Tim Blair

would discredit the UN's claim to represent the rule of law.

The UN is to the rule of law as Paris Hilton is to celibacy.

Would that be the same rule of law they championed in Rwanda ?

Well, then, maybe the US will just have to withhold its soldiers, equipment, logistical and (the big one) funds.

Question being: is it possible for the UN to be even less effective?

Let's find out!

Please, oh plase, do. Then we can pull all the troops the US has on UN "peacekeeping" duties and put them into assignments that actually accomplish something other than keeping UN bureaucrats employed.

C.T.

Every Australian creates 27.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year, making the nation the worst creator of greenhouse gases per head among developed countries, according to a new report.

Hmm, right after t proclaimed that "the only really important metric is emissions per capita", you go and post that one, Tim. Watch out Aussies, t's going to come after you now instead of the U.S.!

Another book about how we were all lied to. By someone running for office against Howard? How timely!!

I do hope the parts about cloak and dagger at the UN are true. It's about time we started treating the UN as the virtual thugocracy that it is.

Frankly, I wish some sort of covert op. would obtain copies of all the financial records pertaining to the UN's Iraqi oil-for-anything-but-food program. Publish the financial records ala the 'Pentagon Papers'.

If the CIA had any part in helping to expose the criminal culture at the UN, I'd feel my tax dollars were well spent. I can just imagine the shrieks of outrage if we did do anything like that.

We'd be denounced by the UN!! Harsh words would attack us. Perhaps we'd even be thrown out. Hey, let's do it!!

As for Kofi's statement, I somehow have the silly idea that Oil-for-Food has done more to "discredit the UN's claim to represent the rule of law" than anything the U.S. has ever done.

OK, as an American, now I'm pissed. How could Australia be kicking our ass emmisions-wise?

"The greenhouse emissions are mainly caused by heavy reliance on coal to generate electricity, according to a report carried out for the Australia Institute."

Oh, so you guys are using the old "burn a lot of coal" trick, eh?

Well, we probably generate more radioactive waste than you, so there!

...Oh, except that burning coal actually emits more radiation than nuclear plants. Damn you sneaky Aussies!

Well, I bet we have more river dams!

It's about time we started treating the UN as the virtual thugocracy that it is.

Virtual?

Oh, and Ash -- I'm going to do my best to help America catch up by doing lots of grilling this weekend. I encourage everyone else to join in.

Tomorrow's my birthday and my brother bought me a bunch of hours at a local racetrack. I plan to help American carbon-export competitiveness while I burn dozens of gallons of evil OIIIIIIILLL products to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. Some tire rubber and brake pad material will get aerosolized in the process as well, adding flavor and richness to otherwise bland Denver air.

Australia has set the bar high. What are YOU doing to close the gap with Australia?

I am running 3 computers and a server day and night to use as much electricity as possible. I bet I pollute more than any puny BBQ. So there!

Robert:

"I encourage everyone else to join in."

Whoohoo, Robert just volunteered his home for a party! I'll bring ribs, OK? And beer.

Australia, consider your ass about to be kicked in the emissions-per-capita competition!

would discredit the UN's claim to represent the rule of law

The UN can claim the sun rises in the West, too; I'll believe that before I believe the duplicitious clowns there actually follow any laws (except the laws of I've-got-mine and what's-in-it-for-me).

That Kofi! What a comedian!

"Australia was party to spying on the United Nations"

That's just spin. I call it investigating corruption.

OK, I'll stop farting.

Australia rocks? You guys couldn't even beat Norway (which, by the way, we successfully invaded in 1944). And some $2 bottle of Shiraz made in California is winning awards. Not to mention that Dave Barry is still walking around.

The (Tim) Blair Watch Project Volume IV at when crustaceans attack!.

"So, Tim, next time you feel like slapping down some hamster love, here’s some advice straight from the fairy penguins of Granite Island: ‘mate, mate, don’t, OK?’"

Another book about how we were all lied to. By someone running for office against Howard? How timely!!

Do we need another one of these? The bookstores are already filled with these books? Who buys these books that don't already think that way?

I hate articles like this - I wish just for once they would take a good hard long look and just figure out why we produce so much CO2 per capita.

Australia is relatively the same size as the US but with less than one tenth the population.

