Connect with us

Environmental

Time To Rethink How & Where We Grow Food

Published

on

“From farm to plate, the modern food system relies heavily on cheap oil. Threats to our oil supply are also threats to our food supply. As food undergoes more processing and travels further, the food system consumes ever more energy each year.”

advertisement - learn more

Danielle Murray

Oil is the Most Energy Dense Form of Liquid Fuel

More often than not we hear commentators discussing oil in terms of barrels. A barrel of crude oil is 42 U.S. gallons or 158.9873 litres. A barrel of oil contains about six gigajoules of energy. This is equivalent to six billion joules or approximately 1667 kilowatt-hours. This equates to 5.8 million Btu, or British thermal units. This one barrel of oil with its astronomical 6.1 gigajoules of energy has the ability to do the work of approximately 2000 horse power hours. A healthy strong person doing physical work for eight hours generates around 75 watts of energy or one tenth of the energy a horse can deliver. Therefore as a rough guide, one barrel of crude oil has the ability to do around 10 years of human labour based on a 40 hour work week.  Yet it seems many of us take this precious substance for granted, oblivious to how this liquid fuel has changed our lives, our economy and the way we live.  

Oil a Finite Resource

Due to its high energy density, ability to be easily transported, and relative abundance, oil has been the world’s most important source of energy since the mid-1950s. A whopping 90% of all global transport is fuelled by crude oil. The density of energy v’s cost, weight, and storability have enabled petroleum to remain the dominate fuel for transportation for the last several decades. While most associate petroleum with a fuel source, there are over 6,000 items that we use each day made from petroleum waste by-products. Some of the more familiar ones include: fertiliser, linoleum, perfume, insecticide, soap, vitamin capsules, computers, mobile phones, CDs, clothes, tires, dyes, food preservatives, paint, shoes, lubricants, food packaging, lounges, antiseptics, and pharmaceuticals.

Oil Has Helped Fuel Agricultural Productivity

One of the most influential uses oil has had since the 1940’s is on agricultural productivity through the use of energy-intensive mechanisation, fertilisers, and pesticides. These have dramatically changed the nature of farming, resulting in an increased reliance on fossil fuel based inputs needed for broad scale farming. As Lester Brown from the Earth Policy Institute points out:

The growth in the world fertiliser industry after World War II was spectacular. Between 1950 and 1988, fertiliser use climbed from 14 million to 144 million tons. As the world economy evolved from being largely rural to being highly urbanised, the natural nutrient cycle was disrupted. In traditional rural societies, food is consumed locally, and human and animal waste is returned to the land, completing the nutrient cycle. But in highly urbanised societies, where food is consumed far from where it is produced, using fertiliser to replace the lost nutrients is the only practical way to maintain land productivity. It comes as no surprise the growth in fertiliser use closely tracks the growth in urbanisation, with much of it concentrated in the last 60 years.

advertisement - learn more

While some countries are using less fertiliser inputs, the average growth rate for global fertilizers demand, according to a United Nations report, suggests demand between 2011 to 2015 will grow by around 2%.

Time to Rethink Food Production

This reliance on fossil fuels for fertilisers accounts for around a third of all agricultural energy consumption. The use of hydrocarbon-fuelled farm machinery and irrigation systems means industrialised farming consumes 50 times the energy input of traditional agriculture. In extreme cases, agriculture’s energy consumption has increased one hundred fold or more. It’s estimated that 95% of all our food products require the use of oil. Just to farm a single cow and deliver it to market requires six barrels of oil, enough to drive a car from New York to Los Angeles. (1) Petroleum products are used directly to power tractors, machinery, and irrigation. It provides the energy to transport, transform, and package agricultural products. They are also used indirectly to manufacture fertilisers and pesticides and prepare seeds. Thus, food production is extremely energy intensive. It takes approximately 2,000 litres of oil equivalents per year to feed and supply the average American. This accounts for about 19 per cent of the total energy used in the United States. (2)

We Need to Rethink Food, by Liam Scheff

excerpts from Rethink…Your world, Your future.

Article by Andrew Martin, author of  Rethink…Your world, Your future. and One ~ A Survival Guide for the Future… 

RethinkcoverCE2facebook

(1) Caroline Lucs, Andy Jones and Colin Hines, Peak oil and food security Fuelling a food crisis, Pacific Ecologist Winter 2007. http://pacificecologist.org/archive/14/peak-oil-part-one.pdf

(2) Andrew Martin, Rethink…Your World, Your Future…Oneness Publishing, 2015.

 

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Straw & Plastic Bag Bans Are Great, But What About The Single Most Littered Item In The World?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Cigarette butts account for one-third of all trash collected according to the ocean conservatory project. Research shows that filters aren't even needed as they do next to nothing to mitigate the harmful effects of smoking.

