Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
UN Seeks a Green Revolution in Food
UNITED NATIONS - The food crisis that spilled over from last year could take a turn for the worse in the next decade if there are no explicit answers to a rash of growing new problems, including declining agricultural production, a faltering distribution network and a deteriorating environment worldwide.
"Changing the ways in which food is produced, handled and disposed of across the globe - from farm to store and from fridge to landfill - can both feed the world's rising population and help the environmental services that are the foundation of agricultural productivity in the first place," says a new study titled 'The Environmental Food Crisis' released by the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP).
A woman checks vegetables in a market in Beijing in 2008. The UN Environment Programme has unveiled an ambitious seven-point plan to feed the world without polluting it further by making better use of resources and cutting down on massive waste. (AFP/File/Peter Parks) With the steep increase in food prices in 2008, the number of chronically malnourished has reached a staggering 963 million, mostly in the world's poorest countries.
Anuradha Mittal, director of the U.S.-based policy think tank Oakland Institute, says the findings of the latest UNEP study have to be seen in the light of its report released last year which offered evidence that organic agriculture can increase yields, improve soil, and boost incomes of farmers.
A crisis of this proportion raises major questions about industrial agriculture and how best to address the needs of the hungry, she said.
"Unfortunately, the widespread hunger and poverty is being used to make the case for increasing agricultural production through technical solutions such as genetically engineered (GE) crops and chemical-based agriculture," Mittal told IPS.
However, UNEP's research demonstrates that organic small-scale agriculture can deliver the increased yields without the environmental and social damage that has resulted from industrial model of agriculture.
"We need to pay heed to these findings and start crafting a different vision for agriculture which works with nature and not against it," said Mittal, an international expert on issues relating to trade, development and agriculture.
A briefing paper by the Oakland Institute released Tuesday also confirms the success of the organic model, noting that on average, in developed countries, organic systems produce 92 percent of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, organic systems fare even better, producing 80 percent more than conventional farms.
In a study released last week, the Geneva-based U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) said that despite the economic crisis, organic agriculture would continue to grow, representing an opportunity for developing country farmers including those in Africa.
The report said that sales of certified organic produce could reach close to 70 billion dollars in 2012, up from 23 billion dollars in 2002.
"We need a Green revolution in a Green Economy but one with a capital G," says Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.
"We need to deal with not only the way the world produces food but the way it is distributed, sold and consumed, and we need a revolution that can boost yields by working with rather than against nature," he added.
The UNEP study released Tuesday says that unless more intelligent and creative management is brought to the world's agricultural systems, the 2008 food crisis - which plunged millions back into hunger - may foreshadow an even bigger crisis in the years to come.
The major findings of the study include:
- The 100-year trend of falling food prices may be at an end, and food prices may increase by 30-50 percent within decades, with critical impacts for those living in extreme poverty who spend up to 90 percent of their income on food.
- Up to 25 percent of the world's food production may be lost due to 'environmental breakdowns' by 2050 unless action is taken. Already, cereal yields have stagnated worldwide and fish catches are declining.
- Today, over one third of the world's cereals are being used as animal feed, rising to 50 percent by 2050. Continuing to feed cereals to growing numbers of livestock will aggravate poverty and environmental degradation.
- The amount of fish bycatch currently discarded at sea - estimated at 30 million tonnes annually - could alone sustain more than a 50 percent increase in fish farming and aquaculture production, which is needed to maintain per capita fish consumption at current levels by 2050 without increasing pressure on an already stressed marine environment.
- Losses and food waste in the United States could be as high as 40-50 percent, according to some recent estimates. Up to one quarter of all fresh fruits and vegetables in the U.S. is lost between the field and the table.
- In Australia, it is estimated that food waste makes up half of that country's landfill. Almost one-third of all food purchased in Britain every year is not eaten.
- Food losses in the developing world are also considerable, mainly due to spoilage and pests. For instance, in Africa, the total amount of fish lost through discards, post-harvest loss and spoilage may be around 30 percent of landings.
The study, compiled by a wide group of experts from both within and outside UNEP, also warns that climate change has emerged as one of the key factors that may undermine the chances of feeding over nine billion people by 2050.
Increasing water scarcities and a rise and spread of invasive pests such as insects, diseases and weeds may also substantially depress yields in the future.
- Posted in
48 Comments so far
Show AllExpanded "Community Supported Agriculture"
I am really, for the most part, borrowing the name Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) (or maybe I'm lifting it).
Maybe it would be better to come up with a new name like, Locally and Regionally and Inter-regionally Community Supported Agriculture (LARIRCSA) ;-) .
"Conventional" CSAs are well intentioned in that they strive to have community members share the risks associated with farming with the farmers. Fair enough, and my plan shares that objective. However, the problem with CSAs and buying your food by the pound is that early in the season, you'd probably get more strawberries than you can eat (unless you have the luxury time and resources to make jam), there are varieties of tomatoes so those can be stretched out over at least part of the growing season, but most crops tend to come to fruition in relative batches, so the variety in food boxes probably is not optimal. I'm not a farmer, and have limited experience with gardening, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Secondly, mixed cropping implies more labor intensive farming, really extended gardening. While such a system would be much more healthy from many perspectives, it would be difficult for farmers employing such methods to compete with conventional farms.
Third, there are distribution issues. Who is responsible for getting the food box from the farmer to the "member"? It would be uneconomical for the farmer(s) to be responsible for the distribution, and it defeats the purpose of demand-side management relative to "consumer" activity to have the members drive all the way to the farm. Now, if members live in close proximity, then this would not be a concern.
Fourth, in places like Oregon, and even more northern climes, the harvest season is very short. It, like the growing season can be extended slightly, perhaps, by building hot houses, but only slightly.
Fifth, the extra planning involved would probably be too cumbersome for farmers.
I envision, and it may be happening (I don't know), farmers within regions and from different regions forming unions to gain control over the distribution of their products, working with cooperating truckers, warehouse handlers and associated cooperating retail outlets (perhaps incorporating pre-order systems (wouldn't electronic systems be helpful)), in a system of community/worker hybrid cooperative associations.
Similarly, relationships could be built relative to the recycling of organic wastes (of course, the objective would be to minimize such, as it would be to minimize packaging).
Now, the issue of seasonal farm workers needs to be dealt with. Migrant farm-working should be eliminated. Seasonal workers need to be accommodated to their needs during the off-seasons, so that they can have the quality of life of a sedentary community. Again, I don't know the status of such a proposal. Maybe it is already happening... Certainly, a year-round living wage and educational programs so that the young can assume more progressively responsible and more highly compensated roles in the food system will occur.
