Comments for Red, Green, and Blue http://redgreenandblue.org Patriotism that loves our country, our land, and our planet Wed, 23 May 2012 01:08:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on Don’t you be hunting Bigfoot in California (but it’s legal in Texas) by Scott Bartlett http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/05/18/dont-you-be-hunting-bigfoot-in-california-but-its-legal-in-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-356259 Scott Bartlett Wed, 23 May 2012 01:08:04 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=9278#comment-356259 Glad to see Bigfoot has finally found a safe refuge. Glad to see Bigfoot has finally found a safe refuge.

]]> Comment on “Return to Previous Arctic Conditions is Unlikely” by Jeremy Bloom http://redgreenandblue.org/2010/10/22/return-to-previous-arctic-conditions-is-unlikely/comment-page-1/#comment-356183 Jeremy Bloom Thu, 17 May 2012 22:07:14 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=4744#comment-356183 We'll have an article up shortly about one community that's dealing with the issue: Richmond, Virginia. They're already facing problems due to sea level rise. We’ll have an article up shortly about one community that’s dealing with the issue: Richmond, Virginia. They’re already facing problems due to sea level rise.

]]> Comment on “Return to Previous Arctic Conditions is Unlikely” by onedgeAxofe http://redgreenandblue.org/2010/10/22/return-to-previous-arctic-conditions-is-unlikely/comment-page-1/#comment-356181 onedgeAxofe Thu, 17 May 2012 17:41:57 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=4744#comment-356181 Interesting point of view. Wondering what you think of its implication on society as a whole though? People obviously get frustrated when it begins to affect them locally. Ill be around soon to check out your response. Interesting point of view. Wondering what you think of its implication on society as a whole though? People obviously get frustrated when it begins to affect them locally. Ill be around soon to check out your response.

]]> Comment on How Monsanto and their GMO agenda dominate our colleges and universities by Andrea http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/05/14/how-monsanto-and-their-gmo-agenda-dominate-our-colleges-and-universities/comment-page-1/#comment-356180 Andrea Thu, 17 May 2012 12:37:24 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=9254#comment-356180 Points well made, Karl. I do agricultural research in a federal laboratory. Our budgets have shrunk year after year. What are we told to do to make up the difference? Apply for outside grants. Some pots of public money we have not been eligible for (NSF, DOE) or not unless we have university partners (NIH), although that is changing a little. What's left are grants from commodity check off funds, grower groups, and yes, companies. It's not all big bad company money, and not all ag research is aimed at generating more GMOs. I work in the area of pest identification, and funding for the scientific collections (of insects, fungi, etc.) that are the infrastructure with which the next invasive pest will be identified is critically lacking. It's hard to get support for collections because they're not sexy science, but good luck figuring out what that disease is if there's no type specimens to compare to! Points well made, Karl. I do agricultural research in a federal laboratory. Our budgets have shrunk year after year. What are we told to do to make up the difference? Apply for outside grants. Some pots of public money we have not been eligible for (NSF, DOE) or not unless we have university partners (NIH), although that is changing a little. What’s left are grants from commodity check off funds, grower groups, and yes, companies. It’s not all big bad company money, and not all ag research is aimed at generating more GMOs. I work in the area of pest identification, and funding for the scientific collections (of insects, fungi, etc.) that are the infrastructure with which the next invasive pest will be identified is critically lacking. It’s hard to get support for collections because they’re not sexy science, but good luck figuring out what that disease is if there’s no type specimens to compare to!

