Elinor wrote (see below):
World Watch offers a sanitized version of the situation. I assume that
Elinor is countering my suggestion that there is plenty of good space for
peasants to farm in Brazil. I suppose that is politically incorrect, for it
runs counter to the advocates of Pop-Dread, who simply *know* that we're
going to hell in a hand basket.
Elinor tells us that nature will not always cooperate with us, and suggests
that "if we, with a little humility, try to
>learn her ways . . . . . ". Apparently World Watch didn't want to learn.
The government of Brazil (you will remember from my other post that one
third of congress are large landlords) opened a project to colonize the
rain forest. It settled peasant families on 40 acre plots, where they had
to cut and burn the forest ready for planting.
The rain forest has a termite ecology. That's perhaps the 'alive' part of
the soil for, indeed, rain forest earth is without merit. The sole reason
for the earth is to support the trees which get little nourishment through
their shallow roots. Which makes them easy to knock over, but more about
that later.
Incidentally, the termites emit great amounts of methane - a favorite
greenhouse gas. I've suggested that we should destroy the rain forests and
the termites, thereby reducing this serious methane problem.
OK! I was kidding. A project to measure termite methane is under way at
JPL, but I don't know their conclusions.
After burning, the farmers used the nutrient in the tree ash to feed their
first crop. That lasted the first year, then there was no more, so they
starved. The government brought in fertilizer - but the land was simply
unsuitable for farms. The peasants should never have been settled their in
the first place. But, this was not an economic project. It was a purely
political venture, doomed to failure.
It does, however, provide World Watch with the opportunity to make the sage
comment "Much of the land that could not sustain ongoing, intensive
cultivation was converted to grazing land or abandoned", with the
implication that peasants can't cut it. Then they can dribble in their
beards, as that conclusion helps to prove the nonsense that there is a
"Land-Scarce" world.
Meantime, over the hill another government plan was underway. They gave
great tax advantages to those who would clear the forest and put cattle on
the cleared land. Farmers, such as Volkswagen and Xerox sprang into action
pulling down the trees with chains slung between bulldozers (remember they
are shallow rooted).
It was ridiculous. They burned without even bothering to cull the good
stuff. A mahogany tree can fetch $10,000 - but they didn't care. It's
estimated that some $250 million of good hardwood went up in smoke.
Such was the rush to get some cattle in, and some taxes off.
So, Elinor, that's the way it was. I haven't been following it recently, so
I don't know what is happening. I am pretty skeptical about the governments
ability to do anything that will enfranchise the peasant. And without a
free peasantry - which means free land - people will still be filling the
favelas from the north, looking for work and hope.
Harry
------------------------------------------------------------
>In "State of the World - 97" the World Watch Inst. has a commentary in a
section
>called "A Land-Scarce World" (p.54-55) on Brazil. Part of it reads:
>
>"Brazil's attempt to colonize the Amazon region in the 70's is a clear
>demonstration of the difficulty of introucing farming to remote regions with
>poor soils.The Transamazon colonization scheme, announced in 1970,
>envisioned construction of a highway through the Amazon jungle that would
>open millions of hectares of forst for farming. The plan foresaw
>resettlement of a million families by 1980. But by 1978, only 7600 families
>had been settled; turnover rates were high, as the scheme was plagued by
>lack of infrastructure, administrative difficulties, and above all, poor
>soil fertility. Tropical soils like those in the Amazon are notoriously
>meagre in nutrients, and can be farmed sustainable only with long fallow
>periods. In the late 70's, rice yields in the resettled areas were lass than
>half the US average, and well below the world average. Much of the land that
>could not sustain ongoing, intensive cultivation was converted to grazing
>land or abandoned; by 19890, the program was sharply curtailed."
>
>World Watch in this and other publications has a wealth of information on
>land and other resources. I imagine they are available in most libraries,
>and the yearly subscription to the bi-monthly magazine in the US is only $20.
>
>All of which goes to say to me that nature will not always cooperate when we
>crack the whip over her head, but if we, with a little humility, try to
>learn her ways and let her lead us, we may after all accomplish something.
-----------------------------------------------------
