https://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate...
Blame it on the goats? Desertification in the Near East during the Holocene
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316721412_Blame_it_...
Environmental Implications of Livestock: Goats
https://epar.evans.uw.edu/research/environmental-implication...
I'd argue that ALL wars are foundationally resource wars - in contrast to the limited scope of what most historians would point to as "resource conflicts" that are more acute conflicts.
Iran-Iraq is a perfect example of this
1. Proto-states of Iraq and Iran claimed monopoly access to the Shatt Al Arab [1] river starting 3000 years ago (the original resource conflict)
2. These proto-states eventually signed a treaty in 1937
3. Iran stopped abiding by the 1937 treaty in 1969 - because they wanted fewer constraints on their use of the resource
4. Iraq and Iran then agreed to the Treaty of Algiers in 1975
5. Iraq kicked off the first derivative conflict by invading Iran - because they wanted fewer constraints on their use of the resource - this time funded by the Kuwaitis
6. The second derivative conflict started when Iraq invaded Kuwait to cancel the debt it had with Kuwait leading to the....
7. Third derivative conflict called Desert Storm
The desire for greedy monopolization of resources to the exclusion of others - based on a fear of persistent and forever scarcity is the ACTUAL root problem. There's plenty of river to go around as was proven time again with treaties, but greedy avarice rules the day and the entirety of the Levant has handicapped itself with these repeated insane wars based on fake scarcity.
I mean, this much should be obvious. When Prussia, Russia and Austria partitioned Poland, they weren't exactly happy about the polish citizens they acquired.
As in, if you were to interrogate policy makers and elected officials, they have no incentive nor interest in solving root problems
I think the world would benefit from a truly objective international negotiation facilitation organization. And yes I'm aware that "objective" isn't a platonic object - but I think we can get close to that for human systems if properly organized (like Médecins Sans Frontières).
I can't see any conflict over resources between Russia and Ukraine. Both countries have abundant natural resources, including minerals and water; both are large net exporters of food.
As far as I can see, that war is primarily about ideology, not natural resources. At a pinch you could argue that Russian naval access to the Black Sea is access to a natural resource; but then Russia had unquestioned access to the Black Sea before the invasion of Crimea.
The area of Ukraine is and has been the Bread-Basket of Europe since pre-modernity and also is EXTREMELY strategic for logistics routes from the "East" to the "West"
Which is why it has literally forever been disputed territory
So yes the conflict is foundationally about food and logistics access
https://www.farminglife.com/country-and-farming/why-is-ukrai...
But Ukraine was serving Russia nicely as a logistics channel, until Russia started strangling its own channel by using oil and gas pipelines through Ukraine as a political lever. That behaviour long precedes 2014.
If Ukraine was a vital logistics channel for Russia, why would they deliberately sabotage it? But they did this repeatedly, under cover of various transparent excuses.
The "breadbasket" thing is irrelevant; it was not called "the breadbasket of Russia", because Russia didn't rely on Ukraine for food.
Would be very interesting to see more attempts at using it in these places, especially since it would be hard to make the land worse.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019005281...
(Majority of farmers in the study are holistic practitioners)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09593...
https://plantbasednews.org/news/environment/george-monbiot-r...
Monbiot said that there was no empirical evidence that holistic management could mitigate the climate crisis. He went on to say that there is also no evidence it can offset the emissions it produces itself. On the contrary, he said that there’s “loads of contradictory evidence showing that grazing livestock systems are a major net loss of carbon into the atmosphere.” He highlighted that there had been several papers published recently that found removing animals from land allows more carbon to be sequestered. “Far from livestock grazing helping to mitigate climate breakdown, it actually accelerates climate breakdown,” he said.
He pointed out that Savory’s claims had been debunked repeatedly, and added that there are “several words” that can be used to describe a claim for which there is no evidence or that has already been debunked. “One of them is pseudoscience,” he said. “One of them is mumbo jumbo… But perhaps the most appropriate one in this case is bullsh*t.”
The debate: https://www.youtube.com/embed/rhwEaCmQ2XE
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338777621_A_half_ce...
"Monbiot’s approach falls squarely into the “narrow industrial paradigm” Dr. Gosnell warns about. In his opening remarks, Monbiot insisted that carbon sequestration is simply not adequate, and to address climate change livestock advocates must demonstrate permanent carbon capture in the soil. This demand, however, is the perfect example of applying reductionist thinking to complex living systems."
https://savory.global/statement-on-the-allan-savory-george-m...
And asking for evidence is reductionist?
> Claims that Savory’s approach has been discredited in the academic literature are based solely on two papers, one of which Monbiot cites. Both have been countered in academic and professional literature by papers which find that Savory’s method meets the claimed ecological, economic, and quality of life enhancing goals. It improves grass density, soil moisture, soil bulk density, standing crop biomass, and soil organic matter, an indicator of increases in soil carbon.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/aug/19...
My first question would be, "How many cattle does George Monbiot run"?
I don't know anything about Allan Savory but I think it's likely he would know more about what's happening on his land than not, eh?
If you want to make policies, we need scientific facts, experiments and measurements, not gut feelings.
Otherwise you might end up killing tens of thousands of elephants and making things worse for decades (sorry, couldn't resist).
George Monbiot is a bit harsh but it's understandable, I'd be a bit mad myself in his shoes.