<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Geoff Wells</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.geoffwells.com/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.geoffwells.com</link>
	<description>Sustainable Business Advisor</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:07:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Italy&#8217;s step back with nuclear energy by paola</title>
		<link>http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=142&#038;cpage=1#comment-2618</link>
		<dc:creator>paola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:07:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=142#comment-2618</guid>
		<description>thanks for the interesting insight on this &#039;prickly&#039; subject, in my country people are still discussing the economic advantages of turning back to an old and dangerous energy producing system. I would like to find out more about the health issues related to the existing, and not yet decomissioned plant in Latina. Any suggestions?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks for the interesting insight on this &#8216;prickly&#8217; subject, in my country people are still discussing the economic advantages of turning back to an old and dangerous energy producing system. I would like to find out more about the health issues related to the existing, and not yet decomissioned plant in Latina. Any suggestions?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Australian government defence &amp; climate confusions by Sharon F. Long</title>
		<link>http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=365&#038;cpage=1#comment-2596</link>
		<dc:creator>Sharon F. Long</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 14:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=365#comment-2596</guid>
		<description>Split brain thinking is quite insidious.  For example, writing about leaders with split brain contains a deep implication that they, the leaders have split brain while we the followers do not.  Such implications are, as always, dis-empowering to both groups; the leaders feel blamed and resentful, while the followers feel righteous yet powerless, (and as if they need to be forgiven!).

Split brain thinking weakens the &quot;green&quot; movement every time it participates in  discussions of whether or not global warming and/or climate change exist.  Perhaps it would help to engage in both/and thinking rather than either/or thinking.  For example, both global warming and global cooling exist; global climate has both changing and stable aspects.  

Grass roots movements seem to offer the best solutions for our planetary crisis, and they are very much based on individual empowerment.  And, paradoxically it is much more empowering for an individual to recognize his or her split brain than to assume that it only exists in others.

Of course, even talking about problems and solutions creates a dichotomy that might further mask the whole reality!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Split brain thinking is quite insidious.  For example, writing about leaders with split brain contains a deep implication that they, the leaders have split brain while we the followers do not.  Such implications are, as always, dis-empowering to both groups; the leaders feel blamed and resentful, while the followers feel righteous yet powerless, (and as if they need to be forgiven!).</p>
<p>Split brain thinking weakens the &#8220;green&#8221; movement every time it participates in  discussions of whether or not global warming and/or climate change exist.  Perhaps it would help to engage in both/and thinking rather than either/or thinking.  For example, both global warming and global cooling exist; global climate has both changing and stable aspects.  </p>
<p>Grass roots movements seem to offer the best solutions for our planetary crisis, and they are very much based on individual empowerment.  And, paradoxically it is much more empowering for an individual to recognize his or her split brain than to assume that it only exists in others.</p>
<p>Of course, even talking about problems and solutions creates a dichotomy that might further mask the whole reality!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Wendell Berry in modern times by Geoff Wells</title>
		<link>http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=299&#038;cpage=1#comment-2588</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff Wells</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:21:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=299#comment-2588</guid>
		<description>The following comment on this essay was sent to me by a friend:

&quot;One question: how would a Berry model work in a society when few people have the means or opportunity to grow their own food?  In order to feed a growing world population, surely some farms have to be larger and generate profit rather than serve only the needs of the farmer and family?  Can they still be run on purely sustainable principles?  Does he address this issue?&quot;

It&#039;s an excellent question, and I&#039;m not sure I have a complete answer to it, but, with my friend&#039;s permission, here are some thoughts.

To begin with, it&#039;s probably worth noting that Wendell Berry&#039;s starting and finishing point is the nature of good farming and the conditions that make it possible. That analysis begins with the farmer and the land, and the heart of his work resides there: it&#039;s as he watches what good farmers do, and talks with them, and experiments with their approaches on his own land, and reflects on this practice that the principles of sustainability, if you like, emerge.  As this picture is assembled it becomes less and less negotiable: this is what good farming is, and anything less is not good farming and will degrade the land and its capabilities.  Whatever structure of society is proposed, it will have to be built on these principles, if its productive base is to be preserved.

At the same time, as I noted in the essay, as he follows these principles through the analysis is drawn into wider arenas.  It&#039;s one of the unique achievements of Wendell Berry&#039;s thought to have achieved this breadth. He recognises clearly that the domain of sustainable farming extends to &quot;all the farmland, plus all the farmers, plus all the farming communities, plus all the knowledge and the technical means of agriculture, plus all the available species of domestic plants and animals, plus the natural systems that surround farming and support it, plus the knowledge, taste, judgment, kitchen skills, etc. of all the people who buy the food.&quot;  In other words, the farm itself is placed in a natural and social complex which has to be approached as a whole, in order to secure the health of any part.  This extends to the wider society through the consumers of the food with the farm grows.

