Changes

=== Drought ===

=== Drought ===

The Ethiopian drought is a forewarning of widespread regional water crises in the 1990s that could rival the energy crisis of the last decade, according to a study by the worldwatch Institute. Falling water tables and dry riverbeds indicate a widespread overuse of water resources, and if current trends continue, fresh water in many areas may become a constraint on economic activity and food production over the coming decades. In the United States, areas where excessive withdrawal of undergound water supplies threatens its future availability include the High Plains from Nebraska to Texas; the Colorado River basin, particularly the areas around Phoenix and Tucson; the Florida and Pacific coasts; and much of California. The report cites statistics from the U.S. Geological Survey estimating that the Ogallala Aquifer, used for irrigating one-fifth of U.S. cropland, is now half-depleted under 2,200,000 acres of Texas, New Mexico, and Kansas. Rising pumping costs and falling well yields associated with the depletion of the Ogallala are causing farmers to take land out of irrigation. Still, most officials continue to take a “frontier approach” that looks to dams and other multibillion-dollar diversion projects as a solution, failing to see the unfortunate irony in the situation. While the government pays farmers to idle rain-fed cropland in an effort to avoid price-depressing surpluses, farmers are exhausting a unique, underground water reserve to grow these same crops. The government is encouraging waste of water from the Ogallala by giving farmers a depletion tax break based on the drop in the water level under their land. Instead, says Worldwatch, the government should be taxing that water use.

The Ethiopian drought is a forewarning of widespread regional water crises in the 1990s that could rival the energy crisis of the last decade, according to a study by the worldwatch Institute. Falling water tables and dry riverbeds indicate a widespread overuse of water resources, and if current trends continue, fresh water in many areas may become a constraint on economic activity and food production over the coming decades. In the United States, areas where excessive withdrawal of underground water supplies threatens its future availability include the High Plains from Nebraska to Texas; the Colorado River basin, particularly the areas around Phoenix and Tucson; the Florida and Pacific coasts; and much of California. The report cites statistics from the U.S. Geological Survey estimating that the Ogallala Aquifer, used for irrigating one-fifth of U.S. cropland, is now half-depleted under 2,200,000 acres of Texas, New Mexico, and Kansas. Rising pumping costs and falling well yields associated with the depletion of the Ogallala are causing farmers to take land out of irrigation. Still, most officials continue to take a “frontier approach” that looks to dams and other multibillion-dollar diversion projects as a solution, failing to see the unfortunate irony in the situation. While the government pays farmers to idle rain-fed cropland in an effort to avoid price-depressing surpluses, farmers are exhausting a unique, underground water reserve to grow these same crops. The government is encouraging waste of water from the Ogallala by giving farmers a depletion tax break based on the drop in the water level under their land. Instead, says Worldwatch, the government should be taxing that water use.

If we continue to ignore warning signs of future water shortages, and close our eyes to the waste and overuse of decreasing water supplies, we will pay dearly for our indifference. We need not imagine what our lives would be like without water—we need only look at the suffering people in Africa to see the stark reality of what extensive drought can do. Television brought the starving, emaciated bodies of drought victims into our living rooms in 1984, and it is a painful sight, but one that we must face up to. Thousands of people have been reduced to skeletons as the drought takes its toll.

If we continue to ignore warning signs of future water shortages, and close our eyes to the waste and overuse of decreasing water supplies, we will pay dearly for our indifference. We need not imagine what our lives would be like without water—we need only look at the suffering people in Africa to see the stark reality of what extensive drought can do. Television brought the starving, emaciated bodies of drought victims into our living rooms in 1984, and it is a painful sight, but one that we must face up to. Thousands of people have been reduced to skeletons as the drought takes its toll.

In the African country of Mauritania, not only must they cope with the severe drought plaguing 6ther African countries as well, but they must also cope with the spreading Sahara desert—one government official says the parched and rainless country “could disappear from the map in 10 years, and become only sand.” The Sahara is literally pushing southward; crews along a key highway passing through 690 miles of Mauritania wage a daily battle with the desert, trying to keep the road clear of wind-blown sands. Crops are gone after being withered by a drought that has affected some areas since 1969, and covered by the shifting dunes of the Sahara. With two-thirds of its land already swallowed up by the desert, Mauritania now produces only about 5% of the food it needs. Cereal production used to average 100,000 tons annually, but was estimated at 15,000 tons in 1984. The government is trying to, drill holes for water in the countryside to slow the rush to the towns. Vast herds of cattle (about 80%) have died, or have been driven into neighboring Senegal for grazing (Senegal agreed to allow up to 300,000 animals to graze there), but now Senegal is also suffering from a drought. Although it defies all laws of common sense to keep cattle in areas so dry that even human beings can scarcely find enough to eat (and many don’t), these people are raising animals because they’ve done so as long as they can remember; they don’t know any other lifestyle. (If we are tempted to pass judgment, let’s look at our own Society—we’ve certainly made enough environmental errors ourselves, wasting resources for rapid gains that result in long-term losses. Being more educated, what excuse would justify our own lack of foresight?) Some Mauritanians have goats, and donkeys are, of course, a necessity for those who depend on them for work. The nomadic way of life has been a tradition for many people here. In the past, during the worst times of drought, nomads moved to farming areas, then returned to their old way of life when pasture became available. International aid agencies now argue that there is no longer sufficient grazing land or water to sustain a nomadic life, and the U.S. embassy’s 1984 economic report said there was no question that Mauritania’s centuries-old nomadic way of life has been irreparably damaged. Nevertheless, those who can survive as nomads still cling to life and try to continue on as best they can. In all these countries affected by the drought, Africans struggle to survive with a severe shortage of water, limited resources, and less opportunities for education than we have here. Their courage should be a lesson to all of us who have been blessed with advantages that we far too often take completely for granted. Some of us panic at the mere thought of missing a single meal, or consider ourselves unfortunate if we can’t afford a new outfit of clothes. Some of us would even feel underprivileged if we couldn’t own a yacht. As a nation of consumers, we pride ourselves on our “high standard of living”, and are dazzled by a vision of “progress” that has led many of us to become obsessed with “success”, this success being measured in terms of our wealth and possessions. Swept along in the tide, inundated by commercials in the media urging us to “buy more”, we tend to forget that what we perceive as a normal way of life here in this country is very rare in most of the world. In Lesson 53 we mentioned that our country uses more of the world’s natural resources than any other country; our “high” standard of living is more expensive than we may care to admit.

In the African country of Mauritania, not only must they cope with the severe drought plaguing other African countries as well, but they must also cope with the spreading Sahara desert—one government official says the parched and rainless country “could disappear from the map in 10 years, and become only sand.” The Sahara is literally pushing southward; crews along a key highway passing through 690 miles of Mauritania wage a daily battle with the desert, trying to keep the road clear of wind-blown sands. Crops are gone after being withered by a drought that has affected some areas since 1969, and covered by the shifting dunes of the Sahara. With two-thirds of its land already swallowed up by the desert, Mauritania now produces only about 5% of the food it needs. Cereal production used to average 100,000 tons annually, but was estimated at 15,000 tons in 1984. The government is trying to, drill holes for water in the countryside to slow the rush to the towns. Vast herds of cattle (about 80%) have died, or have been driven into neighboring Senegal for grazing (Senegal agreed to allow up to 300,000 animals to graze there), but now Senegal is also suffering from a drought. Although it defies all laws of common sense to keep cattle in areas so dry that even human beings can scarcely find enough to eat (and many don’t), these people are raising animals because they’ve done so as long as they can remember; they don’t know any other lifestyle. (If we are tempted to pass judgment, let’s look at our own Society—we’ve certainly made enough environmental errors ourselves, wasting resources for rapid gains that result in long-term losses. Being more educated, what excuse would justify our own lack of foresight?) Some Mauritanians have goats, and donkeys are, of course, a necessity for those who depend on them for work. The nomadic way of life has been a tradition for many people here. In the past, during the worst times of drought, nomads moved to farming areas, then returned to their old way of life when pasture became available. International aid agencies now argue that there is no longer sufficient grazing land or water to sustain a nomadic life, and the U.S. embassy’s 1984 economic report said there was no question that Mauritania’s centuries-old nomadic way of life has been irreparably damaged. Nevertheless, those who can survive as nomads still cling to life and try to continue on as best they can. In all these countries affected by the drought, Africans struggle to survive with a severe shortage of water, limited resources, and less opportunities for education than we have here. Their courage should be a lesson to all of us who have been blessed with advantages that we far too often take completely for granted. Some of us panic at the mere thought of missing a single meal, or consider ourselves unfortunate if we can’t afford a new outfit of clothes. Some of us would even feel underprivileged if we couldn’t own a yacht. As a nation of consumers, we pride ourselves on our “high standard of living”, and are dazzled by a vision of “progress” that has led many of us to become obsessed with “success”, this success being measured in terms of our wealth and possessions. Swept along in the tide, inundated by commercials in the media urging us to “buy more”, we tend to forget that what we perceive as a normal way of life here in this country is very rare in most of the world. In Lesson 53 we mentioned that our country uses more of the world’s natural resources than any other country; our “high” standard of living is more expensive than we may care to admit.

