suffer more and have less healthy additions. When we plant community gardens where people can participate and have their own plot to care for, people have more options for their diet–and we’re using those ugly vacant lots in our cities. I live in New Orleans and trust me, there are both plenty of poor people and plenty of vacant lots. It’s a grand solution.

Obviously there are so many more things that need to be done about our usage of petroleum. I’ll leave those answers to others. If we stop putting our food on planes and drenching our crops in chemicals, we’ll find a huge decrease in our petroleum usage.

admin answers:

The UN and IPCC have the solution for AGW/ACC – we only need to give them absolute totalitarian rule over the US and all other countries, and the problem is solved (in their own words). The IPCC is who are persenting AGW/ACC as being an issue.

If you want to know to know the intent behind AGW/ACC, read the entire answer, and read what they are saying in their own words quoted, so there can be no misunderstandings of their actual intent.

These are a few statements that are legally binding for the countries that surrender their rights to the UN COP. Segments of the expose are shown below, and an expanded expose is at:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/PDFs/UNFCCC-AWGLCA-objective.pdf
(though not a full list of their demands and aspirations)
(the COP is Conference of Parties, an established organization by the UN for a one world government, and “Convention” is the countries that surrender to the COP through the treaty.)

Page 39, #32
“Funds will be under the control of the COP as the supreme authority of the Convention.”

The COP will have unconditional, unrestricted power over the economy and society. Why is this stated if it is all about science, and nothing to do with a one world government and absolute global rule???

Page 18, #36
“..adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention.”

Market rules and dynamics subordinate???? This IS what has caused the current global economic meltdown – Market rules and dynamics subordinate.

Page 7, #3
“a major obstacle to efforts to promote [sustainable] economic and social development [and to [reduce] poverty] [eradication] [promote poverty aliviation,] [which are the first and overriding priorities of all developing countries].”

If it about AGW, why is poverty eradication the primary and overriding priority????

Page 18, #38 (a)
” The government will be ruled by the COP”

Does the US want a foreign dictator to have absolute rule over society and the economy???

Page 29, (q)
“Any lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone or scale down action on adaptation];”

It is suppose to be about irrefutable science. Why would this be stated if there is any lack of certainty? – because it is all about a lack of science certainty for the claim of Global Warming.

Page 78, #4
“economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities”

Poverty eradication again?? Stated many times. Isn’t this issue about saving the planet??

Page 87, #77
“A separate pool of funding to finance national coordinating bodies through a direct line item in the secretariat’s budget shall be established. Such support shall not be subject to measurement, reporting and verification.”

Poverty eradication is named numerous times. The COP will have absolute and unconditional authority, and billions of US dollars will be extorted to fund their pet projects and no one will know where the billions will go – i.e. Page 87, #77, second sentence – “Such support shall not be subject to measurement, reporting and verification.”

Check out this publication of exposing only a few segments and statements shown in full so there can be no misunderstanding of their intended objectives in the statements and what the sections translate to mean.
Http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/PDFs/UNFCCC-AWGLCA-objective.pdf

The full 181 page document is at:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

Is it really about AGW/ACC, or is AGW/ACC an invented issue as a means to an end as they have wanted for the last hundred years????? Giving absolute rule to dictators will be the result of signing the Copenhagen Treaty, or whatever name they give it at the time is the whole reason AGW/ACC exists. Actually, the whole reason AGW/ACC exists at all, is to get countries to sign the Copenhagen Treaty (like what the AGW/ACC promoters want), to give the UN COP absolute control over the US economy and society (in their own words below). They have drafted a 181 page document outlining that they will have absolute authority unquestioned and unaccountable to no one but themselves (in their own words).

Whether you like the answer or not, this is the whole reason AGW/ACC exists.

You should read how they will have ownership and absolute unchallenged control over land and all natural resources (oil, coal, gas, trees, minerals, farm lands, lakes, rivers, streams, and everything else). Yes, the UN would own and control your property and tell you what you can and can not do.