<story><title>Pesticide believed to kill bees is authorised for use in England</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/09/pesticide-believed-kill-bees-authorised-use-england-eu-farmers</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>40four</author><text>I’m not really sure yet how I feel about this particular case of temporary emergency authorization (which is omitted from the title). I get the chemicals were banned for good reason, but in this case they are trying to prevent a whole commodity sector from collapsing. Tough situation to be in.&lt;p&gt;The larger issue to me is how warped the debate around saving bees and pollinators has become. I get very frustrated every time I read articles on this topic, because I feel like the way it is presented is very misleading.&lt;p&gt;It’s always presented in a way that makes it seem like these large farms are dependent on ‘wild’ bees and pollinators. They make it sound like the only thing that matters is our use of evil chemicals, and if you support their use the. You are a piece of shit who doesn’t care about the earth.&lt;p&gt;In reality, large commercial mono crop farms depend on bee keepers who provide their hives as a service. Their bees are the ones dying en mass, not wild bee populations. You’re not going to find many wild bees or anything else for that matter in these areas, the biome doesn’t support them.&lt;p&gt;Mono-croping as a practice is an environmental disaster just by it’s nature. There is no biodiversity by design. This in turn makes pests and diseases that harm the beehives brought in by beekeepers that much worse. Then of course, add large scale chemical application on top of that and we’ve created a huge mess.&lt;p&gt;So really, when you see these articles claiming huge percentages of bees dying, they aren’t wrong. They are just being purposefully misleading about &lt;i&gt;which&lt;/i&gt; bees are dying. It is the bees brought in by the “Beekeepers as a service”, not wild bees.&lt;p&gt;As bad as that is, there is the good thing to remember. Those are ‘farmed’ bees. We can always farm more bees. That might be a hard challenge for the beekeepers, but it’s not the same thing as all the wild bees in the world dying and everyone starving to death. We need to stop confusing the topic with wild bees.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>stinos</author><text>You make a very good point, but your post reads a bit too much like &amp;#x27;wild bees are fine&amp;#x27;. I think you know what follows, but just for completeness and for other readers: they aren&amp;#x27;t, &lt;i&gt;at all&lt;/i&gt;, just like insects in general (the numbers are so unbelievably insane I&amp;#x27;m nog even going to look up the latest one but just say &amp;#x27;70% decrease in the last couple of decades&amp;#x27; and it will be ballpark correct, unfortunately). And unlike the domestic bees they cannot be bred (or at least not easily). Pesticides likely also play a role in there, small perhaps, habitat loss is estimated to be the main factor. Which mono-crops also is the key player in of course; not just because those fields are no habitat but also because upscaling leads to destroying the surroundings, and so on.</text></comment>
<story><title>Pesticide believed to kill bees is authorised for use in England</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/09/pesticide-believed-kill-bees-authorised-use-england-eu-farmers</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>40four</author><text>I’m not really sure yet how I feel about this particular case of temporary emergency authorization (which is omitted from the title). I get the chemicals were banned for good reason, but in this case they are trying to prevent a whole commodity sector from collapsing. Tough situation to be in.&lt;p&gt;The larger issue to me is how warped the debate around saving bees and pollinators has become. I get very frustrated every time I read articles on this topic, because I feel like the way it is presented is very misleading.&lt;p&gt;It’s always presented in a way that makes it seem like these large farms are dependent on ‘wild’ bees and pollinators. They make it sound like the only thing that matters is our use of evil chemicals, and if you support their use the. You are a piece of shit who doesn’t care about the earth.&lt;p&gt;In reality, large commercial mono crop farms depend on bee keepers who provide their hives as a service. Their bees are the ones dying en mass, not wild bee populations. You’re not going to find many wild bees or anything else for that matter in these areas, the biome doesn’t support them.&lt;p&gt;Mono-croping as a practice is an environmental disaster just by it’s nature. There is no biodiversity by design. This in turn makes pests and diseases that harm the beehives brought in by beekeepers that much worse. Then of course, add large scale chemical application on top of that and we’ve created a huge mess.&lt;p&gt;So really, when you see these articles claiming huge percentages of bees dying, they aren’t wrong. They are just being purposefully misleading about &lt;i&gt;which&lt;/i&gt; bees are dying. It is the bees brought in by the “Beekeepers as a service”, not wild bees.&lt;p&gt;As bad as that is, there is the good thing to remember. Those are ‘farmed’ bees. We can always farm more bees. That might be a hard challenge for the beekeepers, but it’s not the same thing as all the wild bees in the world dying and everyone starving to death. We need to stop confusing the topic with wild bees.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kurthr</author><text>I see your position, and I agree that the problem is more complex than just pesticides are bad, but it&amp;#x27;s also more complex than saving sugar beets. If this were an invasive species (like murder hornets or malarial mosquitos) problem that could be stopped before it started or a temporary measure to prevent life and death (rather than wealth accumulation) for a significant number of people, I&amp;#x27;d have more sympathy.&lt;p&gt;Application to sugar beets is expected to increase crop yields 13% on a non-critical crop, for a commodity (sugar) that can be easily imported. The virus problem won&amp;#x27;t ever go away. So this just sounds like subsidizing a particular local agricultural industry, because it&amp;#x27;s having a hard time competing right now. Will that ever change, why not choose bees or wildflowers over sugar beet farmers? Is it just because they can pay for lobbyists or positive news coverage?&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, it sounds an awful lot like the massive use of (the most advanced) anti-biotics in cattle feed lots to increase meat yield. That builds up immunity so that those last line of defense drugs are no longer useful to treat humans with deadly diseases. The key here is that there will be a state of permanent emergency where some new poison is always needed to keep profits at their previous artificially high level.&lt;p&gt;If the local industry can&amp;#x27;t compete, and it&amp;#x27;s not necessary other than for a small group&amp;#x27;s continued profit, maybe it&amp;#x27;s time to move on. The alternative is a possibly long term loss of pollinators (because the insecticide goes down streams) and the development of stronger&amp;#x2F;larger reservoirs of mites, moths, molds that could permanently affect all pollinators in England.</text></comment>