Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The East Floods While The West Burns" video.
-
Permaculture and harvesting the rain .... globally seen there will be MORE rain. It is warmer so more vapor, and it will come down somewhere (within a few days). The weather systems are not shoved around as they used to be, those currents habe become weaker, so they stagnate.
Periods of heat / sunshine (high pressure) followed by downpours that overwhelm the (insufficient) infrastructure and the degraded soils.
I saw a video of a permaculture property in Vermont that was filmed during hurricane Irene. there was so much water that even that property could not soak it all up, they had some runoff. CLEAR water running in broad currents over the slopes (still lots landed in all the trenches, good soil, ponds, etc).
All the swales (level water trenches along the slopes from the top and then down at several levels), where the waters sits and then infiltrates, usually withn a few days, in extreme cases up to 1 week). They slowly recharge the soil and if that is saturated, the rest goes into the groundwater.
Irene was a few years ago, the years after that they had a draught. So if all of Vermont would "harvest the rain" Irene could have been a blessing, less water would have hit the drains, so less flooding and mudslides, and the groundwater would have been filled up - just in time before 1 or 2 dry years.
You can look at the pics of Zaytuna farm (permaculture property) in Australia, that is situated among cattle ranches. They were lucky that they installed the swales and ponds BEFORE the big draught hit Australia, so they had the groundwater in very good shape, the ponds and tanks full. They had enough water - also in the tanks and ponds just in case the fire would move over to them. Did not happen, but they were prepared and had enough to ward it off at the perimeter. Plus of course that the fire cannot move quite as fast if the property is lush, green and there is still som moisture in the air.
Geoff Lawton says in the time when he had the farm (then 17 years) he had 20 new springs on the farm. They do have good rain in some years, even torrential, but the slopes do not hold them without help, there is too much runoff, the water moves to fast - unless it is slowed down.
Stop. Slow. Soak. Spread.
And of course he planted lots of trees on the degraded ranchland, that help with water infiltration and later help to pump it up from the recharged groundwater.
Good soil and earthworks that help with water infiltration can handle the downpours and funnel a LOT into the aquifers. What usally happens: the ground water is depleted, the following torrential rains do damage and only a part goes into the ground a lot is "drained" away and lands in streams that pour into the ocean (within days), that way countries like India lose a ton of top soil.
They have enough rain on average BUT it is 6 - 8 months draught and 2 - 3 months torrential rain. India started massive programs in recent years, to cure that. NREGA (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act - they build earthworks and that can be from very humble, with some traning for the villagers, to dams that need the planning of civil engineers and machines. And obviously they get subsidies for material and maybe also pay the villagers for the work).
2
-
1
-
1
-
@lorenzoblum868 The Hill / Rising just pushed "carbon technology" (= industrial scale carbon capture of course with subsidies for the very for-profit actors that made sure we need now desperate measures). I hear little discussion about the common sense, low-tech, ready to deploy methods (no new technology needed) to AVOID emissions or to sequester carbon.
I think many people are unaware how much avoidable ! emissions are caused by industrial style farming methods (just starting with nitrogen that is won with a lot of energy out of air. Organic / permaculture growers use nitrogen fixing plants to harvest nitrogen out of the air.
Their produce would also have shorter transport ways, small farmers sell on a farmer's market or have their customers nearby.
Or that there are excellent reasons to NOT till or plough the soil.
On top of the disadvantages for soil life - it also expose relatively unstable carbon in topsoil (in compost, recently decomposed bio mass) to air and it oxydizes (same for instable nitrogen so the potential fertilizer in the soil is lost, it might also promote NOx creation which is another greenhous gas).
Methane is a strong greenhouse gas (80 times the effect of CO2 in the first 20 years, and still 28 times over 100 years). Cows fart much less if they get their natural fodder, it also has more of the good Omega 3 acids.
The advantages or permaculture / regenerative farming a ALWAYS manyfold, and layered. As opposed to for profit carbon capture fixes.
On the other hand: if regenerative methods are used the soil life will also support lots of fungi which will get sugars (exudates from plants roots, especially trees) the plants get minerals in exchange
The fungi then process the sugars and transform them into longer molecules that contain lots of carbon (enclose salts, can render even heavy metalls inactive) and are stable. That is humus and it is the gold standard for soil (water infiltration and retention, pH buffer, healthy soil life that supports healthy resilient plants, a reservoir of nutrients that the plants can access with little effort, but must not use if it is not a good fit.