Thirdly, although I didn&#039;t pursue this in the essay, there is a sense in which Wendell Berry sees the urbanisation of modern society, with all its ills, as caused by the move away from sustainable farming through agribusiness.  Once agriculture is conceived of primarily in economic terms, the economies of scale inevitably result in  the decline in rural communities, the depopulation of the rural landscape and the swelling of urban populations.  There is clearly much historical support for this idea in the developed societies of North America and Europe, and (to a lesser extent, because the historical period is shorter) in Australia.

So putting these ideas together, perhaps we can take a Wendell Berry-ish approach to the question.  A first direction indicated is the localisation and decentralisation of modern society.  That is, there is a great deal to be said for allowing people to live in communities, rather than in urban agglomerations.  Here the productive base in farming has a chance to be more practised more sustainably, the primary social relationships which are so important for the richness of human lives can be strengthened, and the health of the broad complex (natural and social) that constitutes the farming ecosystem can be properly attended to.  Thinking this way would materially change, for example, the way the countryside (in UK terms) is viewed; it would be more populated, but better looked after--which is not, under Wendell Berry&#039;s principles, a contradiction in terms.  

The local food movement is closely connected to this view of things: you can start from the idea that food should be locally produced and consumed and work outwards, so to speak, to the kind of economic and social relationships it implies, and I think you end up with a localised community structure of some kind.

A second direction indicated is the greening of cities. The UK tradition of allotments, which have recently been expanded along the canals, is a good historical example of this.  There is a great deal that can be done to grow food on relatively small areas for home consumption; even city roof-top gardens can do well.  The traditional Australian backyard vegetable garden is along similar lines. Even in cities people seem to value the opportunity to develop the kinds of intimate relationship with the land that Wendell Berry places at the heart of good farming.  This is not sustainable farming, perhaps, in the classic sense, but it draws on his principles of keeping together the growing of food and its consumption and is in sympathy with the wider view.  It also connects, possibly, to the idea of neighbourhoods as potentially vital centres of community, if  allowed.  Modern eco-city experiments may offer other ways forward.

The idea of growing food for profit, and the whole value chain of production, distribution, trade and sale, is a vast subject.  Wendell Berry&#039;s main point is that once the produce of the farm becomes commoditised, farming inevitably becomes something entirely different from traditional farming, and enormously degrading of the land.  Following that line of thought, we can wonder whether such commodisation can be avoided.  Putting aside such disastrous experiments as the collectivisation of agriculture in Soviet Russia, it may still be reasonable to ask the question: should the productive capacity of the land be regarded as part of the commons--part of the national estate, like water and biodiversity and air quality, owned by the nation as a whole and not to be opened to trading relationships?  And if so, how should it be managed?  Again I would urge a local model, following the work of such people as Elinor Ostrom, who showed how the commons can be managed sustainably if the people who are directly interacting with them--intimately linked to them--at the local level are given the opportunity to work out the best ways of looking after them, in partnership with--but not directed by--local and provincial governments.

Clearly directions such as these imply social changes of a considerable order.  Wendell Berry&#039;s point--and it is a crucial one, I think--is that they can only be accomplished on the foundation of a transformation in values: it is only as such fundamentals as the nature and purposes of one&#039;s life, the nature of the good life, and the classical question &quot;How shall we live?&quot; are brought into focus that the possibility of sustainable living emerges.  Just what that would look like, as a living structure, may be largely a matter for the people who are doing it, as they take control of their own lives in these fundamental ways, and may differ from place to place, region to region, country to country.   Whatever form it takes, however, it will only be truly sustainable, Wendell Berry suggests, if the health of the parts and the whole are attended to; without any compromise.