]]> Comment on How Monsanto and their GMO agenda dominate our colleges and universities by Karl Haro von Mogel http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/05/14/how-monsanto-and-their-gmo-agenda-dominate-our-colleges-and-universities/comment-page-1/#comment-356159 Karl Haro von Mogel Wed, 16 May 2012 16:04:18 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=9254#comment-356159 Thank you Mary for pointing this out. I picked out some links and here they are for everyone: http://www.lavidalocavore.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=1338 http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/1770/monsanto-spent-over-2-million-on-lobbying-in-q1-2009 http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/1394/the-bad-guys-plan-to-feed-the-hungry So when there is even a hint that there could be federal funding for agricultural research that Jill Richardson disagrees with, she lobbies against it. Without federal funding for these projects, who else can public scientists turn to except the companies, and wealthy foundations such as the Gates Foundation. Let's try this another way, what if I was arguing that the federal government should not fund organic research, and then I complained that organic food companies were controlling the organic farming research due to depending on them for funding. What would that make me? Unfortunately, these are the kinds of things we see in food politics. I dearly wish that Jill Richardson would consider putting shoes on the other food and doing a little more introspection. I eager await her response. Thank you Mary for pointing this out. I picked out some links and here they are for everyone:
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=1338
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/1770/monsanto-spent-over-2-million-on-lobbying-in-q1-2009
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/1394/the-bad-guys-plan-to-feed-the-hungry
So when there is even a hint that there could be federal funding for agricultural research that Jill Richardson disagrees with, she lobbies against it. Without federal funding for these projects, who else can public scientists turn to except the companies, and wealthy foundations such as the Gates Foundation. Let’s try this another way, what if I was arguing that the federal government should not fund organic research, and then I complained that organic food companies were controlling the organic farming research due to depending on them for funding. What would that make me?
Unfortunately, these are the kinds of things we see in food politics. I dearly wish that Jill Richardson would consider putting shoes on the other food and doing a little more introspection. I eager await her response.

]]> Comment on How Monsanto and their GMO agenda dominate our colleges and universities by Mary http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/05/14/how-monsanto-and-their-gmo-agenda-dominate-our-colleges-and-universities/comment-page-1/#comment-356158 Mary Wed, 16 May 2012 15:28:27 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=9254#comment-356158 The ultimate irony of this is that I know Jill Richardson has lobbied in the past to keep research dollars for developing world researchers from happening. She made false claims about the Lugar-Casey food security bill and encouraged people work against it. In fact, Lugar had to explain: "The bill advocates strengthening the local capacity of university and research institutions to find localized solutions to agricultural productivity and food security. " http://lugar.senate.gov/food/legislation/ Quite sad--work to both block federal funding and also to make hyperbolic claims about hard working researchers striving to accomplish science in tough economic times at underfunded institutions. The ultimate irony of this is that I know Jill Richardson has lobbied in the past to keep research dollars for developing world researchers from happening. She made false claims about the Lugar-Casey food security bill and encouraged people work against it. In fact, Lugar had to explain:
“The bill advocates strengthening the local capacity of university and research institutions to find localized solutions to agricultural productivity and food security. ”
http://lugar.senate.gov/food/legislation/

Quite sad–work to both block federal funding and also to make hyperbolic claims about hard working researchers striving to accomplish science in tough economic times at underfunded institutions.