Where as dissolved nutrients like artificial nitrogen that the plant cannot help but absorb with the water are forced on the plant. The 40 % that stay in the soil, while (up to) 60 % of the energy intensive fertilizer is washed out (it must be easily soluble to be the fix for the plants that have no support from soil life, but that also means, rain, melting snow after winter will carry away some of it. Then it damages life in streams, ponds, pollutes drinking water (nitrate is especially bad for little children) and the ocean, if the runoff is intense enough there will be death zones like in the Gulf of Mexico..
Or growing lots of trees also between fields and meadows. The trees do not compete with cash crops, grass or perennials, on the contrary. But many citizens are unaware of it, and most farmers do not challenge tradition that made their forefathers go after every tree stump in every field or meadow.
An university promoted alley cropping in the late 1990s, and accompagnied the experiments. Which went very well, of course: the trees pump up water for all plants not only themselves. They also pump up nutrients, help against erosion during downpours, and support all vegetation during draughts. They slow down water and runoff (so the water goes INTO the soil instead of eroding top soil).
The effects of wind shelter and slightly warmer temperatures (longer growing times) can also be considerable.
In organic farming these rows support the defense troops against pests (insects, wild birds). But they could also be used in conventional farms or some that want to go light on the fertilizer etc. (it also costs).
Up to 20 % of fields and meadows can be given up for trees (or also hedges) and the cash crops will bring the same profits. A part comes from avoided costs, better water supply (not too much or too little, that can save a harvest), the effects of wind shelter.
When the trees are larger they (and the berries and groundcover under the trees) bring additional yields. Timber, fruits for humans or fodder, some plants are nitrogen fixers and are composted on site (chop and drop) etc. Then the habitat for pollinators.
One would think the concept is not hard to understand and especially after some pioneers were willing to test it .... and the stripes of land for the annuals / cash crops are still wide enough to be worked with machines, so that is no hindrance either. It can be also adopted by conventional farmers that want to go a little bit into the direction of regenerative.
It is very typical that people doing things differently in farming get the side eye and people coming from that background are VERY aware of that and most are wary to risk their standing among their peers. If they are successful after straying to more organic / sustainable methods it is tolerated (more industrial style apporaches, larger machines etc. will always be O.K). - but unless they have the position of opinion leader in a community they will not be imitated.
Like the permaculture farms in Australia (Zaytuna farm, mainly food forest or the projects of Peter Andrews) are ignored. it is indisputable that they were green and still had water when the neighbours were brown, had to reduce herd sizes if cattle and had little water left (while it was not clear whether the fires could eat their way also into that region).
But seeing that the other methods work so well, does not mean they will be imitated.
For changes in farming that go back to nature (not even more industrial style) it will need a lot of outsiders, new small farmers - at some point the other farmers will have to adjust, and if there are enough to prove they could have avoided the draught damage or loss of top soil - it will become harder and harder to ask for a bailout.
A program to make it possible for people to start a homestead would be very helpful, speeding up things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@omarsimpson6542 Our high technology civilization (which allows space exploration) also needs industrial mass production and many educated people to do the work - think engineers, qualified handymen. - The upper class had never given a damn about the poor / peasants since agriculture was invented and private property, hierarchial LARGER societies, slavery, servitude and war became a thing.
But under feudal economic systems there was not so much output that the lower classes were NEEDED as consumers.
Back in the day (10,000 years ago until 70 years ago 70 - 80 % of the population just scraped by, most of them lead a hard life as farmworkers, and the other 20 - 30 % did O.K. to very well - they skimmed off the surplus. The surplus that was not that abundant and needed a lot of hard manual labor of the lower classes.
But now the producers (that can also be a non-profit or a co-op) finance MACHINES, modern equipment and R & D - and then they produce a lot of output. They have goods and services for sale that can be much more efficiently produced and must sell a lot of them.
Costs and effort would ALSO be lower if we were good stewards, industrial mass production gives us that much leverage. So not too much consumerism, durable & energy efficient products, design with the necessary resources but also the end of use in mind, recycling, a push to have the least impact when mining or processing the raw materials, ..... - and we still could produce shoes, garments, furniture, construction material, vehicles, appliances ..... that are much more affordable compared to 100 or even 80 years ago.
That model CANNOT be imposed on agriculture though which has to obey the laws of nature. Straying from that has lead to degradation of soil, and plundering of water underground. Small homesteaders and farms (or gardeners) can beat the large producers when it comes to output per area, the principles of nature (diversity, the more the better, ....) gives them and edge, they go WITH the flow and those methods do not lend themselves to large scale operations. *
Highly efficient production (with the high upfront costs) is only beneficial if enough people can buy the stuff . And ONE big fish got the machines (mills) back in the day to have an advantage over competiton, all followed, so over time they had to swallow the condition that the lower classes are needed in that system and must get enough of the LARGE surplus.
The rich that may have harebrained ideas about leaving the earth - after ruining it with their greed - could not keep up a high tech civilization - for that industrial mass production is needed.
It is not only for frivolous consumer goods, aslo for products like mass transportation, bullet trains, wind turbines, batteries, .... computers, broadband, ...
Solid construction material, earth diggers and tractors. Even simple and cheap things lik foils for garden tunnels (or more durable materials). They did not have those caterpillar tunnels and it meant they had to make do with the many advantages for gardners or professional growers of vegetables.
Some even keep pigs in them over winter (Justin Rhodes). Or was it the chickens ?
1
-
@louvendran7273 Look into permaculture. Harvesting / storing / managing the water (too much, too little) will become more important in the future. Solar traps in gardens and roofed terraces (so you can sit outside during a light rain.
Well insulated homes with MASS with mineral wool - stay away from styrofoam. Homes with not much mass can function well in winter, they are built with light materials like particle board wood that does not absorb / temperate heat and cold, they function well in cold winters, or in the cool unpleasant NZ rain season (to avid the word winter).
But if during a heat wave the heat gets into the home and the nights are hot, the heat does not leave anymore. There is no mass in the home to temperate it. usually it gets a little cooler in the early morning - then would be the time to "store" the coolness in the home - in brick walls, concrete floors, tiles, loam walls, ....
Well not if the home has no mass.
Having a garden or some green helps (cooler nights), and shading the windows from sun helps a lot - afternoon sun is important. ideally the roof is large enough to shade the windows automatically in summer, but lets in the sun during spring, fall, winter when the sun stands lower.
A house with concrete, brick and mortar is much better - they had that problem in Canada right now.
The houses are well insulated for the Canadian winter and the walls not only keep out the cold but also the heat. But there are windows that entrap solar radiation, and warm air got in.
Likley people were too inexperienced to close the windows during day or they could not shade the windows (that must be done outside, inside is much, much less effective). And if the city is a heat island they also get no relief from opening the windows during night and even if it gets cooler, there is no mass that can cool down (and then needs reheating, therefore moderating the temperature).
So the Canadians with the winter insulation still got into trouble with the recent heat wave.
1
-
1
-
@kalrobbins2811 Well how many dragons with 20 heads that regrow fast do you want them to tackle at once ? If the GND would be encacted as planned it would be a decisive step and it would create jobs. So goodwill with voters, winning elections, dominating the NARRATIVE and better majorities, plus unnerving the coporate tools that also would like to win elections, and would see what is popular with voters. Nothing sells like good experiences.
Defunding the MIC is very necessary and that would automatically reduce their consumption. it would be ONE measure if you will (but a big one, that would be fiercly opposed and needs full support by voters, not gonna happen right now) - the other stuff is not as much in direct control of federal government (compared to not starting wars and reducing troops) - they need jobs for vets of course.
Phase 2: after winning elections based on the goodies of GND (like M4A) and with higher majorities:
Explain to voters the military needs to be reduced. Their representatives can have some jobs programs to take home to their state, just no MIC related employment programs.
Problem: reasonable measures often create jobs and help the population *, but not one big donor. So the reps might prefer to bring home the MIC orders to get some kickbacks.
* One example: making it easier for people to start homesteads would have lots of benefits beyond water management and sequestering CO2. These small operations would harvest the rain, also plant lots of trees and hedges, take care of the soil and sequester away carbon (in trees and in form of humus in soil) - then the good harvests fall in place.
But lots of people could make a decent income (also with logging in the slow season, and then replanting) and no one gets rich.
1
-
1
-
1