The coming "food shortage"

[Joe]

While you all probably already know this, I just wanted to mention that the plan seems to be to deliberately create the situation where the planet's population, i.e. you and me, will starve, or where food will be so scarce that the people will do whatever they are told.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/143432

What makes this situation all the more interesting is that the Pentagon's 2004 report to the White House on "Climate change" predicted wars for food and water and mass movements of people as a result of the scarcity of these basic necessities of life. Their bleak future prediction was of course blamed on"climate change", and we are asked to believe that it our governments' desire to stave off "climate change" that is forcing them to turn food crops into biofuel (and forcing them to force other client governments around the world to do the same). The problem however is that the finer details of the data on pollution caused by oil-based fuel versus biofuel suggests that a change to "greener" fuel will either make no difference in terms of pollution or worsen it.

Pentagon Report on climate change:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1153513,00.html

So it would seem that the Pentagon's 2004 report on Climate change was not so much impartial prediction as self-fulfilling prophecy, albeit with a barely plausible alibi to cover their guilty asses.

Joe

 

[QueenVee]

Pentagon Report on climate change:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1153513,00.html

The Observer article on the Pentagon Report includes the following:

"Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored. 'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document.... The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon' added Watson...."

Since when has Bush and his cohorts ever listened to the Pentagon? He completely ignored Pentagon advice on the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent "insurgency" (LINK). There are no limits on Bush's ability to ignore advice -- from ANY quarter....

 

[Johnno]

While you all probably already know this, I just wanted to mention that the plan seems to be to deliberately create the situation where the planet's population, i.e. you and me, will starve, or where food will be so scarce that the people will do whatever they are told.

Yes we've already been through this downunder with this "drought" we've been having. It's been raining for the past two weeks and yet we're still on restrictions. Water restriction officers (a position for petty tyrants if ever there was) are still crawling the suburbs issuing fines.

I'm pretty sure Australia has been a test case in micromanagement on this one. It involved States who control the water supplies throiugh various state agencies, setting the rules. Later on the position of a Federal Water and Environment minister was created.

Reporting those who aren't watering at allocated times has been commonplace. It has gotten so bad that a whacko attacked another guy watering his lawn.....who then died from a heart attack, in the Sydney suburb of Sylvania. It's being described as "water rage".

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Water-rage-victim-to-be-farewelled/2007/11/05/1194117929478.html

Of course the control measures brought in will be seen as world's best practice with various politicians jetting in from around the globe to see how it was done.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/143432

What makes this situation all the more interesting is that the Pentagon's 2004 report to the White House on "Climate change" predicted wars for food and water and mass movements of people as a result of the scarcity of these basic necessities of life. Their bleak future prediction was of course blamed on"climate change", and we are asked to believe that it our governments' desire to stave off "climate change" that is forcing them to turn food crops into biofuel (and forcing them to force other client governments around the world to do the same). The problem however is that the finer details of the data on pollution caused by oil-based fuel versus biofuel suggests that a change to "greener" fuel will either make no difference in terms of pollution or worsen it.

Yes and I notice the Agrichemical companies are rather excited about getting into the energy business. The "official reaons" of getting into the bio-fuels business is more in reaction to the exaggerated supply shortfalls and the Peak Oil meme. Thing is, oil seems to be artificially restricted, much like de Beers artificially inflating the price of diamonds by resticting supply.

However a side effect of this is a shortage of food production. Add to that bee losses, sterilised plants with the "killer gene" in them and things aren't looking good.

Pentagon Report on climate change:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1153513,00.html

So it would seem that the Pentagon's 2004 report on Climate change was not so much impartial prediction as self-fulfilling prophecy, albeit with a barely plausible alibi to cover their guilty asses.

Joe

Agreed. I went and looked for that UN treaty of using weather as a weapon that lan Watt spoke of and found it.
It's been around since 1976 and was ratified in '78.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prohibition_of_Military_or_Any_Other_Hostile_Use_of_Environmental_Modification_Techniques

The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (abbreviated ENMOD Convention) is a 1976 international treaty prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. It entered into force on October 5, 1978.

So one wonder whether climate change has been an ongoing conscious or unconscious effect? I've actually noticed during heavy rains in Sydney that there is sometimes a "corridor of sky" along the cloudmass that seems to pass right over the dam catchment area. To the north and south there are heavy rainfalls which go to stormwater, the bit in the middle seems to miss out.

 

[Ruth]

And there's an oil 'shortage' too, or is that just Melbourne? Prices are going to go up which will make travel (and farming and export) more expensive.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Yes we've already been through this downunder with this "drought" we've been having. It's been raining for the past two weeks and yet we're still on restrictions. Water restriction officers (a position for petty tyrants if ever there was) are still crawling the suburbs issuing fines.

