GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 21 19, 3:55 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 935 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 ... 94  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: March 20 19, 11:20 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 5:05 pm
Posts: 6891
Location: Southwestern Illinois
Freed Roger wrote:
That propaganda and labeling of all dems as environmental loons, farm-hating, regulation-loving dumb [expletive] has been effective, where even Democrats accept this.

One of biggest environmentalist dems I know has farm background. I also have a GOP farm relative by marriage that pissed away 100s of thousands on legal fees (my mother in-laws inheritance frankly) fighting wind farm. He is big into wind farm opposition. He got busted for dumping oil from machinery out back (ran a drain line, crazy as that sounds).

the dude worked his arse off his whole life, so maybe he feels entitled to use the easiest most efficient ways- be it whatever pesticide and bovine hormones etc is available. Oddly his father was a Dem of sorts (from land of Harry Truman, and lived thru FDR Great depression)

It is this all or nothing good bad adversarial [expletive] that kills us on climate change and environmental stuff. i.e regulation is all bad and internet democrats! so hand everything over to Corp lobbyists and CAFO that buy GOP.

The regs and govt should be working with the farmers, perhaps subsidizing efforts on land management environmental concerns.

It is no coincidence that farming is hard by major water sources. There is an inherent larger obligation to the world that exceeds a farm operation's capacity.
....I'm still going..... I know this gets labeled into creepy [expletive] about commie govt land control etc, though does it have to be that way?


Freed:

This may be an oversimplification, but after reading your passage above, I think what you're trying to describe is the conflict between applying cold-hearted logic/intellect/optimal land management practices and the "don't fence me in, don't tread on me" philosophy that gets stronger the more west/rural you go (in the U.S.).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 20 19, 11:33 am 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 24286
Location: St. Louis
what is happening in MO is pretty bad. From my understanding, the federal EPA has pushed to let states take care of regs. But MO wants laws that say the state, or localities like StL under the state can't adopt more stringent regs than fed minimums. Or MO can't do like California with rules > Fed.

not that our lobbyist run State would ever go more stringent than Fed, but a locality might try it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 20 19, 11:36 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19756
Location: Low A Minors
Photos: kids in 123 countries went on strike to protect the climate

Kids as far away as India and South Africa were protesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 20 19, 12:16 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19756
Location: Low A Minors
mikechamp wrote:
Freed Roger wrote:
That propaganda and labeling of all dems as environmental loons, farm-hating, regulation-loving dumb [expletive] has been effective, where even Democrats accept this.

One of biggest environmentalist dems I know has farm background. I also have a GOP farm relative by marriage that pissed away 100s of thousands on legal fees (my mother in-laws inheritance frankly) fighting wind farm. He is big into wind farm opposition. He got busted for dumping oil from machinery out back (ran a drain line, crazy as that sounds).

the dude worked his arse off his whole life, so maybe he feels entitled to use the easiest most efficient ways- be it whatever pesticide and bovine hormones etc is available. Oddly his father was a Dem of sorts (from land of Harry Truman, and lived thru FDR Great depression)

It is this all or nothing good bad adversarial [expletive] that kills us on climate change and environmental stuff. i.e regulation is all bad and internet democrats! so hand everything over to Corp lobbyists and CAFO that buy GOP.

The regs and govt should be working with the farmers, perhaps subsidizing efforts on land management environmental concerns.

It is no coincidence that farming is hard by major water sources. There is an inherent larger obligation to the world that exceeds a farm operation's capacity.
....I'm still going..... I know this gets labeled into creepy [expletive] about commie govt land control etc, though does it have to be that way?


Freed:

This may be an oversimplification, but after reading your passage above, I think what you're trying to describe is the conflict between applying cold-hearted logic/intellect/optimal land management practices and the "don't fence me in, don't tread on me" philosophy that gets stronger the more west/rural you go (in the U.S.).



