Slashdot Mirror

But look at the citation for the data on that table: Energy and the U.S. Economy: A Biophysical Perspective Cutler J. Cleveland; Robert Costanza; Charles A. S. Hall; Robert Kaufmann Science, New Series, Vol. 225, No. 4665 (Aug. 31, 1984), 890-897.

Technology has advanced a long way since 1984, particularly in the area of enzymology to break down chemically resistant carbon in plant tissues, like cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Brazil's ethanol program relies heavily on conversion of sugar; to make ethanol economically competitive in the US, we would need to rely on conversion of cross-linked starch and long-chain polymers. The phenolics in lignin would be a feedstock for industrial chemistry. Here's some more general info.

The USDA's Crop Conversion Science and Engineering Research Unit is all about developing new tools to increase the efficiency of extracting usable energy from plant products. Here are a few examples:

Aqueous Enzymatic Extraction of Corn Oil and Value-Added Products from Corn Germ Produced in New Generation Dry-Grind Ethanol Processes

Economic Competitiveness of Renewable Fuels Derived from Grains and Related Biomass

Enzyme-Based Technologies for Milling Grains and Producing Biobased Products and Fuels

Full disclosure: I don't work for these guys, and I have no financial interest in bio-based fuels (other than the usual "No Blood For Oil" thing). I just think that what they're doing is cool.

Accoring to the US DOE and USDA ethanol and biodiesel are net energy producers.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/aer721 .pdf

However others disagree
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol .toocostly.ssl.html

Its interesting to note the different ways they measure the energy.

But, as I said, it does not matter if they are net energy producers. As a mechaism for transporting and storing energy that is (mostly) compatible with current infrastructure (cars and gas stations) they are very useful. Using them would require an energy top-up from other sources (name the renewable power supply of your choice here) but that may not negate thier convienience. It will probably be a lot simpler then trying to switch to a hydrogen economy, but would not resolve issues with local pollution build up (your cities would still be smoggy) as hydrogen would.

Having spent a considerable amount of time employed in the seed industry, I'd like to add a little info to the mix.
The BBC article is a little light on specific details and judging by some of the comments thus far, some of the Slashdot crowd would benefit from more detail no doubt.

TFA does mention the fact that there are some 1400 seed banks in the world. I would venture to guess that this is rather accurate. This isn't going to be the only repository in the world. Maybe a little unique in that it is wanting to store a wider variety of germplasm samples than many of the existing collections contain individually.
Various organizations, governments and companies maintain genetic material for a variety of reasons. One reason that I have been close to involved re-introducing native genes into the gene pool in zea mays (what Americans would refer to as corn.) Plant breeders and geneticists aren't all blind to the reality of too much inbreeding, too little diversity in a gene pool is a Bad Thing(tm). In fact, the re-introduction of some traits from native varieties has helped produce higher yeilding corn by shoring up some hybrid lines by strengthening their stalks. It's hard to put grain into the food chain when you can't harvest it because it has blown down/broken off due to storms or other stresses.
This Norwegian based seed bank looks to be yet another redundancy in the efforts already in place throughout the world. Don't store all your backups in one place. Another diverse, secure repository of gentic material for crops we consume is a Good Thing(tm).
Just in the USDA's realm, there are many locations in the US that are involved in this sort of genetic backup program. For example:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/locations.htm
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/Research.htm?mode code=53-48-15-00
and
http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecod e=36-25-12-00

Some posters mention global warming and "shelf life" of germplasm, what TFA doesn't mention is that these existing seed banks are using environmental control systems to maintain optimal temperature and humidity conditions to promote longer storage times for the seeds. Undoubtedly seed is taken from the bank and grown out periodically to maintain a fresh sample in the repository. This is all standard and customary practice.

As some others have commented, I wonder what "unstable" countries in particular are being referred to also. The reason I wonder why it is of much concern is because many seed collections are not limited to only the "local" crops. It's not unusual to have sources of seeds from all over the world in many of the existing seed banks already. If some collection is lost due to "unstable" situations, so what, that gentetic line may be being maintained elsewhere too.

