Off they go into the wild green yonder: the 97th Air Mobility Wing at Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma has just earned the top “Green” rating from the Air Force’s Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health compliance program.
The 97th spent months prepping for its evaluation and earned a “you knocked our socks off” comment from the ESOHCAMP program manager, but that’s not the only sustainability feather in Altus’s cap. The base is also home to one of the Air Force’s premier green remediation sites.
This is a followup post that will attempt to address some additional, wide-spread myths about the commercial sale of seed. In this case the topic with be “GMO” seed improved through genetic engineering (an industry that is now 13 years old and which has been planted on well over 2 billion acres cumulatively, much of it in the developing world). As someone with substantial direct experience with this industry over the years, I’d like to try to speak to some distorted perspectives on this technology.
The First Biotech Crops
The four earliest commercial biotech crops commercialized in 1995/1996 were squash (virus resistant), corn (insect resistant), potatoes (insect resistant), and soybeans (herbicide tolerant). For the squash, corn and potatoes, commercialization was straight forward because it was already standard practice for farmers to buy new seed (tuber seed pieces in the case of potatoes) each year.
For soybeans there was a major commercialization challenge. There was no question that the new technology was valuable — it would displace millions of pounds and hundreds of millions of dollars of herbicide sales. It would also greatly increase the efficiency and convenience of producing soybeans. The challenge was that it was standard practice at the time for farmers to save-back some of their crop to use as seed the next year - more in some geographies than others. If this practice were to continue with the new herbicide tolerant soybeans, it would have been very difficult for the company to recover its high risk investment in the new technology.Growers would simply buy seeds the first year, and then be set until they wanted to buy a new variety.This is not so different from the challenge that record labels with illegal file sharing via the internet.
The two standard solutions that most expected were either (a) charge enough upfront to make up for pervasive seed savings, or (b) raise the price of the herbicide to recover the genetic investment in that way.The first would have discouraged adoption; the second would have disrupted other crops and uses that also depended on the product.Instead, Monsanto tried something completely new (at least to the seed industry).They decided to charge a “technology fee” (”Tech Fee”) of a few $/bag and ask the farmers to sign a license agreement saying they would not save seed. This was a pretty radical step at the time. Monsanto also licensed the technology to many other seed companies and they too had to get growers to sign the licenses.
The video is explicit, the message is simple: You can transform lives in one of the poorest districts of India by donating a goat.
A life-changing experience in India inspired volunteer Debbie Glasband to launch a program to provide an alternative source of income for tribal people: Goats.
There is a lot of confusion and disinformation circulating today about seeds and the ethics of their commercial sale. Actually a healthy, commercial seed industry is critical for agricultural sustainability. Because seeds are such a fundamental component of the sustainability of our food supply, this area deserves careful thought and accurate information even if you are never going to farm or even garden. I’ll try to address some of the modern “myths” about this. I’ll talk about “farmer-saved seed,” and “hybrid seed.” In a later post I’ll talk about “GMO seed,” and the mythical “Terminator Technology.” But first a little history.
Seed-bearing plants start showing up in the fossil record ~350 million years ago, first as gymnosperms like cycads, conifers… and eventually, flowering plants (angiosperms) like most of the living plants today. Other than pine nuts and sea weed, I can’t think of any crops that are not angiosperms (Contest! - 5 virtual sustainability points to someone who can come up with another non-angiosperm crop plant)
Jarrod Diamond’s wonderful book, “Guns, Germs and Steel” talks about how the initially accidental and later intentional collection and planting of seeds is what made human civilization possible - the move beyond the hunter/gatherer state that happened about 10,000 years ago in the “fertile crescent.”
Rhonda and I have gotten to talking, and it turns out that despite living on opposite sides of the country, our neighborhoods have a lot in common. She lives in the Bayview area of San Francisco, CA and I’m living in Edgewood, just east of downtown in Atlanta, GA.