As a result to get anywhere in this place you have to drive a very long way, this includes things like food and supplies for the cities as well.

One of our major industries is in minerals - which GASP SHOCK HORROR consumes a crapload of energy, if you dont like that then tough - you canna change the laws of physics. We sit in the top ten of coal/iron ore/base metals producers in the world. Also unfortunately due to bad planning these mines are spread all over Australia and so their supplies going in and minerals coming out have to be transported vast distances (that again).

We sell these minerals to places like Europe, China, Japan and if we weren't here to do it, then newsflash! someone else would. Guess what kind of energy they would consume in making these? Probably worse then us since we have some of the most efficient and safe mines in the world. (Chinese coal mines kill more than 10,000 people per year - and that is the official figure so at least double that)

This is another reason why Kyoto is a crock, places like Australia would be penalised to the max whilst the hypocrites buying our minerals and being "so efficient" having not to go through all this terribly wasteful energy use would come up smelling like roses. Sure the greenies will say that it will reflect the true cost of such processes but in the end someone is going to have to make them and I can assure you they will belch out just as much or more than we do. However we all know that the net effect of Kyoto is to decrease living standards and the probability of people putting up with this is zero.

By the way dont we sell our Uranium to France and other nuclear power stations around the world? Why shouldn't they cop some negatives from that considering that uranium doesnt just fall from the sky! "Oh we just buy it, dont think about the emissions that are required to produce it" - wonderful.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if Annan wasn't Secretary-General of the UN, he'd be selling bananas on some street corner in Ghana.

Probably stolen bananas.

Oh, CurrencyLad that is cruel....but fair.

Every Australian creates 27.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year, making the nation the worst creator of greenhouse gases per head among developed countries, according to a new report.

Hey, I'm impressed! I'll make sure to waste even more energy in future to push up our Carbon dioxide emission levels even further!

Not only will I grill, I shall also eat extra helpings of "the magical fruit."

However, there shall be no long LUNCHES this weekend, with EXPENSIVE WINE. This shall be a meal of the people, not the chickenhawk bloggers, or whatever nonsense is currently spewing forth from the trolls...

We Australians put the UN back in FUN!

Yeah, it is sad that we're #1 now :(

Hopefully if Latham gets elected he'll gut the corporate welfare given to energy companies, sack the PM's science minister who is on the Rio Tinto board of directors, rescind the subsidies to business for burning diesel and sign Kyoto.
(I'm not holding my breath).

As I've stated previously, I agree that emissions made for export produce should not be counted toward that country's total.

Kyoto does address this somewhat by making emissions a virtual currency that can be traded.
A tonne of C02 would soon have a market value and Australia could buy it from say India or China (and thereby encourage them to produce as little CO2 as possible in order to maximise the amount they can sell) and then pass those costs onto the countries that buy our products.

This is the main purpose of Kyoto; to give pollution a market value and thereby encourage efficiency and create demand for environmentally friendly technology.

No t, the main purpose of Kyoto is to gut the world economy so that Westerners feel less guilty about themselves.

t, aren't your shoes hot? Or has the intense heat of the magma fried your nerve endings so you can't tell?

In other words, I guess it's too late for you to stop digging now that your shovel has melted. But hey, we warned you...

Yeah, those wacky Europeans, out to wreck their own economy so they can feel good about themselves! Seriously mate, leave conspiracy theories to the conspiracy theorists.

Lets see a few sources that show that kyoto will "gut the world economy". Economics is even less of a science than climatology. It's funny the way people accept op-eds from the WSJ at face value ;)

...those wacky Europeans, out to wreck their own economy so they can feel good about themselves!...

Technically Europeans, Chris.

Europeans who put the junk science of Kyoto, ahead of national interest, in the hope of advancing themselves.

t:

There is this excellent advice: it is better to be thought a fool than open you mouth and remove all doubt,

However, as Andrea pointed out, it is too late for you, alas.

"Would Americans ordinarily tolerate a president who lies and exaggerates..."

They tolerated Bill Clinton pretty well.

t

As there is no such thing as global warming, there is no need for Kyoto, which will adversely affect Western economies, so that a few public servants, academics and other useless members of society can feeel a wee bit better about themselves.

Richard Lindzen and Bjorn Lomborg have blown the Kyotists out of the water. In fact, the Lomborg controversy has revealed that it is Greeenpeace and the other enviro-loonies who are the real anti-science facists in this world.