Having spent a considerable amount of time employed in the seed industry, I'd like to add a little info to the mix.
The BBC article is a little light on specific details and judging by some of the comments thus far, some of the Slashdot crowd would benefit from more detail no doubt.

TFA does mention the fact that there are some 1400 seed banks in the world. I would venture to guess that this is rather accurate. This isn't going to be the only repository in the world. Maybe a little unique in that it is wanting to store a wider variety of germplasm samples than many of the existing collections contain individually.
Various organizations, governments and companies maintain genetic material for a variety of reasons. One reason that I have been close to involved re-introducing native genes into the gene pool in zea mays (what Americans would refer to as corn.) Plant breeders and geneticists aren't all blind to the reality of too much inbreeding, too little diversity in a gene pool is a Bad Thing(tm). In fact, the re-introduction of some traits from native varieties has helped produce higher yeilding corn by shoring up some hybrid lines by strengthening their stalks. It's hard to put grain into the food chain when you can't harvest it because it has blown down/broken off due to storms or other stresses.
This Norwegian based seed bank looks to be yet another redundancy in the efforts already in place throughout the world. Don't store all your backups in one place. Another diverse, secure repository of gentic material for crops we consume is a Good Thing(tm).
Just in the USDA's realm, there are many locations in the US that are involved in this sort of genetic backup program. For example:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/locations.htm
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/Research.htm?mode code=53-48-15-00
and
http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecod e=36-25-12-00

Some posters mention global warming and "shelf life" of germplasm, what TFA doesn't mention is that these existing seed banks are using environmental control systems to maintain optimal temperature and humidity conditions to promote longer storage times for the seeds. Undoubtedly seed is taken from the bank and grown out periodically to maintain a fresh sample in the repository. This is all standard and customary practice.

As some others have commented, I wonder what "unstable" countries in particular are being referred to also. The reason I wonder why it is of much concern is because many seed collections are not limited to only the "local" crops. It's not unusual to have sources of seeds from all over the world in many of the existing seed banks already. If some collection is lost due to "unstable" situations, so what, that gentetic line may be being maintained elsewhere too.

Having spent a considerable amount of time employed in the seed industry, I'd like to add a little info to the mix.
The BBC article is a little light on specific details and judging by some of the comments thus far, some of the Slashdot crowd would benefit from more detail no doubt.

TFA does mention the fact that there are some 1400 seed banks in the world. I would venture to guess that this is rather accurate. This isn't going to be the only repository in the world. Maybe a little unique in that it is wanting to store a wider variety of germplasm samples than many of the existing collections contain individually.
Various organizations, governments and companies maintain genetic material for a variety of reasons. One reason that I have been close to involved re-introducing native genes into the gene pool in zea mays (what Americans would refer to as corn.) Plant breeders and geneticists aren't all blind to the reality of too much inbreeding, too little diversity in a gene pool is a Bad Thing(tm). In fact, the re-introduction of some traits from native varieties has helped produce higher yeilding corn by shoring up some hybrid lines by strengthening their stalks. It's hard to put grain into the food chain when you can't harvest it because it has blown down/broken off due to storms or other stresses.
This Norwegian based seed bank looks to be yet another redundancy in the efforts already in place throughout the world. Don't store all your backups in one place. Another diverse, secure repository of gentic material for crops we consume is a Good Thing(tm).
Just in the USDA's realm, there are many locations in the US that are involved in this sort of genetic backup program. For example:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/locations.htm
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/Research.htm?mode code=53-48-15-00
and
http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecod e=36-25-12-00

Some posters mention global warming and "shelf life" of germplasm, what TFA doesn't mention is that these existing seed banks are using environmental control systems to maintain optimal temperature and humidity conditions to promote longer storage times for the seeds. Undoubtedly seed is taken from the bank and grown out periodically to maintain a fresh sample in the repository. This is all standard and customary practice.