]]> Comment on How Monsanto and their GMO agenda dominate our colleges and universities by Karl Haro von Mogel http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/05/14/how-monsanto-and-their-gmo-agenda-dominate-our-colleges-and-universities/comment-page-1/#comment-356149 Karl Haro von Mogel Tue, 15 May 2012 17:27:18 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=9254#comment-356149 I totally agree that there needs to be more federal funding for research, but the accusation that universities or scientists who work at them just serve corporate interests is deeply troubling. First, It's not 15% from the USDA vs 25% from companies. Other sources include local public sources, federal sources other than the USDA such as NSF and the NIH, charities, etc. If 25% of funding comes from companies, then 75% comes from other, public sources. So the manner in which these numbers are being reported is purposefully misleading. Second, there are many legitimate reasons why all kinds of companies would fund research in agriculture. Companies that make and market products made from different crops have an interest in funding plant breeders who maintain and breed new varieties of those crops to combat disease and pest pressures. I have met peanut breeders who receive money from Planter's Peanuts, and I know an oat breeder who is funded by Quaker Oats. All merely to make sure that there will be peanut and oat varieties that will still grow in the years to come. There is nothing sinister about this at all. But what is more troubling about these accusations is that there is an agenda to undermine the public's trust in public scientists at Universities, and it seems to be based in a deep-seated mistrust of the scientific process itself, with the distrust of government and corporations layered on top. Don't like the results of peer-reviewed science? Just accuse the scientists of working for the corporations. If their lab is federally-funded, well just accuse the feds of colluding with the corporations. It is a convenient way to be anti-science without seeming to be on the surface. But at its core is the rejection of the results of scientific inquiry. If a graduate student at a land-grant university says "this is what the science says", as I often do while blogging about plant genetics, critics immediately start making accusations that the student works for Monsanto. They find out that Monsanto gave a monetary gift to help train other grad students at the same university, and claim that he must be benefiting from it. When he defends himself and says that his research is funded by the USDA - then out come the accusations that the USDA (and thus he) works for Monsanto. There is a self-defeating irony involved. Much of the research on sustainable agriculture that is championed in this post is also funded by food companies that market themselves as sustainable, and NGOs that believe that a particular form of agriculture is what will eventually be sustainable. The Clif Bar Family Foundation is funding research in organic breeding. If you believe that funding from corporations (and foundations and NGOs connected or aligned with them) is reason to reject their science, you may need to reject this as well. It is a double-edged sword. Note: I am not criticizing this research at all - I merely presented it as a counter-example. And nowhere is the agenda of Food and Water Watch ever questioned. What research do they want to reject? What interests do the food companies have that are part of the Organic Consumer's Association, of which Jill Richardson is a board member? Or maybe - just maybe - this is a half-baked call for increased federal funding that could only backfire. Drumming up rejection of scientific research conducted at Universities is the wrong way to accomplish this. The right way would be to lobby the government and communicate the importance of strong public, academic research programs, from basic to applied science. Present good research, give examples, show how local communities benefit from university programs. And please keep this in mind before making outrageous claims that Monsanto dominates public researchers and what they do. From my experience at two universities, it just isn't true. I totally agree that there needs to be more federal funding for research, but the accusation that universities or scientists who work at them just serve corporate interests is deeply troubling. First, It’s not 15% from the USDA vs 25% from companies. Other sources include local public sources, federal sources other than the USDA such as NSF and the NIH, charities, etc. If 25% of funding comes from companies, then 75% comes from other, public sources. So the manner in which these numbers are being reported is purposefully misleading.
Second, there are many legitimate reasons why all kinds of companies would fund research in agriculture. Companies that make and market products made from different crops have an interest in funding plant breeders who maintain and breed new varieties of those crops to combat disease and pest pressures. I have met peanut breeders who receive money from Planter’s Peanuts, and I know an oat breeder who is funded by Quaker Oats. All merely to make sure that there will be peanut and oat varieties that will still grow in the years to come. There is nothing sinister about this at all.
But what is more troubling about these accusations is that there is an agenda to undermine the public’s trust in public scientists at Universities, and it seems to be based in a deep-seated mistrust of the scientific process itself, with the distrust of government and corporations layered on top. Don’t like the results of peer-reviewed science? Just accuse the scientists of working for the corporations. If their lab is federally-funded, well just accuse the feds of colluding with the corporations. It is a convenient way to be anti-science without seeming to be on the surface. But at its core is the rejection of the results of scientific inquiry.
If a graduate student at a land-grant university says “this is what the science says”, as I often do while blogging about plant genetics, critics immediately start making accusations that the student works for Monsanto. They find out that Monsanto gave a monetary gift to help train other grad students at the same university, and claim that he must be benefiting from it. When he defends himself and says that his research is funded by the USDA – then out come the accusations that the USDA (and thus he) works for Monsanto.
There is a self-defeating irony involved. Much of the research on sustainable agriculture that is championed in this post is also funded by food companies that market themselves as sustainable, and NGOs that believe that a particular form of agriculture is what will eventually be sustainable. The Clif Bar Family Foundation is funding research in organic breeding. If you believe that funding from corporations (and foundations and NGOs connected or aligned with them) is reason to reject their science, you may need to reject this as well. It is a double-edged sword.
Note: I am not criticizing this research at all – I merely presented it as a counter-example. And nowhere is the agenda of Food and Water Watch ever questioned. What research do they want to reject? What interests do the food companies have that are part of the Organic Consumer’s Association, of which Jill Richardson is a board member?
Or maybe – just maybe – this is a half-baked call for increased federal funding that could only backfire. Drumming up rejection of scientific research conducted at Universities is the wrong way to accomplish this. The right way would be to lobby the government and communicate the importance of strong public, academic research programs, from basic to applied science. Present good research, give examples, show how local communities benefit from university programs. And please keep this in mind before making outrageous claims that Monsanto dominates public researchers and what they do. From my experience at two universities, it just isn’t true.