  • Reflect On:

    What can we do to minimize our impact on the environment? Is it time to re-evaluate our smoking habits and do what we can to be the change?

Over the past several years a lot of attention has been brought to the amount of trash that is ending up in our world’s oceans. We have seen straw bans happening around the world and bans on single-use plastic bags as well. There has been a concerted effort to make single-use cutlery compostable or even edible. Although this is a huge step in the right direction and something that we should continue to do, there is one pollutant that should be in the spotlight as it is the single greatest source of ocean trash — cigarette butts.

For some reason, this small, but ubiquitous source of trash has mostly avoided any form of regulation. This soon could change if a committed group of activists has a say.

A tobacco industry academic, California lawmaker, and a worldwide surfing organization are among the growing number of people who are arguing that cigarette filters should be banned.

“It’s pretty clear there is no health benefit from filters. They are just a marketing tool. And they make it easier for people to smoke. It’s also a major contaminant, with all that plastic waste. It seems like a no-brainer to me that we can’t continue to allow this,” Thomas Novotny, a professor of public health at San Diego State University told NBC News.

A California assemblyman proposed an outright ban on cigarettes with filters but wasn’t able to get the proposal out of the committee. A state senator from New York has written legislation to create a rebate program for butts returned to redemption centers, but that idea is also on hold. San Francisco has propositioned for a 60 cent per pack increase to raise around $3 million annually to help to cover the cost of cleaning up these discarded butts.

Time To Tackle The Most Littered Item In The World

The Truth Initiative, one of the largest anti-smoking initiatives in the U.S. is doing everything it can to raise awareness around this issue. they use funds collected between state attorneys general and tobacco industries to deliver hard facts against smoking. The group used a nationally televised Video Music Awards show to launch a brand new campaign against cigarette butts. The group is going against the hands down, “most littered item in the world.”

advertisement - learn more

With 5.6 trillion cigarettes manufactured worldwide each year, the filters made from cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that takes a minimum of 10 years to decompose. An alarming two-thirds of those butts are dumped irresponsibly each year according to Novotny, who founded the Cigarette Butt Pollution Project.

Since 1982 the Ocean Conservancy has sponsored a beach cleanup. Each year, cigarette butts have been the most collected item on the beaches of the world. Over 60 million have been collected over that period of time. Out of all the plastic wrappers, eating utensils, bottles, containers, cigarette butts have accounted for one-third of all the trash collected.

Let’s not forget that these discarded filters contain synthetic fibers and hundreds of chemicals that are used to treat tobacco. Novonty is actively pursuing further research to see exactly what waste from cigarettes is leaching into the soil, streams, rivers, and oceans.

“More research is needed to determine exactly what happens to all of that,” said Nick Mallos, director of the Trash Free Seas campaign for the Ocean Conservancy. “The final question is what impact these micro-plastics and other waste have on human health.”

Do We Even Need Filters?

Filters were made in the mid-20th century to help mitigate growing concerns in regards to the health impacts of tobacco. It was determined that filters weren’t even able to control the carcinogenic compounds from smoking. Then “filters became a marketing tool, designed to recruit and keep smokers as consumers of these hazardous products,” according to research conducted by Bradley Harris, a graduate scholar in the history of science and technology at Stanford University.

How Can We Take Action?

Are you a smoker? If so it is up to you to take responsibility for the proper disposal of your butts. This may even be enough of a drawback from smoking that it may inspire you to quit. If not, there are many options available. One being, rolling your own cigarettes, and either just going filter-less or using a reusable, cleanable filter. The mass produced, chemical-laden, filtered cigarettes are hardly ideal. It is possible to get organically grown, additive free tobacco, which would be much less harmful to you.

What can you do to minimize your impact? Change starts with us! We can all do our part.

Much Love

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Alternative News

Media Misses Key Detail On Recent Trump GMO/Pesticide Ban ‘Lifting’, Here’s Why

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Trump's administration recently released a memo cancelling a 2014 Obama-era memo about GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticide use. The media covered this story as a 'lifting of a ban' on GMOs, yet that's not what either memo says.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we still leaving the door open for GMO and pesticide use in both administrations? Why is the media, across the whole board here, using any story possible to put people against the current administration? Has the deep state lost control?

In early August, Trump’s administration released a new memo from the Fish and Wildlife Service stating that the 2014 version of the memo, out of Obama’s administration would be cancelled and the terms of the new memo would now be in place.