A few ideas to go on with, anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The following comment on this essay was sent to me by a friend:</p>
<p>&#8220;One question: how would a Berry model work in a society when few people have the means or opportunity to grow their own food?  In order to feed a growing world population, surely some farms have to be larger and generate profit rather than serve only the needs of the farmer and family?  Can they still be run on purely sustainable principles?  Does he address this issue?&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s an excellent question, and I&#8217;m not sure I have a complete answer to it, but, with my friend&#8217;s permission, here are some thoughts.</p>
<p>To begin with, it&#8217;s probably worth noting that Wendell Berry&#8217;s starting and finishing point is the nature of good farming and the conditions that make it possible. That analysis begins with the farmer and the land, and the heart of his work resides there: it&#8217;s as he watches what good farmers do, and talks with them, and experiments with their approaches on his own land, and reflects on this practice that the principles of sustainability, if you like, emerge.  As this picture is assembled it becomes less and less negotiable: this is what good farming is, and anything less is not good farming and will degrade the land and its capabilities.  Whatever structure of society is proposed, it will have to be built on these principles, if its productive base is to be preserved.</p>
<p>At the same time, as I noted in the essay, as he follows these principles through the analysis is drawn into wider arenas.  It&#8217;s one of the unique achievements of Wendell Berry&#8217;s thought to have achieved this breadth. He recognises clearly that the domain of sustainable farming extends to &#8220;all the farmland, plus all the farmers, plus all the farming communities, plus all the knowledge and the technical means of agriculture, plus all the available species of domestic plants and animals, plus the natural systems that surround farming and support it, plus the knowledge, taste, judgment, kitchen skills, etc. of all the people who buy the food.&#8221;  In other words, the farm itself is placed in a natural and social complex which has to be approached as a whole, in order to secure the health of any part.  This extends to the wider society through the consumers of the food with the farm grows.</p>
<p>Thirdly, although I didn&#8217;t pursue this in the essay, there is a sense in which Wendell Berry sees the urbanisation of modern society, with all its ills, as caused by the move away from sustainable farming through agribusiness.  Once agriculture is conceived of primarily in economic terms, the economies of scale inevitably result in  the decline in rural communities, the depopulation of the rural landscape and the swelling of urban populations.  There is clearly much historical support for this idea in the developed societies of North America and Europe, and (to a lesser extent, because the historical period is shorter) in Australia.</p>
<p>So putting these ideas together, perhaps we can take a Wendell Berry-ish approach to the question.  A first direction indicated is the localisation and decentralisation of modern society.  That is, there is a great deal to be said for allowing people to live in communities, rather than in urban agglomerations.  Here the productive base in farming has a chance to be more practised more sustainably, the primary social relationships which are so important for the richness of human lives can be strengthened, and the health of the broad complex (natural and social) that constitutes the farming ecosystem can be properly attended to.  Thinking this way would materially change, for example, the way the countryside (in UK terms) is viewed; it would be more populated, but better looked after&#8211;which is not, under Wendell Berry&#8217;s principles, a contradiction in terms.  </p>
<p>The local food movement is closely connected to this view of things: you can start from the idea that food should be locally produced and consumed and work outwards, so to speak, to the kind of economic and social relationships it implies, and I think you end up with a localised community structure of some kind.</p>
<p>A second direction indicated is the greening of cities. The UK tradition of allotments, which have recently been expanded along the canals, is a good historical example of this.  There is a great deal that can be done to grow food on relatively small areas for home consumption; even city roof-top gardens can do well.  The traditional Australian backyard vegetable garden is along similar lines. Even in cities people seem to value the opportunity to develop the kinds of intimate relationship with the land that Wendell Berry places at the heart of good farming.  This is not sustainable farming, perhaps, in the classic sense, but it draws on his principles of keeping together the growing of food and its consumption and is in sympathy with the wider view.  It also connects, possibly, to the idea of neighbourhoods as potentially vital centres of community, if  allowed.  Modern eco-city experiments may offer other ways forward.</p>
<p>The idea of growing food for profit, and the whole value chain of production, distribution, trade and sale, is a vast subject.  Wendell Berry&#8217;s main point is that once the produce of the farm becomes commoditised, farming inevitably becomes something entirely different from traditional farming, and enormously degrading of the land.  Following that line of thought, we can wonder whether such commodisation can be avoided.  Putting aside such disastrous experiments as the collectivisation of agriculture in Soviet Russia, it may still be reasonable to ask the question: should the productive capacity of the land be regarded as part of the commons&#8211;part of the national estate, like water and biodiversity and air quality, owned by the nation as a whole and not to be opened to trading relationships?  And if so, how should it be managed?  Again I would urge a local model, following the work of such people as Elinor Ostrom, who showed how the commons can be managed sustainably if the people who are directly interacting with them&#8211;intimately linked to them&#8211;at the local level are given the opportunity to work out the best ways of looking after them, in partnership with&#8211;but not directed by&#8211;local and provincial governments.</p>
<p>Clearly directions such as these imply social changes of a considerable order.  Wendell Berry&#8217;s point&#8211;and it is a crucial one, I think&#8211;is that they can only be accomplished on the foundation of a transformation in values: it is only as such fundamentals as the nature and purposes of one&#8217;s life, the nature of the good life, and the classical question &#8220;How shall we live?&#8221; are brought into focus that the possibility of sustainable living emerges.  Just what that would look like, as a living structure, may be largely a matter for the people who are doing it, as they take control of their own lives in these fundamental ways, and may differ from place to place, region to region, country to country.   Whatever form it takes, however, it will only be truly sustainable, Wendell Berry suggests, if the health of the parts and the whole are attended to; without any compromise.</p>
<p>A few ideas to go on with, anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Wendell Berry in modern times by Geoff Wells</title>
		<link>http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=299&#038;cpage=1#comment-2587</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff Wells</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=299#comment-2587</guid>
		<description>Yes, sorry, I wanted to post the essay as one document, now that it&#039;s finished, but had some trouble uploading it--should get that taken care of shortly.  Glad you&#039;re enjoying it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, sorry, I wanted to post the essay as one document, now that it&#8217;s finished, but had some trouble uploading it&#8211;should get that taken care of shortly.  Glad you&#8217;re enjoying it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Wendell Berry in modern times by brtom</title>
		<link>http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=299&#038;cpage=1#comment-2586</link>
		<dc:creator>brtom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=299#comment-2586</guid>
		<description>Do you have a link to this fine essay? I&#039;ve been reading it in parts as you posted them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you have a link to this fine essay? I&#8217;ve been reading it in parts as you posted them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New year climate reports and views by Geoff Wells</title>
		<link>http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=195&#038;cpage=1#comment-2570</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff Wells</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:33:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=195#comment-2570</guid>
		<description>Couldn&#039;t agree more, Tim.  I&#039;ve always been an advocate of carbon taxes, rather than carbon trading.  You can approach taxes iteratively, to get the level right; it&#039;s relatively stable, so businesses can work with it more easily; it&#039;s inexpensive, because we&#039;re already set up to handle tax collection; you get a double dividend you can invest in new climate initiatives; you can&#039;t speculate with it and get windfalls from manipulating permits (as has routinely occurred in the European ETS); you don&#039;t get collapses in the carbon price, such as we&#039;re now seeing, with the resulting reduction in incentives to invest in renewable technology; you don&#039;t need to design offset mechanisms, with all their problems; and nobody can get out of it.  A no-brainer, if you ask me--assuming you really want to reduce emissions substantially, an assumption which you&#039;d have to question in Australia at the moment.  Also, of course, taxes have been traditionally unpopular politically, which in this country, always seems to have the final word.