As some others have commented, I wonder what "unstable" countries in particular are being referred to also. The reason I wonder why it is of much concern is because many seed collections are not limited to only the "local" crops. It's not unusual to have sources of seeds from all over the world in many of the existing seed banks already. If some collection is lost due to "unstable" situations, so what, that gentetic line may be being maintained elsewhere too.

That's why I bought a farm. The only problem is that they want to "DRM" my livestock in the form of NAIS. Yes, the US Government wants to control everything!

If you're an organic farmer, you probably won't get de-certified, but you will incur additional charges to re-evaluate your barrier with your certifying agent. You might be able to sue Monsanto for this cost. If you have to erect additional physical barriers to prevent further contamination, you might be able to get Monsanto to pay for that as well. The real problem is the strict liability nature of patents being applied automatically to genetic patents, but that's a thread for another day.

Actually, the US Dept of Agriculture does farm, albiet not commercially. It's all part of the Agricultural Research Service (http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modeco de=12-00-00-00 [usda.gov]) They plant fields and fields of crops, and reasearch things like fertilizers and pesticides and growing techniques that are then transferred to commercial uses on real farms....

Actually, I was aware of this; the thrust of my comment was meant to communicate that the DoA and FAA aren't primarily involved in research through outlay. These agencies are primarily involved with regulatory oversight, and some people feel NASA should take the same role.

Actually, the US Dept of Agriculture does farm, albiet not commercially. It's all part of the Agricultural Research Service (http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modeco de=12-00-00-00) They plant fields and fields of crops, and reasearch things like fertilizers and pesticides and growing techniques that are then transferred to commercial uses on real farms....

Wow!! You have taken missing the point to an entirely new level!

Since everything following your first paragraph is complete merde, I will refrain from taking you to task on each point.

However you did get off to a good start in the first paragraph...

True less plush green lawn would be a great step, except that is being addressed already. As land prices rise, homes are being built on smaller and smaller lots - each one comes equiped with a driveway, walkway, and patio all built of concrete and none of them are shrinking in size (significantly) thereby reducing the percentage of each lot available for a plush green lawn.

However that being said, there is always the 2 ton elephant in the room that noone seems to want to talk about. Residential water use ammounts to about 10% of total usage in the state. The VAST majority goes to agricultural uses, for instance growing RICE, of all things, in the desert. You try and convince the rice lobby to just stop. Aside from the difficulty we seem to have controlling corporations though, it points up the crux of the problem and its national impact. For all of the economic and cultural impact of the NO area (http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/LA.htm which the first poster was not denegrating) it can not compare the the national impact of the California economy (http://www.lao.ca.gov/2002/cal_facts/econ.html.) As far as culture goes, you are quite correct, NO is a fantastic bruepot for music, food and the arts, I have no quibble with that. But if California were not a cultural powerhouse - none of the rest of you would bitch endlessly about "those damn Californians" the way you do!

As far as the the missinformed posters comments about everyone paying the same federal taxes, that is true, but for every dollar Californians pay, less than one dollar is received in federal funding. We already are keeping the rest of you layabouts living better than you would without our help. So the next time you want to bitch about California, stop succling on our teat first. And another thing, while you are bitching please stop moving here. Infact just stop moving here at all - especially if your from Kansas.

The vast majority of California winderies are in Central California, just north of San Francisco, where the temperature rarely approaches freezing.

I think you meant Northern California, which is most certainly where anything north of San Francisco lies.

Unfortunately, your statement is georgraphically half-right but factually all wrong. Many of best California wines were once made north of San Francisco in the Napa and Sonoma valleys. Coincidentally, it will probably reach freezing in both valleys tonight, though the impact will be minimal, since we're past crush.

There are many wineries in Napa and Sonoma, but I think your statement could be more correct if it were rewritten thusly: "The vast majority of well-known wineries..."