The memo was in reference to a GMO and neonicotinoid bans that put in place to help protect the bee population and wildlife refuges. The 2014 memo was a positive step forward as it was publicly stating, even at higher governmental levels, that GMOs were harmful to agriculture and wildlife, as were neonics. This initial memo was coined a GMO and neonics ban, even though the language in the memo doesn’t actually say that.

Before we continue, we recognize and have painstakingly covered, the dangers of neonicotinoid pesticides and GMOs on our environment and wildlife. We have called for an all-out ban, based on our research, numerous times over the last 6 years and still hold completely strong to that truth.

What is discussed in both of these memos in regards to how to go about using pesticides and GMOs are NOT safe for our environment and wildlife. The fact that both administrations are leaving the door open for use is not in humanities best interest.

The 2014 Memo

Specifically, the 2014 Obama-era memo states that when it comes to both GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticides, they can be used on a case by case basis when refuge managers request such and the case is brought through the proper channels of approval.

Below is a piece of that memo, which can also be viewed here, referring to the requested use of neonics.

advertisement - learn more

2014 memo referring to neonic pesticides.

When it came to the subject of GMOs in the 2014 memo, Obama’s administration made their stance very clear as well:

2014 memo referring to GMO use.

In both cases, we see that it was never an all-out ban, but simply an open door where neonicotinoid pesticide use and GMO use to be requested and reviewed on a case by case basis.

Now let’s have a look at the 2018 memos that resulted in media coverage alluding to a ‘lifting of the GMO and neonic ban’ put in place by the Obama administration.

“The Trump administration has rescinded an Obama-era ban on the use of pesticides linked to declining bee populations and the cultivation of genetically modified crops in dozens of national wildlife refuges where farming is permitted.” Reuters

The 2018 Memo

When referring to GMOs, the 2018 memo states:

And when speaking about neonicotinoid pesticides the 2018 memo states:

As you can see once again in both cases, the language is the same. There was never an all-out ban in place, and all uses will be based on approval on a case by case basis.

What Media Coverage In This Way?

When we initially printed this story, we only had access to the 2018 memo that was recently released. Based on widespread media coverage and the memo itself, it appeared as though this was, in fact, a lifting of the ban. But once we got our hands on the 2014 memo from the Obama admin, it became clear this was the same language, and that the media was now weaponizing this story against Trump’s administration.

You may follow CE’s work a lot, or you may be new to it, we are politically neutral and do not side with political parties in any way. We report on what ACTUALLY happens, not a slanted angle based on a political agenda. In that perspective, we are not attached to events but can instead see how they play into a big picture.

With that said, why did the media cover this story in a manner that was so damning to the Trump administration?

We have been reporting on the fact that from our observation, experience, and analysis, as well as our conversations with contacts we have connected to the intelligence communities, we feel that Trump has come into this space as an outsider to the specific cabal/deep state group that has been in control for many many decades. This was the cabal group that would have put Hillary in place if there wasn’t a divide taking place in the intelligence community that had the plan flipped. You can learn about that in detail here.

Leading up to the election, and since he has been POTUS, Trump has been all out attacked by every single news station, with the exception of FOX, in a big way – an unprecedented happenstance. Since we know that only 5 corporations own all of the US media, and these 5 corporations are tied to powerful elite within the deep state, it would begin to seem like a war on an outsider more than anything else. Again, a detail we have covered in depth over the last 2 years as many examples of this have surfaced.

Below is a video that dives into this story and the deep state involvement in more detail, but the thing to note here is, we must step beyond identity politics and siding with a political party in general if we want to see the truth of our world and begin to change it. This is the illusion being set forth to divide us and keep us from unifying under a deep understanding. Before we react to and believe much of what is coming out of the mainstream media today, we must recognize this deeper war taking place here and dig deeper to find the truth.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Congressional Hearing On Weather Manipulation – Another ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Turned Into Fact

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Geoengineering (weather modification) is hitting the mainstream hard as a potential response to climate change. Congressional hearings and more are all taking place, but there is evidence to suggest that spraying has already been happening.

  • Reflect On:

    All of the evidence showing it's been happening for a long time. Are they really spraying to combat climate change, or could there be some other reason these programs are taking place? The article goes into more detail.

Geoengineering is becoming a common term within the mainstream. We’ve covered the topic many times over the past 10 years. The last article we wrote on the topic was about a Harvard Professor explaining how spraying heavy metals in the sky could possibly kill or contribute to the deaths of tens of thousands of people every single year. Prior to that, we wrote about an experiment at MIT where they were going to spray toxic particles into the sky to reflect the sunlight away from Earth, and before that, we covered the then CIA director’s comments regarding his support for Geoengineering. This isn’t a new phenomenon. Discussions about it have been ongoing for a very long time, and there are dozens of examples to choose from when conveying this information to the public.