Interestingly, Adelaide Brighton seems to have made some good steps in sustainable manufacturing, including some interesting waste/fuel initiatives, and environmental programs around their plants in the Barossa (waste-inputs links to other companies) and in the West (habitat restoration).  But this UK technology promises much more, if it proves to be all that is claimed for it.  Given the amount of cement being poured around the globe it would have a massive impact in reducing emissions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t agree more, Tim.  I&#8217;ve always been an advocate of carbon taxes, rather than carbon trading.  You can approach taxes iteratively, to get the level right; it&#8217;s relatively stable, so businesses can work with it more easily; it&#8217;s inexpensive, because we&#8217;re already set up to handle tax collection; you get a double dividend you can invest in new climate initiatives; you can&#8217;t speculate with it and get windfalls from manipulating permits (as has routinely occurred in the European ETS); you don&#8217;t get collapses in the carbon price, such as we&#8217;re now seeing, with the resulting reduction in incentives to invest in renewable technology; you don&#8217;t need to design offset mechanisms, with all their problems; and nobody can get out of it.  A no-brainer, if you ask me&#8211;assuming you really want to reduce emissions substantially, an assumption which you&#8217;d have to question in Australia at the moment.  Also, of course, taxes have been traditionally unpopular politically, which in this country, always seems to have the final word.</p>
<p>Interestingly, Adelaide Brighton seems to have made some good steps in sustainable manufacturing, including some interesting waste/fuel initiatives, and environmental programs around their plants in the Barossa (waste-inputs links to other companies) and in the West (habitat restoration).  But this UK technology promises much more, if it proves to be all that is claimed for it.  Given the amount of cement being poured around the globe it would have a massive impact in reducing emissions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New year climate reports and views by Tim K</title>
		<link>http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=195&#038;cpage=1#comment-2569</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=195#comment-2569</guid>
		<description>Firstly we need to get the price on greenhouse emissions to push industries towards these technologies.  

I fear that this is the critical problem behind the flawed and compromised Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.  Everyone claims to want a price and a market based solution, but not one that imposes a cost on themselves.