Objectively speaking, we may be accused of being selfish. How do we justify this use of natural resources? Are we using them to better the lives of all our brothers and sisters around the world, to make the world a better place for all human beings to live in? Or are we using them to add to our own comfort, and patting ourselves on the back for our technological marvels, choosing to forget that millions of people in the world are still hungry? We have a right to survive, to secure the things that we need for our survival in this world—this is true. But if we already have 6 pairs of shoes and find ourselves gazing longingly into a store window at “just one more pair” we might stop and ask ourselves why we want to have more than we need. What is it within us that keeps us unsatisfied? Why do we never seem to have enough?

Objectively speaking, we may be accused of being selfish. How do we justify this use of natural resources? Are we using them to better the lives of all our brothers and sisters around the world, to make the world a better place for all human beings to live in? Or are we using them to add to our own comfort, and patting ourselves on the back for our technological marvels, choosing to forget that millions of people in the world are still hungry? We have a right to survive, to secure the things that we need for our survival in this world—this is true. But if we already have 6 pairs of shoes and find ourselves gazing longingly into a store window at “just one more pair” we might stop and ask ourselves why we want to have more than we need. What is it within us that keeps us unsatisfied? Why do we never seem to have enough?

If the jungles are not saved, John Hamaker says we have no chance at survival, and that they cannot be saved unless croplands of starving people are remineralized. Rain forests have been virtually eliminated from most parts of West Africa, Southern Asia, and the Caribbean. The world’s forests are also affected by climatic extremes, soil degeneration, insects, diseases, worsening climate, air pollution and acid rains—fires also ravage our forests, especially in dry seasons and times of drought. As more forests burn, a cycle of destruction actually takes place, because forest fires contribute to adverse conditions that, in turn, accelerate the destruction of more forests. In forest fires, not only are more precious trees lost, but destruction occurs on all these levels:

If the jungles are not saved, John Hamaker says we have no chance at survival, and that they cannot be saved unless croplands of starving people are remineralized. Rain forests have been virtually eliminated from most parts of West Africa, Southern Asia, and the Caribbean. The world’s forests are also affected by climatic extremes, soil degeneration, insects, diseases, worsening climate, air pollution and acid rains—fires also ravage our forests, especially in dry seasons and times of drought. As more forests burn, a cycle of destruction actually takes place, because forest fires contribute to adverse conditions that, in turn, accelerate the destruction of more forests. In forest fires, not only are more precious trees lost, but destruction occurs on all these levels:

*climatic stress (including record heat and drought)

 

*when trees burn, carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, so pollution—and acid rain—are increased (they’re already caused by burning fossil fuels and by auto/vehicle and industrial exhausts/emissions)

# climatic stress (including record heat and drought)

*deforestation and spreading deserts

# when trees burn, carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, so pollution—and acid rain—are increased (they’re already caused by burning fossil fuels and by auto/vehicle and industrial exhausts/emissions)

*chronic insect and/or disease epidemics

# deforestation and spreading deserts

# chronic insect and/or disease epidemics

 

Data on tropical forest fires is scarce, but it is reported that the nutrient-poor soils and highly-carbonaceous (mineral-poor) vegetation there burns quickly when moisture is withheld for a time. Wide-scale drought and acid rains not only lead to destruction of forests; they can also lead to more tropical forest fires. At present rates of human deforestation and desertification, most researchers say these forests are scheduled for virtual extinction in 15-30 years.

Data on tropical forest fires is scarce, but it is reported that the nutrient-poor soils and highly-carbonaceous (mineral-poor) vegetation there burns quickly when moisture is withheld for a time. Wide-scale drought and acid rains not only lead to destruction of forests; they can also lead to more tropical forest fires. At present rates of human deforestation and desertification, most researchers say these forests are scheduled for virtual extinction in 15-30 years.

Acid rain occurs “naturally” in some places—in the Canadian arctic, natural fires in exposed lignite coal beds produce tremendous amounts of sulfur oxides. These chemicals fall to earth, rendering nearby lakes as acidic as lemon juice. Studies of the Greenland ice cap show that acidic depositions on the earth’s surface have been rising since the beginning of the industrial age, with the greatest increase occurring since the 1940s. Central Europe seems hardest hit. Forests are dying throughout Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East Germany. In West Germany, 3,700 acres of woodland died from 1978-1983, and 200,000 acres were seriously damaged, the most vulnerable being dense, pure stands of conifers between 20 and 40 years old that will probably not survive another 10 years (Bernhard Ulrich, German biochemist, 1983). Mr. Ulrich estimates that almost 5,000,000 acres of German forest soils are at the threshold where toxic aluminum will begin its lethal work. Industrial emissions drift from England to Scandinavia. The industrial Ruhr and Rhine area in Germany affect most of central Europe, and Russia (the largest burner of sulfur-bearing fuels) is also polluting Finland. America’s industrial Midwest helps render the rain acidic in virtually every state east of the Mississippi; much of the Midwest’s emissions join those from Canada, acidifying eastern Canada and threatening its fish and forests—two of its chief resources. In the U.S., only some of the Rocky Mountain states and parts of the Southwest enjoy healthy rains of pH 5.5 or more.

Acid rain occurs “naturally” in some places—in the Canadian arctic, natural fires in exposed lignite coal beds produce tremendous amounts of sulfur oxides. These chemicals fall to earth, rendering nearby lakes as acidic as lemon juice. Studies of the Greenland ice cap show that acidic depositions on the earth’s surface have been rising since the beginning of the industrial age, with the greatest increase occurring since the 1940s. Central Europe seems hardest hit. Forests are dying throughout Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East Germany. In West Germany, 3,700 acres of woodland died from 1978-1983, and 200,000 acres were seriously damaged, the most vulnerable being dense, pure stands of conifers between 20 and 40 years old that will probably not survive another 10 years (Bernhard Ulrich, German biochemist, 1983). Mr. Ulrich estimates that almost 5,000,000 acres of German forest soils are at the threshold where toxic aluminum will begin its lethal work. Industrial emissions drift from England to Scandinavia. The industrial Ruhr and Rhine area in Germany affect most of central Europe, and Russia (the largest burner of sulfur-bearing fuels) is also polluting Finland. America’s industrial Midwest helps render the rain acidic in virtually every state east of the Mississippi; much of the Midwest’s emissions join those from Canada, acidifying eastern Canada and threatening its fish and forests—two of its chief resources. In the U.S., only some of the Rocky Mountain states and parts of the Southwest enjoy healthy rains of pH 5.5 or more.

Crops and temperate zone vegetation cannot grow on acidic soils, so the large number of dead and dying trees in our forests is attributable both to increasing soil acidity and decreasing quantities of available elements. Dead forests burn easily with a hot fire which oxidizes large quantities of atmospheric nitrogen. Lewis and Grant found that the oxides of nitrogen were dominant in the acidic precipitation. The more trees die and burn, the more the soils become acidified and the more trees must die. There are also a number of mildly acidic gases released from burning wood. These, plus the acidic gases from volcanism (volcanic power or action), are nature’s way of bringing on glaciation. Man’s fossil fuel fires are also a big factor in the destruction.

Crops and temperate zone vegetation cannot grow on acidic soils, so the large number of dead and dying trees in our forests is attributable both to increasing soil acidity and decreasing quantities of available elements. Dead forests burn easily with a hot fire which oxidizes large quantities of atmospheric nitrogen. Lewis and Grant found that the oxides of nitrogen were dominant in the acidic precipitation. The more trees die and burn, the more the soils become acidified and the more trees must die. There are also a number of mildly acidic gases released from burning wood. These, plus the acidic gases from vulcanism (volcanic power or action), are nature’s way of bringing on glaciation. Man’s fossil fuel fires are also a big factor in the destruction.