I might be oversimplifying too but I feel like a lot of what is happening in other sectors of the economy is happening with farming, except farming may be further down this road than most industries. Meaning: what we are seeing Wal-Mart and Amazon do to the retail market is similar to what corporations are doing to farming. One thing that should probably be talked about more is breaking up these massive corporations into smaller ones. That would be the Capitalist solution to this - make them into smaller companies that have to compete with each other on the free market.

FWIW I do favor collective ownership of these kind of resources we all rely on, I'm just not sure that necessarily means "nationalizing" resources in all cases. It could also mean common resources like that are owned by a city, state or county. We may get to a point, like we have with health care, where nationalizing certain things makes would be a big improvement over the status quo. That doesn't mean nationalizing is the "best" option but it could be a "better" one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 20 19, 5:37 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
pioneer98 wrote:
Freed Roger wrote:
IMADreamer wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
Not a good winter for famers.

If you read that entire piece you will not see the phrases "climate change" or "global warming."



Global warming or not (I of course know global warming is real) 2018 was bad for farmers, 2019 is going to be catastrophic. There is so much water to come down the rivers this year it's going to be insane. We are already behind on field work because the fall and winter were so wet. This is the case everywhere in the midwest. There are many farms with the 2018 crop still in the field. We are basically just expecting to be flooded this year. We've done a ton of work to our levee system here to beef it up, but when predictions of "higher than 93" get thrown around you can just bet it's a loss.

If we get flooded we are done. Not bankrupt but we are getting out. With this administration there's basically no hope of any actual relief or help in any real meaningful way. Plus the environmental groups already make things like improving your flood fighting techniques impossible. So we will be getting it from the far left and the far right. It's basically time to say [expletive] it.

It's funny, all over the internet Democrats are cheering the farmers plight this year saying we all deserve it. The ironic thing is every one of the farms that go out of business gets bought up by a much larger corporate farm. Which the democrats cry and [expletive] about.

Honest question -What improved flood fighting techniques are being limited?

And why worry about democrats on the internet, when dems have very little power in real world govt.



There are Democrats on the left that assume all farmers voted Trump, and so they are saying "this is what you voted for" as farmers are going bankrupt. I don't know if I'd call that "cheering", but it is not going to win any votes. And I'm definitely not cheering because my job could be impacted eventually too. Farming is just yet another area where neither side is offering a good set of policies that would actually solve the problems we face.

I have heard stories about the environmental regulations and hoops farmers have to jump through. And my understanding is there isn't much difference in this regard between a red state like Iowa and a blue state like Illinois. IMO the tight environmental regulations are in place to try to prevent things like runoff and to try to preserve the land so it can continue to bring in tax revenue in the future. I know, I know, farmers are also concerned about the long term viability of their land. I don't know what the solution is - it seems to me like the regulation is well-intentioned but burdensome.


My comments are not rooted in assumption but experience. I sit on the board of a farmers market. We raise money every year for a Farmer Fund. If one of our farmer's trucks has a problem and he needs a quick $2K to get that truck fixed, we give it to him. If a farmer has a flood and needs an emergency $5K for everyday expenses on the farm, we give it to him. When we talk about emergency funds related to weather we DO NOT say the "C.C." or "G.W." words, because virtually none of them--people who practice earth science for a living--believe in the facts of climate change. We can say "mother nature was not good to us this year" or "it wasn't in God's plans" but we cannot say to them anything that even hints at global warming. It will just upset them.

I'm cheering for them, not against them. They're nice people. They work hard. They provide a product I love and believe in. But I'm also sad that these men and women don't accept the facts of nature that impact their livelihood.

The only difference between Iowa and Illinois is Chicago. South of Kankakee is basically Kentucky/Iowa/Indiana/Tennessee/Missouri.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 20 19, 7:56 pm 
Offline
Has an anecdote about a townie he overheard.
User avatar

Joined: December 6 10, 1:09 am
Posts: 11479
Location: Illinois
Freed Roger wrote:
IMADreamer wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
Not a good winter for famers.