That's enough for now.
Thank you.
I'm a Work kin for peace and cooperation.
With much love and care,
Mike Morin
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com
Mike Morin, clearly you are trying to think through an alternative model, instead of just criticizing the current system. I hope you find several like-minded folks where you live. What you are proposing is somewhat larger in scope than a local farmers' cooperative, but still not too large. Such arrangements do exist in some of the so-called third world countries - where large agribusiness companies have yet to take over the distribution. It is certainly high time to start talking about alternatives.
the planet cannot sustain 9 billion people. it can't even sustain 6 billion. in addition to the discussion of the rising demand for organics, there needs to be a considerable amount of thought given to decreasing the population. hopefully, in a humane way.
Exactly. It is up to Obama to restore the funding for family planning that Repuglicans made him take off the stimulus package, only to vote against it later.
The planet cannot sustain 9 or 6 billion AMERICAN LIFESTYLES. DUH!
Kindest regards
Corneilius
do what you love, it's your gift to universe
- Today, over one third of the world's cereals are being used as animal feed, rising to 50 percent by 2050. Continuing to feed cereals to growing numbers of livestock will aggravate poverty and environmental degradation.
- The amount of fish bycatch currently discarded at sea - estimated at 30 million tonnes annually - could alone sustain more than a 50 percent increase in fish farming and aquaculture production, which is needed to maintain per capita fish consumption at current levels by 2050 without increasing pressure on an already stressed marine environment.
*or we could just promote a vegan diet and reduce the stresses on the land and sea(fish farming also leads to disease that spreads into the wild). Oh I know-that's way too simple and obvious. I call it the "Do Less" solution.
Meat production requires a lot more work.
"To be humane is to be cruel, vicious and unrestrained, like humans.
To be inhumane is to be compassionate, restrained, moderate, like non humans."
As I've pointed out in my comment above, the root cause is oversupply and low prices (export dumping), as everyone was emphasizing only a few years ago. Of course, this was then forced into LDCs with WTO "market access" and World Bank policies.
The hypothetical implementation of a worldwide vegan diet would lead to fragile areas in permanent pastures being plowed up for row crops, with increased use of nonorganic inputs, as the benefits of diverse resource conserving crop rotations are removed, more nonorganic fertilizers due to less use of powerful legumes (clover and alfalfa produce much more nitrogen than soybeans) and pesticides, with increased monocropping.
But then, the massive increases in oversupply would devastate the root cause of the problem, oversupply and low farm prices, making LDC poverty much worse. If they can only afford food at 1/10 or 1/20th of it's cost of production now (following a quarter century of dumping), it would be even a lower price under this hypothesis.
Sure, according to this article and many, many others it looks like a vegan solution would help, but the logic is faulty, as I explained above (and see my references there). Check out La Via Campesina on the price issue. See the Africa Group on the need for supply management (to end oversupply) and "price remuneration:" http://www dot tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=88129.
And, for anyone new here, livestock provide desperately needed value-added to LDC farmers, and the Heifer Project's work to help the poorest farmers get livestock, including draft animals, is right on track.
I've re-read your article, and I am having trouble understanding it.
If the world turned vegan, there would be no need to plow pastures for crops. The reverse would be true. Pastures and much of the current plowed land would no-longer be needed.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
WTF wrote: Pastures and much of the current plowed land would no-longer be needed.
I replied to Brad Wilson on this point above. Apparently he fears loss of livelihood for the farmers if people stopped eating meat. It reminded me of an argument I once had about the need for more buses to solve the traffic congestion, and someone looked at me like I was crazy and said, "then there would be even more congestion with all these buses", forgetting that each bus would take out a certain number of cars from the road. I am pretty sure that farmers can comfortably adapt to growing different crops if a majority of the population turns vegetarian or vegan, and fewer resources would be consumed.
I've addressed this in several place.
The key points: 1. oversupply/underpriced grains (cotton, etc.) and taking livestock (value added) away from farmers (by giant unsustainable animal factories and feedlots, due to greatly UNDERpriced feedgrains) is what's ultimately causing the poverty behind the food and farm crisis worldwide. 2. livetock reduce waste via synergic relationships on farms, enabling organic methods (better resource conserving rotations, less toxic purchases from giant agribusiness firms, more sustainable uses for hillier lands, etc.). 3, LDC farmer organizations are strongly behind these views, as is the "family farm" movement in the U.S. and other enlightened U.S. organizations and coalitions. 4. Anything raising farm prices, (including ethanol, livestock) if sustained, likely helps LDC farmers in the longer run, and their economies, providing more jobs, and lifting people upward in the direction away from poverty and hunger, though the devastation over decades (of low prices and oversupply) has been so bad, it's a long ways up! Short term LDC countries need food, best if purchased from LDC farmers at fair trade, living wage prices. 5. No evidence has been presented in comments here so far to refute any of this.
Brad, you're on the wrong side of history. The hunger problem is not solved by helping poor people get more livestock because that merely aggravates the problem. Draft animals to plow fields make sense, but it makes no sense to feed food to animals and then to kill the animals to get the food. Meat-eating is at the root of the problem, not over-supply. Poor people starve to death because the animals of rich people eat their food. That's an over-supply/low prices problem? No way.
Wademingzi wrote: The hunger problem is not solved by helping poor people get more livestock because that merely aggravates the problem. Draft animals to plow fields make sense, but it makes no sense to feed food to animals and then to kill the animals to get the food.
It seems so obvious to me. But, unfortunately, international aid agencies seem to think that they are "helping" the poor by providing them with livestock and some small "seed money" to raise cattle, sheep and chicken. It's unbelievable that they don't see the overall (in-)efficiency of food production through this route as opposed to a vegetarian diet.
Ok "it seems obvious" to you, Surely you see how some of the views here (from out of veganism and vegetarianism in developed countries) seem elitist to others, especially those working inside of LDCs with peasants. What experience do you bring on farming and on rural conditions in LDCs? What sources do you cite on the needs of peasants and farmers?
There is nothing elitist about veganism or vegetarianism. These choices would seem obvious to anyone who thinks in terms of 'fairness' and one's 'ecological footprint'. In poor countries, it is the elite who can afford regular meat consumption, and the farmers, when they focus on livestock more than what would be required by a basic synergy in farming operations, are essentially growing what the elite need - at the expense of the poor in their own countries.