Sinistra delenda est!!

t

Economists know the limits of their craft. It's political economists who like to ignore the existence of let alone the ramifications of economic laws. Likewise climate scientists also know the limits of their own discipline but its political scientists who are prepared to ignore the limitations of the lack of current knowledge of what makes and influences climate. Assertion is not science.

The UN should stick to what they're good at: overseeing genocide and organizing child prostitution

The essence of climate science is saying "This scenario is x% likely to come to pass". There will never be 100% certainty that the current change in climate is caused by man, just like there is no certainty that it won't rain tomorrow. When weatherman says "90% chance of rain, I bring my umbrella".

When your playing with the planet, waiting round until you reach 99% certainty is foolish. Just how certain would people on this forum have to be before they agreed that something should be done?

Bjorn Lomborg has been thoroughly refuted. While there is truth to some of the stuff he says, the man is a statistician. Yet he feels qualified to comment on dozens of disciplines in which he has no formal training. No person, no matter how brilliant could understand all those fields to a sufficient degree to make the claims that he does.

You, like me, simply pick the "scientific" mouth piece of their choice; if I cite someone you will claim that they're either a) commie, b) fishing for research grants or c) an "enviro-loonie".

You do, however, take Lomborg's word at face value despite dozens of comprehensive refutations. Funny, that.

(You still haven't provided the proof that kyoto will "gut" the world economy)

I don't know about Lomborg, t. Although his book is excellent in many ways, he doesn't seem nearly sceptical enough to me. John Daly's pieces on global warming (or the lack of it) and on the fitting of the computer models used by the climate scientists seems much stronger stuff to me.

Excellent articles here and here

t:

Re global warming, cooling, greenhouse era, new Ice Age, er, whatever it is at this particular nanosecond:

Just like we haven't proved that going easy on Islamists will necessarily lead to the gratuitous murder of innocents abroad, eh?

t:

Who will oversee and enforce the international emissions trading market to ensure there is no cheating, particularly in third world countries? I remember Aussie wool growers had great fun in the 1990's trying to enforce forward purchases by Indian companies when the wool market fell. Maybe we can use the Nigerian governments sincere efforts to crack down on email fraud as a model. Will it be the credible and completely non-corrupt EU bureaucrats? Will it be the UN, threatening to pass sternly worded resolutions against non-compliers? It's hard to imagine them doing so for any country other than Israel. Perhaps this will provide jobs for the former Iraqi oil-for-kickbacks UNscammers in the unlikely event that they get demoted for their corruption.

As for having businessman in government, why are they less likely to have a conflict of interest than lifelong public sector parasites? At least the businessman's interest is usually in favour of INCREASING productivity.

Clem, implementation is certainly the most difficult part. There are existing models to calculate how much CO2 each country produces, when there is money at stake, lots of countries will be surveying others to make sure that they're not fudging the figures too badly.

Haha, nice strawman. The issue is not that there is a businessman in government, the issue is that this businessmen is providing advice on energy, while working for an energy company. The PM is giving Rio Tinto and others HUNDREDS of millions of OUR dollars in R&D money to investigate clean coal technologies on the advice of the man who stands to profit from it.
This is corruption pure and simple and why fiscal conservatives are not outraged, I'll never know.

"Bjorn Lomborg has been thoroughly refuted."

By who?

"While there is truth to some of the stuff he says, the man is a statistician. Yet he feels qualified to comment on dozens of disciplines in which he has no formal training. No person, no matter how brilliant could understand all those fields to a sufficient degree to make the claims that he does.".

And what "formal training" do you have 't'.

I'd love to link to Jane Galt's varied writings on Kyoto et al from an economist's perspective, but "alt dot net" appears to be banned by the moderating software...

Oh well, just c&p the following and reconstruct the URL yourself: http://www dot janegalt dot net/blog/archives/004769.html

I especially suggest reading the second post she links to, "What it would really cost us to get our emissions down to non-greenhouse-causing levels".

BTW t, you better watch out, I can see the first cracks in your carefully constructed façade of being a reasonable fellow who's just here to argue his opinion in an honest and open-minded way.

BTW #2, didn't somebody just complain about the misuse of "to refute" in the goat-getting thread? You know, as in "Bjorn Lomborg has been thoroughly refuted." You're good at proving other people's points!