If you read that entire piece you will not see the phrases "climate change" or "global warming."



Global warming or not (I of course know global warming is real) 2018 was bad for farmers, 2019 is going to be catastrophic. There is so much water to come down the rivers this year it's going to be insane. We are already behind on field work because the fall and winter were so wet. This is the case everywhere in the midwest. There are many farms with the 2018 crop still in the field. We are basically just expecting to be flooded this year. We've done a ton of work to our levee system here to beef it up, but when predictions of "higher than 93" get thrown around you can just bet it's a loss.

If we get flooded we are done. Not bankrupt but we are getting out. With this administration there's basically no hope of any actual relief or help in any real meaningful way. Plus the environmental groups already make things like improving your flood fighting techniques impossible. So we will be getting it from the far left and the far right. It's basically time to say [expletive] it.

It's funny, all over the internet Democrats are cheering the farmers plight this year saying we all deserve it. The ironic thing is every one of the farms that go out of business gets bought up by a much larger corporate farm. Which the democrats cry and [expletive] about.

Honest question -What improved flood fighting techniques are being limited?

And why worry about democrats on the internet, when dems have very little power in real world govt.



Just speaking from personal experience. We have been trying to get the river dredged basically my entire life. There was a minor effort one summer that did clean some of the channel. Basically they are letting the river fill up with silt. Then to cater to shipping traffic they use dams to keep the river level up. So much so they raised many of the main dikes on the dams here. The dam, two miles from our farm is two feet higher than when I was a kid. Two feet may not sound like much, but when the river is up on the levee running bank to bank it's a hell of a lot of water. It's puts a ton of hydraulic pressure on the whole drainage system meaning we get massive seepage under ground from the river making our fields wet and muddy. Dredging is of course expensive and the farmers here have been willing to foot the bill ourselves but we can't get past the environmentalist and the corp of engineers.

Two is raising the levees. Again the farmers in our district have offered to pay, but the problem is a higher levee for us means someone else might get flooded instead of us. Not really our fault they won't keep their house in order, but whatever.

The next and more radical solution after 93 was farmers along the river offered to give up some ground to move the levee back 100 yards into their fields. Estimates were that this would have lowered river levels a few feet, which would have been enough to save the district from the flood.

Where we have made progress is we were able to fund new pumps for our pump stations. Since the flood plain is leveed in order to get water out during high river situations or heavy rain events it has to be pumped out. A decade long battle finally let us modernize and increase pumping capacity. Paid for by every local land owner to the tune of 200-400 dollars an acre depending on your elevation. Cost us nearly a million, but it's worth it to get the water off our land.

To put in perspective, I think only around 1500 people live in the drainage district here but revenue off corn alone is over 100 million dollars out of the district. Our local economy greatly depends on that 150k acres staying dry during a flood and there are ways to do it, but we just aren't allowed to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 21 19, 7:33 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19756
Location: Low A Minors
33anda3rd wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
Freed Roger wrote:
IMADreamer wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
Not a good winter for famers.

If you read that entire piece you will not see the phrases "climate change" or "global warming."



Global warming or not (I of course know global warming is real) 2018 was bad for farmers, 2019 is going to be catastrophic. There is so much water to come down the rivers this year it's going to be insane. We are already behind on field work because the fall and winter were so wet. This is the case everywhere in the midwest. There are many farms with the 2018 crop still in the field. We are basically just expecting to be flooded this year. We've done a ton of work to our levee system here to beef it up, but when predictions of "higher than 93" get thrown around you can just bet it's a loss.

If we get flooded we are done. Not bankrupt but we are getting out. With this administration there's basically no hope of any actual relief or help in any real meaningful way. Plus the environmental groups already make things like improving your flood fighting techniques impossible. So we will be getting it from the far left and the far right. It's basically time to say [expletive] it.

It's funny, all over the internet Democrats are cheering the farmers plight this year saying we all deserve it. The ironic thing is every one of the farms that go out of business gets bought up by a much larger corporate farm. Which the democrats cry and [expletive] about.

Honest question -What improved flood fighting techniques are being limited?

And why worry about democrats on the internet, when dems have very little power in real world govt.



There are Democrats on the left that assume all farmers voted Trump, and so they are saying "this is what you voted for" as farmers are going bankrupt. I don't know if I'd call that "cheering", but it is not going to win any votes. And I'm definitely not cheering because my job could be impacted eventually too. Farming is just yet another area where neither side is offering a good set of policies that would actually solve the problems we face.

I have heard stories about the environmental regulations and hoops farmers have to jump through. And my understanding is there isn't much difference in this regard between a red state like Iowa and a blue state like Illinois. IMO the tight environmental regulations are in place to try to prevent things like runoff and to try to preserve the land so it can continue to bring in tax revenue in the future. I know, I know, farmers are also concerned about the long term viability of their land. I don't know what the solution is - it seems to me like the regulation is well-intentioned but burdensome.


My comments are not rooted in assumption but experience. I sit on the board of a farmers market. We raise money every year for a Farmer Fund. If one of our farmer's trucks has a problem and he needs a quick $2K to get that truck fixed, we give it to him. If a farmer has a flood and needs an emergency $5K for everyday expenses on the farm, we give it to him. When we talk about emergency funds related to weather we DO NOT say the "C.C." or "G.W." words, because virtually none of them--people who practice earth science for a living--believe in the facts of climate change. We can say "mother nature was not good to us this year" or "it wasn't in God's plans" but we cannot say to them anything that even hints at global warming. It will just upset them.

I'm cheering for them, not against them. They're nice people. They work hard. They provide a product I love and believe in. But I'm also sad that these men and women don't accept the facts of nature that impact their livelihood.

The only difference between Iowa and Illinois is Chicago. South of Kankakee is basically Kentucky/Iowa/Indiana/Tennessee/Missouri.



My comments are also based on conversations I've had with farmers. I visit farms sometimes as part of my job. I will be out visiting some farms in the next month or so for planting season if the ground ever dries out. I stay away from discussions that get too political but I have heard people in all states I've visited talk about how restrictive some environmental regulations are. This would primarily be Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota. It's hard for me to say how much of it is just whining versus real, since I don't have to deal with it myself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 21 19, 7:38 am 
Offline
99% conan clips
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm
Posts: 55286
farmers should chillax. climate change is 50-75 years away per our new EPA director

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-admini ... interview/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 21 19, 10:45 am 
Offline
gone fission
User avatar

Joined: December 11 07, 4:15 pm
Posts: 7965
Location: Twin Cities, MN
The Doomsday Vault is in serious danger: https://www.iflscience.com/environment/ ... te-change/

Quote:
The seeds are kept at -18°C (-0.4°F) with minimum access to oxygen in order to delay aging as much as possible. One of the failsafes in the event electricity were to cease is the surrounding permafrost, the frozen soil common in such northern territories. However, a new report by the Norwegian Government shows that the Svalbard Islands are facing significant changes due to global warming.

By the last quarter of the century, the report expects air temperatures on the islands to increase by about 10°C (18°F ) if there’s only a minimum curbing of gas emissions and by about 7°C (13°F ) if there is a more significant cut of greenhouse gases. The increase in heat will lead to a thawing of the permafrost, which will turn the solid ground around the facility into mush, likely liberating more methane and carbon dioxide currently frozen in the soil. A few years ago, the thawing permafrost put the vault in jeopardy by flooding it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 21 19, 11:12 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28444
Location: extremely online
I'm sorry but that's hilarious. We're so [expletive] and, man, do we deserve it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 935 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 ... 94  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group