Belgian scientist Genevieve Woillard showed that the final changeover to sub-arctic climate and vegetation (to be discussed later) took only 20 years at previous inter-glacial to glacial transitions, as recorded in the undisturbed pollen deposits of Grand Pile, France. In Woillard’s study, the change in vegetation was from hazel, oak, and alder to pine, birch, and spruce—that is, a change from warm-weather to cold-tolerant trees. But even more significant: this change is from nut-bearing trees to trees that can’t yield a proteinaceous crop. That translates to mean a decline in soil minerals to the point where there are insufficient microorganisms in the soil to grow proteinaceous trees.

Belgian scientist Genevieve Woillard showed that the final changeover to sub-arctic climate and vegetation (to be discussed later) took only 20 years at previous inter-glacial to glacial transitions, as recorded in the undisturbed pollen deposits of Grand Pile, France. In Woillard’s study, the change in vegetation was from hazel, oak, and alder to pine, birch, and spruce—that is, a change from warm-weather to cold-tolerant trees. But even more significant: this change is from nut-bearing trees to trees that can’t yield a proteinaceous crop. That translates to mean a decline in soil minerals to the point where there are insufficient microorganisms in the soil to grow proteinaceous trees.

The Global 2000 Report to the President was commissioned in 1977 by President Carter and finally released in July 1980, as a three-volume work of over 1,000 pages. The report’s findings aren’t represented as predictions, but as depictions of conditions likely to develop if there are no changes in public policies. Some of its findings on CO2 were:

The Global 2000 Report to the President was commissioned in 1977 by President Carter and finally released in July 1980, as a three-volume work of over 1,000 pages. The report’s findings aren’t represented as predictions, but as depictions of conditions likely to develop if there are no changes in public policies. Some of its findings on CO2 were:

*CO2 emissions will increase to 26 to 34,000,000,000 short tons per year, roughly double the CO2 emissions of the mid-70s.

 

*446,000,000 hectares (each is 2.47 acres) of CO2-absorbing forests will be lost.

# CO2 emissions will increase to 26 to 34,000,000,000 short tons per year, roughly double the CO2 emissions of the mid-70s.

*Burning of much of the wood on 446 million hectares will produce more CO2.

# 446,000,000 hectares (each is 2.47 acres) of CO2-absorbing forests will be lost.

*Decomposition of soil humus will release more CO2.

# Burning of much of the wood on 446 million hectares will produce more CO2.

# Decomposition of soil humus will release more CO2.

 

By June 1979, the percent of increase of CO2 over an assumed “normal” level of 290 ppm was about 15%. In 1985, it could be 18%. By 1990, it could be 22% (50% more than it is now). Yet we go on bringing carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere.

By June 1979, the percent of increase of CO2 over an assumed “normal” level of 290 ppm was about 15%. In 1985, it could be 18%. By 1990, it could be 22% (50% more than it is now). Yet we go on bringing carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere.

In the fall of 1983. the federal government, based on an Environmental Protection Agency report, said that a “dramatic warming of the earth’s climate could begin in the 1990s because of the greenhouse effect, with potentially-serious consequences for global food production, changes in rainfall and water availability, and a probable rise in coastal waters”. The report said that “levels of CO2 in the air created by burning of fossil fuels could result in an increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the next century and a 9-degree rise by 2100, representing an unprecedented rate of atmospheric warming”.

In the fall of 1983. the federal government, based on an Environmental Protection Agency report, said that a “dramatic warming of the earth’s climate could begin in the 1990s because of the greenhouse effect, with potentially-serious consequences for global food production, changes in rainfall and water availability, and a probable rise in coastal waters”. The report said that “levels of CO2 in the air created by burning of fossil fuels could result in an increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the next century and a 9-degree rise by 2100, representing an unprecedented rate of atmospheric warming”.

“It’s going to have a very profound impact on the way we live,” said John Topping, staff director for the EPA’s office of air, noise, and radiation. “Some of the effects will be beneficial; some will be detrimental. But our ability to accommodate them will depend much on our planning beforehand. Temperature rises are likely to be accompanied by dramatic changes in precipation (more rainfall in some areas, more drought in others) and storm patterns and a rise in global average sea level,” the study said. “As a result, agricultural conditions will be significantly altered, environmental and economic systems potentially disrupted, and political institutions stressed.”

“It’s going to have a very profound impact on the way we live,” said John Topping, staff director for the EPA’s office of air, noise, and radiation. “Some of the effects will be beneficial; some will be detrimental. But our ability to accommodate them will depend much on our planning beforehand. Temperature rises are likely to be accompanied by dramatic changes in precipitation (more rainfall in some areas, more drought in others) and storm patterns and a rise in global average sea level,” the study said. “As a result, agricultural conditions will be significantly altered, environmental and economic systems potentially disrupted, and political institutions stressed.”

Stephen Seidel, one of the authors of the report, said that milder winters and much warmer summers by the 1990s may no longer be unusual. The report said the trend will occur regardless of what steps are taken to reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

Stephen Seidel, one of the authors of the report, said that milder winters and much warmer summers by the 1990s may no longer be unusual. The report said the trend will occur regardless of what steps are taken to reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

The burning of temperate zone vegetation will carry huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. In the zones of latitude where the sun’s rays are most intense (the equatorial region), CO2 holds the sun’s heat at the surface of the earth, increasing surface temperature and providing the energy to increase the evaporation and to move the massive cloud cover to the polar regions; CO2 has no heating effect at the poles in the winter when it’s dark 24 hours a day. The warm, demineralized ocean can’t take up the CO2 as fast as it is being put into the air, and decreasing plant life and less trees also mean less CO2 is being converted. We cannot allow the CO2 increase to reach the point of no return—that is, the increase in CO2 from the tectonic system and our own input must not be allowed to exceed the capacity of the remaining forests and sea life to remove the CO2. When the minerals are too few to support enough life to hold down the CO2 level, the level begins to rise and the death of the temperate and tropical zone forests swiftly initiates the air flow pattern which brings glaciation to polar latitudes and extreme, killing heat and drought in between.

The burning of temperate zone vegetation will carry huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. In the zones of latitude where the sun’s rays are most intense (the equatorial region), CO2 holds the sun’s heat at the surface of the earth, increasing surface temperature and providing the energy to increase the evaporation and to move the massive cloud cover to the polar regions; CO2 has no heating effect at the poles in the winter when it’s dark 24 hours a day. The warm, demineralized ocean can’t take up the CO2 as fast as it is being put into the air, and decreasing plant life and less trees also mean less CO2 is being converted. We cannot allow the CO2 increase to reach the point of no return—that is, the increase in CO2 from the tectonic system and our own input must not be allowed to exceed the capacity of the remaining forests and sea life to remove the CO2. When the minerals are too few to support enough life to hold down the CO2 level, the level begins to rise and the death of the temperate and tropical zone forests swiftly initiates the air flow pattern which brings glaciation to polar latitudes and extreme, killing heat and drought in between.

When air gets hotter, its atmospheric pressure decreases. It’s then easier for the cold air moving d own over a cold land mass to displace the warm equatorial air and force it to move poleward over the warm ocean to replace the cold air moving toward the equator. This is the normal air circulation pattern impressed on the west winds. During glaciation, when there is an extensive ice field, there is no summer because the refrigerated air from the ice field maintains the temperature differential required to carry the clouds to the northern latitude. Thus there can be unusually large masses of hot air in the equatorial latitudes and unusually large masses of cold air in the polar latitudes. Glaciation, or for that matter, anything else on earth, can’t take place without an expenditure of energy. Without a buildup in CO2 and hence temperature, glaciation cannot happen.

When air gets hotter, its atmospheric pressure decreases. It’s then easier for the cold air moving down over a cold land mass to displace the warm equatorial air and force it to move poleward over the warm ocean to replace the cold air moving toward the equator. This is the normal air circulation pattern impressed on the west winds. During glaciation, when there is an extensive ice field, there is no summer because the refrigerated air from the ice field maintains the temperature differential required to carry the clouds to the northern latitude. Thus there can be unusually large masses of hot air in the equatorial latitudes and unusually large masses of cold air in the polar latitudes. Glaciation, or for that matter, anything else on earth, can’t take place without an expenditure of energy. Without a buildup in CO2 and hence temperature, glaciation cannot happen.

Hamaker says that the average temperature at the start of a glacial period must be higher than the interglacial temperature, and must remain higher until the cooling effect of the ice sheets starts bringing it down, but says this won’t help agriculture: the southern temperate zone will have excessive heat/drought; northern/temperate zone: summer freezes and frosts; cloud cover lowers the temperature and increases the quantity of cold air which flows south over the land masses. With early cold snaps and longer, colder winters, the temperate zone will become a part of the subarctic zone. The summer frosts/ freezes, short-growing seasons, drought and violent storms, rapidly diminishing soil minerals, and increasing rain acidity will destroy the world’s grain crops; we can’t grow grain in the subarctic. Growing seasons have already been shortened and interrupted by freeze damage. (The local areas to survive will be the few near the equator that are blessed with a constantly renewed supply of basic minerals sufficient to maintain a neutral soil in spite of the acidic rains, says Hamaker in Survival of Civilization.) We’ve already seen indications of these patterns. He says we can stand cold winters for some time, but not if they carry over into summers to destroy crops and trees. Cold waves, just a few degrees lower in temperature, can cause major crop losses in Canadian and Eurasian grain crops that are at the latitude of Michigan or farther north. Hamaker says food production in the northern hemisphere in 1980 had lost about 20% of potential because of adverse weather (drought/ heat in the U.S.; cold, wet weather on the Eurasian continent; and, in the southern hemisphere the growing season started with drought in Australia, Africa, and South America). He fears that famine could begin soon, that it could be a few years away; 1978 and 1979 fruit and vegetable losses in California, Texas, and Florida, as well as wintercrop losses in 1983/84, show what could happen to crops in the years just ahead.

Hamaker says that the average temperature at the start of a glacial period must be higher than the interglacial temperature, and must remain higher until the cooling effect of the ice sheets starts bringing it down, but says this won’t help agriculture: the southern temperate zone will have excessive heat/drought; northern/temperate zone: summer freezes and frosts; cloud cover lowers the temperature and increases the quantity of cold air which flows south over the land masses. With early cold snaps and longer, colder winters, the temperate zone will become a part of the subarctic zone. The summer frosts/ freezes, short-growing seasons, drought and violent storms, rapidly diminishing soil minerals, and increasing rain acidity will destroy the world’s grain crops; we can’t grow grain in the subarctic. Growing seasons have already been shortened and interrupted by freeze damage. (The local areas to survive will be the few near the equator that are blessed with a constantly renewed supply of basic minerals sufficient to maintain a neutral soil in spite of the acidic rains, says Hamaker in Survival of Civilization.) We’ve already seen indications of these patterns. He says we can stand cold winters for some time, but not if they carry over into summers to destroy crops and trees. Cold waves, just a few degrees lower in temperature, can cause major crop losses in Canadian and Eurasian grain crops that are at the latitude of Michigan or farther north. Hamaker says food production in the northern hemisphere in 1980 had lost about 20% of potential because of adverse weather (drought/ heat in the U.S.; cold, wet weather on the Eurasian continent; and, in the southern hemisphere the growing season started with drought in Australia, Africa, and South America). He fears that famine could begin soon, that it could be a few years away; 1978 and 1979 fruit and vegetable losses in California, Texas, and Florida, as well as winter crop losses in 1983/84, show what could happen to crops in the years just ahead.

Anyone interested in studying the whole glacial process in more depth is urged to read Hamaker’s book—there is an entire section on the tectonic system, plus more details on the role of CO2 in glaciation and many other facts and figures on the glacial process, including the period of glaciation itself. Our space in this lesson requires us to

Anyone interested in studying the whole glacial process in more depth is urged to read Hamaker’s book—there is an entire section on the tectonic system, plus more details on the role of CO2 in glaciation and many other facts and figures on the glacial process, including the period of glaciation itself. Our space in this lesson requires us to

Paleoclimatologists agree that the major warm periods (interglacials) that followed each of the ends of the major glaciations (cold periods) have lasted from about 10,000 to 12,000 years, and that, in each case, a period of considerably colder climate has followed immediately after these intervals. About 10,000 to 10,800 years have now passed since the onset of our present period of warmth, so the question certainly arises as to whether we are really on the brink of a period of colder climate. The 100,000-year cycle of glaciation is now recognized as occurring with regularity, so, technically-speaking, we could be due for another ice age “any time during the next 1,200 years”. As we said, though, signs that signal the changeover or transition from temperate to colder climate are already in evidence, and increasing due to our environmental errors.

Paleoclimatologists agree that the major warm periods (interglacials) that followed each of the ends of the major glaciations (cold periods) have lasted from about 10,000 to 12,000 years, and that, in each case, a period of considerably colder climate has followed immediately after these intervals. About 10,000 to 10,800 years have now passed since the onset of our present period of warmth, so the question certainly arises as to whether we are really on the brink of a period of colder climate. The 100,000-year cycle of glaciation is now recognized as occurring with regularity, so, technically-speaking, we could be due for another ice age “any time during the next 1,200 years”. As we said, though, signs that signal the changeover or transition from temperate to colder climate are already in evidence, and increasing due to our environmental errors.

Most scientists are noncommital, but those who are beginning to express concern say that these signs mean that we may be much closer to the first stages of the next ice age than anybody would like to think. Let’s review some of the signs we’ve already talked about:

Most scientists are non-commital, but those who are beginning to express concern say that these signs mean that we may be much closer to the first stages of the next ice age than anybody would like to think. Let’s review some of the signs we’ve already talked about:

We have already seen that the earth’s total soil microorganism and earthworm populations have been dying back over the recent centuries and decades due to soil demineralization, and so the earth’s plant and tree life has been forced to die back—known as “retrogressive vegetational succession” in the literature of ecology. Deserts (now growing at a rate of 15 million acres per year) are generally a final stage of this retrogression process. Our abuse and neglect has reinforced this desertification, as it has deforestation. Soil demineralization (with acid rains accelerating the devastation) is causing the increasingly rapid sickening and dying of whole forests. The massive death and burning of the forests is signaling the “telocratic” or end phase of our present interglacial period. Svend Th. Andersen saw the broad picture of glacial/interglacial stages and said that the interglacials were stable intervals between the glacial stages of disturbance and chaos. The vegetation had a chance to develop until the new glacial released its destructive forces. He divided the interglacials (warm intervals) into four broad phases:

We have already seen that the earth’s total soil microorganism and earthworm populations have been dying back over the recent centuries and decades due to soil demineralization, and so the earth’s plant and tree life has been forced to die back—known as “retrogressive vegetational succession” in the literature of ecology. Deserts (now growing at a rate of 15 million acres per year) are generally a final stage of this retrogression process. Our abuse and neglect has reinforced this desertification, as it has deforestation. Soil demineralization (with acid rains accelerating the devastation) is causing the increasingly rapid sickening and dying of whole forests. The massive death and burning of the forests is signaling the “telocratic” or end phase of our present interglacial period. Svend Th. Andersen saw the broad picture of glacial/interglacial stages and said that the interglacials were stable intervals between the glacial stages of disturbance and chaos. The vegetation had a chance to develop until the new glacial released its destructive forces. He divided the interglacials (warm intervals) into four broad phases:

# '''Protocratic phase.''' At the start of warm intervals, open forests of pioneer species entered—these were quickly-spreading trees and shrubs with unpretentious requirements to climate and soils. Birch, pine, poplar, juniper, and willow were most important in Denmark, Andersen’s home.

# '''Protocratic phase.''' At the start of warm intervals, open forests of pioneer species entered—these were quickly-spreading trees and shrubs with unpretentious requirements to climate and soils. Birch, pine, poplar, juniper, and willow were most important in Denmark, Andersen’s home.

# '''Mesocratic phase.''' Thesoilhaddevelopedahighfertility,andplantsofrichsoilsreached maximum frequencies. Immense forests covered great portions of the earth in the last mesocratic phase (from about 6,000 to 3,000 B.C.) Some of these trees, such as oaks, were reported to be often of remarkably large size; these are found preserved in now-degenerate treeless peat soils in England and elsewhere. The phase is dominated by trees such as elm, oak, lime, hazel, ash, hornbeam, and alder, growing on stable mull soils which Dr. Johannes Iversen (State Geologist, Geological Survey of Denmark), showed to eventually begin to retrogress. Iversen tried to find out at what point in the interglacial the retrogressive vegetational succession starts, and said it is “when the yearly disintegration of the plant debris no longer keeps pace with the fresh supply from the living plants, and consequently a layer of ‘mor’ (raw humus) is accumulated on top of the mineral soil”. “Mull” humus has a richness of available minerals; “mor” is acidifying humus. He studied soil conditions and said that, from the point approximately 10,000 years ago commonly accepted as the beginning of our present (warm) interglacial, it took about 3,700 to 4,500 years for the first of the glacially-deposited raw mineral soils of basic or alkaline pH to “mature” and then go into a gradual “irreversible” degradation/depletion. Iversen says this degradation process is characterized by reduced soil organisms, earthworms dying out, and by the vegetation regression that comes when soil is depleted and lacks minerals. Andersen and’ Iversen have similar descriptions of this process. In these mull soils, of roughly 6000 to 3000 B.C., the leaching of the soil salts is to some extent counteracted by the mixing activity of the soil fauna and the ability of the prevailing trees and shrubs to extract bases from the deeper soil layers and contribute them to the upper layers during the decomposition of their litter. However, a slow removal of calcium carbonate will bring the soils into a less stable state, where the equilibrium may be more easily disturbed. This leaching of calcium carbonate (lime) is shown to be so significant to the topsoil ecology because, according to Andersen, “the leaching of soil minerals other than lime will be insignificant, until the calcium carbonate has been removed”. With this gradual leaching, the mull forest could not maintain itself, and with the lapse of time, caused itself a depauperization and acidification of the upper soil layers, which extended so far that the dense forest receded and more open vegetation types expanded. The changeover from mineral-rich mull soils to acidifying mor soil conditions begins in the mesocratic, and with the gradual demineralization of formerly-calcareous soils, growth of impenetrable hardpans and soil life die-outs follow. This creates shallow topsoils susceptible to drought or being easily swamped; and this infertile state leads to takeover by heathlands, peat bogs, and trees with ability to survive on acidic soils—spruce, pine, birch, poplar, etc.

# '''Mesocratic phase.''' The soil had developed a high fertility, and plants of rich soils reached maximum frequencies. Immense forests covered great portions of the earth in the last mesocratic phase (from about 6,000 to 3,000 B.C.) Some of these trees, such as oaks, were reported to be often of remarkably large size; these are found preserved in now-degenerate treeless peat soils in England and elsewhere. The phase is dominated by trees such as elm, oak, lime, hazel, ash, hornbeam, and alder, growing on stable mull soils which Dr. Johannes Iversen (State Geologist, Geological Survey of Denmark), showed to eventually begin to retrogress. Iversen tried to find out at what point in the interglacial the retrogressive vegetational succession starts, and said it is “when the yearly disintegration of the plant debris no longer keeps pace with the fresh supply from the living plants, and consequently a layer of ‘mor’ (raw humus) is accumulated on top of the mineral soil”. “Mull” humus has a richness of available minerals; “mor” is acidifying humus. He studied soil conditions and said that, from the point approximately 10,000 years ago commonly accepted as the beginning of our present (warm) interglacial, it took about 3,700 to 4,500 years for the first of the glacially-deposited raw mineral soils of basic or alkaline pH to “mature” and then go into a gradual “irreversible” degradation/depletion. Iversen says this degradation process is characterized by reduced soil organisms, earthworms dying out, and by the vegetation regression that comes when soil is depleted and lacks minerals. Andersen and’ Iversen have similar descriptions of this process. In these mull soils, of roughly 6000 to 3000 B.C., the leaching of the soil salts is to some extent counteracted by the mixing activity of the soil fauna and the ability of the prevailing trees and shrubs to extract bases from the deeper soil layers and contribute them to the upper layers during the decomposition of their litter. However, a slow removal of calcium carbonate will bring the soils into a less stable state, where the equilibrium may be more easily disturbed. This leaching of calcium carbonate (lime) is shown to be so significant to the topsoil ecology because, according to Andersen, “the leaching of soil minerals other than lime will be insignificant, until the calcium carbonate has been removed”. With this gradual leaching, the mull forest could not maintain itself, and with the lapse of time, caused itself a depauperization and acidification of the upper soil layers, which extended so far that the dense forest receded and more open vegetation types expanded. The changeover from mineral-rich mull soils to acidifying mor soil conditions begins in the mesocratic, and with the gradual demineralization of formerly-calcareous soils, growth of impenetrable hardpans and soil life die-outs follow. This creates shallow topsoils susceptible to drought or being easily swamped; and this infertile state leads to takeover by heathlands, peat bogs, and trees with ability to survive on acidic soils—spruce, pine, birch, poplar, etc.

# '''Oligocratic phase.''' This condition becomes prevalent in this phase, and is brought on as a result of degeneration of soils. The increasing podzolization, characterized by increased demineralization and acidity, continues up through the telocratic (end) phase. (Podzolization is a process of soil formation, especially in humid regions, involving principally leaching of the upper layers with accumulation of material in lower layers and development of characteristic horizons; specifically, the development of a podzol. Podzol: any of a group of zonal soils that develop in a moist climate especially under coniferous or mixed forests and have an organic mat and a thin organic-mineral layer above a gray leached layer resting on a dark alluvial horizon enriched with amorphous clay.)

# '''Oligocratic phase.''' This condition becomes prevalent in this phase, and is brought on as a result of degeneration of soils. The increasing podzolization, characterized by increased demineralization and acidity, continues up through the telocratic (end) phase. (Podzolization is a process of soil formation, especially in humid regions, involving principally leaching of the upper layers with accumulation of material in lower layers and development of characteristic horizons; specifically, the development of a podzol. Podzol: any of a group of zonal soils that develop in a moist climate especially under coniferous or mixed forests and have an organic mat and a thin organic-mineral layer above a gray leached layer resting on a dark alluvial horizon enriched with amorphous clay.)

# '''Telocratic(end)phase.''' Thefinalinterglacialphaseisthetimewhenthedemineralized soils begin to be removed. The rigorous conditions at the end of the interglacial are reflected by an increase in allochthonous mineral matter, no doubt due to increasing surficial erosion.

# '''Telocratic(end)phase.''' Thefinalinterglacialphaseisthetimewhenthedemineralized soils begin to be removed. The rigorous conditions at the end of the interglacial are reflected by an increase in allochthonous mineral matter, no doubt due to increasing surficial erosion.

John Hamaker puts it this way: “It may seem incredible that up to now this work could have escaped becoming common knowledge, at least to workers in agriculture, forestry, geology, climatology, and other such immediately-related fields. Apparently the many diverse pieces of the glacial/ interglacial climate cycle ‘puzzle’ had to be gradually discovered through various disciplines over decades, before at least enough pieces were evident to be joined in a coherent picture by a trained ecological thinker.”(John Hamaker in this case.) Yet now everyone may see for themselves the truth in his synthesis.

John Hamaker puts it this way: “It may seem incredible that up to now this work could have escaped becoming common knowledge, at least to workers in agriculture, forestry, geology, climatology, and other such immediately-related fields. Apparently the many diverse pieces of the glacial/ interglacial climate cycle ‘puzzle’ had to be gradually discovered through various disciplines over decades, before at least enough pieces were evident to be joined in a coherent picture by a trained ecological thinker.”(John Hamaker in this case.) Yet now everyone may see for themselves the truth in his synthesis.

He continues: “Congress has evaluated the CO2 problem on the basis of a consensus reached by ‘specialists’. They freely admit that they do not know what causes glaciation, yet say the average temperature must drop several degrees C before we can have glaciation simply because they have evidence that it does get much colder during glacial periods. They ignore the fact that, historically, glaciation has alternated with interglacial periods on a roughly 100,000-year cycle and the fact that glaciation is due. Do they think that crop soils turning to deserts (due to erosion and soil demineralization, etc.), and weather catastrophies we’ve observed, are all just coincidence? They haven’t thought about soil and its relation to glaciation, nor the role of the tectonic system in the glacial process.

He continues: “Congress has evaluated the CO2 problem on the basis of a consensus reached by ‘specialists’. They freely admit that they do not know what causes glaciation, yet say the average temperature must drop several degrees C before we can have glaciation simply because they have evidence that it does get much colder during glacial periods. They ignore the fact that, historically, glaciation has alternated with interglacial periods on a roughly 100,000-year cycle and the fact that glaciation is due. Do they think that crop soils turning to deserts (due to erosion and soil demineralization, etc.), and weather catastrophes we’ve observed, are all just coincidence? They haven’t thought about soil and its relation to glaciation, nor the role of the tectonic system in the glacial process.

“The people charged with the responsibility for the CO2 problem are simply not trained to solve problems. They are trained to be observers and have done a creditable job of that. But the job of making a rational synthesis of the facts as a basis for Congressional action ought to have been assigned to engineers and physicists, both of whom have been trained to work with the facts and laws of Nature. The fault lies at the higher levels of education, which have neglected the necessity for interdisciplinary education and action in favor of specialization.”

“The people charged with the responsibility for the CO2 problem are simply not trained to solve problems. They are trained to be observers and have done a creditable job of that. But the job of making a rational synthesis of the facts as a basis for Congressional action ought to have been assigned to engineers and physicists, both of whom have been trained to work with the facts and laws of Nature. The fault lies at the higher levels of education, which have neglected the necessity for interdisciplinary education and action in favor of specialization.”

What I’m getting at is this: if all the above is so obvious to us, why isn’t it obvious to the countless doctors and “health” professionals all over the world? Why is it obvious only to a few people? How can something be true and not be recognized by more people? All we can say is, truth is still truth, in and of itself, even if not one single person sees it. Truth doesn’t need believers in order to be true; it doesn’t need followers or majority acceptance in order to be valid. Truth doesn’t have to wait for everyone to catch up. The earth was still round when everyone believed it was flat, despite what “everyone” thought. Microscopic life existed long before we saw it in microscopes; it didn’t have to wait for us to see it in order to exist. If we are sliding into another Ice Age, and the scientists who foresee its arrival are correct, an Ice Age won’t need our approval or belief in order to be a reality, that much we can be sure of.

What I’m getting at is this: if all the above is so obvious to us, why isn’t it obvious to the countless doctors and “health” professionals all over the world? Why is it obvious only to a few people? How can something be true and not be recognized by more people? All we can say is, truth is still truth, in and of itself, even if not one single person sees it. Truth doesn’t need believers in order to be true; it doesn’t need followers or majority acceptance in order to be valid. Truth doesn’t have to wait for everyone to catch up. The earth was still round when everyone believed it was flat, despite what “everyone” thought. Microscopic life existed long before we saw it in microscopes; it didn’t have to wait for us to see it in order to exist. If we are sliding into another Ice Age, and the scientists who foresee its arrival are correct, an Ice Age won’t need our approval or belief in order to be a reality, that much we can be sure of.

Of course it would be easier for our own “practical purposes if some of their calculations we are “off .” After all, many so-called scientific theories have fallen by the wayside throughout the years, as new knowledge superceded old knowledge. Even the “world is flat” theory fell prey to the test of time. Whereas truth is truth despite what people believe, knowledge may or may not be true despite what people believe. Even if it isn’t true, it may be paraded around as fact for years, centuries, or even indefinitely.

Of course it would be easier for our own “practical purposes if some of their calculations we are “off .” After all, many so-called scientific theories have fallen by the wayside throughout the years, as new knowledge supercede old knowledge. Even the “world is flat” theory fell prey to the test of time. Whereas truth is truth despite what people believe, knowledge may or may not be true despite what people believe. Even if it isn’t true, it may be paraded around as fact for years, centuries, or even indefinitely.

In the meantime, many people continue to believe what they’re told, looking to “experts” for answers and depending on them for knowledge; it’s not a foolproof learning technique, but it’s often the best they can do. So, when the experts themselves make mistakes, it doesn’t matter how big their herd of followers is—but, of course, many people are influenced by the size of the herd when choosing their beliefs. They feel safety in numbers, and prefer the comfort and “security” of a large herd. If “everyone else” believes something, it must be true, says their inner logic, or if nothing else, they’d still rather be with the majority. There is an alternative to joining herds and following experts: intuition. If you can trust your intuition, you are fortunate. As a free thinker, you can ask yourself what your intuition tells you about the world’s current situation, the state of our environment, weather patterns, and Ice Ages. I’ve tried to present various opinions on these subjects, but I don’t presume to have all the answers.

In the meantime, many people continue to believe what they’re told, looking to “experts” for answers and depending on them for knowledge; it’s not a foolproof learning technique, but it’s often the best they can do. So, when the experts themselves make mistakes, it doesn’t matter how big their herd of followers is—but, of course, many people are influenced by the size of the herd when choosing their beliefs. They feel safety in numbers, and prefer the comfort and “security” of a large herd. If “everyone else” believes something, it must be true, says their inner logic, or if nothing else, they’d still rather be with the majority. There is an alternative to joining herds and following experts: intuition. If you can trust your intuition, you are fortunate. As a free thinker, you can ask yourself what your intuition tells you about the world’s current situation, the state of our environment, weather patterns, and Ice Ages. I’ve tried to present various opinions on these subjects, but I don’t presume to have all the answers.

My intuition tells me to keep an open mind, and not to give up hope. If the observations and premonitions of the scientists who see the world as cooling are correct, I for one would rather have had a hint ahead of time than be surprised at the last minute! At least this leaves us with the option to take action, and to try to survive on this planet. It’s been said that we don’t fail until we give up trying. Hope is our strongest ally—it reinforces our will to live. Without it, we are lost, for without hope, nothing matters anymore.

My intuition tells me to keep an open mind, and not to give up hope. If the observations and premonitions of the scientists who see the world as cooling are correct, I for one would rather have had a hint ahead of time than be surprised at the last minute! At least this leaves us with the option to take action, and to try to survive on this planet. It’s been said that we don’t fail until we give up trying. Hope is our strongest ally—it reinforces our will to live. Without it, we are lost, for without hope, nothing matters anymore.

So, even if an Ice Age were approaching during our lifetime, we would still have hope as our “open door”. For one thing, we have the potential for change. Some people believe that there is a future that can be known in the present (often called destiny), but that, at the same time, there is still our free will—a powerful force that can change or alter “what is meant to be”. This gives us control over our “destinies” and the ability to create the lives we choose. As we said in an earlier lesson, we ourselves are responsible for our states of being; we underestimate our power as individuals when we believe that random outside influences alone shape our lives. Ironically, though, there is also some element of “chance “in life that can weave its influence into what we are busily creating; while we often tend to define things in simple dualities of yes and no we actually have yes, maybe, maybe not, and no. We can predict that something will or will not happen, and we can be very sure that it will or will not happen, if we are accurate. Even so, the fact still remains that, beyond our free will or any so-called destiny, there are also other powers and forces of life in the universe that can enter into every situation and coincide with any variables involved, and these sometimes alter the outcome or cause slight variations between what we expect and what actually happens. For this reason, when considering the return of an Ice Age, we can still allow for the possibility, however small, that something completely unpredictable at this present time—some unforeseeable factor—could still come to pass, something we cannot even conceive of or envision with our present knowledge or awareness. This is not to say that we should resort to an escapist mentality or rationalize our way out of solving our serious environmental problems by using the excuse that “a miracle could happen” as a justification for inertia—this would be wishful thinking and sheer delusion! We’re merely trying to show that everything that happens in life is affected by the intricate interworkings of many multi-faceted forces, and that this includes our attempts to predict specific global climate changes. We’ve attempted to speculate on the past and present factors pertaining to Ice Ages, so now we’re considering future factors, which, of course, also lead us to the unknown. Technology and scientific knowledge that we use daily and now take for granted were unimaginable to people a century ago, so it is conceivable that someone could still discover an energy force/source that is presently unknown to humanity, or find a new technique for cleaning and restoring the environment, or invent something that we can’t even imagine that would change our world or its course of events. We can hope that our ingenuity will prove itself once more; we’ve gotten ourselves into our present world state—maybe we can get ourselves out of our problems, as well. There is a tremendous growth in spirit evident all over the planet—we ourselves can perform the miracle of increased awareness—with a quantum leap in consciousness, we could save ourselves by realizing what must be done before it is too late.

So, even if an Ice Age were approaching during our lifetime, we would still have hope as our “open door”. For one thing, we have the potential for change. Some people believe that there is a future that can be known in the present (often called destiny), but that, at the same time, there is still our free will—a powerful force that can change or alter “what is meant to be”. This gives us control over our “destinies” and the ability to create the lives we choose. As we said in an earlier lesson, we ourselves are responsible for our states of being; we underestimate our power as individuals when we believe that random outside influences alone shape our lives. Ironically, though, there is also some element of “chance “in life that can weave its influence into what we are busily creating; while we often tend to define things in simple dualities of yes and no we actually have yes, maybe, maybe not, and no. We can predict that something will or will not happen, and we can be very sure that it will or will not happen, if we are accurate. Even so, the fact still remains that, beyond our free will or any so-called destiny, there are also other powers and forces of life in the universe that can enter into every situation and coincide with any variables involved, and these sometimes alter the outcome or cause slight variations between what we expect and what actually happens. For this reason, when considering the return of an Ice Age, we can still allow for the possibility, however small, that something completely unpredictable at this present time—some unforeseeable factor—could still come to pass, something we cannot even conceive of or envision with our present knowledge or awareness. This is not to say that we should resort to an escapist mentality or rationalize our way out of solving our serious environmental problems by using the excuse that “a miracle could happen” as a justification for inertia—this would be wishful thinking and sheer delusion! We’re merely trying to show that everything that happens in life is affected by the intricate inter-workings of many multi-faceted forces, and that this includes our attempts to predict specific global climate changes. We’ve attempted to speculate on the past and present factors pertaining to Ice Ages, so now we’re considering future factors, which, of course, also lead us to the unknown. Technology and scientific knowledge that we use daily and now take for granted were unimaginable to people a century ago, so it is conceivable that someone could still discover an energy force/source that is presently unknown to humanity, or find a new technique for cleaning and restoring the environment, or invent something that we can’t even imagine that would change our world or its course of events. We can hope that our ingenuity will prove itself once more; we’ve gotten ourselves into our present world state—maybe we can get ourselves out of our problems, as well. There is a tremendous growth in spirit evident all over the planet—we ourselves can perform the miracle of increased awareness—with a quantum leap in consciousness, we could save ourselves by realizing what must be done before it is too late.

It has been said that our strongest instinct is to survive. When I finished reading Hamaker’s book, I began to see our world ecology as a whole, and realized the importance of seeing our environmental problems collectively, as they interrelate, rather than individually. There’s an old expression that comes to mind: “Couldn’t see the forest for the trees.” We’ve been looking at the trees so long that we’ve forgotten what the whole forest looks like. Few things can make us appreciate life more than the realization that it can end. The suggestion that time could run out for our planet forces us to reassess our values as human beings. Where are we going? What are we doing to our environment, our source of life? What are our real priorities? Ask anyone who’s ever been told s/ he would have “only 3 months to live”. The first thing that happens is a total overhaul of priorities, a total rethinking of what the person can still do. Time becomes more precious than ever before. Energy becomes focused as never before. Life is no longer taken for granted. I guess we never wake up until after we’ve been asleep. Let’s hope we wake up in time—it seems we’ve ignored the alarm clock already.

It has been said that our strongest instinct is to survive. When I finished reading Hamaker’s book, I began to see our world ecology as a whole, and realized the importance of seeing our environmental problems collectively, as they interrelate, rather than individually. There’s an old expression that comes to mind: “Couldn’t see the forest for the trees.” We’ve been looking at the trees so long that we’ve forgotten what the whole forest looks like. Few things can make us appreciate life more than the realization that it can end. The suggestion that time could run out for our planet forces us to reassess our values as human beings. Where are we going? What are we doing to our environment, our source of life? What are our real priorities? Ask anyone who’s ever been told s/ he would have “only 3 months to live”. The first thing that happens is a total overhaul of priorities, a total rethinking of what the person can still do. Time becomes more precious than ever before. Energy becomes focused as never before. Life is no longer taken for granted. I guess we never wake up until after we’ve been asleep. Let’s hope we wake up in time—it seems we’ve ignored the alarm clock already.

Fear is the lock and laughter the key to your heart.

Fear is the lock and laughter the key to your heart.

—Stephen Stills

'''—Stephen Stills'''

== Politics Of Food Production ==

== Politics Of Food Production ==

=== The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave ===

=== The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave ===

We, the people, are the government. Imagine you’re a passenger in a car and the driver falls asleep just as the car is heading toward a cliff. Earlier in this lesson we mentioned some of the different types of people who make up our world. Let’s listen to what they have to say, as the driver loses control of the car:

We, the people, are the government. Imagine you’re a passenger in a car and the driver falls asleep just as the car is heading toward a cliff. Earlier in this lesson we mentioned some of the different types of people who make up our world. Let’s listen to what they have to say, as the driver loses control of the car:

*Those who’re unaware that problems exist: “What a fantastic view!”

 

*Those who remain indifferent to problems: “So what if we go over a cliff?”

# Those who’re unaware that problems exist: “What a fantastic view!”

*Thosewhotrustinthesystem,rightorwrong:“It’snotthedriver’sfaultthatwe’rehead ing for a cliff—after all, his intentions were good.”

# Those who remain indifferent to problems: “So what if we go over a cliff?”

*Those who give up hope: “Too late now—I’d better cover my eyes!”

# Those who trust in the system, right or wrong: “It’s not the driver’s fault that we’re heading for a cliff—after all, his intentions were good.”

*Those who recognize problems, but are all talk and no action: “Maybe the driver will wake up in time! Whatever happens, it’s the driver’s fault—I’m not to blame!”

# Those who give up hope: “Too late now—I’d better cover my eyes!”

*Those who are aware and take action: “I’d better grab the wheel and steer for my life!”  

# Those who recognize problems, but are all talk and no action: “Maybe the driver will wake up in time! Whatever happens, it’s the driver’s fault—I’m not to blame!”

# Those who are aware and take action: “I’d better grab the wheel and steer for my life!”

 

What would you do?  

What would you do?  

Estimates vary so widely largely because of different criteria. To biologists, loss means either conversion of primary forest—say, to agriculture, pasture, or tree planta-

Estimates vary so widely largely because of different criteria. To biologists, loss means either conversion of primary forest—say, to agriculture, pasture, or tree planta-

tions—or modification, implying biological impoverishment through selective logging or shifting cultivation. To foresters, loss means deforestation—the removal of all tress.

tions—or modification, implying biological impoverishment through selective logging or shifting cultivation. To foresters, loss means deforestation—the removal of all trees.

A world survey of rain forest status appears below.

A world survey of rain forest status appears below.

=== South America ===

=== South America ===

BRAZIL

'''BRAZIL'''

Earth’s largest rain forest little disturbed except for fringes of southern Amazonia and areas in the east. Small chance of major losses in the west for the near future.

Earth’s largest rain forest little disturbed except for fringes of southern Amazonia and areas in the east. Small chance of major losses in the west for the near future.

PERU

'''PERU'''

Vast area covered by undisturbed Amazon forest. Farm settlement expected to become more extensive in next decade or two.

Vast area covered by undisturbed Amazon forest. Farm settlement expected to become more extensive in next decade or two.

COLOMBIA

'''COLOMBIA'''

About one-third forested, mostly in Amazon region, some along Pacific coast. Efforts to colonize have been slowed.

About one-third forested, mostly in Amazon region, some along Pacific coast. Efforts to colonize have been slowed.

VENEZUELA

'''VENEZUELA'''

Large tract in south barely touched. Smaller areas in north heavily cut, converted to ranches and farms.

Large tract in south barely touched. Smaller areas in north heavily cut, converted to ranches and farms.

GUYANA

'''GUYANA'''

Most of population lives along coast. Little threat to forest.

Most of population lives along coast. Little threat to forest.

SURINAME

'''SURINAME'''

Virgin rain forest covers most of country, much protected by parks and reserves. ECUADOR

Virgin rain forest covers most of country, much protected by parks and reserves. '''ECUADOR'''

Large forests along Pacific already gone, oil exploration and agriculture encroach on

Large forests along Pacific already gone, oil exploration and agriculture encroach on

Ecuadorian Amazonia.

Ecuadorian Amazonia.

FRENCH GUIANA

'''FRENCH GUIANA'''

Population lives along coast. Little pressure on undisturbed forest of interior. BOLIVIA

Population lives along coast. Little pressure on undisturbed forest of interior. '''BOLIVIA'''

Not much exploitation of forests yet. But government has begun roads, farming, and

Not much exploitation of forests yet. But government has begun roads, farming, and

Most island forests long ago reduced to remnants after heavy exploitation by dense populations. Small tracts survive, for example, in the

Most island forests long ago reduced to remnants after heavy exploitation by dense populations. Small tracts survive, for example, in the

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, and PUERTO RICO, where a U.S. national forest protects 104 square kilometers.

'''DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO''', and '''PUERTO RICO''', where a '''U.S.''' national forest protects 104 square kilometers.

MEXICO

'''MEXICO'''

Shifting cultivators, timber harvesters, and cattle ranchers encroach on the country’s last rain forest area on the southern border with Guatemala.

Shifting cultivators, timber harvesters, and cattle ranchers encroach on the country’s last rain forest area on the southern border with Guatemala.

=== Central America ===

=== Central America ===

A strong trend toward cattle ranching on this highly-populated isthmus has greatly reduced primary forests, now believed to be two-thirds removed. Small areas found in the Peten region of northeastern GUATEMALA, the Mosquitia Forest of eastern HONDURAS, parts of eastern NICARAGUA, southern BELIZE, the national parks of COSTA RICA. and much of PANAMA.

A strong trend toward cattle ranching on this highly-populated isthmus has greatly reduced primary forests, now believed to be two-thirds removed. Small areas found in the Peten region of northeastern '''GUATEMALA''', the Mosquitia Forest of eastern '''HONDURAS''', parts of eastern '''NICARAGUA''', southern '''BELIZE''', the national parks of '''COSTA RICA'''. and much of '''PANAMA'''.

=== South Asia ===

=== South Asia ===

INDIA

'''INDIA'''

Patches of forest along the western Ghats and on Andaman lslands disrupted by landless poor, forest farmers, and logging.

Patches of forest along the western Ghats and on Andaman lslands disrupted by landless poor, forest farmers, and logging.

BANGLADESH

'''BANGLADESH'''

Narrow belt of rain forest in Chittagong region heavily exploited by hill tribes.

Narrow belt of rain forest in Chittagong region heavily exploited by hill tribes.

SRI LANKA

'''SRI LANKA'''

Small tract on southwestern and central parts, largely disrupted by logging and slash-

Small tract on southwestern and central parts, largely disrupted by logging and slash-

and-burn farmers.

and-burn farmers.

ZAIRE

'''ZAIRE'''

=== Africa ===

=== Africa ===

Holds Africa’s largest rain forest (nearly one-tenth world total), parts of it now secondary growth. Some clearing by slash-and-burn farmers in south, but vast areas still undamaged by mainly rural population.

Holds Africa’s largest rain forest (nearly one-tenth world total), parts of it now secondary growth. Some clearing by slash-and-burn farmers in south, but vast areas still undamaged by mainly rural population.

GABON

'''GABON'''

Almost entirely forested, with exploitation just beginning.

Almost entirely forested, with exploitation just beginning.

CAMEROON

'''CAMEROON'''

Extensive disruption of large forest areas—especially in the southwest—by timber

Extensive disruption of large forest areas—especially in the southwest—by timber

companies and slash-and-burn farmers. CONGO

companies and slash-and-burn farmers.

 

'''CONGO'''

Forests in remote northern and central regions still undisturbed. Some logging in south.

Forests in remote northern and central regions still undisturbed. Some logging in south.

IVORY COAST

'''IVORY COAST'''

More than 70 percent of primary forest at turn of century now cleared. Rest may be gone within a decade. Timber harvesting intense. Forest farming increasing rapidly.

More than 70 percent of primary forest at turn of century now cleared. Rest may be gone within a decade. Timber harvesting intense. Forest farming increasing rapidly.

LIBERIA

'''LIBERIA'''

Very little primary rain forest left due to shifting cultivation.

Very little primary rain forest left due to shifting cultivation.

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

'''CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC'''

Rainforests in south. Little pressure from small population.

Rainforests in south. Little pressure from small population.

NIGERIA

'''NIGERIA'''

Most forest disrupted by dense population and a century of logging. Small areas re-

Most forest disrupted by dense population and a century of logging. Small areas re-

maining in south expected to be exploited soon. SIERRA LEONE

maining in south expected to be exploited soon.

Very few forest areas undisturbed by cultivators. EQUATORIAL GUINEA

 

Very few forest areas undisturbed by cultivators.

 

'''EQUATORIAL GUINEA'''

Almost totally forested. Little loss expected.

Almost totally forested. Little loss expected.

GHANA

'''GHANA'''

Little or no virgin forest remains. About half removed during last 25 years by forest

Little or no virgin forest remains. About half removed during last 25 years by forest

farmers. Remnants found in the southwest. GUINEA

farmers. Remnants found in the southwest.

 

'''GUINEA'''

Small area still covered with rain forest in the southwest. BENIN About three fourths of original forests left, but heavily disrupted due to strong pressure of growing population.

Small area still covered with rain forest in the southwest. BENIN About three fourths of original forests left, but heavily disrupted due to strong pressure of growing population.

ANGOLA

'''ANGOLA'''

Small rain forest concentrated in north.

Small rain forest concentrated in north.

MADAGASCAR

'''MADAGASCAR'''

Much slash-and-burn farming. Only fragment of eastern rain forest still survives.

Much slash-and-burn farming. Only fragment of eastern rain forest still survives.

=== Southeast Asia ===

=== Southeast Asia ===

CHINA

'''CHINA'''

Rain forests along southern coast largely disturbed, though a few areas are protected. INDONESIA

Rain forests along southern coast largely disturbed, though a few areas are protected.

vested already. Log production multiplied sixfold during 1960s and 1970s. Farmers and transmigrant settlers also eliminating large forest areas.

Contains largest rain forest in Asia (nearly one-tenth world total), but much harvested already. Log production multiplied sixfold during 1960s and 1970s. Farmers and transmigrant settlers also eliminating large forest areas.

MALAYSIA

'''MALAYSIA'''

About two-thirds of lowland forests on peninsula heavily logged, converted to oil palm, rubber plantations. Large forests on Borneo also being harvested.

About two-thirds of lowland forests on peninsula heavily logged, converted to oil palm, rubber plantations. Large forests on Borneo also being harvested.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

'''PAPUA NEW GUINEA'''

Largely covered by undisturbed rain forest, much inaccessible to logging companies. Full-forest harvesting under way in small areas on north coast. Half of population forest farmers.

Largely covered by undisturbed rainforest, much inaccessible to logging companies. Full-forest harvesting under way in small areas on north coast. Half of population forest farmers.

PHILIPPINES

'''PHILIPPINES'''

Large timber companies harvesting remaining rain forests, less than a third of what existed 30 years ago. Clearing by rural poor also severe.

Large timber companies harvesting remaining rainforests, less than a third of what existed 30 years ago. Clearing by rural poor also severe.

BRUNEI

'''BRUNEI'''

Mostly covered by rain forest, much undisturbed. Revenues from oil taxes take pressure off timber cutting as source of foreign exchange.

Mostly covered by rain forest, much undisturbed. Revenues from oil taxes take pressure off timber cutting as source of foreign exchange.

Only pockets of forest survive in Indochina, mainly in southernmost THAILAND, lower BURMA, southern KAMPUCHEA, and parts of the Mekong Plain in VIETNAM.

Only pockets of forest survive in Indochina, mainly in southernmost '''THAILAND''', lower '''BURMA''', southern '''KAMPUCHEA''', and parts of the Mekong Plain in '''VIETNAM'''.

=== Australia ===

=== Australia ===

Fragments of primary forest remain along east coast of Queensland. Other lowland forests heavily cut for timber, sugar plantations, mining interests, and dairy farms.

Fragments of primary forest remain along east coast of Queensland. Other lowland forests heavily cut for timber, sugar plantations, mining interests, and dairy farms.

Pacific Islands

'''Pacific Islands'''

Rain forests found on southeastern side of FIJI. Major areas allocated to timber companies. About three-fourths of SOLOMON ISLANDS also forested, most in terrain too steep to harvest.

Rain forests found on southeastern side of FIJI. Major areas allocated to timber companies. About three-fourths of '''SOLOMON ISLANDS''' also forested, most in terrain too steep to harvest.