BTW #2, didn't somebody just complain about the misuse of "to refute" in the goat-getting thread? You know, as in "Bjorn Lomborg has been thoroughly refuted."

That was me. Irritating isn't it?

t, although I admit this article comes from Fox News (GASP!), it is a good demonstration of how Kyoto guts the economy without any apprecible benefit.

Briefly, carbon dioxide is not the primary "green house" gas, water vapor is, responsible for 95% of the impact. Carbon dioxide is responsible for 3.6% of the impact.

But, 97% of the carbon dioxide in atmosphere comes from natural sources. The 3% is manmade. Of all the greenhouse gases out there, carbon dioxide contributes 0.11% to global warming.

Adding in the other gases, humanity's contribution to global warming is about 0.3%.

The Kyoto treaty would reduce those emissions by about 0.03% by cutting energy use by 30% in the next 6 years.

Almost no positive impact to global warming (which may or may not be a problem) by cutting our energy use by 30%. Add in the growing population, and that would gut the economy. We'd have more poverty so that the third world nations could continue to pollute.

--Australia rocks? You guys couldn't even beat Norway (which, by the way, we successfully invaded in 1944). And some $2 bottle of Shiraz made in California is winning awards. Not to mention that Dave Barry is still walking around.--

2 buck/3 buck Chuck. Can't beat him.

--"Bjorn Lomborg has been thoroughly refuted."--

And here I thought a Danish(?) committee just found in his favor.

So the refuted might have been refuted.

--(You still haven't provided the proof that kyoto will "gut" the world economy)--

either a - it won't because China and India the up-and-comers weren't included or

b - 95-0 - estimated the US econ would take a tremendous hit and voted it down.

When your playing with the planet, waiting round until you reach 99% certainty is foolish. Just how certain would people on this forum have to be before they agreed that something should be done?

t, that's true. But I reckon most people on this thread would agree that we are not even, oh, 60% certain on 'climate change'. If that.
The trouble with Kyoto is that it is based on the 'possibility' of climate change, and you can't go around basing policies on possibilities.
And yes, if we ratified Kyoto, it probably would gut the world economy. Think about it: regulating the most efficient energy companies (coal and oil) and pouring millions of taxpayer dollars into a far less efficient industries (wind and solar) on the basis of a somewhat dubious scientific theory (climate change) can't be good for the world economy, now, can it?

Mind you, there are decent alternatives to coal and oil. Nuclear, for one ... why isn't anyone talking about that?

The climate is from an absolute sense less complex than global economics. But from a macro point of view the climate is of many magnitudes more complex than economics. Do a bit of research on the domain of chaotic influences within a system. The maths is a lot beyond me, but some of the general concepts make sense.

The point of this is, even if we know for certain that man made global warming is happening, we still have no idea what its effects will be. Yes they could be bad, but they could also be good. Most likely the effects will favour some parts of the world and have negative effects on others. But as humans we have an amazing ability to not just adapt to change, but thrive in it, its innovation that drives the world economy - any change whether bad or good is going to lead to an increase in innovation.

What fight it?

Firstly, that FoxNews article contains some basic factual and misleading statistics. e.g. watervapor only contributes to about 60% ofthe greenhouse effect not the 90 odd percent that he claims. He also forgets to mention that it typically only stays in the atmosphere for a week or two while carbon dioxide sticks around for a couple of centuries.
Climate change is incredibly complex, e.g, if the temperature of the earth goes up slightly, this can increase the amount of water vapor in the air making it even warmer etc. Small changes make a big difference and it's NOWHERE near as simple as he claims it is.

The point I am making is that when someone comes along and says what you want to hear you uncritically agree whereas any source I cite you'll just assume that it's political BS.

As for making policy based on probabilities, that is EXACTLY the role of government.
e.g. It was probable that Iraq had WMD so we invaded.
It's probable that Australia won't get invaded in the next two decades so we don't spend huge amounts on defence.

I have little objection to nuclear energy, though there need to be some tough regulations and massive penalties for companies (and executives) that breach them. Japan has had a few close-calls in recent years, largely as a result of shoddy maintenence and operator incompetence.
It does make sense for australia since we've got loads of uranium and lots of desert to bury the waste in.

