The Organic Revolution: How We Can Stop Global Warming
"Let us not talk falsely now, for the hour is getting late."
Bob Dylan, "All Along the Watchtower"
* * *
Beyond the gloom and doom of the climate crisis, there lies a powerful and regenerative grassroots solution: organic food, farming, and ranching. Even as politicians and the powerful fossil fuel lobby drag their heels and refuse to acknowledge that we have about ten years left of "business as usual" before we irreversibly destroy the climate and ourselves, there is a powerful, though largely unrecognized, life-force spreading its roots underground.
Millions of organic farmers, ranchers, conservationists, and backyard gardeners (supported by millions of organic consumers) are demonstrating that we can build a healthy alternative to industrial agriculture and Food Inc. Our growing organic movement is proving that we can not only feed the world with healthy food, but also reverse global warming, by capturing and sequestering billions of tons of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases in the soil, through plant photosynthesis, composting, cover crops, rotational grazing, wetlands preservation, and reforestation.
The heretofore unpublicized "good news" on climate change, according to the Rodale Institute and other soil scientists, is that transitioning from chemical, water, and energy-intensive industrial agriculture practices to organic farming and ranching on the world's 3.5 billion acres of farmland and 8.2 billion acres of pasture or rangeland can sequester 7,000 pounds per acre of climate-destabilizing CO2 every year, while nurturing healthy soils, plants, grasses, and trees that are resistant to drought, heavy rain, pests, and disease. And of course organic farms and ranches can provide us with food that is much more nutritious than industrial farms and ranches-food filled with vitamins, anti-oxidants, and essential trace minerals, free from Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), pesticides, antibiotics, and sewage sludge.
In 2006, U.S. carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuels (approximately 25% of the world's total) was estimated at nearly 6.5 billion tons. If a 7,000 lb/CO2/ac/year sequestration rate were achieved on all 434 million acres of cropland in the United States, nearly 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide would be sequestered per year, mitigating close to one quarter of the country's total fossil fuel emissions. If pastures and rangelands were similarly converted to organic practices, we would literally be well on our way to reversing global warming.
But we need an organic revolution in ranching and livestock production, as well as farming and forestry. We need to drastically reduce meat overproduction (77% of all U.S. agriculture resources are devoted to raising animals or animal feed), and over-consumption (a leading cause of obesity, heart disease and cancer) and ban methane-belching factory farms. As the Rodale Institute points out, organic livestock raising practices, including rotational grazing, manure management, methane capture for biogas production, and improved feeds and feed additives, can drastically reduce livestock-related emissions and, because of the massive acreage currently devoted to livestock production (nearly 2.5 times greater than croplands), can safely sequester approximately 60% of the total greenhouse gases that humans, animals, cars, and industry are pumping out every year.
This Organic Revolution, or "Great Sequestering," made possible by a global grassroots movement with the power to transform the marketplace and public policy, is perhaps the only short-term strategy or solution at hand that can buy us the precious time we need to radically reduce energy use and greenhouse pollution and build a green economy. Although politicians and the coal and utilities industry claim that sequestration of massive carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants is on the horizon, there is little or no scientific evidence to back this up. Sequestration of CO2 in the soils of organic farms and ranches, on the other hand, is a proven fact.
Before carbon sequestering forests and grasslands were ravaged by chemical-intensive industrial agriculture (and industrial forestry), soil organic matter generally composed 6-10% of the soil volume, three to six times the 1-3% levels typical of today's industrial agriculture soils. In other words, taxpayer subsidized, chemical-based industrial agriculture, factory farms, and unrestricted grazing (along with industrial forestry) have turned the earth's soil (which still contains three times as much carbon as the entire amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) from being a climate-stabilizing carbon sink into a massive and dangerous source of global warming.
Given our escalating climate emergency, the burning question is how do we move organics in the U.S. from being the 4% alternative in the marketplace to being the norm, and organic acreage from being 1% of total cultivated land to the majority of farmland, pasture, and rangeland? The answer of course is that we must sound the alert, offer up our practical solutions and rapidly transform public consciousness and policy. But the Via Organica, the road to get there, will be long and arduous. The majority of Americans must not only stop buying chemical, GMO, globally sourced and so-called "natural" food, and switch to organic and more locally and regionally produced products, but we must also rise up as a political movement and change public policy. We must literally force the politicians and the corporations to put a halt to our "business as usual" destruction of the climate and public health, and instead move to an ethical and scientifically grounded policy and practice that promotes health, conservation, greenhouse gas reduction, and organic sequestration. Please join and support the Organic Consumers Association and the climate change movement http://www.350.org as we carry out this life or death campaign.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
56 Comments so far
Show All.