]]> Comment on James Howard Kunstler: At CNU 20, New Urbanism celebrates victory over old sprawl by Skitch Fester http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/05/14/james-howard-kunstler-at-cnu-20-new-urbanism-celebrates-victory-over-old-sprawl/comment-page-1/#comment-356144 Skitch Fester Tue, 15 May 2012 10:00:42 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=9239#comment-356144 Kunstler needs to be taken in context. He's been ranting and raving about the end of the modern American lifestyle for years now. Doesn't mind flying around the world and then criticizing others, and the ultimate irony? - his book "World Made By Hand" is available as a digital download on Amazon. Kunstler needs to be taken in context. He’s been ranting and raving about the end of the modern American lifestyle for years now. Doesn’t mind flying around the world and then criticizing others, and the ultimate irony? – his book “World Made By Hand” is available as a digital download on Amazon.

]]> Comment on How Monsanto and their GMO agenda dominate our colleges and universities by Len Aldis http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/05/14/how-monsanto-and-their-gmo-agenda-dominate-our-colleges-and-universities/comment-page-1/#comment-356142 Len Aldis Tue, 15 May 2012 04:42:51 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=9254#comment-356142 The evil that is Monsanto knows no bounds, they have many people in high places and not only in the US Government but in other countries. I am writing this while in Hanoi and later I will be visiting a small Peace Village where I shall meet again with young children, teenagers seriously affected by Agent Orange, another product of Monsanto used by US forces on the people of Southern Vietnam. The children I will see are of the generation, such is the evil legacy that Monsanto, Dow and others left to the people of Vietnam. The evil that is Monsanto knows no bounds, they have many people in high places and not only in the US Government but in other countries. I am writing this while in Hanoi and later I will be visiting a small Peace Village where I shall meet again with young children, teenagers seriously affected by Agent Orange, another product of Monsanto used by US forces on the people of Southern Vietnam.

The children I will see are of the generation, such is the evil legacy that Monsanto, Dow and others left to the people of Vietnam.

]]> Comment on California’s ocean guardian promotes Keystone XL pipeline, fracking by Lobster poacher convicted as Delta pumps kill millions of fish | NOYO NEWS http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/20/californias-ocean-guardian-promotes-keystone-xl-pipeline-fracking/comment-page-1/#comment-356133 Lobster poacher convicted as Delta pumps kill millions of fish | NOYO NEWS Mon, 14 May 2012 15:56:18 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=8995#comment-356133 [...] Reheis-Boyd is a relentless advocate for new offshore oil drilling off the West Coast, the environmentally destructive practice of hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking), the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws. (LINK) [...] [...] Reheis-Boyd is a relentless advocate for new offshore oil drilling off the West Coast, the environmentally destructive practice of hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking), the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and the evisceration of environmental laws. (LINK) [...]

]]>