The VAST majority of California wine grapes are grown in crush districts 7 and 8 and in the San Joaquin Valley - all of which are in the central part of the state, a 220-mile long, 50 mile-wide expanse. These areas are also home to most of California's wineries.

Read more here.

See a map of crush districts here.

The vast majority of California winderies are in Central California, just north of San Francisco, where the temperature rarely approaches freezing.

I think you meant Northern California, which is most certainly where anything north of San Francisco lies.

Unfortunately, your statement is georgraphically half-right but factually all wrong. Many of best California wines were once made north of San Francisco in the Napa and Sonoma valleys. Coincidentally, it will probably reach freezing in both valleys tonight, though the impact will be minimal, since we're past crush.

There are many wineries in Napa and Sonoma, but I think your statement could be more correct if it were rewritten thusly: "The vast majority of well-known wineries..."

The VAST majority of California wine grapes are grown in crush districts 7 and 8 and in the San Joaquin Valley - all of which are in the central part of the state, a 220-mile long, 50 mile-wide expanse. These areas are also home to most of California's wineries.

Read more here.

See a map of crush districts here.

The feds can't copyright things, at least not in the United States. Works of the federal government or its employees in their official capacity are in the public domain. Consider the Agricultural Research Service, or NOAA, or the various military archives.

By that same token, any work of a federal agency will be public domain.

Here is my source

250% in the lab means nothing on the road, but 167% means a lot in reduced oil imports.

These photographs taken by one of my colleagues, which have been linked elsewhere from this topic

Yeah, most of VA geographically is rural. However more people live in urban areas than in rural areas:
2004 (latest estimates) Rural: 1,090,994 Urban: 6,368,833
from http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/VA.HTM

The median household income was $88,133 in Fairfax County, Va, the highest in the country in 2004.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/income_wealth/005647.html

And Giant is sticking close to the income. Looking at their website, seems like they stick north. NoVA, MD, DE (never seen one down 'south'). Of course, their food is overpriced lots of times.

Not knocking south VA, you can buy a killer house for cheap down there. *crying*

*I don't care enough to check if the first google result I found (that looked nice appropriate) are valid, or the right source :)

http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml

Here is the link to USDA's National Animal Id System information site.

You are right in one way though. The US gov't won't be doing this. They are mandating that it be done but leaving the implementation to industry. Now I know what your thinking. What incentive will the industry have to do a better job. In this case, a lot. Sick customers don't come back and they take a lot of other customers with them.

Stopping Erosion with Gypsum and PAM http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/sep97/gypsum 0997.htm

Just make sure you don't leave that pizza hanging around...

Offtopic, perhaps, but I wouldn't recommend drinking acetic acid at any reasonable concentration either. Vinegar is dilute, on the order of 5%, and even drinking that straight probably isn't doing your stomach any favors.

Cities, due to their density have much lower tranportation costs. It is much cheaper, per person, to get water and gas services to a single apartment building than 100 rural farms, or even 100 suburban homes. Virtually anything done in a city is cheaper per person than it is in rural areas.

Urban taxes pay for the network of roads and highways that make suburbs possible. Urban taxes pay the farm subsidizes. Urban taxes pay for public transit outside of cities. Urban taxes pay for rural schools and hospitals.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/gastaxlosers/analysis.p hp
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Infrastructure/ov erview.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/07/05/AR2005070500594.html
http://www.techliberation.com/archives/015244.php
http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/03/joined_at_the_h. html

No one is going to read this now, but according to the mose generous sources the payback on ethanol is 1.01 http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf

Since this study is sponsored by the USDA, which is heavily infulenced by the ethanol lobby, I tend to believe the more conservative estimates of below 1.

Bactria? You're going to insist on Afghan chicken? Or did you mean Bactrian? As in, McCamel?

As to that original Big Mac virus, what's one more pathogen among many?

Hmmm. that makes me hungry.

so 1 acre of Algae farming could replace around 2000 barrels of oil. Sounds good, but the US uses 20 million barrels each day.

