Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

6 Comments

  1. I wouldn’t expect too much from the Green Party in this regard because they’ve long since ceased to have any relevant environmental policies. None of their leaders have any valid science credentials or practical experience in the field. They’re more interested in childish protests that get their faces on TV: Maybe they should rename themselves the Narcissists Party.

  2. Organics will not feed the poor in this country let alone the world. It is ostensibly for the rich.
    The poor buy the cheapest most filling food they can buy.
    Free range eggs is a good example.
    What we need is farming on an industrial scale but without the exports.
    Lack of supply equals shortages equals consumer demand equals high prices.
    Organics is just elitist food porn.
    Its for wankers.

  3. Well done Jon

    For your excellent work on this. I have a couple of questions, and spotted a couple of (not critical) typos if you wanted to polish it.

    In the Rodale section you say the scientist says ‘could’. And if they did, then for accuracy that’s how they should be quoted, however they have long had evidence and have said that it does. If possible I would remove ‘could’ as it reads more like ‘might’.

    ‘Another scientist who oversees soil health research at the Rodale Institute, says there’s no doubt that organic systems could reduce greenhouse emissions and improve carbon sequestration.’

    This quote from them uses the word could, but unequivocally,
    ‘If we converted all global croplands and pastures to regenerative organic agriculture we could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions.’

    Also ‘moving towards’ is somewhat futuristic as a possible outcome, rather than that they have already researched a range of practices that achieve the preferred outcomes, but continue to build on that research …

    ‘Rodale is also moving towards “regenerative organic” practices that focus not just on the absence of pesticides, but on the many practices that build soil and the climate-friendly reasons to do so.’

    Bloody semantics Steffan

    now the couple of typos

    Genetic Engineering is good for companies seeking Intellectual Property and patents but it not needed to harness the power of microbes.
    Needs an ‘is’

    But their price is too high to pay. needs just a ‘to’ where ‘too’ is highlighted.

    None of it critical if time doesn’t allow, but being more empirical, when valid, rather than could/might would help win a debate I think.

Comments are closed.