Scarcity of food, overpopulation and CO₂ production

The artificial fertiliser market is worth about $400 billion dollars. Those involved do not want to see that reduced!

Over 50% of that market is production of 200 million tonnes of nitrogenous fertiliser each year.  That fertilizer is required to feed our over-populated planet. Half the world’s population relies on artificial fertiliser.

8 billion people on the planet, half needing that fertiliser. That is about 50 kilos each or 1 kilogramme of fertiliser per person per week.

Each additional person increases the demand. When we have gone from 8 billion to 12 billion people, the fertiliser need will have doubled. The market will have doubled too. Ker-ching!

(Oh, heck. We’re at 8.1 billion people already. I thought we only just heard it was 8.0 billion.)

Production of nitrogenous fertiliser is energy intensive. It is responsible for 2.1% of greenhouse gas emissions. A 50% increase in the population will double those emissions.

To feed our over-sized population, we are using artificial nitrogenous fertiliser, which is a carbon-industry product.

For our population to keep growing we must increase our CO₂ production.

This is why some people keep saying “WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO, umm, thinks, there must be something, oh yeah, LOOK AFTER YOU WHEN YOU ARE OLD!!!!

The carbon industry would love there to be more people on the planet, because without the carbon-based fuels, they would starve to death. Ker-ching!

Eat up your petroleum (and coal and gas) products people! Om, nom, nom!

This is going to get very ugly within a couple of decades.  Seriously, we are so doomed unless we do something about climate change and our increasing overpopulation.

If not on the military, then what?

With regard to withholding military taxation such that it is spent on something else, a common challenge is “On what?

On the Beeb news it says “Australia bushfires: Fundraiser reaches A$20m in 48 hours“.  The Australian government spends that much on their military every 8½ hours.

That story also says “Prime Minister Scott Morrison has called up 3,000 reserve troops to help“.  That is 3.7% of their armed forces.  15% of their reserves (i.e. civilians being called away from their day jobs) and 0% of their active personnel.

If 3.7% of the Australian military budget was permanently re-allocated to fire prevention (as opposed to ‘Oh shit, the whole country is on fire, maybe we ought to act now‘), it would provide AUS$765,000,000 annually.  Nearly 40 times what has been raised from charitable giving to help save the country.

Australia spends just over AUS$1,000 per capita on militarisation.  The fundraiser is equivalent to 20,000 people’s military expenditure, about 0.078% of the population.  Military expenditure is 1.9% of GDP and 5.1% of government spending.

Perhaps Australia should spend a bit less on battle tanks and a bit more on the land they drive around on.  The Leopard tanks they had from 1976 to 2007 were never used.  They currently have 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks; these have also never been used.  They would like to increase that to 90.  Each one costs about AUS$13m.  Just ⅔rds of a fund-raiser each.

Export Processing Zones and ‘economic wellbeing’

In Open University module DD301 Critical Criminology we learned about Export Processing Zones or EPZs.  These are where a government sets aside a piece of land near an airport or other transfer terminal and designates it outside the normal employment legislation.  This means manufacturers can set up in that region to process goods more cheaply than they otherwise would.  It attracts business to the country and so is seen as a good thing.  Governments charge lower tax rates and sometimes pay for the building of factories.

The downside is that the legislation that is set aside is health and safety, minimum wage, working hours, rights to union membership and strike and other protections of employment rights.  Also, environmental legislation and tax collection can be set aside.  The companies can operate more cheaply because they are not competing on a level playing field; they can treat the workers there differently.