It is quite obvious that you have no clue as to what "finite resources" mean. "Ecological footprint" is all about limiting one's consumption to one's fair share on this planet - it does not matter where one lives. You seem to think every poor country has the same kind of land and water available on a per capita basis as in the US. By encouraging farmers in poor or developing countries to raise more livestock, because they are considered "value added", the aid agencies and others in the western world are not only acting in a patronizing way (as if those farmers don't know what to do), but they are also compounding the problem of equitable distribution of resources by moving up the food chain.
Being stuck on jargon such as "value added" and "LDCs" could appear as elitist to some - have you thought about that? Recommending what appears to "work" in colonized countries with vast stretches of land and plenty of water to poorer countries where farm land, water and other resources are clearly limited - on a per capita basis - is what I would call elitist. Let me also make it clear that I am not against farmers raising livestock - I understand the synergy there, and it's part of any permaculture system - but when a farming operation is geared towards what you call "value added" products, it leads to an unfair distribution of resources. Larger footprint for some clearly and inevitably means a smaller footprint for many others.
Countries that might have been largely self-sufficient in their food supply would gradually become 'importers' of food or fodder for their livestock as more and more people increase their meat consumption. And there is no way to stop the spread of factory farming - you think small farmers will be able to "compete" with factory farming, even in the case of poultry and dairy? Countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia (we all know about Brazil) are clearing more and more of their forest cover to produce vegetable oil and animal fodder to export to countries such as India that were hitherto somewhat self-sufficient in their food supply. As economies move up the "value added" chain - as happened in Japan, Korea, etc., - they can afford more meat - but there is just NO WAY they can produce all the meat that they need within their borders. So, in step countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, and Brazil to ship vast quantities of beef in refrigerated containers. What's common to these countries? These are colonized countries - where people of European stock control vast tracts of land, with access to water.
It seems clear to me that you think ONLY from a farmer's point of view, and that too, a western farmer's. When you move on to concepts such as sustainability, ecological footprint and fairness (even without considering the nutritional benefits of a vegan or a vegetarian diet), I imagine that you'll be more careful in what you "recommend" for poorer countries - I mean, LDCs.
You are free to respond - but I want to point out where I come from: if there are finite resources, then I would prefer to share them equitably among all the people of the planet. Systems, lifestyles, traditions, interest groups and such are secondary to me. On the other hand, if Jeremy Rifkins "Beyond Beef" did not convince you of the elitist nature and unsustainability of widespread beef consumption, then I guess we have no common ground to carry on this dialog.
>>>Brad Wilson wrote: The hypothetical implementation of a worldwide vegan diet would lead to fragile areas in permanent pastures being plowed up for row crops, with increased use of nonorganic inputs, as the benefits of diverse resource conserving crop rotations are removed, more nonorganic fertilizers due to less use of powerful legumes (clover and alfalfa produce much more nitrogen than soybeans) and pesticides, with increased monocropping.
Brad Wilson, I'm sorry, you couldn't be more wrong. You are right, however, on your other comments about overproduction and agribusiness - and they are the ones most responsible for "increased use of nonorganic inputs", "more nonorganic fertilizers" and "increased monocropping". The loss of biodiversity is another alarming situation that was not mentioned in this article (and UN the report it's based on?). There is simply NO WAY that any of these problems would be made worse by a "hypothetical implementation of a worldwide vegan diet" as you claim. It's simply impossible. Looking at the basic numbers - i.e., the resources in terms of land, water and fertilizers would show straightaway that meat production is hugely inefficient and is responsible for so many of the other problems. As for crop rotation, natural nitrogen fixation (you refer to legumes), etc., they would still be followed if the majority of the population switches to a vegan diet. If anything, it should lead to greater diversity of crops. Of course, even in such a situation, large agribusiness can play their dirty games - but that's a separate battle to be fought.
Highintel: Can we do better?
I see three comments here already, from WTF, Wademingzi, and Alcyon. I'll cover all three here. I believe this posts above those three and below the article.
WTF is having trouble understanding it, which is fine, these may be new ideas.
Wademingzi gives an argument in rebuttal: "Meat-eating is at the root of the problem, not over-supply. Poor people starve to death because the animals of rich people eat their food." This assumes there hasn't been enough food.
Where's the evidence for that? We had supply management programs to balance supply and demand to keep prices up, from the New Deal on through 1995. We also had price floors. But we lowered the price floors and supply management was weakened, regressively, 1952-1995, then both tools were ended in 1996. USDA ERS data for commodity costs and returns in the US shows a net loss most years 1981-2006 for corn, wheat, cotton, rice, soybeans, grain sorghum, barley and oats, and if you take net/acre and multiply by acres, and then add these 8 crops, you get multibillion dollar losses about every year except 1996. USDA figures for "parity," (a comparison of farm prices and costs comPAREd to other sectors of the economy) a traditional standard for living wage or fair trade prices shows that it fell below parity or 100% of parity more or less continually over these years, from 100% or more 1942-1952 to about 37% by 2005. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) has a number of reports on these and related issues. Exporting at a loss is called dumping. Go to http://www dot iatp.org/iatp/publications.cfm?showall=true and search the page for "dumping." There were WTO cases against the US on Cotton for these very reasons, low prices and oversupply.
Surely you understand that for Least Developed Countries, (which are 70%+ rural,) to have a quarter century of below cost export dumping (fueled by oversupply) driving down farm prices was devastating to their farmers and farm dependent economies. It was terrible for wages and jobs. And all along, with the constant oversupply, people have been starving and malnourished, because they can't afford food. We already tried supplying them with farm prices way below cost for a quarter century. Wouldn't that be enough, if your thesis were correct? But of course, they're farming countries! It was economically devastating.
Have you not heard how millions of corn and similar farmers in Mexico have gone broke and how, in desparate poverty, many are entering the US to take up very dangerous jobs. (Watch the movie Fast Food Nation. Read the teen novel, "Crossing the Wire.")
Soooo, where's the case to suggest that this huge body of evidence doesn't exist?