If we have a problem with a low levee along the Snohomish River, we budget for it and fix it ourselves.

Looks like there is plenty of federal involvement to me.

The Snohomish River flood control plan listed as a USDA project with a $2.7 million dollar FEDERAL budget? And there are documents describing dredging operations by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/ct/ebs/Solicitations /W912DW-05-B-0002%5CSpecifications/05B0002.PDF
http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/RDT/RDT-proj ects/sno-flood.html

I dunno about coffee and vitamin B levels; but as far as coffee and diabetes is concerned, it's probably a much better idea to be drinking the stuff rather than avoiding it. Throw in a little cinnamon with your drink, and you might even be able to consider it a powerful weapon against diabetes.

I also think coffee's association with heart disease is highly exaggerated.

I should point out that I do work in the industry; but I also drink 4-6 cups of the stuff each day, too.

*Put* in French Fries and Chips? Do you have the slightest clue about what you're speaking of? Acrylamide is a chemical contaminant in food caused by a chemical reaction that occurs when foods are fried, deep-fried or oven-baked.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fsrio/topics/tpacrylamide. htm

It's due to the cooking process, not something that's added.

Speaking of mental slowdowns, do you know where it comes from? Aluminum in the diet. Where does the Aluminum come from? From all the machines that process food.

Cite, please? Show me an actual study where this correlation is indicated? Hell, show me a study where any significant aluminum is introduced into food through processing.

Processed foods do cause cancer. Why is it that 30 years ago most Ice Creams were made from milk and sugar, and a flavoring like vanilla beans or chocolate, but today they are made with an ingredient list of 20 chemicals?

Huh? So ice cream makers are part of a huge conspiracy with the health care/military industrial complex trying to spread cancer to everyone to generate huge profits?

Why is it that 70 years ago airplanes were made with wood and fabric but today they're made with plastics and composites? Because materials science has advanced and it makes a stronger, longer lasting product.

The sad part is that I mostly agree with what you're trying (badly) to say. Too many foods have all the nutrition processed out of them for purposes of extending shelflife and allowing the use of cheaper materials. But making crap up and spewing pseudo-science and voodoo doesn't help.

The Department of the Interior manages over 1/5th the land of the United States. A good portion of that land (at least in the Continental US) comes into direct contact with private ranch and farm land. Many ranchers use federal land to provide grazing for their cattle. As I recall, that grazing is at a subsidized rate(firefox warning, that is a pdf file).

The rancher is upset because Mountain Lions do indeed pose a threat to cattle. But, many ranchers are using my tax subsidies to make a living. As a die-hard east coaster, I find it to be rather odd that many of the people that desire to kill wild animals depend upon my tax dollars for their jobs. If it wasn't for my tax support of their job, there wouldn't be a "debate" around whehter or not we should kill the mountain lion.

Therefore, I disagree with your premise that "The wild animal issue doesn't depend on money". It most definitely depends upon money.

As for my "pigheadedness"...Yes. It is a pigheaded point of view. But, there is nothing wrong with it. Most people in the U.S. are permitted to make a choice as to where they live. As long as their choice doesn't impact me, I don't care. But, whether it is a hurricane or a Mountain Lion, the Financial Impact of the issue gives me a right to be as pigheaded as I want.

>> But we still subsidize much of rural America to this day. Yet they continue to get squat. I don't have to wonder where all the money is going.

It's going to . You sure do like to consume all that cheap, subsidized food, though, dontchya?

Here is an interesting program within the USDA for those interested in improving the divide:

http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/broadband

Actually, not entirely true, either. While it's true that raw chicken is quite likely to make you sick with salmonella, and I'm not aware of what the E. coli statistics are for steaks, you most certainly cannot "count on pork to contain trichinella".