Just because it's been raining for the last two weeks where you are, doesn't mean that the dams etc. have necessarily benefited from that same rain. Brisbane has had heaps of rain over the last month or so, but the dam catchment areas have had much less.

As for water retrictions, Australians will just have to face up to the fact that they live on a continent with the most variable interannual rainfall in the world. This means that we might have severe droughts one year followed by extreme floods the next. The fact is, as our population rises, water restrictions will have to become a permanent fixture of our lifestyle. We don't exactly live on the wettest continent in the world, after all. If you don't like it, you can always invest in a water tank.

Where I live, tanks have been all I've known. I don't have town water, and so water restrictions have been a permanent way of life. When water runs out as it occasionally does in extreme drought, it has to be purchased, and it costs MUCH more than what city folk pay!

As for water restriction officers -- yes, they might be like petty tyrants, but what's the use of having water restrictions if they're not enforced? I guarantee that in Brisbane, if no water restrictions or enforcing of water restrictions took place, the Wivenhoe Dam would now be totally empty. Commonsense is required when dealing with Earth's most precious resource -- water -- and if it means fining those selfish people who feel that the water is there just for them to use and abuse, then so be it.

Having said all that, I have noticed that the media/government seem to play up "all the rain missing the dam catchments" but when rain does actually fall on the catchments, they tend to ignore it or play it down. It seems that they don't want people to feel positive about the extra rain, or maybe that's just because they don't want them to use water foolishly. I have also noticed that they do tend to totally mis-report good rainfall totals.

 

[Kawika]

It's interesting that they are using crops like corn and other foods to make biofuel when there are other crops like jatropha and the oil palm that are much better sources for making biofuel because of the high oil content. Corn and sugar cain require large amounts of land, water and fertilizers to grow. Jatropha for example can grow on baron land and is very easy to grow it grows like weeds, they are starting to grow it in many places around the world. It doesn't make sense to grow crops that can feed people and use it for biofuel unless of course they have another purpose in mind. It seems to me that the only ones who benefit are Agricorps like Monsonto and other deviants/Pentagon who would like to see people starve.

 

[Joe]

It's interesting that they are using crops like corn and other foods to make biofuel when there are other crops like jatropha and the oil palm that are much better sources for making biofuel because of the high oil content.

Oh they are! And stealing land to do so!

From the linked article I posted at the beginning of this thread:

At this point the biofuels industry starts shouting "jatropha!" It is not yet a swear word, but it soon will be. Jatropha is a tough weed with oily seeds that grows in the tropics. This summer Bob Geldof, who never misses an opportunity to promote simplistic solutions to complex problems, arrived in Swaziland in the role of "special adviser" to a biofuels firm. Because it can grow on marginal land, jatropha, he claimed, is a "life-changing" plant, which will offer jobs, cash crops and economic power to African smallholders.

Yes, it can grow on poor land and be cultivated by smallholders. But it can also grow on fertile land and be cultivated by largeholders. If there is one blindingly obvious fact about biofuel it's that it is not a smallholder crop. It is an internationally-traded commodity which travels well and can be stored indefinitely, with no premium for local or organic produce. Already the Indian government is planning 14m hectares of jatropha plantations. In August the first riots took place among the peasant farmers being driven off the land to make way for them.

Joe

 

[Kawika]

From the linked article I posted at the beginning of this thread:

At this point the biofuels industry starts shouting "jatropha!" It is not yet a swear word, but it soon will be. Jatropha is a tough weed with oily seeds that grows in the tropics. This summer Bob Geldof, who never misses an opportunity to promote simplistic solutions to complex problems, arrived in Swaziland in the role of "special adviser" to a biofuels firm. Because it can grow on marginal land, jatropha, he claimed, is a "life-changing" plant, which will offer jobs, cash crops and economic power to African smallholders.

Yes, it can grow on poor land and be cultivated by smallholders. But it can also grow on fertile land and be cultivated by largeholders. If there is one blindingly obvious fact about biofuel it's that it is not a smallholder crop. It is an internationally-traded commodity which travels well and can be stored indefinitely, with no premium for local or organic produce. Already the Indian government is planning 14m hectares of jatropha plantations. In August the first riots took place among the peasant farmers being driven off the land to make way for them.

My "bad" I didn't read the linked article in full, if I had I would have seen Bob Geldof red flag #1 and peasant farmers being driven off land red flag #2.

I have some friends who are working to set up jatropha farms down in the Philippines to make biofuel, they have "good intentions" but talking with them I've had a feeling that something just wasn't right, why would the oil companies allow anything to interfere with their profits/plans unless of course it's part of the plan. Its mind blowing just how controlled we are. Thanks for pointing this out Joe.