WTF said: "If the world turned vegan, there would be no need to plow pastures for crops. The reverse would be true. Pastures and much of the current plowed land would no-longer be needed." Wow! Do you three understand what's being said here? Large numbers of farmers in the U.S. and vastly more throughout the world, especially in highly agricultural countries, (ie. especially LDCs) would no longer be needed! And that would help hunger? Have you spoken to ranchers in the West about this, or dairy country (ie. hilly areas in Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, etc.)? Have you spoken to LDC folks about this? We already have an economic crisis. We've had a couple of years of better farm prices, (a rapid and dramatic, or volatile, change, but not up to 100% of parity for corn, wheat, rice, etc.) but corn is now less than half the peak price here, and costs skyrocketed 45% in 2 years (Iowa State U. 2009 projections vs 2007). Similar for wheat and rice.
People own this land, and rent it, (often relatively poor people, including many of the world's poorest) and it will be planted. (Really, this kind of trend has already happened, with dollar or two per day incomes.) In the hypothetical scenario where there was no (or a significantly reduced) market for meat (the best high value or "value-added" item for poor rural people everywhere), lands would not be left idle, they would be plowed up for row crops.
Ok, sure, Alcyon stated: "Brad Wilson, I'm sorry, you couldn't be more wrong." Well actually, the evidence I've presented supports the reverse view from yours. On "legumes" to provide nitrogen for various row crops. Alfalfa and Clover can generate enough N from the air for corn. Soybeans cannot. Ok what does an organic farmer do with alfalfa and clover? Just pay the costs and wait a year with no income? No, they bale it as hay and feed the hay to livestock over winter. They also graze some of it in the summer.
Ok, I assume the kind of arguments you're making are being discussed in vegetarian or vegan circles without consideration of the other sides rebuttal points. Am I correct? Perhaps you've never heard these arguments I'm making. Have you ever discussed this with a farmer, who would, you'd think, think these kinds of things through.
Brad Wilson, while you make some valid points, I also think you are mixing up some issues, and also seem to be stuck on the 'American model', even while criticizing it. Let me explain what I mean:
I have already said that I agree with your comment on overproduction and agribusiness. I also agree with what you say on "below cost export dumping" into poorer countries, killing off the local agriculture. That's where our points of agreement end :)
You talk about "large numbers of farmers in the U.S. and vastly more throughout the world" - but these are two entirely different beasts. Farmers in "third world" countries work on much smaller tracts of land (which, incidentally, were not exactly stolen from a native population that existed before). While many are starting to use tractors for plowing, they are far from using harvest combines and almost no one uses aircraft for pesticide spraying. Of course, there are lots of small farms in America that don't use aircraft either - but the average farm size in the U.S. is just too huge in comparison.
Even when there was no dumping of subsidized food grains into third world countries, farming traditionally has been a tough life. Now, with the loss of farmland (due to industrialization, cities spreading and shortage of water), there are many countries that are no longer self-sufficient in food supply.
While population is definitely a problem, the situation is made worse by diverting a significant part of the farmland to produce animal fodder - which is another way of the elite stealing from the poor, but indirectly. When land and water are finite, producing "value-added" products like meat for those who can afford only leads to less food for the rest of the population. It is an INDISPUTABLE FACT that any given area of land and a given amount of water and fertilizer can support far more people who are vegans, than if the same land and resources were used for producing meat.
You talk about the farmers in the US (forget the ranchers - they are NOT farmers!) - what do you think would happen to them if everybody becomes a vegetarian? Nothing - except everyone getting to eat good, nutritious organic vegetables, grains and fruits. Of course, every crop cannot be grown everywhere - and this is not the place to even get into that. But I'll just say this - farmers will be fine. Why do you say that a rancher or a dairy 'farmer' has to continue doing the same thing? Just as people had to switch professions or adapt when horse buggies went out and automobiles came in, so too the farmers and ranchers can adapt when people's eating habits change. And people who work in slaughterhouses will lose their job too - but is it so bad? It's a miserable life for them, anyway. If nobody wants to fight, then weapons factories too will have to close, and there will be job losses. But there will be more to go around for everyone - we just have to find better ways to share.
As to the question of farmers getting paid a decent price for their produce, that is a universal problem, and can be addressed by a combination of subsidies (which also includes removal of several subsidies), taxation and through simple supply/demand management. So many industries became obsolete - what's so special about farmers and ranchers? If there is a demand - and I have no doubt that there is adequate demand - they produce what the society needs, if not, they move on to some other profession. Instead, what's happening today is that American farmers are being subsidized in many ways, and they are using up far too much water because of too much meat consumption. On average (global), it takes 15500 litres of water per kg of beef.
You mention the problem of oversupply and below-cost dumping. The root cause is the insistence of western farmers (and ranchers) that they will not change their way of life, and that the government must continue to subsidize them. And, they do so, without any thought to how they came upon these vast tracts of land in the first place! You talk about alfalfa and clover and corn - as if there are no alternatives. Crop rotation is studied extensively in agricultural research institutes all over the world - I am not an expert on that - but I am pretty sure that American farmers can learn a thing or two from other countries, instead of "paying the costs and waiting a year with no income". It's true - traditionally, there has been a place for the animals in farms in other countries - but they are more symbiotic and sustainable - very different from the American model.
Thanks for the detailed response. It shows where you're coming from. I wonder of the other to share your analysis?
Actually farmers worldwide do differ, but share the common interest in getting paid fair prices. And we're uniting worldwide, massively. U.S. farmers have varying views on many things, of course, like the population. The National Family Farm Coalition and related groups are in the lead on how the Commodity Title, (the giant, multitrillion dollars in impact part of the farm bill, because we're such an export giant and so hugely impact world prices) can help LDC farmers. And have been for decades, unbeknownst to most on the US left/progressives.
I don't think you really know how farm prices and supply can be managed. It's not through any subsidies. You can google my name and "price floors" to get some policy history on that.
Likewise, you state that "The root cause ["of oversupply and below-cost dumping"] is [1] the insistence of western farmers (and ranchers) that they will not change their way of life, and [2] that the government must continue to subsidize them. And [3], they do so, [4] without any thought to how they came upon these vast tracts of land in the first place!" This is not true, (each of the 4 specific parts of it) I don't think you have any real knowledge of the political history of this. It's actually agribusiness, especially the agribusiness output complex (those that buy grain and other farm commodities) but also the agribusiness input complex. Farmers actually would prefer not to have the subsidy approach, IF they had decent non subsidy policies instead, the ones that can really work, as in the New Deal (which was a nonsubsidy approach).