What tends to happen is that companies play one government off another to get better and better conditions for themselves and so there results a ‘race to the bottom‘ as governments compete to give the most favourable terms.  The flip side to this is that it results in the work going to those countries most willing to remove employment rights and environmental protection.  And when something goes wrong, the parent companies are rarely held accountable.  From my DD301 essay TMA02:

Collaborations occur between corporations and states for economic reasons that cause social harms, such as in the Export Processing Zones (EPZs) where developing countries are obliged to lower regulatory standards to compete for businesses to move there, resulting in people working there having fewer human rights than they would otherwise have had (Tombs and Whyte, 2010, p. 161) showing corporations have negotiating power over supranationally recognised human rights. In 2011 the International Labour Organisation described Nigeria’s eleven EPZs as “veritable theatres of abysmal disrespect for workers’ rights” (ACTRAV, 2012). One Chinese iron-foundry was found to be using slave labour but the company threatened to pull out if the information was disclosed. Slave labour was found in other EPZs and they received reports of violence by management against staff. They concluded the working practices were contrary to Nigerian Labour Law but Nigeria’s Decent Work Country Programme—set up to improve employment rights and counter human rights abuses such as human trafficking and child labour—disregards what happens in the Nigerian EPZs.

The International Labour Organisation points out EPZs often do not meet ILO required standards.  The International Labour Rights Forum highlights many instances of human rights abuses in EPZs; .  According to The Balance these include low wages, high work intensity, unsafe working conditions, suppression of labour rights, long hours, excessive noise and heat, unsafe manufacturing equipment, un-inspected buildings and no access to union representation.

When people die in large numbers in these environments, it is then seen it is high profile Western brands being produced in these conditions.  People are working in the worst conditions to maximise profits for what can be premium brands.

As the UK is in in Europe, we are protected by legislation from these conditions.  Or we were.

BBC News: “Treasury ‘to rewrite rules to favour the North’

The Treasury is reportedly planning to rewrite rules governing public spending…  It could help boost investment in infrastructure, business development projects and schemes like free ports.

A free port is a form of EPZ. and the government intends to convert ten UK ports to free ports.  Note there are no free ports in the EU because they are legally not possible.

According to The Times:

The Treasury is planning to rip up decades-old public spending rules in an effort to boost economic wellbeing in the north and the Midlands.  Under proposals being drawn up before the spring budget, ministers will reassess how officials calculate the value for money of government investments in transport infrastructure, business development and initiatives such as free ports.

Economic wellbeing‘ – what a charmingly contradictory oxymoron.  They mean ‘profitability’.  They offer ‘unnecessary checks and paperwork‘ (there go the H&S and employment checks) and ‘customs and tax benefits‘ (because we don’t have enough corporates not paying tax) and ‘liberalised planning laws‘ (such as intended to allow fracking to re-start).  The example they give of a successful free port is Miami.  How many other cities in the developed world need their own Human Rights Watch division to fight for the rights of workers in the city?

It hasn’t taken long for the government to shaft the North.  Those in the North who voted for Boris can look forward to working 6 days a week of 12 hours a day in dangerous conditions that are detrimental to the environment and contrary to EU-upheld human rights and no right to complain.

TMA02 essay references:

ACTRAV (2012) The State of Trade Unionism and Industrial Relations practice in Nigeria’s Export Processing Zones [Online], Geneva, International Labour Organisation. Available at http://www.ilo.org/actrav/info/fs/WCMS_183546/lang–en/index.htm (Accessed 10 January 2018).

Tombs, S. and Whyte, D. (2010) ‘Chapter 5: Crime, harm and corporate power’, in Muncie, J., Talbot, D. and Walters, R. (eds) Crime: Local and Global, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 137-72.

An inconvenient atom bomb explosion

Spoken in the House of Commons in 1952:

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of further information available, he will order a new inquiry to be made into the dangers to bird and animal life on the Monte Bello islands before the atom bomb explosion is carried out there.

No, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the recent answer he gave in the House on this question was more picturesque than accurate? Is he also aware that the leading Australian ornithologist has said that there are at least 20 different kinds of wild birds on these islands, and is nothing to be done to prevent this bird life from being blasted out of existence?

Every effort will be made to inconvenience them as little as possible.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1952-07-24/debates/665c1db3-fb2e-4991-9e7d-e3c3bd1c11f5/AtomExplosionMonteBelloIslands