We thought it would make for a cool project to talk about the ups and downs of trying to live sustainably in our different cities. Rhonda is going to talk about Bayview later on this week, but let me introduce you to Edgewood and talk a little bit about what we’re trying to do with this project.
Ok, I didn’t actually clear this challenge with the Nobel Committee, but I think we could convince them. Nobels were awarded early in the 20th century when German scientists Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch made the sequential advances that made it possible to make synthetic nitrogen fertilizer from the nitrogen gas that makes up ~80% of the atmosphere. Without their contributions we could not have improved the lives of billions of people, and we could never have fed the increase in world population that has occurred since their work. Of course that comes with the environmental issues I’ve been discussing in my previous posts. I’m not forgetting that there are changes that need to be made in the way we farm to make nitrogen use more efficient and to prevent water pollution issues.
The Carbon Footprint of Fertilizer Issue
The other thing that would be good to address is the “carbon footprint” of running Haber-Bosch. For every pound of ammonia that is synthesized, about 3.7 pounds of carbon dioxide is generated (mainly through the use of natural gas to generate hydrogen). That means to fertilize an acre of corn at 120 pounds of nitrogen, there are carbon dioxide emissions that are the equivalent of ~20 gallons of diesel. That works out to 1.59 billion gallon equivalents for just the US corn crop - some serious carbon emissions (I’ve already posted about why Organic fertilizers are not the solution here).
From the comment streams and emails I’ve been getting about recent posts, it is clear that many people believe things that are not actually true about the environmental profile of organic fertilizers. I don’t mean to minimize the challenge we face when it comes to fertilizers, particularly nitrogen fertilizers. They take energy to make, have the potential to generate the potent greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, and can lead to the pollution of ground and surface waters. With a “rap-sheet” like that I understand why people are concerned, but there is a catch - without fertilizers we don’t eat much.
Still, there is a widespread belief that “Organic” fertilizers are the solution. I’ve already blogged about why organic fertilizers are dramatically worse from a greenhouse gas point of view. Today I want to talk about the water pollution issues and why “Organic” fertilizers are actually a much worse problem from that perspective as well.
Why Nitrogen Fertilizers Can Pollute
The reason that ALL nitrogen fertilizers (synthetic and Organic) are a water pollution threat is that they at some point convert to the nitrate ion (NO3-). That particular form of nitrogen is very water soluble so the nitrate can move down into ground water or sideways into surface water. The “Dead Zone” or “Hypoxia zone” in the Gulf of Mexico is driven in some large part by nitrate coming from farms. There are ways to manage this issue, but first I need to talk about the fundemental challenge of crop fertilization.
I’m probably going to irritate some people with this post. I apologize in advance because that is not at all my intention. For those readers that don’t think climate change is a real problem, I respect the fact that there is uncertainty in that science, but if the majority position of climate scientists is true, the stakes in terms of human suffering among the poor are too high not to act. For those who think Organic farming is the answer, I’m not trying to argue the whole issue here - I just want to talk about the science associated with climate change and farming. I have spent months reading the scientific literature on this topic. That science points to some very specific changes in how we need to farm. If those changes were compatible with Organic I’d be a big promoter. The short answer is “Organic farming is not the best option from a climate change point of view.”
I know this sounds like heresy in the “Green Blogosphere,” but before you react, please read on. I agree in advance that the Organic/non-Organic discussion is much broader than climate change. In fairness, climate change was never something that “Organic” was designed to address either during its origins in the early 20th century or during the development of the USDA Organic rules between 1990 and 2000. I have no desire to get in the way of Organic growers making a living (including my good friends who grow Organic of the old school category) or get in the way of Organic customers getting what they want. I simply believe that it is critical that we, the declining subset of people who take climate change seriously, be accurately informed about this issue. If we believe we “have the answer” for farming when that answer is wrong, that keeps us from continuing to find the real answer.