In fact, farming IS different for a number of reasons. In fact, there are not easily available non farming alternative uses of the land. It's not at all like turning a building or building site to other uses. Likewise farm commodities lack "price responsiveness" on both supply and demand sides. The markets are different. Additionally food is different, as LDC farm activists especially emphasize. You can't just mess with a countries food supply, as WTO has wanted to do, and other international institutions, and US "free marketers". Food is needed for survival. For these and other reasons farming is treated differently than other businesses, (or else the policies and programs fail miserably, as we've seen, and as we're seeing in the dumping crisis and the food crisis).
Politically, I don't think you realize what you're saying, in discounting ranchers, in your view of that LDC farmers (and US farmers) really would not be impacted negatively by taking away livestock. I can see your comments getting viraled around the world as examples of the lack of understanding of the various things I've mentioned, but especially for not understanding the economic needs of the poor and of farmers everywhere. Do you know anything about our history of agribusiness telling us they define us as obsolete, much as you do, and we just need to go out of business. That's what Naomi Klein has called a "shock doctrine."
You describe conditions of "third world" farmers. Their problem is poverty, for the reasons I've thoroughly documented (I can give specific links) in various posts here. I think you'll find they could easily double or triple production if they could afford to do so, and that livestock would help them to do that, as it helps organic farmers here.
As to your "indisputable fact." You're making quite a broad and bold claim (any given area of land). I don't think you're grasping any of the synergies of livestock, in farming and in eating, which I've pointed to. Beyond that, with oversupply (and low prices) as the dominant problem, such facts point to no useful solutions, but rather the reverse. (Note that since last July when the price of corn, for example, peaked at a relatively much higher level, as it did a few other times, for a few years, in the past 130 years, it has fallen to about half. No undersupply here, and that's no surprise to farmers, given our bad policies.)
I've presented a range of arguments that fit together in a consistent, congruent way. I understand that there are long histories of framing things as you have among people representing certain ideologies, and people exposed only to that information are confident in them. I don't see them holding up, however, either in factuality or in logical consistency, to an objective, neutral observer.
I welcome any evidence you can produce to dispute anything I've said.
>>>Brad Wilson wrote: Do you know anything about our history of agribusiness telling us they define us as obsolete, much as you do, and we just need to go out of business.
I think your are treading on dangerous territory here by putting words into my mouth (or into my post) - I HAVE NEVER SAID OR EVEN IMPLIED THAT FARMERS ARE OBSOLETE - NEVER, and I resent that imputation. What I said was, if there was a demand, farmers would produce - if not, they move on to something else. There will ALWAYS be demand for food. I would however like to see big multinational companies go out of business for a variety of reasons - such as genetic tampering, loss of biodiversity, neo-colonization, etc.
I still stand by what I said about farmers being adaptable as well as the need to adapt when people's eating habit changes. The phenomenon of ranchers with their huge ranches is something that you would find ONLY in the USA, Australia, Canada, Brazil, and perhaps a handful of other countries - my point? Such a "system" came about due to the historical fact of land acquisition tied to colonization. Compared to the land area under their control, the number of ranchers would still be minuscule if you compare with the number of farmers in poor countries (LDCs as you refer to them in your posts) who depend on a comparable land area. There are several such phenomena (urban sprawl, touring the country in RVs, driving big trucks) that are found ONLY in the USA and a handful of other countries. So much beef consumption too was limited to a few countries until about 20 years ago, but has become more prevalent with rising income levels in some Asian countries. My point is this: there are certain phenomena that came about in the last 300-400 years, and not all of these are sustainable - and hence, not desirable from a global perspective. My definition of 'sustainable' is simple - what would happen if everyone were to do the same thing, assuming they can afford it? Even though some of these phenomena have become part of the local "culture", and hence considered indispensable. As with so many things in our society, when facts emerge that certain things are unsustainable on a large scale, they simply have to be let go. It's not easy to look at something objectively when someone's livelihood depends on it. Or when one's identity is based on being a farmer or a rancher.
>>Additionally food is different, as LDC farm activists especially emphasize. You can't just mess with a countries food supply, as WTO has wanted to do, and other international institutions, and US "free marketers". Food is needed for survival. For these and other reasons farming is treated differently than other businesses,
I agree, no question. However, when small farmers can organize, they CAN run farming like any other business - I'm not saying it's been done anywhere, but it's a possibility. They essentially have to find ways to get fair prices for what they produce - you have your input costs and expenses - so, like any other business, farmers need to find a decent profit. And farming will NEVER become obsolete - unlike certain businesses. If big agribusiness is manipulating the market, it's partly because small farmers are not so organized, and in their desperation, some of them do go along with what the agribusiness offers. And some farmers try to play the same dirty game by influencing legislation and voting as a block (as in the case of corn-based ethanol issue). I hope you will concede that farmers too need to share some of the blame by making such compromises in order to survive, instead of organizing, developing and then standing by certain core principles based on sustainability. And this is not limited to the USA.
I am not at all sure that LDCs have that much surplus land and water to produce and export food to other developed countries on any substantial scale. May be certain crops that grow in specific climate conditions, yes. Do not forget that water is a scarce commodity in MOST poor countries. By encouraging farmers to produce food (and worse, meat) for export, developed countries are indirectly grabbing even more resources. I seriously feel that you do not think in terms of finite resources, and that your world view is heavily influenced by being a farmer in North America. I agree that low-cost dumping at the expense of local farmers' livelihoods needs to stop. But it doesn't automatically follow that LDC farmers will be able to export food - unless they have a surplus capacity, AFTER producing sufficient food for the local population. How many countries do you think are self-sufficient in food production? Not many. And yet, out of skewed economics, farmers in these countries do export food. Not only that, they even switch to crops that fetch higher prices - basically for the elite - AT THE EXPENSE of the poor in their own countries. Finite resources - you need to start thinking about it.
As for livestock, they have ALWAYS been part of the farming landscape, and I agree there is great synergy there (I used the word 'symbiotic' in my earlier comment). But the situation starts to turn unsustainable when livestock population increases simply because they are seen as "higher value" (or "value-added" as you said) items. Again, I'm not sure you think from a finite resources point of view. In developing countries with large populations, farm land is a precious commodity (even though the farmers' economic condition may not reflect that), and even more so is water. Diverting these finite resources to produce meat (or even dairy on a large scale) causes food prices to increase (let's leave out low-cost dumping for the moment), which affects the poor in those countries. Where land and water are scarce, it is even more important for people to optimize land and water use.