Not having kids will do more good than anything else. We need global negative population growth to save the ecosystems. Too bad we can't do it from intelligent choice, instead it will eventually happen from famine, war and disease.
This article and the comments afterward are full of wishful thinking. There's no firm definition of organic farming, conventional farming isn't the total evil that organic advocates think it is, and, most sadly of all, there is NO "sustainable," "carbon-neutral" mode of farming in existence.
As a long-time organic farmer, it was extremely difficult for me to accept the fact that most of the claims of the "organics" movement have little-to-no scientific support. One of the best debunkings of the organics movement is here:
http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html
Also--one of the most important articles about farming is "The Worst Mistake In Human History," by Jared Diamond.
http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf
There's nothing wrong with home gardeners practicing "organic" methods, but it ain't gonna save the planet or its 6.7 billion occupants.
You have served up a false dichotomy and I am not taking either choice.
You have served up a false dichotomy and I am not taking either choice.
In the skeptic article there's no mention of agricultural runoff, dead zones growing in every sea, bioaccumulation, pollution of rivers, aquifers, fossil fuel dependence, and a long series of omissions so common in those kinds of discourses (like climate skeptics).
It also oversees food patents by already too big to be any good megacorporations seeking to control the world's food supply.
And what's more relevant to the topic of the present article: soil building, it is true that most organic farm soils sequester CO2 while most conventional farm soils release it into the atmosphere.
So please don't provide excuses to make those who practice dumping these substances and favoring these greedy corporations feel better.
And I agree with Jared Diamond, but I think permaculture gives some clues as to how to start reversing this ten thousand year trend, and it's important not to undermine that.
CoC writes:
"...most of the claims of the "organics" movement have little-to-no scientific support... There's nothing wrong with home gardeners practicing "organic" methods, but it ain't gonna save the planet or its 6.7 billion occupants."
Nonsense. Study after study demonstrate that organic soil-building farming methods equal or surpass chemical-assault farming methods in productivity and yield. Here's an article citing five such studies:
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html
Catch these quotes from a Monsanto honcho:
"The commercial industrial technologies that are used in agriculture today to feed the world... are not inherently sustainable," Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro told the Greenpeace Business Conference recently. "They have not worked well to promote either self-sufficiency or food security in developing countries." Feeding the world sustainably "is out of the question with current agricultural practice," Shapiro told the Society of Environmental Journalists in 1995. "Loss of topsoil, of salinity of soil as a result of irrigation, and ultimate reliance on petrochemicals ... are, obviously, not renewable. That clearly isn't sustainable."
Of course, Monsanto says this as support for its plan to massively up the ante (and coincidentally control global agriculture through patents on seed) through a "second green revolution" to supposedly fix all the problems that Shapiro acknowledges are caused by the first green revolution.
And i'm down with Jared Diamond, but his work has nothing to do with "organic" versus "chemical" agriculture. Diamond's analysis of the historic cultural and ecological mess caused by the institution of agriculture is brilliant, but is not an argument against organic farming. It is an argument that farming itself has led to many of the fundamental cultural problems we face, such as the warfare state...
"There's nothing wrong with home gardeners practicing "organic" methods, but it ain't gonna save the planet or its 6.7 billion occupants."
Neither will conventional chemical farming save this planet, and conventional chemical farming will eventually kill this planet and its 6.7 billion occupants.
"Neither will conventional chemical farming save this planet, and conventional chemical farming will eventually kill this planet and its 6.7 billion occupants."
Yes, that was my point too. "Organic" farming will kill the planet as well. You have to "takeover" acreage, and biomass, to practice organic farming.
All failed societies practiced "organic" methods.
There is no hope for an invasive species that is currently showing no signs of stopping its exponential increase in numbers.
I am a long time subscriber to Organic Consumers and MOFGA, and I support the actions recommended by Mr. Cummins.
Napoleon, as he marched through Europe had his army plant walnut trees along the Napoleonic highway. He reasoned that the mature trees would provide shade for a marching army, the fruit would provide a source of nurishment, and that eventually the wood could provide material for musket stocks and furnature. Dispite that much of what he created was distroyed after his defeat, he was a man of vision. He wished to create a legacy to hand down to the future.
We, as a society need to have a vision. We need to look at what we can provide for the future and less at what we can use for our own luxury. What Mr Cummins and others are proposing is a very drastic course change which would change the 'standard of living' for us all. The most difficult task is to educate the public as to the dire emergency we are facing.
