Green Options

The phrase,”industrial farming” is something I see on lots of web posts and comment strings.  I’m guessing that this intentionally derisive terminology conjures up some pretty negative imagery for most people not directly involved with farming.  The use of this emotive term raises two questions for me:

• Is modern, “industrial” farming actually what people imagine it to be?
• Is there actually a viable alternative?

Well, let’s consider some of the features of modern farming

“Industrial Farming Is Highly Mechanized” (True but Necessary)

It might not fit your view of a romantic, rural life-style, but if you are actually the farmer, the comfortable, efficient, sophisticated farm equipment available today sounds pretty good.  As in all “industrialized” segments of our economy, machines and computers make farmers more productive and eliminate the most laborious (and often dangerous) parts of the job.  There is a detailed history of farm equipment on the John Deere website that is worth a read.  Mechanization of farming has enabled the workforce directly involved in farming to drop from ~40% in 1900 to less than 1% today.  Over this time period, people have chosen other careers intentionally.  There are not a lot of people who want to work on farms in the old, labor-intensive way.

Actually, hand-labor-intensive crops (e.g. coffee, strawberries…), or high labor cropping systems (e.g. Organic) are on a collision course with demographic trends.  The pool of unskilled farm laborers upon which rich Americans have (unethically) depended is only going to decline over time and make rejection of “mechanization” an increasingly non-viable option.  Unless you are the one doing the work, it isn’t really reasonable to insist that mechanization be avoided because it’s too “industrial.”

Aloe Up offers a natural, biodegradable (reef friendly), hypoallergenic, and non-comedogenic (won’t clog pores) sun and skin care line produced from aloe organically grown in Harlingen, Texas and sold in over 60 countries worldwide.

It’s time to get angry. This is what John Kerry, not exactly the most extreme guy, is saying to us. Is it the best solution?

This is what Kerry told advocates of climate legislation recently:

“I want you to go out there and start knocking on doors and talking to people and telling people this has to happen. You know, if the Tea Party folks can go out there and get angry because they think their taxes are too high, for God’s sake, a lot of citizens ought to get angry about the fact that they’re being killed and our planet is being injured by what’s happening on a daily basis by the way we provide our power and our fuel and the old practices that we have. That’s something worth getting angry about.” (emphasis mine)

As part of my Bachelor’s thesis in sociology and environmental studies, about 6 years ago, I studied the history of the environmental movement in great depth. Since then, I have been keeping my eye on things, on the bigger picture, as I work in different fields — natural and organic foods, city planning and sustainable development, alternative transportation, and, now, online journalism with a green tint.

The underlying question, consistently, is: “How do we avoid, or — worst case scenario — deal with, huge environmental collapse?”

The issues have only gotten bigger (see: Global Warming in the Arctic — Much Worse than We Thought!, Greenland Ice Sheet Melting Faster than Ever and Oceans Absorbing CO2, Preventing Climate Change — Good, Right? No). But we seem to be going down the same road consistently, despite all the amazing efforts of people trying to turn this car around (and transform it into something green-friendly). The environmental movement, perhaps bigger than ever, still seems on the brink of failure.

Nike has been one green company lately — in the last year, it has pushed for a strong clean energy and climate bill in Congress on its own and in concert with others and it has helped to reduce deforestation of the Amazon. Now, Nike has also just reported that it reduced its own carbon footprint last year while still growing economically. In fact, it has tremendously reduced greenhouse gas pollution over the last decade and 2009 just kept the ball rolling.

On top of all of that, Nike announced today that along with nine other organizations — Yahoo!, Best Buy, Creative Commons, IDEO, Mountain Equipment Co-op, nGenera, Outdoor Industry Association, salesforce.com, and 2degrees — Nike will “collaborate and share intellectual property (IP) which can lead to new sustainability business models and innovation.” This “Web-based marketplace” — GreenXchange (GX) — was announced at a CEO breakfast at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this morning.

If this all has you feeling warm inside, read on.

State of the World 2010 is on book stands, just in time for President Obama’s State of the Union address, though I’m not sure he’s read it given his talk of economic growth to create more jobs in businesses that require more stimulus spending and more government oversight.

I’ve regularly blogged on our state of the economy, an economy inexorably based on the same life support systems that sustain every creature on Earth. At its root, the economy should be about caring for our planet in much the same way that Pope Benedict has recently proclaimed that we must care for Creation. “The different phenomena of environmental degradation and natural catastrophes, which unfortunately occur all too often, remind us of the urgency of dutiful respect toward nature, recovering and valuing a correct relationship with the environment each day,” said Pope Benedict (as quoted by the Catholic News Agency).

