©GeraldineBanksJune2024
Chapter 10 Global Warming :The Cost of Living
The nature walk in London last Sunday had a sprinkling of celebrities and apparently wasn’t taken as seriously by the media as it should have been. Possibly the Election and Nature are not compatible. Let’s face it what is most important to the electorate, the Economy or protecting our wildlife and fauna. Daft question really.
Recently while out for a walk with our little dog, my partner pointed out an area of wild grass which was basically full of very Scottish blooming purple nettles. As we are in the South of England although pretty they did look out of place and as the area is usually used for sheep grazing I asked him how the sheep manage to get through to the grass with all the nettles.
“They trod on them to get to the fresh grass .” he replied.
He continued saying that he was suprised that there weren’t more wildflowers and other fauna among the nettles, but that it was the farmers use of insecticides that had caused the nettles alone to thrive and kill off insects that need the pollen and also spread the wildflower seeds.
The cost of producing food outweighs the benefit of promoting nature and letting the world develop as it should. If you listen to the Climate Changers we are on the slippery iceberg slope and unlikely to be able to retrieve the situation.
However, we live in a World of Command Economy where to feed the population is a priority. Or is it? Is it more important to make profits from feeding a certain portion of the World’s population who can pay for the supra-normal profits the food manufacturers want to make. With all the suffering of innocent populations in global areas and conflicts , I suspect the latter. So economists what have you done about it? Where are the models proving that we can feed everyone in the world, where are the arguments that prove this point? Can’t get finance to produce the report?
There are those who argue on the Climate Change side that we have too many people and population needs to be controlled if we are to feed the planet and stop the onward march of boots over are beautiful countryside.
They have indeed won the argument in first world countries. With birth rates taking a nosedive because of a) the cost of having children b) the preference to have individual freedom and c) maybe the thought that why bring children into this horrible World anyway.
In second and third world countries, even if there is less birth control , and the willingness to have children is stronger. There are factors such as healthcare and conflict that controls the future of their children, with low childbirth survival rates and high infant mortality.
This is a reflection on Global Humanity. Personally with all our knowledge and technological achievements I am not convinced that there is a need for all this suffering and I believe there is enough scope for food production that no one needs to be without food and water. This would be a good economic modelling scenario. Would someone explain why it is not happening.
I’m not fooled by the Chief Executives of Food Banks in the UK, if there are food banks that are making so many profits that they need a Chief Executive ,then something is very much wrong. If they are paying themselves a salary to run food banks, then they are not Charities. The supermarkets are over producing and the excess food is being redistributed through Charity to people who because they do not have sufficient income left each week cannot go to said supermarket and buy the food.
This is not a healthy model. Those who are working in the supermarkets lose customers because the food bank users no longer go to the supermarket. Why would you pay for something that you can get for free. Also why are people on such low incomes that they cannot afford to feed themselves and their children. Perhaps they work in supermarkets and have so few hours they can’t pay their bills. Meanwhile the Chief Executive of the Food Bank is paid their salary and appears in the press and television to publicise the cause of Food Banks. None of it makes sense.
Then we have Celebrity Chefs coming out with meal plans that mean we can make a nutritious meal for four for £1.50.( As long as you have the staples in the cupboard) , it’s cheaper to eat vegetarian, and to cook for yourself than have ready meals. We still have cookery lessons at school , but how educated are the general population about nutrition? Would they be willing to sacrifice their fat and sugar for healthier options if they knew about it? Do they already have the knowledge but have rejected the options, because on the whole they are being push marketed into choosing the unhealthy options.
In other words feeding ourselves and feeding the World is a complete mess. Not to forget about the rest of the expenses in the Cost of Living, but if we cannot feed ourselves in a nutritionally beneficial way and indeed feed the world then we are doomed. As are the insects and fauna who are part of our World and who are decimated in the cause of increased food production.
Think it’s going to take more than a Nature Walk to solve that one.
thenotsomightyom 