Source: The USDA
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/trichinae/docs/fact_s heet.htm

Today, the trichinae issue is a question of perception versus reality. Dramatic declines in prevalence in pigs and the extremely low numbers of cases in humans are largely unrecognized by domestic consumers who still raise questions about "worms in pork".

And if you live in Canada, you're in even more luck, since most parts of Canada have been certified by the OIE as trichinae-free.

Try this Google search. It will lead you to pages like this. It's a good start. It seems to be a little biased in its presentation, but it's the "official" story.
It's not as useful, but this is funnier.

When I first read your post, I thought you had written "usdatrust.com", and I spent a confused moment trying to figure out why the USDA was in the data backup game.

Sure, here's a lot of links for you to read over :) .

Some links are by obviously biased parties (for example, NCGA is the National Corn Growers Association). Others are not. This is just a start, of course - I gathered these in about three minutes of searching. Again, if you can find a single "net negative" study done by anyone - university, corn-industry, government, environmental group, anyone really - that didn't have Pimental and his bad data involved, please let me know, because I've never found such a study.

Sure, here's a lot of links for you to read over :) .

Some links are by obviously biased parties (for example, NCGA is the National Corn Growers Association). Others are not. This is just a start, of course - I gathered these in about three minutes of searching. Again, if you can find a single "net negative" study done by anyone - university, corn-industry, government, environmental group, anyone really - that didn't have Pimental and his bad data involved, please let me know, because I've never found such a study.

Just be aware that Pimentel releases this "finding" every other summer, Looking at the dates below, he's a month ahead of schedule this year.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/P imentel-ethanol.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/8.14.03/P imentel-ethanol.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol .toocostly.ssl.html

I can't speak to this newest report, but Pimental's work has been repeatedly critiqued, and one of the main compliants it that he uses out of date numbers for yield and conversion efficiency:

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_rooster.html

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05Argo nneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

All that having been said, Pimental is right that soy and corn alone cannot replace our petroleum addiction. You can read more about this in the archives at TDIclub.com.

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board =UBB14&Number=946804&Searchpage=1&Main=941398&Word s=%2Bethanol+%2Bmoney+DrStink&topic=&Search=true#P ost946804

No sun -> little vitamin D production = bad.
Some sun -> vitamin D production = good.
Ridiculous amounts of sun -> high risk for cancer = bad.

This seems to be the case with a number of other antioxidants, too. Take Vitamin C, for instance. There are several papers that suggest at certain amounts, vitamin C acts as a prooxidant instead of an antioxidant. (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/pub lications.htm?seq_no_115=170432)

A moderate amount of Vitamin D probably protects your skin from OH* radicals and other radicals formed from sunlight, but if too much Vitamin D is present then it acts as the harmful radical itself. Or maybe, since you're out in the sun, you've just created too many OH* radicals and not enough Vitamin D. At some point then you would have formed the maximum pool of Vitamin D.

Used to be people would jab a little hole in the ground with a stick, put a seed in it, and move on.

Then came plows, for cutting a giant trench to put seeds in, and then convering them over.

Now the new thing is No till farming. Basically a high tech stick poking a hole in the ground, and moving on. Cuts down on erosion, and reduces the need for fertilizer.

Yay progress.

That is absolutly correct. Our government has official policy that our schools are to teach this kind of eating...

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/FENR/fenrv12n4/fenrv12n4p 75.PDF http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/KidsPyra/PyrBook.pdf

And this is after they lightend up on the grains.

That is absolutly correct. Our government has official policy that our schools are to teach this kind of eating...

http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/FENR/fenrv12n4/fenrv12n4p 75.PDF http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/KidsPyra/PyrBook.pdf

And this is after they lightend up on the grains.

One critique of these maps is that they are not comparing like with like. The forest clearing shown in http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse/Gallery/m ap1.htm is happening mainly in the old growth forest in the rockies. New planting in the east is often plantations of pine trees and other commercial forestry. While it is good that total forest cover in the US is increasing an old growth forest has a much greater biodiversity than a comercial plantation. Old growth forests will have many different species of trees at a variety of different ages, they will support many sorts of wild-life, bears, wolves, rare owls, and all manner of other plant and insect life. A conifourous plantation can be close to monoculture with rows and rows of a single species, often the dense planting and the blanket of needles supresses any low growth. Thankfully there is a trend towards better forest management today, but an old growth forrest is ireplacable.

