To facilitate healing soil affected with aminopyralid and the banning of it's use in Washington State.
Latest Activity: Dec 1
Started by J. C. Walker,Jr.. Last reply by J. C. Walker,Jr. Jul 20, 2011.
Started by J. C. Walker,Jr.. Last reply by Heather K Jul 15, 2011.
Started by J. C. Walker,Jr.. Last reply by J. C. Walker,Jr. Jul 12, 2011.
It's approaching close to a year since I joined TW. Having just completed the Mycorestoration Seminar at Fungi Perfecti, I was focused on replicating their success in unifying the conservation…Continue
Started by J. C. Walker,Jr.. Last reply by J. C. Walker,Jr. Jul 11, 2011.
I apologize for my heavy handed approach to dealing with your statement regarding the aminopyralid material safety data sheet with respect to the use of water and spreading the contamination. I felt, and still feel your statement dismissed the science behind the M.S.D.S. but my response was out of hand. If the advocating and facilitating the use of mycelium to restore damaged habitats is still of interest to you please consider contributing to the discussion on the Whatcom Mycological Response Team site. I have enjoyed reading your other post and blogs and hope a face to face meeting can occur sooner rather than later. Thanks for caring about the community. J.C
Sorry guys, I'm going to stop following this thread between J.C. and Walter....too confusing.
And no one else remembers any of this, do they? And a tree falling in the forest makes what? Anyone ? Anyone?
So today we've established I'm a liar who lacks credibility. Being judged by such tripe gives me a feeling akin to earning a merit badge of some sort or another. Thanks.
I'm done with this thread for now. Feel free to comment on my next blog. I'll do my best to spell your name correctly
Comment by J. C. Walker,Jr. 3 minutes ago
Comment by J. C. Walker,Jr.1 minute ago Delete Comment
By the way the term PPA came from "Fleeing Vesuvius" pg. xi of the forward. Something the reviewer of the book you reviewed failed to mention for you.
Walter Haugen23 hours ago
Merry - Of course we shouldn't go to 9 billion. It is also likely we won't rise to that number, because of three interactive variables: 1) the global fiscal crisis, 2) global warming and 3) global peak oil. Those people paying attention (to borrow J. C.'s phrase) can already see that global warming is increasing at a faster rate than even the direst IPCC model, global peak oil is driving the worldwide recession, and the worldwide financial system is undergoing a multitude of shocks. We here in the US have some time, but people are fooling ourselves when they think we can reform the system. It is all about lifeboats.
The original Guardian article is one way we could actually feed 9 billion people and my farming/gardening model is based on similar ideas and could work. However, it is unlikely because Americans are just too stubborn and too stupid to go vegetarian or even cut down their meat intake significantly. All the fuzzie-wuzzie magical thinking won't change that. The real problem is not too many people - it is too many Americans. We still consume almost twice as much energy per capita than even the Germans. Look at the following energy consumption chart:
USA - 57.15 BOE per capita per year (barrel of oil equivalents) Germany - 30.24 BOE per capita per year China - 10.15 BOE per capita per year Indonesia - 3.62 BOE per capita per year
Interesting review, but ultimately trapped in the academic mindset. Here is an example. The graphic on EROI is followed by a caption that illustrates my point. It is not that the academic mindset is saying anything untrue - it is just that they miss the obvious because of their focus on elegant equations. (I put the graphic last because of the vagaries of loading a graphic on the Ning Network.)
Illustration 2: An energy source can rarely be used directly. An energy extraction process is required to discover, extract and process the resource before its energy is available to society. This process consumes energy itself, a deduction from the energy otherwise available. The energy return on invested is the ratio of surplus energy to energy required to drive the process.
[Walter: Hah! If you grow food by manual labor, you are feeding the engine that grows the food that feeds the engine that grows the food, etc. This is a positive feedback loop.]
Welcome toTransition Whatcom
Sign Upor Sign In
© 2013 Created by David MacLeod.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.