(The cement technology sounds interesting.  Great for a company like Adelaide Brighton Cement)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Firstly we need to get the price on greenhouse emissions to push industries towards these technologies.  </p>
<p>I fear that this is the critical problem behind the flawed and compromised Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.  Everyone claims to want a price and a market based solution, but not one that imposes a cost on themselves.</p>
<p>(The cement technology sounds interesting.  Great for a company like Adelaide Brighton Cement)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Italy&#8217;s step back with nuclear energy by giovanni</title>
		<link>http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=142&#038;cpage=1#comment-2567</link>
		<dc:creator>giovanni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:39:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=142#comment-2567</guid>
		<description>Our politicians reason in terms of money and convenience. They have to accomplish their self-interest. Italians isn&#039;t able to pick up napoli&#039;s rubbish, so give it a nuclear plant is crazy!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our politicians reason in terms of money and convenience. They have to accomplish their self-interest. Italians isn&#8217;t able to pick up napoli&#8217;s rubbish, so give it a nuclear plant is crazy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Garnaut adrift by Julien Peter Benney</title>
		<link>http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=172&#038;cpage=1#comment-279</link>
		<dc:creator>Julien Peter Benney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:33:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=172#comment-279</guid>
		<description>The claim that 45- parts per million is an adequate level is completely wrong.

The very fact of declines in a decade of 40 percent in Melbourne&#039;s rainfall and equivalent increaes sustained over a longer period in the Eucla and Goldfields regions of Western Australia is proof we can have only one long-term goal - that being the restoration of pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels through complete abolition of fossil fuel energy.

Where Australia is unique is that its population, owing to abudant cheap land in outer suburban areas, is extremely passive and accepting of a status quo in which oil and car companies rule transport policy in a manner akin to kings: they own the transport system and can veto reasonable project to traqnsfer every solitary cent from road and air to a 100 percent rail-based transport budget in which building a road or even proposing to do so is met with real justice that would mean locking up the road lobby, not the refugees, in detention camps. Along with it must be atarget of having Australia&#039;s last-ever new car sold within a decade and all private-use vehicle registration completely banned.

The problem is that demand for such policies will only exist of there is - as in Europe, Asia and New Zealand - some limit on land supply. That can only happen if not only the mallee, but all Australia&#039;s farmland, is fully revegetated and made into nature or game (regulated hunting) reserves the size of European countries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The claim that 45- parts per million is an adequate level is completely wrong.</p>
<p>The very fact of declines in a decade of 40 percent in Melbourne&#8217;s rainfall and equivalent increaes sustained over a longer period in the Eucla and Goldfields regions of Western Australia is proof we can have only one long-term goal &#8211; that being the restoration of pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels through complete abolition of fossil fuel energy.</p>
<p>Where Australia is unique is that its population, owing to abudant cheap land in outer suburban areas, is extremely passive and accepting of a status quo in which oil and car companies rule transport policy in a manner akin to kings: they own the transport system and can veto reasonable project to traqnsfer every solitary cent from road and air to a 100 percent rail-based transport budget in which building a road or even proposing to do so is met with real justice that would mean locking up the road lobby, not the refugees, in detention camps. Along with it must be atarget of having Australia&#8217;s last-ever new car sold within a decade and all private-use vehicle registration completely banned.</p>
<p>The problem is that demand for such policies will only exist of there is &#8211; as in Europe, Asia and New Zealand &#8211; some limit on land supply. That can only happen if not only the mallee, but all Australia&#8217;s farmland, is fully revegetated and made into nature or game (regulated hunting) reserves the size of European countries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Garnaut and after by 3E Intelligence : News Alerts: More proof that climate policy is failing</title>
		<link>http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=154&#038;cpage=1#comment-66</link>
		<dc:creator>3E Intelligence : News Alerts: More proof that climate policy is failing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:05:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geoffwells.com/?p=154#comment-66</guid>
		<description>[...] The Australian government published its long-awaited Garnaut report (over 500 pages), sort of a Stern report for the country down under. Economist Garnaut&#8217;s (not very original) proposal: use the market to solve the climate crisis. Was it not Stern who called climate change &#8220;the biggest market failure ever&#8221;? What did Einstein say about trying to solve a problem with the instrument that created the problem in the first place? For a good analysis of the Garnaut report, read Geoff Well&#8217;s excellent comments. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Australian government published its long-awaited Garnaut report (over 500 pages), sort of a Stern report for the country down under. Economist Garnaut&#8217;s (not very original) proposal: use the market to solve the climate crisis. Was it not Stern who called climate change &#8220;the biggest market failure ever&#8221;? What did Einstein say about trying to solve a problem with the instrument that created the problem in the first place? For a good analysis of the Garnaut report, read Geoff Well&#8217;s excellent comments. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