I'm not sure if the article perhaps gives false hope. The amount of CO2 already 'in the pipeline' is staggering, and the time span predicted to reduce carbon emissions far exceeds the time limit estimated to make amends. We need to have started yesterday. As Chairman Mao said, the journey of a thousand miles starts with one small step.
Please support Organic Consumers, and if you can, plant a variety of trees for the future. We only have one planet.
Are you aware that MOFGA eschews modern scientific medicines and advocates HOMEOPATHY for animal care?
http://mofga.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=pqjWDUevIkg%3d&tabid=548
Page ten.
The phobia against "synthetic" products is irrational and is one of the reasons I no longer associate with the "organics" movement.
I live in the city in a senior citizen's apartment on a small social security check. I grow lettuce, spinach, green beans, pears, grapes, and some herbs and flowers on my little balcony. For years I lived in the country and had big organic gardens when I was raising my four children.
Now I write about good grassroots news in my blog at http://goodwordswan.wildflowerstew.com and tell my grandchildren how it used to be when you could walk for miles on the beach and see only sand and waves and birds.
I hope to inspire them to love their mother earth and join with other people to show respect and heal the damage that's been done.
Many blessings to you and your grandchildren. Peace to our mother earth.
Ditto.
goodwordswan and bliss doubt, it is amazing how much compassion some of my elderly neighbors had for my idea of growing a mini veggie garden on the balcony of my condo. They would wonder what made me give up at one point. All I had to do was show them the letter the board of directors sent to me saying that I violated the terms just for growing a few veggies and I was able to get them to team up. I couldn't get younger people around my age to do the same as it would be as "easy" as herding cats. Maybe it's all because the older neighbors couldn't forget what farming was like before 50 years ago when the transition to whole scale business farming took off. They weren't as conditioned into accepting the kind of junk the younger generation had been brainwashed into and I too used to be part of it. goodwordswan, I hope your grandchildren can carry the torch and help encourage others in their generation to help heal Mother Earth.
Jennifer, good for you for fighting for the right to garden on your balcony. My neighbors in my apartment building love my gardening efforts too. In early March they say "it's almost time for basil and mint, isn't it?" I encourage them to nip my herbs for their own kitchens, as trimming keeps the plants bushy, but I keep the tomatoes very close to my back door. We also had a group effort a few years back, when one of my neighbors stuck toothpicks in an avocado seed and sprouted it in a glass of water, as we all have done, and then put it in a small clay pot where it nearly died in the San Antonio sun. Another neighbor bought a big pot, huge, like up to my waist, and I donated some soil and mulch. One of my rancher friends gave me a bucket of manure for fertilizer. We now have an avocado tree nearly two stories high, in a giant pot, but it's never produced fruit.
Bliss,
So you do know how to meet humanities needs but you do not know how to produce fruit with an avocado tree?
There must be a lot of good weather in San Antonio compared to the St Louis area. My apartment partner thinks he can optimize the lighting for indoor growth since I would have to bring the plants in for the winter. It will be interesting to see how that goes. I'll have to make sure my cat doesn't do anything to those plants. :)
P.S.: I am surprised that the avocado tree still hasn't produced fruit yet. Also, nothing beats living in open land to grow all that food. At some point, there needs to be a reversal of the depopulating rurals, something the Big Agri shills here don't want to talk about.
You all need to read the new book "Just Food' by Texas State University prof and recent fellow in the Agrarian Studies Program at Yale, James E. Mc Williams (and I need to reread it!) He discusses in very readable form food miles, organic panic, Frankedfood (GMOs), meat, aquaculture, and subsidies. How can we truly eat responsibly? He helps us grasp the BIG picture and "the hour is getting late."
Stop eating meat.
I Googled the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere and got answers from 300ppm to 400ppm.
When I was a teacher the books said it was 300ppm. A mother Jones article today said it was 384ppm.
And dairy. This is probably the most effective thing an individual can do to cut carbon emissions.
>Stop eating meat.
>And dairy.
The pasture-raised animal eating grass is not producing CO2, merely recycling it (short term carbon cycle) as grazing animals (and human beings) have since they evolved. It is not meat eating that is responsible for increased greenhouse gasses; it is the corn/ soybean/ chemical fertilizer/ feedlot/ transportation system under which industrial animals are raised.
Actually, it's not just the CO2 that is at issue. Animals require much more WATER as well, from the actual water consumed during the growing cycle, to the water required to grow the food for the animal to the water required to process the meat for consumption.... We DO need to cut down on meat across the board, but beef in particular, in my opinion.
nobodyknown, yes I do agree that most of us in the US eat a lot more meat than we need. But I do eat meat in small amounts, and if I felt that it was harming the planet, I'd stop. If you can give me good unbiased data that shows that local grass-fed meat uses more water than purchased non-animal products, I'd like to see it.
I believe that ALL food (life) is sacred, both animal and plant alike. IMO it would be good for all of us to go back to the old-fashioned idea of saying "Grace" before each meal.
Actually pastured beef "probably" uses less water. It is "estimated" that each pound of beef require up to 1,500 gallons of water to get to the table. Home grown beef of course does not get the massive amounts of corn, which is a water intensive crop.
My original comment was only to show that there are more issues than CO2, which seems to be what everybody believes to be the 'big bad wolf'. I too enjoy a good steak on occasion, even though I'm aware of the "virtual costs". All too often we, as posters get involved in the "micro" discussions and loose sight of the "macro" problems.
BTW, your handle reminds me of a song about the railroad..... /last lifetime/
ed
This article is right on point. Agricultural practices either deplete carbon in the soil, push it into the atmosphere, or build carbon in the soil, pull it out of the atmosphere. The amount of carbon is staggering.
Talk of carbon sequestration typically treats it as a quest for a technological fix. We need a technological UNfix, stopping the terrible practices that have pumped so much carbon into the atmosphere and disrupted the fabric of life.
Agriculture based on fossil fuels, organophosphates, estrogen-mimicking pesticides, chemical herbicides, mega-industrial farms and the destruction of farming as a culturally honored life for individuals and communities, must be abolished.
Agriculture based on people and communities who care for the land and the complex web of life, who nurture and grow the soil and are honored for doing so, is the only sane path. Human-scale organic farming, with a growing percentage of the population engaged in food production and soil-nurturing.
Instead of the US being proud to have reduced the people involved in agriculture down to one percent, we should be proudly growing the number of people engaged in agriculture.
A variety of practices affect the buildup or breakdown of organic matter in the soil, but all agricultural practices and communities need to be holistic. "Soil-building" that relies on deadly chemicals, or "organic" that relies on over-tillage, are not complete answers. Agriculture - and culture as a whole - must be holistic. There cannot be shortcuts to a survivable future. The question of "no-till versus organic" is too narrow a question to get the answer that our culture and our Earth need.
Ronnie Cummins is a hero who has dedicated his life to expose the devastation caused by chemical industrial Ag, and promote human-scale organic agriculture. Everyone should support the Organic Consumers Association.
This article is somewhat misleading. Organic agriculture has the "potential" to sequester lots of co2. Some organic agriculture uses excessive tillage to control weeds, which accomplishes nothing in regards to the sequestering of co2, and increases erosion to boot. No-til farming increases organic matter and saves soil, whether done organically or not.
"No-til farming increases organic matter and saves soil, whether done organically or not."
Not if it involves sluicing with herbicide, which sterilizes the soil. You are trumpeting a big Monsanto lie.
Organic farming usually involves tilling once, and thereafter building the soil with compost, humus and mulch, to discourage weeds, and to avoid the need to till each time.
Your saying that herbicides "sterilize" the soil is disingenuous at best.
Actually Greg, herbicides are part of the sterilization process, along with insecticides, fungicides and chemical fertilizers. As these chemicals perculate through the soil, the natural nutrients are not replaced because nothing is allowed to grow, die out and return to the soil. No weeds, no insects, no fungi. Top soil depletion is not being talked about much, but it is a major concern in the country.
I am not a soil scientist, but I disagree with much of what you say. There are always some weeds and insects and fungi and microbes and earthworms. My soil is teeming with life and it has received chemical applications for well over a half century. Top soil depletion is a problem, a big problem. Even though I no-til, I would guess that erosion takes soil faster than I can build it. Micro-nutrients are removed year after year, with only very minor amounts of replacement. In the coming decades phosphates will become more difficult to obtain. Real problems are just around the corner. Certainly the time will come in the not too distant future when everyone will realize we cannot use our food for fuel.
"Top soil depletion is a problem, a big problem."
It is the killing of soil life by chemical applications that causes your soil to thin out and become dust, which erodes easily. When you build the soil by continuously adding nutrients in the form of compost, mulch and/or cover crops, the soil becomes more dense (and more nutritious to your plants). Having stands of containment plants around your fields will help against erosion too, but open fields around your crops will result in soil loss too. In Malta they use prickly pear cactus in rows between crops, to contain the soil, but that wouldn't work everywhere, but there are other possible plants for that.
"When you build the soil by continuously adding nutrients in the form of compost, mulch and/or cover crops, the soil becomes more dense."
Bliss, you haven't solved the problem. You've just pushed it onto "ghost acreage." All that biomass for mulching and composting has to come from somewhere, so you're back to the old-fashioned "takeover" method that humans have always practiced.
The amount of biomass it takes to mulch a square acre is shocking. The amount it takes to make a big compost pile is even more shocking. Then there's the energy (fuel) required to run the machinery to cut the biomass, to truck to the farm, to turn the compost, to spread the compost....
6.7 billion, and counting....
It's the truth at worst.
Greg,
A good and resposible comment. The potential of organic farming runs into some problems on the macroeconomic level. This mainly because only 3% of the earth's land mass is classified as highly fertile. Most of this highly fertile soil is already in use so there is a tipping point where low yield farming (organic), must take land away from high yield farming (chemically fertilized). What the article ignores is the need for sustainability which is not possible once "your" necessary no-till methods are considered. Only a limitted number of crops can be harvested without disturbing the soil and of course disturbing the soil releases the very carbon sequestered, and more in some cases. Other tipping point problems arise when crops with high nutritional contents are replaced by crops with lower nutritional benefits but better sequestering properties.
Some very interesting research is underway on the use of "biochar". This soil conditioner allows marginal soils to be used ( especially in tropical areas). This not only solves soil issues but also allows farming to be located where water availability factors dictate. The ramifacations of this are too vast to go into here, anyone interesed in this, or any socio-economic subject for that matter, should see a glimmer of hope (at the very least), by simply punching in the word: BIOCHAR. (BOOKOO SEQUESTRATION and benefits galore)
The macroeconomic frame is mostly bogus so it can be mostly ignored. It is after all the frame that led the sheeple herd to the brink of global warming disaster. It's probably true that the "official" definition of organic as per the "super"-market labels omits the key permaculture practice of no-tilling, which sequesters the carbon. So the author of this article is likely putting his "public relations" cart before his horse. Smells like USan ivy-league "communications" school influence.
It's good that the author threw out some numbers for the people to chew on. But he failed to explain his key argument that the soil can sequester 7000lb of CO2 per acre-year, even with notill. If he presented that figure in terms of percentage of carbon in soil, then we can estimate the number of years that a permaculture practice takes to bring industrially-depleted soil back up from 1-3% to 6-10% carbon. Accumulation is likely non-linear, tapering off at the high end.
Regardless of that number, the author fails to acknowledge the taper of but leads the reader to believe the sequestration goes on indefinitely, so we can keep spewing the fossil carbon indefinitely as long as we mitigate it with permaculture practices. Not so. Another thing is that the livestock rangeland is not tilled today, but kept in grass, so there's no great potential there for improved carbon sequestration, except by reverting it back to forest, which is a great idea, but the author should have said it explicitly.
Organic agriculture is a great idea, but permaculture is better, and harvesting of wild local indigenous foods is best, even if it takes some extra work. It's good work.
Maybe the very best approach is to let that rangeland grow back up in forest strips of about 1/4 mile width. Between those are 1/12 mile width strips for human habitation, villages. There are a number of benefits. This allows easy access to the forests for harvesting, provides abundant forest edges, which are the most productive, keeps the people near the forest, which regulates the elements, allows wildlife passage in the forest strips, and allows for a small amount of open space for more intensive cultivation and livestock, and a road to connect the villages.
rtdrury,
Would it be bogus macroeconomics to suggest that in your all inclusive plan, that each person on the planet might have his or her own tree. It could be difficult in some parts of the world but the people could simply use that road you provided and walk to where the trees are. It could be simular to the dark ages only with more people, each a steward of his or her own tree.
I've lived on ranches all of my 53 years and I have never heard of any forests being cleared for grazing purposes. Where do you get "let that rangeland grow back up in forest strips"? Did "sheeple" clear some rangeland in a video game that you mastered, is that what led to your illusion of superiority?
Done properly, organic farming is NOT low yield farming. Time and again, organic has been proven to increase yields per crop, and with companion planting, food per acre.
"Done properly, organic farming is NOT low yield farming. Time and again, organic has been proven to increase yields per crop, and with companion planting, food per acre."
Bliss, these kinds of broad generalities--blanket statements about "organics"--is what is undoing the credibility of the "organics" movements.
WHICH "organic" crops? Under WHICH conditions? In WHAT climate? For WHICH varieties? At WHAT distance from the consumer?
"Organic has been proven to increase yields per crop" is therefore a statement without meaning because a) the term "organic" is under dispute, and b)no such broad proclamation even comes near being demonstrated scientifically.
Christ on a Crust,
Thanks for the help and support. It is rare for me here. I like Upton Sinclair's ; "It is difficult for a person to understand what his livlihood depends on his not understanding". I suppose that Mr. Sinclair was more than wise enough to know that people are also motivated things other than money, so a little reading between the lines is required, but a great line nonetheless.
Bliss,
Maybe if you could explain how organic farming might be done on a large enough scale to make a substantial difference I could then agree with you here. Don't forget to include all of the factors I included in my earlier reply. Then too, don't forget water considerations and land use, especially regarding dry-land farming. You did notice I said "macro"? Which means you will also need to explain where SO much organic fertilizer is to come from and the effects of that on the environment.
Chemical agribusiness wastes plenty of materials that organic farmers return to the soil, and soil fertilizing crops are often used. The best organic farming uses crops that are compatible with the climates in which they are grown, so that water guzzling isn't an issue. I do not refer to the big industrial monoculture "organics", which probably are bribing and cheating anyway.
If you're asking me how organic farming can produce crops in such excessive wasteful amounts that taxpayers have to prop up the prices via government price supports and subsidies, or enough so that agribusiness can dump the crops in foreign markets at predatory prices that put real farmers out of business, or enough so that the crops can be converted into non-nutritious food additives, mystery ingredients, candles and face creams, or vehicle fuel, or plastics, then I do not have the answer.
Bliss,
You seem not have seen that I am a staunch advocate of organic farming via the use of biochar. I have been part of the environmental movement since the late 1970s. You simply evaded my challenges as I knew you would because I know that organic farming on a large scale is not feasible. You have provided nothing but presumptions so far.
You also do not understand that agricultural subsidies are about the imperialistic control of world trade and the manipulation of labor values.
You are assuming that agribusiness is ineffecient and nothing could be further from the truth. You are making the mistake of attacking capitalism where it is strongest, at its modes of production front. Try to prove me wrong and you will learn where we might win this battle.
"You are assuming that agribusiness is ineffecient and nothing could be further from the truth."
The deadly efficiencies of conventional agribusiness have costs which are ignored because nobody has to be responsible for them, the cost of death to all things from microbes to insects and wildlife from aerial spraying of poisons, the environmental cost of polluted water and air from chemical pesticides and herbicides, the cost to taxpayers in subsidies that allow american multinational agribusiness to stomp out real farmers around the world.
I don't know what your point is, but organic farming is the only way to sustain life on this planet going forward, and conventional agribusiness not only hasn't the potential to do anything of lasting good in this world, but is destroying this world.
Does it ever occur to you that agri-business that started 50 years ago was all based on corn? Instead of having pasture raised meat and diary for everyone to live a healthier life with, we're left with cornfed baloney ! The current agri-business processes are only there because of government subsidizing Big Agri and continuing to persecute and bankrupt more small farmers as if enough damage wasn't done already ! You're right. It's not capitalism but let's be specific. Even regulated capitalism would not have permitted such unfair advantages of Big Agri over small farms while unfettered/disaster capitalism would. There is no free market. It's all RIGGED RIGGED RIGGED ! She understands everything about organic farming. I grew up in the rurals too before moving to the city life and I'm sick and tired of watching small town America turn into more of a rustbelt. There is no quality production with the current agri-business practices. All we're getting are the mediocre results from putting quantity sales over quality production. No wonder people are seduced into such processed junk and the health care costs keep rising. Let Big Agri fail and repeal all those persecuting laws against small farmers. And as some have suggested, get rid of that ban on hemp and drop those petro-based pesticides. When more small farms are given the chance, there will be a more decentralized result meaning that organic can work large scale wise. We used to have more local and more organic until 50 years ago. If you need more clarification, let me know. I have a throbbing headache after a long day.
Jennifer,
I do not understand your reply to my reply to who knows how many other replies. I think you did not read enough of what all I said. I am in no way advocating industrial farming or subsidies. I am an advocate of biochar as a soil additive and I keep saying that but I think I will just go to bed. I have had all of the confusion and the resulting misunderstandings I can handle for today.
I looked up plenty of info on biochar but as Bliss Doubt (thank you) pointed out as have several other sources, there is nothing "organic" about such destructive ideas. "Biochar" is no different from petro-manufactured GMO cornfeed. Any biotechnology that does severe harm to the environment such as corn-based meat and diary or biochar or similar is also destructive to both the long term economy and general well being. Nothing beats genuine organic farming without suspicious shortcuts.
There is controversy around biochar. Here is a link to an article about it from Organic Consumers Assn.:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17330.cfm
It seems to be on the same principle as biofuel, which I think is a wash if you're using petrochem herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers to grow it, rather than pulling pest weeds and using them (which could be done on a community basis but not on an agribusiness scale).
I suspect another agribusiness scam looking for suckers to buy into it, but I really don't know, and will look into it further.
Bliss,
You have the "I really don't know" part right. And you have a gift for evasion. If you don't know, why not go find out instead of making one unsupported claim after another. The most informed people in the world are working on these problems and your premises are all based on the assumption that those people have ignored the math. But the math has been done and done again. There is an article in the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magizine with an article entitled "Where Food Begins" (Sept. 2008), at least read that and the references thereby provided.
On the subject of agricultural subsidies read "Making Globalization Work" by Dr. Joseph Stiglitz. There is also a brief explanation on this subject that I wrote just a week or so ago in a comment attached to the article here having to do with Joe Arpao (sp.?). Food issues are Empire issues and without understanding the implications of that fact it is difficult to get the macro-problems in a meaningful perspective. All the best.
Growing tree plantations to be heated or burned into biochar is most certainly not an organic process. I have read and read and read about farming and organics, all my life, owing to my interests in gardening, food and ecology.
"The most informed people in the world are working on these problems..."
Yes, there are also great minds involved in reclaiming the lost art and science of growing food without poisoning the planet.
Bliss,Still more empty claims. No references, and everything based in presumption. No consideration for what percentage of biochar might come from waste. No recognition that organic fertilizers also pollute. Nothing about the widely recognized problems inherent with the limits of highly fertile soil(which include shipping and distribution limits and waste considerations). And no alternatives to the dry-land crop yield superiority of corn and wheat.
What for example is the answer to producing a crop like corn, or some commensurable alternative, or wheat, considering global food security, without releasing sequestered carbon? The only answer anyone else has come up with for that question is biochar because it sequesters carbon deeply enough to allow for the unavoidable tilling.
Your assumming that strandboard and particleboard and other lumber industry by-products are more valuable as used for sheet goods, than they WOULD be as soil additives. You are also ignoring that other by-products such as bone and other waste materials are used. But perhaps you could explain how organic farming has answers that are better. Then I could learn something here. I come from a ranching and farming backround and you seem to hold my kind in low regard, (incompetent and wastefully stupid seems to be the implication), but I may be able to understand. If you were to actually give me something SPECIFIC TO UNDERSTAND.
No references? Here is another article I read today, in addition to the one I linked above. This one is more in depth, and has quite a lot about the flawed logic of the biochar plan:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/george-monbiot-climate-change-biochar
I never used the word "stupid", never would. Conventional is conventional, which means more widely accepted. You assume that I've never read Stiglitz and Arpao, and while I have not read their books, I certainly have read their articles and excerpts on sites like this one.
The waste that you mention could equally be applied to traditional organic ways of nourishing and building the soil, which also have the effect of anchoring the soil. You mention lumber waste, yet the lumber industry itself is a problem, stripping the world's forests and displacing indigenous peoples.
Corn was grown in the americas thousands of years before any kind of modern farming method or farming chemical was known, in drought zones among other places, and modern farming techniques threaten the whole world's supply of corn, with poisons and the mutilation of the genetic heritage of the seeds.
You say that organic fertilizers pollute. Perhaps, but not much if they are used properly, and not nearly as much as the runoff of conventional agricultural chemicals, which flows from the rivers into the oceans, creating vast anoxic "dead zones" that kill everything in them.
You offer nothing more than I offer. You want me to back down and say that destroying the biosphere in order to save it would be a good thing?
I have to leave now. We can talk again on Monday if you want.
Bliss,
Still no specifics, I am beginning to understand where the "bliss" comes from.
And more presumption, but now we are to presume that there will be no wood products industry. Of course the other by-products are probably problamatic too, so why even mention those. If your leaving out that not all timber harvesting is harmful, why include the applicable materials which are currently going to landfills, or being being disposed of in some less responsible way. And of course in a world filled with bliss, ALL foresting "is displacing the world's indigenous peoples". Why worry about the fact that biochar improves marginal soils and allows alternative lands to be used instead of rainforest land. It would be less than "blissfull" at this point to consider that farming on rainforest land is a significant part of the problem. It seems almost wierd that people would chose to farm poor soils in the rainforest when they could be using all of that other blissfull-land that the organic types have assumed must exist. Maybe these people just don't know anything about organic farming, maybe they are "conventional" farming peasants? Brazil is a large country, there must be plenty of arable land to go around, perhaps if the wealthy land owning class knew more about the benefits of organic farming, they might be willing to give away some of their arable land. This land could then be divided up into little plots and the peasants could be transported to and from their little plots so as not further waste arable land with the space needed for their little huts. It would just so cool if the wealthy land owners would just make some room for these people, and so as to minimize fuel waste even further, donkeys for all.
So now that all of that is settled, I do have a little trouble understanding how "the runoff of conventional agricultural chemicals", are reaching the oceans. Are there rivers flowing from places such as Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, that are causing dead zones? I thought dead zones are mostly the result of urban runoff due to impervious surfaces. It seems that yards, golf courses, parks etc., would have a better chance of causing deadzones than fertilizers being put on almost perfectly flat land that is many hundreds, or sometimes thousands, of miles from an ocean. I can see how The Gulf of Mexico is connected via the Mississippi Delta, but how is Puget Sound, Chesapeake Bay, San Pedro and Santa Monica Bays, fit into your generalized view? You did say "conventional agricultual chemicals." (Do you know that 100 million gallons of wastewater flow out of the L.A. Basin and into the Pacific Ocean on every DRY day?)
And as for "you offer nothing more than I offer", you are the one who refuted my supported claims, with unsupported ones.
Wow, a whole litany making fun of my name, is that all you’ve got? Your manner has changed to rude too, but you're welcome to be however you want to be.
There are a couple of things I have to answer here.
First, the people who are displaced by deforestation tend to combine subsistence farming with hunting and gathering, so your babble about giving them land for organic farming is particularly arrogant. They were, and some still are, already practicing organic farming and surviving quite well until lumber, mining and oil companies came along, bringing destruction.
Finally, it isn’t just the Gulf of Mexico that has dead zones from ag runoff. The West Coast and the waters off the Carolinas, have this problem too, and this is easy to look up.
With that, I abandon you and your crappy know-it-all attitude. Like many trolls who only appear when the subject is organic food, you aren’t interested in the truth.
Bliss,
The dead zones you speak of on the West Coast are those I included: Puget Sound, which is poisened with runoff from Seattle, and San Pedro, and Santa Monica", which are adjacent to L.A.. And guess what, my parents were employees of The Irvine Coporation. Which was then the largest agricultural producer in Southern California until about 30 years ago when land started to become too valuable to use for agricultural purposes. And now, there is so little agriculture in the L.A. Basin that you are the only person so uninformed as to make such a claim -- that I know of. A claim which is also made less believable by the fact that water from Central California's San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys do not have a river that flows OVER the Tejon Pass. To make your assumptions even less believable the waterways in central California, that flow directly across the most productive farmland in the world and into the Pacific Ocean, from East to West, do not have dead zones at their entry points. And the story is much the same in Washington State, the only significant dead zone is that which begins, and is visible to the human eye, where pipes empty, which are fed exclusively by Seattle's runoff. And I have seen all of these places with my own eyes. So how does a frustrated avacado farmer explain that.
And has it occurred to you that the trees in the Amazon Rainforest must be cut down BEFORE farmland can exist. And yes, they were practicing a type of organic farming on a smale scale, which is where biochar methods were first discovered by Portuguese explorers, biochar and "terra pretta" are in essence the same. And had you read the article I recommended you would have learned that some of the most respected soil experts in the world are conducting studies at Cornell, and at the U. of Kansas based on their findings in Amazonia. But of course you have your sources and they are so, so, impressive. And then of course there is your balcony farming experience and that fruitless avocado tree. So why read material by the people who know where the math leads, when so many potheads agree?
And your closing comment is so presumptous and foolish that I can not resist directing you to the Chris Hedges article from this past Monday, where you will see that I contributed several thousand words on that thread. Words that will not only expose just how misguided your insults are, but teach you something you badly need to know.
I do not enjoy conversations like this one.
Here's a simple thing to show:
meatrix.com
Who can beat that truth? I recommend this for people of all ages and I'm dead serious about it. Come to think of it, is it any wonder that hair loss and aging faster are no coincidence with the rise in over-processed foods?