Brad Wilson, the problem of 'oversupply' you keep referring to is a peculiar problem in America (and just a handful of countries) - due to a colonial history. I think this is something that most Americans would rather not think about - that they are the beneficiaries of a massive colonization project. Massive - I mean really massive - farms and ranches are found mostly in such countries I referred to above - so, the problems of the farmers in these countries are also different from farmers in poorer countries. And, for this reason, I cannot consider ranchers as farmers. All farmers are not in the same situation. In many developing countries, farm land, and more importantly, water for irrigation, are in short supply. And when they want to export farm products, they often resort to cutting down forests to create more farm land. Encouraging poorer countries to export food or meat is, in many cases, just as bad as low-cost dumping that kills their agriculture.
Since you give the impression that you are interested in facts and figures, I recommend reading the book "Beyond Beef : The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture" by Jeremy Rifkin. You may also learn a bit of history in this book that you were probably not aware of before.
Apparently you don't understand what I'm saying about oversupply. Farmers have faced chronic problems of oversupply, driving down farmers. That's not at all been "a peculiar problem in America," but rather a world wide problem, widely discussed by poor countries (ie. the Africa Group of African countries at WTO) and peasant organizations world wide (ie. La Via Campesina). Likewise there's been an oversupply of food. The problem is poverty. They can't afford the food in poor countries, due to a lack of good paying jobs, and for rural countries it tends to be highly correlated with low farm prices caused by oversupply, though there are many other factors too.
Yes there are many differences between farmers in developed countries and those elsewhere, but they share this common problem of oversupply, and we work together to solve it. (ie. NFFC in US, Via Campesina and Grassroots International in peasant countries). So this family farm work is not elitist at all, but just the opposite
Also, in both places farmers are exploited by the agribusiness input and output industrial complexes. That's your "they" who cause so many problems. Try the Family Farm Defenders website, or Via Campesina.
Here's a source to go along with Heifer International: Info on the "The Creole Pig Repopulation Program" of Grassroots International, working in the field in Guatemala with these issues: http://www dot grassrootsonline.org/files/haiti_fact_sheet.pdf
Rifkin's Beyond Beef has the same sort of flaws I'm discussing. It leaves out the kind of detailed, on farm understandings on sustainability and economics that I've been talking about, and is therefore elitist. Rebuttals include: Dave Ostendorf (PrairieFire Rural Action), "Livestock Concentration: Real issues for Real People" Fred Kirschenmann “Cattle Culture: A Rancher and a Vegetarian Square Off.” Denny Caneff, (Sustainable Agriculture Coalition) “Sustaining Land, People, Animals and Communities: The Case for Livestock in a Sustainable Agriculture,” has section "Beyond Rifkin.”
>>>Brad Wilson wrote: I can see your comments getting viraled around the world as examples of the lack of understanding of the various things I've mentioned, but especially for not understanding the economic needs of the poor and of farmers everywhere.
That would be ridiculous and unfortunate, but perhaps not so surprising. How many people have the patience and the open mind to read at length to see where someone is coming from, let alone engage in a dialog?
I think you still don't understand what livestock mean to the hungry peasants of the world. That's my point. And I don't think that's your intention at all, to appear to favor their further demise.
Organic farming is a fine idea for those who feel strongly about commercial farming practices, but likely will always be a small part of the total food production in our country. That would be similar to losing most of our large companies and returning to small shops in local areas, which will not be happening unless we have a complete collapse of our system. However, sometimes things happen that no one expects, such as having the largest ethanol producer go bankrupt, which means much less corn going into fuel. That alone should cheer up some people that never believed that was right in the first place.
Big gubbmint oversubsidizes Big Agri so of course organic farming is forced off the market. Don't worry though. Once China stops giving America more money to borrow, organic farming will return.
Organic farming uses much less fossil fuel. New organic no-till will become competitive as fossil fuel prices rise. It reduced fossil fuel use even more. Intensively managed grazing systems eliminate a lot of use of tillage/planting/spray-cultivation/harvest machinery work using fossil fuels. It's a much more productive management of pastures/forages.
We are crossing a threshhold. The agribusiness input complex is so concentrated, it quickly gobbles up price gains farmers get. But that makes organic more and more competitive. Iowa State University had organic corn as cheaper to produce than chemical in 2006, though the figures weren't directly comparable. But that's the clear trend. With rising fossil fuel prices organic may become unstoppable. But obviously agribusiness will fight to dominate there too. Organic farmers haven't needed a commodity title with (price floors, supply management, etc.), as the demand has been growing 20% per year (regular markets lack price responsiveness). But they will. Also big organic grew in dominance with Bush era help.
Kernelz wrote: Organic farming is a fine idea for those who feel strongly about commercial farming practices
Kernelz, first of all, organic farming and commercial farming are not mutually exclusive. If you think about it, almost all farming is "commercial" in some sense - after all, few farmers grow their crops only for their own consumption.
Organic farming is more than a "fine idea" - it is the only type that is sustainable in the long run (not even considering health and environmental aspects). Certain things came about in our society during the last 200-odd years, and not all of them are sustainable - so some changes will be needed. It doesn't mean there is no room for modernizing even organic farming by using what's been learned and developed in recent years.
Yes, Permaculture and forest farming is the answer to agricultural abuse of top soil, water shortages, and global warming!
Build healthy and sustainable environments that work-with nature instead of fighting against her -while producing an abundance of food while re-foresting depleted areas and replenishing fresh water aquifers and restoring ecological balance! Visit: www.permaculture.org for more information.
Sunyata Satchitananda
Daka—Sacred Intimate
Certified Tantric Healer ~ Certified Reiki Practitioner
www.mythiclove.net/sunyata
What the world primarily needs is birth control in the Third World.
A little greed and gluttony control in the good old US of A would help too!
Population control????
American 'population control' methods include the 30 million or so people who have died as a direct result of US military 'intervention', the millions of people suffering from aids who are being advised to 'abstain', the toxic particulates emitted from cars, trucks,(plus the 30 million who have died in 'auto accidents' since the model T) incinerators that kill millions every year, the tobbacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry that has produced over 48,000 synthetic chemicals, of which only about 4000 have been researched for their effects.... not to mention the economic wars, GM foods and the downright stupid monocultural food production system that undermines local food production.
Population is not the issue : the issue is HOW WE DO WHAT WE DO AND WHAT WE MAKE ...
There are twice as many ants by weight as human beings, ten times as many by weight of beetles and they are all of them IMPROVING the environment.
If only we could say the same.
Kindest regards
Corneilius
do what you love, it's your gift to universe
Corneilius,
When the world population DOUBLES in the course of less than 40 years - which it did - or when I constantly hear about population explosions in least developed countries, when every time I watch a documentary about people in poverty-stricken regions of the world and am sympathizing tremendously, after a little while invariably the commentator drops the ominous line "X or Y's nine/ten/eleven other children are at the moment....", when I look at my old family pics from the 19th century which all look as if shot in some Asian slum and then spot the parallel: 8-10 children on average - then I have to come to the conclusion that it is insane not to talk about population control.
It actually used to be a big issue until the world turned religious again (okay, we in Europe didn't, but that's a minority) and nobody dares tamper with people's right to reproduce ad nauseam, it seems. Fine, but then I have the right not to finance this insanity so common in poor countries, I think.
It's like dealing with an obese person who has tons of ailments and you give that person all kinds of treatments but you never ever mention that being overweight is the core problem!
Just going green won't do the trick, I fear, although I welcome this report very much.
One child per family for two or three generations.
Why confine birth control to developing nations? Even the US is grossly overpopulated.
David Suzuki has for years been extolling that a SUSTAINABLE global population of humans is 25 million.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
No, we need more vegetarians in the first world. The rich man's cow is eating the poor man's food. And the cow wastes 90% of that food. Rich people eating animals that eat food that poor people could eat is the primary cause of hunger in the world. Shame on you if you are a meat-eater; the problem is you, not the third world people eating rice and gruel.
True, but humans are omnivores by nature. I like to stick to nature, when in doubt. But I want meat to derive entirely from hunting or from generally happy animals with lives in keeping with their needs. All these meat factories ought to be banned. LESS meat intake would be my goal. Banning it completely? No. I am a gourmet.
AND: Due to climate change, I can imagine that less and less arable land will be available - apart from wasteful cattle, so I don't see that there will be enough land to plant vegetables for all these billions either.
Doubling the world population within less than 30 years is no help. Another 3 billion within a few years isn't either.
"Banning [meat] completely? No. I am a gourmet."
Snob maybe? You sound like a product of the me-first Reagan generation.
If you are one of those "special" people who "need" meat to live, fine. It is then a health issue. Get a Doctor to sign a statement, get a prescription, and pick up your single-serving of meat from the Meat Pharmacy at your local supermarket. It will only cost you a $10 co-pay for mince.
Until all of us are prepared to make MINOR sacrifices, it will be business as usual and mankind will never realize its potential.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
araquin,
agreed. unfortunately, until the pope opens his mouth and extols the virtues of birth control, it will be a struggle to help these poor folks understand this issue.
additionally, while we're trying to help the third world countries, we should be, at least in america, taking away all of the tax credits (annually) that people automatically receive for each child they produce. then, in place of the tax credit, double their taxes paid to the school districts. where in the hell is the logic behind childless adults paying a school district tax? that one, i'm sorry, should be for the sole benefit and pleasure of those who feel the need to procreate. tied to that, all parents with children pay this tax. not just those who own real property. why give those who rent a break. they're double sucking the system.
a further additional, while we're on a hot button topic, let's give a parenting skills tests to everyone feeling the need to have sex (unless of course, it's safe sex, or you're to old to bear children}. there are way too many spoiled people running around in this country without any knowledge whatsoever of the real world, being a direct product of their environment: parents with illogical parenting skills.
of course, all of these are directly connected to the issue of abortion. and that is the really hot button topic. so keep having babies, and dream of organic farming as a viable form of sustainability.
lino @ 7:16am writes "where in the hell is the logic behind childless adults paying a school district tax? that one, i'm sorry, should be for the sole benefit and pleasure of those who feel the need to procreate. tied to that, all parents with children pay this tax. not just those who own real property. why give those who rent a break. they're double sucking the system."
Two thoughts: first, as one who has conscientiously avoided procreating, I still benefit when the children I live among are educated. The alternative is unacceptable.
Second, landlords don't pay property taxes. Tenants do.
Hey folks, the numbers of people starving and in extreme poverty are staggering. Let's get up to speed on this! Enough shoddy fourth rate thinking on the subject!
Ok, a positive comment. This IS an article about the topic. Good for you! It suggests things to do. Good. There's some good value in the suggestions.
Now a few negatives. This article is similar to the 20 or so similar articles (ie. at Common Dreams) on the food crisis I've criticized in the past year or two, the same false paradigm among so -called world experts and informed progressive writers.
1. The article makes no mention that low farm prices, not high, are the root cause of the crisis. It suggests the opposite of this truth. Wow, that's really quite bad scholarship! Hey, they're starving! Just a few years ago all the discussion was on dumping, below cost exports. That went on for a quarter century as I see it (ie. USDA Economic Research Service data for Commodity Costs and Returns). So it's all about highER prices for two years and totally forgetting a quarter century of dumping! See Least Developed Countries, LDCs, are 73% rural (2005) or 70% rural (2010). Hey, that's the UN's own data. So getting into poverty came from a bad farm economy, and devastation from massive world dumping over a quarter century (and below minimum price and below a fair trade price for decades more) was huge in that. Dumping on the world's farmers devastated wealth creation (powerful farm economic multipliers) in LDCs. If dumping is the root cause, how is a return to dumping any kind of a solution? Feed folks a few years as poverty INCREASES? The devastation is soooo bad. So how much below the cost of production can these folks on $1.25/day afford? 1/3 cost? 1/10 cost? I doubt they can afford 1/10 of the cost of production as a price.
A key point here:
2. The article makes no mention of a standard for a fair trade price. It only suggests a need for lower prices. Therefore it encourages dumping! Yea, it says prices rose from what they were a few years ago. There is no discussion of what a fair standard would really be. Up is bad and down is good? 100 years of falling farm share of the food dollar is good? 50 years of falling farm prices is good? Hogwash! So there was long term falling prices and a steep rise recently. Yes. The traditional farm price standard in the US is to comPARE costs and the rest of the economy. How have farm prices comPARED? PARITY is a standard of fair trade, living wage prices. In 2005 corn here was 25% of parity, rice and cotton 26%, wheat and soybeans 32%. They were in need of quadrupling or tripling. (Note this is not a standard of zero, but a living wage price decently above zero.) We must not dump on LDC farmers as a "solution." We need to face the dilemma, as the article does not. And we need to feed everyone now. (Check out African American Farmers: "Ensure That Farmers Have Fair Living Wage" http://lists dot iatp.org/listarchive/archive.cfm?id=121152.)
3. The article is weak on the agribusiness role in dumping. (Well, it doesn't exist in the article.) Hey, they called for reducing and eliminating price stabilization policies we had from the New Deal. They called for running 13 of US farmers off the land within five years, (An Adaptive Program for Agriculture, CED), and being "competitive" and "market oriented" by running LDC farmers off the land via dumping, even as we subsidized our processing/milling/livestock competitors in foreign countries with below cost grains exports.
4. Oversupply, overproduction, is a huge factor in the quarter century of dumping and half century of below fair trade pricing. Reduced supply and higher prices are good things for LDC farmers, LDC economies (again, 70%+ rural!). It's poverty, no jobs, or no jobs that pay living wages or even break even wages that are really behind starvation, not any shortage of food. Animal feeding and ethanol are good, not bad, for helping LDC farmers get fair prices, (for this real, root cause of the crisis), but they haven't been enough.
Ok, some more positives. The report itself listed price volatility (ie. implying top and bottom) as the number one thing, with price regulation as the number one thing to do.
Second, the report actually pointed out this other side I'm talking about. Good, you got 2 right. Ok, they didn't mention it until page 91 of a 104 page report, and they didn't explain it as well as I have here. A quick search of "price" in the report didn't find any real standard for what prices should be. But at least they mentioned it. This article missed this, the number one thing to be done identified in the report. (Oxfam mentioned this in a PR at Common Dreams a few months ago. I don't think Bread for the World has yet shown understanding of this to Common Dreams folks.) Anyway, they made a good point that prices need to work their way up, but not in a volatile way.
There was a mention of corporate agribusiness in the report. Good! But it was too brief and incomplete. (Based upon a quick search for "corporate" and "corporation" and "agribusiness" in the report, a couple of references, places it's briefly discussed, in 104 pages).
By the way, these same kinds of issues affect fishermen: (ie. agribusiness, low prices).
they're workin' on it in the heartland:
http://www.growingpower.org/Index.htm
This article missed the biggest opportunity; eliminate the animal protein industry and save the world!
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
>>>WTF wrote: This article missed the biggest opportunity; eliminate the animal protein industry and save the world!
WTF, You are absolutely right. These "experts" who produce these reports for the various UN agencies are so damned conservative and feel the pressure to be politically correct, so as not to offend powerful groups. It's so stupid and counterproductive - that's exactly what happened on the climate change front - the IPCC has been moving very cautiously over the years in their assessments and projections, and yet stands accused of being "alarmist" by vested interests and the denial crowd. Why the hell can't they come out and say it as it is? This is the BIGGEST hypocrisy among the environment "experts" and the various pretender "activists" - refusing to see the link between meat consumption and issues such as climate change, world hunger, loss of forest cover and water depletion.
Actually, as I've argued in a couple of places, the "experts" are weak on seeing both sides of the problem, the chronic low prices and oversupply, and the short term volatile rise in farm prices. We devastated the LDC farmers with oversupply and export dumping (below cost farm prices for decades, due to a lack of adequate price floors and supply management), devastating their rural economies so they couldn't even afford below cost food, then changed the rules rapidly (fueled by a lack of reserves and price ceilings, and by speculation) so if you bag of rice or wheat/flour, it's a big change.
We need to address starvation short term while buying the needed food from LDC farmers at fair trade, living wage prices. LDCs desparately need the higher farm prices. But overcoming decades of dumping, of devastation ....
Here in the US farm share (without input share) of the food dollar has probably usually been under 8%-10% over the past 20 years and close to 1% for corn flakes and wheat bread, so low have farm prices been. (Stewart Smith, U of Maine). Projecting Smith's numbers from a while back, you get zero farm share by 2020, so much lower and lower has the trend of farm prices been going.
The US has had a policy of losing money on farm exports for decades, dumping. (Why? To secretly subsidize the agribusiness output complex with below cost raw materials, off budget.) OPEC sometimes successfully joins for higher prices and supply management. USA, the giant of the farm export market, needs to join with farmers worldwide so we all make a decent profit, but with protection against price spikes and shorter supply years. We need Senate Ag Chair Tom Harkin to revive the Harkin-Gephardt farm bill to stop dumping on LDCs, to protect farmers from both the bottom and top side problems. (NFFC's "Food from Family Farms Act") Farmers around the world support this. More and more understand it.
I've read the LOOOOONG discussion you've had with Alcyon, and while I agree with the premise of your arguments, it is unfortunately, quaint, regressive and out of touch.
The bottom line is that modern farming practice, whether agribusiness in the major trading countries, or small subsidized family farms in developing nations, are unsustainable. We (the "global" we) cannot continue in this fashion. We either pay the piper now, or we pay very heavily later.
Vegan farming practices will put some people out of work. So too will the practice of having local farmers provide food for local consumption. But if we do nothing, worse happens. One only has to look at California, ground zero for unsustainable farming practice, is about to go without Government-provided water this summer. We will both agree that this is going to hurt. Lots.
The US military are already planning for wars to be fought over fresh water in 30-40 years. We need that water for crops to feed people, not to feed animals.
Sorry, the world is changing faster than you can predict or react. If we are to survive, we must change as well. Not everyone will like that change, but the alternative of doing nothing or pandering to a conservative minority is too horrible to imagine.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Terra Preta do Indio
http://www.geo.uni-bayreuth.de/bodenkunde/terra_preta/
Effective Microorganisms (EM)
http://emrojapan.com/
The last so-called 'Green Revoloution' was the creation of the petro-chemical companies, which led to the massive use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers, and the death of the home garden and small farm, giving rise to the agri-corps and factory farms of today.
It led to the creation of the McDonalds style fast food industry and a glut of cheap imported animal protein.
There is a growing movement in the UK, as the economic collapse accelerates, to go back to allotment gardening. There has been a growth in BC where I live of community gardens and guerilla gardening.
I can see very soon, the return of the 'victory garden'... but this time we will be fighting starvation, not Germany.
Growth is NOT what we need.
It is time to curtail, to cut back, to make do with SUBSTANTIALLY less.
Permaculture, radical simplicity, and frugality are the words to live by.
Walk in peace.
jethro tullamore/8:45am - your first thought is irrelevant to my comments. re: your second thought, in the state i live in, tenants do NOT pay property taxes. owners of real property do, and that includes landlords.