Focusing on the Major Crops
Because it would be far too complex to discuss this question for all crops, I’ll only be talking about the “carbon footprint” of the major row crops (see the pie chart above) - the wheat, corn, hay, barley, oats, corn, soybeans, hay, oats, dry beans, lentils… that make up the bulk of our calorie intake, our vegetable protein intake, and our animal feeds for meat and dairy. Those crops also make up the vast majority of farmed land, so they are what matters for climate change. Fruit and vegetable crops are extremely important for health and food enjoyment, but not much for climate change. Organic today is heavily weighted to the fruit and vegetable segment and beyond that, it is extremely small. Actually, all of Organic only represents 2.6MM acres ( ~0.7% of US cropland), so it has almost no effect on climate either way. This is only a discussion about the widely held opinion that Organic would help in a climate change sense.
Editor’s note: This review is part of the Green Books campaign. Today 100 bloggers are reviewing 100 great books printed in an environmentally-friendly way. Our goal is to encourage publishers to get greener and readers to take the environment into consideration when purchasing books. This campaign is organized by Eco-Libris, a a green company working to green up the book industry by promoting the adoption of green practices, balancing out books by planting trees, and supporting green books. A full list of participating blogs and links to their reviews is available on the Eco-Libris website.
Thinking about giving gardening a try? While the traditional growing season has ended in most parts of the US for this year, it’s not too early to start planning for next Spring. You may want to check out books on starting a backyard garden, and there are plenty of them out there. You may also want to find some of the books that offer suggestions and recipes for the produce you grow. And, if you need encouragement to grow organically, there are still more books on that subject.
If you want a book that covers all three of those areas, though, your choices get much more limited. Janette Haase’s From Seed to Table: A Practical Guide to Eating and Growing Green* not only provides readers with gardening instructions and tips, recipes and menus, and essays on the environmental issues surrounding agriculture and food production, but does so in a month-by-month structure that gives you the information you need when you need it.
Candy giant MARS, parent company of M&M’S®, DOVE®, MILKY WAY®, SNICKERS®, 3 MUSKETEERS®, and TWIX®, turned on a huge new solar array (a “solar garden”) at its headquarters in New Jersey today. No matter what you think of candy food like this, it is good to see such a company going solar. Popular with millions, billions perhaps, and about as mainstream as you can imagine, this is a good step for solar’s more widespread use across the country.
This facility is PSEG Solar Source’s first large-scale solar project. It is one of the largest solar projects in the state of New Jersey, which is already 2nd only to California in its amount of installed solar capacity. The MARS headquarters adjacent to the solar garden is the workplace of about 1,200 employees and is where M&M’S® Brand Chocolate Candies are manufactured.
Ray Anderson’s epiphany about his own role in environmental destruction after reading Paul Hawken’s The Ecology of Commerce has taken on mythic status in the fifteen years since. The “spear in the chest moment” he experienced transformed Anderson into a leader in sustainable thought and practice within American industry, and his company, Interface, Inc. (which manufacture modular floor covering primarily for business and institutional customers) is now recognized as a model of transformation. Named a “Hero of the Planet” by Time magazine in 2007, Anderson is constantly sought out for speeches, interviews, and even documentary film appearances (THE CORPORATION, and the new SO RIGHT SO SMART)
In September, Anderson (with Robin White) published his second book, Confessions of a Radical Industrialist: Profits, People, Planet - Doing Business by Respecting the Earth. This wide-ranging work not only tells Interface’s story in detail, but also provides a blueprint for how a large, well-established company can literally reinvent itself as both a profitable enterprise and a business that learns to operate in harmony with natural systems.
The word “confessions” in the title is very appropriate: Anderson is very frank about Interface’s successes and setbacks in its climb up “Mt. Sustainability” (a phrase he coined). He also discusses the efforts of other companies, and makes bold, and hopeful, cases for environmental and social responsibility as pillars of successful business strategy in the 21st century. The book is an engaging and thoughtful read for business people, environmental activists, and consumers concerned about the impact of industry on the planet’s future.
Off they go into the wild green yonder: the 97th Air Mobility Wing at Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma has just earned the top “Green” rating from the Air Force’s Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health compliance program.