Our economy should be about sustainability and restoration of our fragile planet, not greed and never-ending growth. Our sense of fulfillment or happiness is rarely found at America’s Mecca (the mall). Nor will we be able to charge it on our credit card. When it comes down to it, we can buy what’s no longer available: clean water and air, healthy soil, a vibrant local community, a safe place to raise a family.

Pope Benedict’s message is along the same lines as the perspectives shared in Worldwatch Institute’s latest, authoritative flagship book, State of the World 2010: Transforming Cultures: From Consumerism to Sustainability (W.W. Norton). Without an intentional cultural shift – one that values sustainability not consumerism — no pledges from government or advances in technology will be enough to prevent the preventable calamity of climate change and ecological collapse, destined to forever change how we live on this planet. We must rediscover a story of living and working, quite different from the present consumption and material wealth-driven one that often defines meaning, satisfaction and acceptance for so many of us, with dire consequences for ecological systems and the billions of people who have been called the “have-nots” in the so-called developing world.

You don’t often see affordable housing and solar power being combined. There have been a couple of projects in San Francisco and San Diego in the past year. But Sunwheel Energy Partners just went way beyond that — it just finished a major solar installation on affordable housing units in San Francisco and it hired the residents to install the photovoltaics.

This great project was part of San Francisco’s larger GoSolarSF initiative (launched by San Francisco Mayor and contributing author on CleanTechnica Gavin Newsome).

While the U.S. Postal Service bleeds red with billions of dollars in financial loses ($3.8 billion in 2008), they keep earning environmental accolades for their green roofs and energy conserving initiatives. Today, some post offices are even LEED certified by the US Green Building Council. As I wrote about last week, the US Postal Service has always been on the leading edge with respect to experimenting with fuel efficient vehicles – even if they’ve been unsuccessful in garnering the widespread adoption of these alternatively fueled vehicles outside their test markets.

So what gives? How could the US Postal Service be in such dire straits with all their green initiatives and their “fleet of feet” making deliveries door-to-door on foot?

Failing to Adapt to Change

This shouldn’t be new news: For years, Americans have been moving away from hard copy to electronic forms of communication. Many of us have gotten fed up with the piles of unwanted mail solicitations and catalogs by the pound by getting our names and addresses on “Do Not Solicit” lists with the Direct Marketing Association. We’ve opted out of banks’ direct marketing schemes for credit cards and insurance. We’ve signed up for electronic bill pay. So, I would have thought that US Postmaster John Potter would have recognized these changes, having grown up with the US Postal Service and having been at the helm since 2001.

In November of last year, two writers working for the Soil Association (the major Organic organization in the UK) published a 212 page document titled: “Soil Carbon and Organic Farming:  A review of the evidence on the relationship between agriculture and soil carbon sequestration, and how organic farming can contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption.”   Yesterday I posted an “open letter” to the authors of this article on SCRIBD and also emailed it directly.  I pointed out how the massive conversion to Organic that they advocate would actually be a driver of climate change, not a solution.  I hope they will respond.

The Claim

The Soil Association authors made the case that because Organic farming methods have been shown to build soil organic matter, major expansion of Organic farming would be a great way to sequester lots of atmospheric carbon dioxide and thus reduce the risk of greenhouse gas-driven climate change.  This was essentially the same argument that was made in 2007 in a publication from the Rodale Institute titled,  “Regenerative Organic Farming: A Solution to Global Warming.”  In both of these cases, the claim to sequester large amounts of carbon in agricultural soils is based on repeatedly applying many tons/ha of compost to the fields.  

Transportation is one of the biggest parts of our lives, whether we think about it or not. How will 2010 help shape the future of transportation in the US? How should it do so?

And, more specifically, what is going on in government on this matter? With an expired (in September of 2009) and extended and extended and extended and extended (yes, four times) 6-year transportation bill, what is coming in 2010?

The following discussion goes into my own thoughts on some of the major issues with the help of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO’s) “Top Ten Transportation Topics” list and other stories.

Lanner, a business software specialist, just launched a new version of its WITNESS software suite in order to help companies evaluate how their decisions will affect the environment.

In her recent TED Talk, Carolyn Steel takes a look at the history of food production and asks an important question: What would a modern city look like if it were centered around food?