A Few Examples

Here’s a video of popular physicist Michio Kaku speaking on weather modification.

A United States government document printed at the request of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in November of 1978 states:

In addition to specific research programs sponsored by Federal agencies, there are other functions related to weather modification which are performed in several places in the executive branch. Various federal advisory panels and committees and their staffs – established to conduct in-depth studies and prepare comprehensive reports, to provide advice or recommendations, or to coordinate Federal weather modification programs – have been housed and supported within executive departments, agencies, or offices.

A 1996 report conducted by top military personnel in the U.S, titled  “Weather as a Force Multiplier; Owning the Weather in 2025,” reveals the supposed urgency to implement these programs:

In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.

advertisement - learn more

There is enormous evidence to suggest that these programs have already been operational for years:

“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” –  World Meteorological Association (source)

The question is, have they really been spraying to combat global warming? And if so, why didn’t they just tell us?

International Community Speaks Out

The international community has spoken out against weather modification. Several global politicians, like Hugo Chavez, have also accused the United States of using weather manipulation for warfare purposes, specifically referencing the Haiti Earthquake.

HRH Princess Basmah Bint Saud said geoengineering is the west’s “weapon of mass destruction.”

So, as you can see, this has been an issue for a while. Unfortunately, it’s doesn’t really become an ‘issue’ until it’s presented within the mainstream. Now, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Geoengineering Goes Mainstream

At the end of last year, this is what happened in US politics concerning geoengineering:

As the nation continues to grapple with historic flooding and wildfires, Congressman Jerry McNerney (CA-09) has introduced legislation to explore innovative options to combat the root cause of these intensifying natural disasters: climate change.

Last month, Congressman McNerney called for a hearing in the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology (SST) to collect information from experts in the field of geoengineering – which implements techniques to counteract the effects of climate change. Today, the Congressman has introduced H.R. 4586, the Geoengineering Research Evaluation Act. This legislation would provide for a federal commitment to the creation of a geoengineering research agenda and an assessment of the potential risks of geoengineering practices. (source)

The quote comes from Jerry McNerney’s website. He was one of the multiple people present at the recent congressional hearing called “Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology.” Many people were in attendance. The gist of the hearing was basically full support of geoengineering protocols, as one of the opening statements read:

Many of the concepts in this field deal with solar radiation management, or how to influence the effects of the sun on the earth. But the field is by no means limited to solar research. Geoengineering can also be used to manipulate different levels of gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide. These avenues of geoengineering research and others are still in the developmental stage, and any or all of them may warrant further exploration. While there are at least a few programs in our nation’s universities that are looking into these concepts, federal research is still limited. However, if in the future the government wants to actually apply the concepts and findings of geoengineering research, we must fully examine both the potential merits and potential pitfalls of this emergent field.

They don’t really mention the techniques of solar radiation management, but they well know. For example, SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) is a United Kingdom government-funded geoengineering research project that collaborates with the University of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Bristol to further examine the idea of Solar Radiation Management.

Their key ingredient candidate particles include:

  • Sulphate/Sulphuric Acid/Sulphur Dioxide
  • Titania
  • Silicon Carbide
  • Calcium Carbonate
  • Alumina
  • Silica
  • Zinc Oxide

You can watch the full hearing below.

Chemtrails

There are multiple publications that raised concerns over the damage that “chemtrails” have already done. For example, a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and public health states,

The widespread, intentional and increasingly frequent chemical emplacement in the troposphere has gone unidentified and unremarked in the scientific literature for years. The author presents evidence that toxic coal combusion fly as is the most likely aerosolized particulate spraed by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes and descries some of the multifold consequences on public health”

After going through the peer-review process and being approved for publication, it was retracted; but the same author has published several others that have not been. Here’s another example.

Weather Warfare

There are many ‘academics’ creating awareness about this. Another example would be Michel Chossudovsky, who is the University of Ottawa’s Emeritus Professor of Economics and has worked directly with governments on various geopolitical issues. He has been very outspoken against weather modification and the long history of its use.

He makes some great points in an article he wrote on his website:

The significant expansion in America’s weather warfare arsenal, which is a priority of the Department of Defense is not a matter for debate or discussion. While environmentalists blame the Bush administration for not having signed the Kyoto protocol, the issue of “weather warfare”, namely the manipulation of weather patterns for military use, is never mentioned.

The US Air Force has the capability to manipulate climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use.  These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts, and earthquakes.

Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence  purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, … and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power. (Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ . Emphasis added)

You can access some more of our articles on Geo-Engineering by clicking here.

It’s going to be interesting to see where this all goes. We haven’t heard much in 2018, but will keep you posted for 2019.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL