Iranian law stipulates that 85 percent of domestic food be produced locally, Morad Kaviani, professor of geography and hydropolitics at Iran’s Kharazmi University, told state television last week.
However, he added, Iran does not have the water and soil capacities, and nearly 30 percent of agricultural produce is wasted due to a lack of infrastructure, outdated irrigation practices and misguided crop selection.
Sounds like one of the biggest root disasters, eh?
So, this situation may only slightly be related to AGCC, but it does seem ominous in painting a certain picture of the future. I wonder if and when Russia and China step in, here…
Since we’re being sticklers here, the correct term would be Anthropogenic, as in comes from humans, anthropomorphic would be global climate change with human appearance or qualities.
I don’t know… I’d never seen the acronym before, but it seemed fairly obvious in context… (as Anthropogenic Global Climate Change, obviously), especially given that “global warming” seems to be falling out of use due to it being at the same time too specific and not enough…
Er, well… it’s now year 2025, AGCC has been scientifically documented and publicly talked about for decades, and is now arguably the biggest existential threat to humanity?
You know… as seen in increasingly dangerous storm systems year after year, rising global temps year after year, more wildfires, more droughts, rising ocean acidification, rising difficulty growing crops, the holocene extinction accelerating… things like that? All are directly impacted by AGCC, to name a few.
Getting harder and harder to live under a rock, tell you hwat.
I’m not questioning how real anthropogenic global climate change is. I’m questioning your decision of using just the initials assuming everyone understand automatically.
When I googled “AGCC meaning” the suggestions were:
AGenesis of the Corpus Callosum
Alderney Gambling Control Commission
Arab Gulf Cooperation Council
Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce
Action for a Global Climate Community
Agencia Comercial Spirits ltd (AGCC)
I didn’t assume. People are going to understand and misunderstand terms no matter what acronym or definition is used, like CC or GCC. Or they’ll deny, get it twisted, whatever. Or ask a curious followup, as you did.
When I googled “AGCC meaning” the suggestions were:
Well, context is king. If you asked what it meant within that sentence, then it might be able to narrow things down better. We all do this all the time, of course.
For the writer, I recall him being focused moreso on the main thought he wanted to express. And his thoughts have been pretty scattered indeed these days, focus harder to come by…
One way that serves a purpose is in making it clear that this isn’t just some natural variance going on, for example in taking on the hand-wavers who like to say ‘oh, it all goes in cycles; nothing to worry about!’
So GCC sometimes gets appended with an “A” for “anthropomorphic” to make it crystal clear that (just like the Holocene Extinction) it’s largely (or wholly) man-made. Personally I tend to fluctuate between terms, mainly based on recency bias and just whatever my naked ape brain happens to settle on. :P
So US sanctions and hostility basically caused the water crisis because they’re forced to maintain food security by growing it at home… In essentially a desert
Eh, reading the first article, it sounds like it was even more than that, as in: too much middle-management involved in making key water decisions, too much zeal post-revolution in building new dams, too much waffling and inadequate resoluteness at the leadership levels across several decades.
In other words, the sanctions were no doubt a major blow, but the real issue seems to be how Iran responded to the blow. Plus a bunch of other stuff on top that didn’t help.
Meanwhile, something I have no idea about is whether Iran’s regional allies, plus China & Russia, could have used trade and such to help offset the sanctions in the first place…?
Meanwhile, something I have no idea about is whether Iran’s regional allies, plus China & Russia, could have used trade and such to help offset the sanctions in the first place…?
They could almost certainly offset it enormously. Rice and beans shipped in from China are unlikely to cost much more than those from the US.
My bet is that “85% domestic production” threshold is less a result of sanctions, and more either (a) self-imposed isolationism, or (b) protectionist policies designed to empower one or other political faction in the country.
Iran has open trade relations with China, Russia, and Turkey, which all have significant agricultural output. It also does quite a bit of trade with Europe despite sanctions. It does not have to artificially limit itself to importing only 15% of its food, especially given that irrigation is contributing to an unsustainable water crisis.
Note that just because they have open trade relations with a state doesn’t mean they can import whatever they want. It’s a Cuba situation; US secondary sanctions target businesses and they’re harsh. Water mismanagement is obviously a major cause here, but don’t underestimate the effect of Western sanctions on smaller countries.
Thanks.
Sounds like one of the biggest root disasters, eh?
So, this situation may only slightly be related to AGCC, but it does seem ominous in painting a certain picture of the future. I wonder if and when Russia and China step in, here…
Protip; first time you use an acronym, parse it, and then you can continue referring to it with the abbreviation.
ROFL (rolling on the floor laughing) as an example could be used to denote something that was, to the receiver, funnier than LOL (laughing out loud)
What is an AGCC?
Anthropomorphic, global climate change.
Anthropogenic*, no?
Morphic is about shape/form.
Genic is about origin, like we are causing the climate change.
Does someone have a climate change fursona?
Yeah, my girl dresses as Gaia from Captain Planet, then I come in and wreck the shit out of her.
anthropogenic
Since we’re being sticklers here, the correct term would be Anthropogenic, as in comes from humans, anthropomorphic would be global climate change with human appearance or qualities.
Holy shit, what made you think anyone will understand that abbreviation?
I don’t know… I’d never seen the acronym before, but it seemed fairly obvious in context… (as Anthropogenic Global Climate Change, obviously), especially given that “global warming” seems to be falling out of use due to it being at the same time too specific and not enough…
Er, well… it’s now year 2025, AGCC has been scientifically documented and publicly talked about for decades, and is now arguably the biggest existential threat to humanity?
You know… as seen in increasingly dangerous storm systems year after year, rising global temps year after year, more wildfires, more droughts, rising ocean acidification, rising difficulty growing crops, the holocene extinction accelerating… things like that? All are directly impacted by AGCC, to name a few.
Getting harder and harder to live under a rock, tell you hwat.
I’m not questioning how real anthropogenic global climate change is. I’m questioning your decision of using just the initials assuming everyone understand automatically.
When I googled “AGCC meaning” the suggestions were:
AGenesis of the Corpus Callosum
Alderney Gambling Control Commission
Arab Gulf Cooperation Council
Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce Action for a Global Climate Community
Agencia Comercial Spirits ltd (AGCC)
I didn’t assume. People are going to understand and misunderstand terms no matter what acronym or definition is used, like CC or GCC. Or they’ll deny, get it twisted, whatever. Or ask a curious followup, as you did.
Well, context is king. If you asked what it meant within that sentence, then it might be able to narrow things down better. We all do this all the time, of course.
To avoid misunderstandings wouldn’t be better to use the actual words instead of acronyms?
For the reader, I would think mostly “yes.”
For the writer, I recall him being focused moreso on the main thought he wanted to express. And his thoughts have been pretty scattered indeed these days, focus harder to come by…
Anyway, I think that’s enough of all that. Ciao!
Not OP - I’ve been exposed to Climate Change news to the point of possible depression but I’ve never seen the concept referred to as AGCC before too
One way that serves a purpose is in making it clear that this isn’t just some natural variance going on, for example in taking on the hand-wavers who like to say ‘oh, it all goes in cycles; nothing to worry about!’
So GCC sometimes gets appended with an “A” for “anthropomorphic” to make it crystal clear that (just like the Holocene Extinction) it’s largely (or wholly) man-made. Personally I tend to fluctuate between terms, mainly based on recency bias and just whatever my naked ape brain happens to settle on. :P
So US sanctions and hostility basically caused the water crisis because they’re forced to maintain food security by growing it at home… In essentially a desert
Eh, reading the first article, it sounds like it was even more than that, as in: too much middle-management involved in making key water decisions, too much zeal post-revolution in building new dams, too much waffling and inadequate resoluteness at the leadership levels across several decades.
In other words, the sanctions were no doubt a major blow, but the real issue seems to be how Iran responded to the blow. Plus a bunch of other stuff on top that didn’t help.
Meanwhile, something I have no idea about is whether Iran’s regional allies, plus China & Russia, could have used trade and such to help offset the sanctions in the first place…?
And do ya reckon there’s 0 espionage from Israel or other states
They could almost certainly offset it enormously. Rice and beans shipped in from China are unlikely to cost much more than those from the US.
My bet is that “85% domestic production” threshold is less a result of sanctions, and more either (a) self-imposed isolationism, or (b) protectionist policies designed to empower one or other political faction in the country.
Sounds about right; thanks!
us sanctions because ISRAEl does not like them, theres no other reason, the NUkes were just an excuse.
Iran has open trade relations with China, Russia, and Turkey, which all have significant agricultural output. It also does quite a bit of trade with Europe despite sanctions. It does not have to artificially limit itself to importing only 15% of its food, especially given that irrigation is contributing to an unsustainable water crisis.
Note that just because they have open trade relations with a state doesn’t mean they can import whatever they want. It’s a Cuba situation; US secondary sanctions target businesses and they’re harsh. Water mismanagement is obviously a major cause here, but don’t underestimate the effect of Western sanctions on smaller countries.