One critique of these maps is that they are not comparing like with like. The forest clearing shown in http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse/Gallery/m ap1.htm is happening mainly in the old growth forest in the rockies. New planting in the east is often plantations of pine trees and other commercial forestry. While it is good that total forest cover in the US is increasing an old growth forest has a much greater biodiversity than a comercial plantation. Old growth forests will have many different species of trees at a variety of different ages, they will support many sorts of wild-life, bears, wolves, rare owls, and all manner of other plant and insect life. A conifourous plantation can be close to monoculture with rows and rows of a single species, often the dense planting and the blanket of needles supresses any low growth. Thankfully there is a trend towards better forest management today, but an old growth forrest is ireplacable.

One critique of these maps is that they are not comparing like with like. The forest clearing shown in http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse/Gallery/m ap1.htm is happening mainly in the old growth forest in the rockies. New planting in the east is often plantations of pine trees and other commercial forestry. While it is good that total forest cover in the US is increasing an old growth forest has a much greater biodiversity than a comercial plantation. Old growth forests will have many different species of trees at a variety of different ages, they will support many sorts of wild-life, bears, wolves, rare owls, and all manner of other plant and insect life. A conifourous plantation can be close to monoculture with rows and rows of a single species, often the dense planting and the blanket of needles supresses any low growth. Thankfully there is a trend towards better forest management today, but an old growth forrest is ireplacable.

One critique of these maps is that they are not comparing like with like. The forest clearing shown in http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse/Gallery/m ap1.htm is happening mainly in the old growth forest in the rockies. New planting in the east is often plantations of pine trees and other commercial forestry. While it is good that total forest cover in the US is increasing an old growth forest has a much greater biodiversity than a comercial plantation. Old growth forests will have many different species of trees at a variety of different ages, they will support many sorts of wild-life, bears, wolves, rare owls, and all manner of other plant and insect life. A conifourous plantation can be close to monoculture with rows and rows of a single species, often the dense planting and the blanket of needles supresses any low growth. Thankfully there is a trend towards better forest management today, but an old growth forrest is ireplacable.

In North America at least, the trend has been going largely in the opposite direction. We are seeing REforestation rather than DEforestation. This is in despite of an increasing population.

It can be a little tough to find good data given all the bullshit flying around but here's a map that shows the amount of forest land in the US from 1620 onwards:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg96rpt/chap7.htm l

The interesting things is that we are see a dramatic resurgence of forest land here in the US. A big part of the reason, apparently, is more efficient farming practices which have allowed us to restore a lot of farmland back to forests. Here's a map showing the trends from 1982 to 1997:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse/Gallery/m ap1.htm

A move to more densley packed cities is also a contributing factor to reforestation.

Article such as the one Zonk cited are a favorite of the hard left environmental movement. These 'studies' cherry pick data to paint an alarmist picture. The media usually swallow these article whole with little crtical thought. In the end, these distorted pictures don't do anything to help real environmental progress.

Sure. Do you want a reference for the trade imbalance on US ag imports to exports, or for the effects of US subsidies on foreign markets?

Both would be good. I'll start with this one you provided from another thread.

This "flood" coming from America you talk about might have been true at one time. However, the year-to-year trade balance appears to be decreasing, not increasing. If anything, it appears that a "flood" of cheap produce is now heading to the US and swamping American farmers, therefore dramatically increasing our imports.

Me: China can get by on old machinery due to the fact that they have a billion people to throw at them
You: Which makes them less competitive.

