"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> next time qualify your statements, rather than making such far reaching
> >> claims
> >
> > I didn't making a far reaching claim. You misunderstood.
>
> I just read the words you wrote

In the context you snipped, following reference to the UK.

> >> So have you evidence for 2007 in the UK ?
> >
> > 2008. ... desperate for feed... and there's heap big trouble ..
> >
>
> no

Yes, jim. The shite's well-and-truly now hitting the fan.

> so you don't actually have any figures for 2007 then to back up your
> claim

Why would you think imports of corn significantly changed
during 2007? You're really not making any sense, jim, at all.

> >> oh dear, protein crops are such things as rape, soya,
> >
> > Yes, we know.
>
> so your claim was just sloppy wording on your part

'The European parliament has stated that 'Europe can feed its
people but not its animals'. Europe imports 70% of its protein
for animal feed .. this is on top of using large proportions of
its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come
from countries suffering from poverty or environmental
degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for
animal feed. In the UK, 39% of our wheat, 51% of our barley
and 75% of our total agricultural land is used to feed animals.
...'
http://www.ivu.org/congress/2002/texts/david2.html

Nothing sloppy about that. But now jim's reminded us of rape.
Care to give us some figures, jim, e.g. the number of hectares?

> > 'Europe is struggling to find enough vegetable protein to feed its
> > livestock, causing feed prices to rise. The EU imports 80 per cent
> > of its feed protein needs - mainly new traits of GM soya and corn. '
> > ibid.

No comment GM in the British meat-eaters' food-chain, jim?

<.>
> >> >
> >> >> >> > this is on top of using large proportions of
> >> >> >> > its own arable land. Much of these imported feedstuffs come
> >> >> >> > from countries suffering from poverty or environmental
> >> >> >> > degradation. 95% of world soyabean production is used for
> >> >> >> > animal feed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> which is not evidence fora statement "lion's share of grain and
> >> >> >> land
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> used
> >> >> >> to feed animals"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Evidence the lion's share of soybeans is for animal flesh,
> >> >> > & severe adverse impact on people and the evironment.
> >> >>
> >> >> "lion's share of grain and land is used to feed animals," no mention
> >> >> of
> >> >> protein at all
> >> >
> >> > Protein isn't significant? People and the environment? Jim?
> >>
> >> if it is so significant why did you ignore it?
>
>
> >
> > That's the question *you* need to answer.
>
> ah, you mean it is only me that is responsible?

You produce meat - causing scarce resources, and you promote it.

> Surely it is the responsibility of everyone who uses scarce resources,
> everyone who lives in a house, has food transported to them, uses
> electricity, internet

http://www.simondale.net/house/index.htm

'The way forward

Somehow, as dozens of green writers have already pointed out,
we need new policies that conserve nature while encouraging
people to choose and build their own homes. We need to
reverse the flow of people from the land to the cities, and to
give people something worthwhile to do. We must grow more
of our own food, organically, and reduce dependence on fossil
fuels and techno-fixes. Will there be humans living here in a
thousand years? Birds, trees, hedgehogs,apples too? If so,
we have to move fast now.

Why the relatively young discipline of permaculture offers so
much hope in this context is because it integrates care of the
earth with care of people and an awareness of natural limits.
It takes account of the effect of a settlement on the community
around it, and of the needs of wildlife at all times and levels.
If, therefore, people can be educated in the principles of
permaculture design before they develop a site, and if it is a
requirement that certain agreements be kept during its
development, we would be certain to see biodiversity increase
along with human settlement - the opposite trend to normal
housing development. We could also expect to see no net
increase in demand on the common utilities. It is perfectly
possible to build new eco-homes nowadays that require no
mains electricity - especially if these homes are in clusters that
can take advantage of joint biomass composting or community
heat and power schemes, and are well located for wind, water
or solar power. We could even plan for a net exporting of
electricity from renewable sources, thereby generating a profit.
............'
http://www.simondale.net/house/context.htm