Wind power is also a good alternative. The cost per kw/hour is dropping quickly and almost competes with coal now. It looks like coal will start using carbon-sequestration which will likely drive the cost above wind. It's not suitable everywhere, but along the bight, we're nuts not to do it.

As for Lomborg and the court, they simply overturned a ruling of scientific dishonesty and did not comment on his findings.
His book was by and large a political one, and the attacks in the court room were politically motivated. I'm glad the conviction was overturned. The best way to refute his work is in scientific journals.

Good to see you support nuclear energy. Too bad nuclear energy isn't "politically correct", I remember reading a while ago some research into ways of making nuclear energy much much safer, in nutshell a way to harness the energy in a reaction that is hard to sustain (today nuclear power plants harness the energy by tryng to control a chain reaction).

Some of the new green technologies interest me, I'd like to see more efficient solar cells, more dams built, but there is also a lot of wasted money going into the industry - money that could be used to help to remove the remaining obstacles to practically limitless fission (and eventually fusion) energy.

"Firstly, that FoxNews article contains some basic factual and misleading statistics. e.g. watervapor only contributes to about 60% ofthe greenhouse effect not the 90 odd percent that he claims."

Very good, t! Very good! You saw the problem, but still can't see the whole problem. Seeing the tree instead of the forest, as it were.

Making sound decisions requires a reasonable degree of certainy, which in turn requires facts and educated opinions, and a consensus that said facts/opinions are reasonably accurate and objective.

You say water vapor contributes 60% to the greenhouse effect. Another source says 95%. One climatologist predicts a rise of 1-2 degrees, another one predicts much less, or won't make a prediction at all. 20 years ago, the concern was in the opposite direction with many of the same people (i.e., an ice age). And so on. What this all really means is that we don't have reasonably accurate facts and opinions to have a consensus of any sort. This is the state of the science community on global warming at this time.

And that means we don't understand how the climate really works, not well enough to predict longterm trends.

About the best I've seen of the climate forecasts have been regionally focused outlooks, like the impacts of El Nino on the western coasts of North and South America. Those are general at most, and generally cover no more than 1 year.

Or there are the hurricane season outlooks in the USA (typhoons to y'all Down Under). At most, those call for so many named storms, so many tropical depressions, etc. That is made a few months out. Are they accurate? So so, but a reasonable estimate for disaster response planning. No more than that, though.

This applies to climate change because climate controls weather. If we understand weather, and can prove that understanding by making accurate forecasts, we can build from there to climate. We are still learning, but this may be something that we never fully understand, simply because the conditions are way too chaotic.

If we can't handle weekend weather predictions, or hurricane season forecasts, how can we accept longterm climate forecasts as accurate? We can't.

The Kyoto protocols, perforce, ask us to risk much without even a reasonably accurate estimate of the potential benefits.

Global warming might be a problem. Gutting the economy will be a problem.

That math is simple. I go for a healthy economy, and then try to reduce pollution. That way we can afford the costs.

Uh, t, where are your corroborating statistics? For example, where did you get that "60%" figure? You make a lot of assertions -- can we see your degree in meteorology if you haven't gotten your figures from some published work? So far you haven't established any reason that we should trust you for accuracy; so far the only thing you have demonstrated is an ability to repost the same thing over and over using slightly different words (much like the way people talk louder and louder at a foreign person who does not understand them as if increase in volume will turn on some Universal Translator in the brain), and when the rejoinders hit too close to home you merely change the subject. In other words, you are a typical boring troll who hijacks every single comment thread for his pet obsession, and I am thinking that I have let you use enough of this site's bandwidth.

Yep, I sure have been hijacking those threads. First I hijacked a thread about banning junk food commercials and started talking about ... banning junk food commercials. Then I hijacked a thread on global warming and started talking about ... global warming. In addition I was rude to everybody, responded with outrage when people posted insulting remarks and worst of all I (gasp) disagreed with the majority!

I sure am ruining this site.

Now you want to ban me? HAHA!
I goodgled your name and it seems like you have a record of shutting up disenting views. No doubt this post will removed and you'll attempt to ban me. I'm sorry your so sensitive, Andrea.

Ah, t finally falls apart. Took less long than I expected, but then most trolls can't handle the onslaught of rationality here. Let me just pile on one more...