How? If they can throw 1, 2, or 3 million people at producing socks, how does that make them LESS competitive? They're still paying their factory workers almost nothing. It's the machinery that costs them money. If they can get by on an older type of machinery, they they're paying almost nothing to produce socks. How does paying almost nothing make them LESS competitive?

The fact is that their cost structure makes China more competitive. The US received a flood of low cost clothing from China once trade barriers were eliminated Jan 1st.

Preliminary U.S. data showed a 1,505 percent increase in imports of cotton trousers from China in the first four months of 2005, and increases of 1,346 percent for cotton shirts and 347 percent for cotton and synthetic underwear.

That doesn't sound like they're uncompetitive to me. However, this currency manipulation by the Chinese certainly looks much worse in this light.

Furthermore, growth means *new* production, which means newly acquired machinery.

That's not necessarily true. If you throw more people at production on the old type of machines, then you have growth as well. You make the same kind of sock with an old type of machine that you can with a new machine. It's just that with the new type of machines, you make them much faster. When new-fangled machines cost more than employing a new worker, then you stick with the old machines and just add a bunch of new workers.

Me: China is roughly the size of the US with plenty of its own resources
You: The resources need to supply a billion people for example, they're the second largest importer of oil on the planet. China's exports in the first half of 2000 (first article I found) were 114.5B$, and their imports were 102.1B$. Sustaining a heavy industrial economy requires a lot of imports even in the most mineral-rich places.

From the CIA World Factbook: Exports: $583.1 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Exports - commodities: machinery and equipment, plastics, optical and medical equipment, iron and steel
Exports - partners: US 21.1%, Hong Kong 17.4%, Japan 13.6%, South Korea 4.6%, Germany 4% (2003)

Imports: $552.4 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)
Imports - commodities: machinery and equipment, oil and mineral fuels, plastics, optical and medical equipment, organic chemicals, iron and steel
Imports - partners: Japan 18%, Taiwan 11.9%, South Korea 10.4%, US 8.2%, Germany 5.9% (2003)
Their low currency can't be hurting them much since they can export much more than they import.

Considering the US receives 21.1% of their exports while only contributing to 8.2% of their imports, I believe that the US has a legitimate complaint regarding China's currency manipulation. This manipulation appears to be done to the express detriment of the US.

You cite "pastpeak.com"; I cite the USDA. Which do you think is a more credible source?

The gap has narrowed, but if you'll read over the numbers on the USDA's site, you'll find that it's mostly import growth (without corresponding population growth) due to increased American demand of noncritical imports. There's no "national security" interest. US imports of "staples" are only 13% of consumption, mostly for off-season crops which widen the variety of what is available around the year. I don't think there will be riots in the streets if people suddenly couldn't get strawberries in January. :P

The subsidy situation isn't as bad as it used to be, but it still needs a lot of improvement.

Estate taxes don't break up small family farms - they actually help small farms by coming down hard on bigger farms (industrial ag), and rarely effect small-scale farmers. Due to the way the law was structured, it was actually harder on mid-sized farms, but several proposed reforms would have taken care of that. But you're right, though - family farms are a dying breed in America.

Nobody should have to live in mortal fear of losing their job

Anyhow, if you think that ANYBODY lives in poverty in the US, then you need to visit a third world country. Not being able to afford satellite TV on the latest flat-screen HDTV is not poverty.

People living in "poverty" in the US have clean drinking water, access to at least some health care, a roof over their heads, some food to put in their bellies, etc. Their most basic of human needs are met.

I don't think anyone should be allowed to bitch about poverty in the US who hasn't visited a third world country. That is poverty.

So, would the data carrier's illegal nature in the US prevent digital snails from being elligible for acceptance as a standard? It's not patented... it's just illegal.

What's particularly insidious is government PR and video news releases.

Why are these automatically worse than, say, corporate PR? Does it really undermine democracy if the Department of Agriculture is putting out mp3s that explain the state of sugar industry?As long as they clearly state where the information is coming from, what's the problem?

Why should explaining government positions be left to those who oppose it?