A lot of people are talking about greenhouse gases and global warming as if reducing our production of carbon dioxide is the only thing we could do to save our planet. They talk about reducing the length of our trips, gasoline consumption and reducing the amount of power we use in our homes and the like. But there has been no discussion about food.
Think about it: by 2048, the fish in the ocean will be gone. Humans eat a lot of fish supplied by their industrialized fishing machines. We have scoured every ocean for every fish we could find. And as the fish become more scarce, they become more valuable, driving up the incentive to find more. If you don't believe me about the fish, read this. I found 159,000 articles on the subject for you to consider.
But then you ask, why would this matter? Well, the fish, they produce poop and carcasses that float to the bottom of the sea where plants grow. Plants need food, fertilizer, to grow. And we all know how good fish remains are for fertilizer. So if we eat the fish, the plants, which are so good at scrubbing CO2 from the ocean and the air, will slowly die off for lack of fertilizer.
It's akin to how they are wiping out the Amazon rain forest just to graze cattle. No matter how we slice it, eating meat is a big cause of global warming. Cooking meat takes more energy than cooking vegetables. And most veggies can be prepared for consumption in their raw state.
So the next time you go to Gladstone's for fish in Malibu, think about the ocean floor. You might just consider a salad instead.
1 comment:
Does history repeat itself? In the 1920’s the stock market crash turned into a financial crisis because there were a lot of debts secured by stock that no longer had any value. When the banks called the loan due, nobody had the money to pay for it. Thus, the banks became insolvent. Today is no different, only the type of asset has changed. Instead of the stock market crashing, it’s the housing market. What does that mean for the future of our economy?
We have already seen an entire industry (investment banking) entirely disappear. We have seen how far the ripple effects of this crisis can go. AIG, the largest insurance company in the world became insolvent. The problem is, our entire financial system is intertwined in so many ways there is no way to predict how bad this is yet.
If consumers continue the trend to short sale their homes because of the lack equity, then how will banks be able to have enough cash on hand to give to depositors. Even if they manage to stay solvent, will there be any money left to loan to new homebuyers? How will the lack of funding effect the market? It is a downward spiral that could last a very long time before we get to the bottom.
So as much as I hate to admit it, perhaps government involvement now is better than a hands off approach. They say, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. We are now paying for the cure. At least congress has got the right idea for certain parts of the bill. We cannot reward the managers that take advantage of government assistance. That will give companies incentive to avoid it if they can. They are also insisting on oversight of how the money is spent (although that is little comfort based on past experience, but better than nothing).
I don’t know what happens to a country when it no longer has any credit markets, but I think it just might be worse than what congress and the President are putting together right now.
Post a Comment