He also forgets to mention that it [water vapor] typically only stays in the atmosphere for a week or two while carbon dioxide sticks around for a couple of centuries.

It what? I think you've just confused CO2 with CFCs, and even for them the period of time is closer to 30-50 years. I guess that kind of mental lapse is bound to happen when one is forced to furiously grasp at straws to hold together one's argument...

t, I hate to tell you this, but like most of the commenters to that post you linked to, you didn't get that it was a joke. Just like you don't seem to get that this site is not all about you. (I'll bet you googled using "I hate Andrea Harris" didn't you? Now that's just sad.)

a test

PW: No, I just wasn't going to post if I was about to be banned. It's funny the way people here are abusive and if you don't ignore it completely then you "can't handle the onslaught of rationality" ;)

Andrea: Nope, I just googled for Andrea Harris. 5th result. It's clear that the originl post was a joke, I strongly doubt that a few of those comments are. Nevermind.

Hmmmm, I seem to be unable to post messages containing (I think) a few keywords so I'm can't post my reply to the previous comments. I don't see the point of comments on a website when discussion of a different point of view is not tolerated.

"T" thew ABC has a forum that you've got every right to complain how its run but this one you just sound like a whiney little baby.

That's called MT Blacklist, it's an anti-spam blocker that stops certain phrases oft used in spam.

I'm sure this magical computer stuff bewilders and confuses you, t, but there it is. I'm sorry if this does not play into your personal prosecution parade, but maybe you can tie it to global warming somehow.

Quick! Make a post about how you expect that post to be deleted! It's funny to read those after they, you know, aren't deleted.

I tried posting each paragraph of my post in turn and all except ones not related to global warming were blocked.
It seems like a big coincidence that I posted over a dozen message on global warming and all of a sudden I can't post any.

If I have inadvertently used a common spam phrase, then my apologies to Andrea.

t, the denial message you get TELLS YOU the word or phrase so denied. In bold letters. I am really getting sick of telling people this over and over. Here is MT-Blacklist's website. That's all I'm going to say on this matter.

Andrea,

It didn't tell me, it just said "your message is of questionable content", it looked liked there should have been more but it dissapeared mid sentence.

I don't have time to find out what it won't let me post so I'll just say sorry ;)

t.

I think your bull shitting "T", MT Blacklist does tell you what the questionable content is. As for "I don't have time to find out" yet you 'have time' to comment.

Carbon dioxide equivalent??? Tim, if y'all can't put out real gas, don't be claiming the title. None of this equivalent shit. Pump out the real thing. If it means you have to genetically modify your sheep or something, well, hop to it! Get to work.

More

Here's the other half of my post... we'll see if it gets through...

Like it or not, it is generally accepted by the scientific community that global warming is happening and is caused by man. I realise that this is an argument from authority, but since no-one here has formal training in climatology thats about all we can do. There will always be people who dispute science, and in many cases I think this comes from a human desire to "go against the grain". This desire is, IMO what has made man great - but that doesn't mean people who disagree are correct.
Most rational people accept that evolution is a fact. There is loads of empirical evidence and a strong theory able to make predictions. Yet there are still those out there who deny it. Intelligent people with formal scientific backgrounds. They can write all sorts of plausible stuff that the gullible will believe because it's what they want to hear. Try answer in genesis to see denial in action.

On the economics side, no one has provided any compelling evidence that Kyoto will gut the world economy. Politicians at present support the status quo, which is cheap energy that industry and citizens can afford to waste and are supported by large companies that will lose some power if kyoti is enacted.
There will be winners and lose; a huge number of new industries will spring up to take advantage of the new markets. e.g. people will want their homes made more energy efficient. There will be a big increase in research into wind, solar and nuclear.

If some of those new technologies, especially fusion, paid off, we could reduce and then eliminate our need for middle-eastern oil - and save hundreds of billions on the wars we fight to secure it. It would bankrupt most of the Arab states and remove the main source of funding for terrorism.

Ending old growth logging would put australia pretty close to our kyoto targets. I'm not against logging at all, I like things made of wood.
However, when a forest has sat there for tens of thousands of years, an incredible amount of carbon becomes stored in the ground. When the forest is gone, this escapes into the atmosphere. If loggers want to chop down trees, fine. Why don't they buy land and plant their own?