A Tree-hugger on HARDTalk

[Guest]

Hardtalk speaks to the original tree hugger. The phrase was coined back in the 1970s when she - along with a group of women in India - hugged trees to stop them from being chopped down. In the decades since, Vandana Shiva has become known throughout the world for her environmental campaigns. She says a billion people go hungry in the world because of the way greedy international companies go about their business. So is it a naïve world view or could we really end poverty and improve everyone's life by returning to old fashioned ways of farming?

A really stimulating interview with Sarah Montague

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nyvz8/HARDtalk_Vandana_Shiva_Environmental_Campaigner/

[Simon]

So is it a naïve world view or could we really end poverty and improve everyone's life by returning to old fashioned ways of farming?

No it's not naive at all. But "old-fashioned" is probably the wrong phrase. "More natural" would be better.

The idea of feeding (chemically treated) corn to beef cattle to make meat is simply stupid; far better to turn the cornfields into natural pasture and let the cattle feed on that. The "side" benefit would be the carbon sink of the natural grassland.

But that would mean big losses for Big Agro. And as Big Agro (along with Big Pharma and Big Arms) has massive influence at governmental levels in the developed world - irrespective of the political "shade" of the government - it won't happen.

Cui bono? is the question to ask. Always. About policy. It doesn't always imply any corruption as such, but can lead quite sensibly to an understanding of the interests involved.

That said, it isn't all the fault of the self-interests of the multis. Corruption and graft in the "developing" world, not least in India, is and has been a massive problem. Of the billions given in aid to Africa over the past 50 years, some estimates are that less than 25% has actually been used to benefit the people who have so desperately needed it. (I can't vouch for that being accurate, of course: nobody can.) Much of the rest, some think, has ended up in Switzerland. And in the tills of Oxford St. and 5th Avenue, of course.

[Lateralthinking1]

Hardtalk speaks to the original tree hugger. The phrase was coined back in the 1970s when she - along with a group of women in India - hugged trees to stop them from being chopped down. In the decades since, Vandana Shiva has become known throughout the world for her environmental campaigns. She says a billion people go hungry in the world because of the way greedy international companies go about their business. So is it a naïve world view or could we really end poverty and improve everyone's life by returning to old fashioned ways of farming?

A really stimulating interview with Sarah Montague

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...al_Campaigner/

Well, she is pretty formidable.

The lack of biodiversity by Indian farmers on account of multinational policy reminds me rather of the forests we have grown with only one species. While the returns on cotton may be impressive, let us hope that there isn't the emergence of a cotton die back.

The companies encourage only cotton to be grown. Seeds are not permitted to be reused. Meanwhile any western investment firm will tell you that it is better to have a broad portfolio. The position is downright contradictory. Mostly I am inclined to believe her.

Thanks for highlighting it.

[Pabmusic]

...The companies encourage only cotton to be grown. Seeds are not permitted to be reused. Meanwhile any western investment firm will tell you that it is better to have a broad portfolio. The position is downright contradictory. Mostly I am inclined to believe her.

Thanks for highlighting it.

Yes, thanks. What puzzles me is the idea that crop diversity is a 'new' concept. I have only to think back to learning about medieval crop rotation as a 13-year-old, or, later, how a lack of varieties of potato made the Irish potato famine so much worse. And this was all in the 60s.

[Dave2002]

No it's not naive at all. But "old-fashioned" is probably the wrong phrase. "More natural" would be better.

The idea of feeding (chemically treated) corn to beef cattle to make meat is simply stupid; far better to turn the cornfields into natural pasture and let the cattle feed on that. The "side" benefit would be the carbon sink of the natural grassland.

Many people live effectively on a vegetarian diet. In energy and environmental terms this is very much more effective than feeding animals and eating meat. Regarding the environment generally it would be better if meat eaters ate less of the stuff - it isn't necessary to have meat with every meal. Many of the poor people in the world have a largely vegetarian diet because meat (and fish?) is expensive for them.

I'm not advocating abandoning meat and/or fish altogether. There are problems with purely vegetarian diets, and people who adopt them may experience problems, but only a small amount of meat and fish is needed weekly to keep pretty healthy.

[Pabmusic]

... Many of the poor people in the world have a largely vegetarian diet because meat (and fish?) is expensive for them.

I'm not advocating abandoning meat and/or fish altogether. There are problems with purely vegetarian diets, and people who adopt them may experience problems, but only a small amount of meat and fish is needed weekly to keep pretty healthy.

We have evolved to be omnivores, so a purely vegetarian diet is not the most efficient one for us - although there are many people who live well enough on one. Our nearest cousins, the chimps and bonobos, are similar, although there is not so much available meat in the jungle. Presumably finding ourselves on the savannah, where meat is perhaps the main source of sustenance, was an important stage in our evolution (well, of course it was - it probably led to us walking upright and using our brains more). In order to become true vegetarians, though, we would have to adapt in many ways - heavier jaws, different teeth, serious changes to the gut (something for the appendix to do once more?).

I live in a 'third world' country, and can vouch for the fact that there's no shortage of meat. You grow it - pigs, chickens, goats - as well as catch it. There's a huge variety of fish and seafood, but apart from that, frogs and snakes, birds, lizards, spiders, snails. And they don't waste meat by not eating the 'unpalatable' bits.

[Mrs Pab has told me to say that there are hordes of semi-domesticated dogs that roam around here. Some of those end up the pot! She refuses to have any, though.]