NOTE: Please read the first posts, What It Is and Questions and Postulations, posted on Sunday August 15th, before venturing into this discussion. Also, be sure to scroll down to Style and Semantics, and the Thanks at the bottom of this page.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Trade Offs, Parts, Clear Cuts etc.


Clear Cuts, Strip Mining, Nuclear Power
Planting some pine trees won’t bring back a lush indigenous forest. Mining uranium to use it to boil water to turn a steam turbine and then deal with waste that will persist in geological time, longer than anyone can truly comprehend, is not sustainable. But yet these are the very things that are being touted to “save” our way of life. So we can power our homes. So we can run our machines. So we can play distracting games. So we can watch distracting entertainment. So we can type, as I type now, on a computer made in another country with components that are extremely toxic to make. So I can drive to work in a car that is more polluting to make than to drive. So that the infrastructure of our way of life, be it conventional, alternative, even rural farming, can be maintained.
Can it?


Parts
The parts that make up so called Green Technologies must come from somewhere. If the parts aren’t “Green” then how can the whole be called “Green”? The Lithium to make the batteries for Hybrid cars is not reusable the way lead is in traditional car batteries. It’s a one way street. If the majority of the worlds Lithium is located on land surrounded by indigenous populations, what will happen? Will the environment these populations depend on be destroyed and the populations displaced all for the sake of building something “Green”? What is green? It’s a color and simultaneously a marketing term to make people feel good about contributing to business as usual. Once Industrial society figures out how to be healthy it can figure out the conundrum of being

 “Green”.


Trade Offs
We can power our homes with solar cells. Solar cells which are extremely toxic and energy intensive to make. And, ultimately, will produce less energy in their life time use than it took to make them. But the trade off is that someone somewhere will not have to rely on a grid generated power source using coal, oil, radiation or natural gas. That investment is made at the manufacturing site so it does not have to be made in a private home or a local power plant. The energy is still used up. The pollution is still generated. It just all happens somewhere else. The Earth still bears the brunt.

We can figure out better trade offs. Working to improve the manufacturing process to be less energy sucking and less polluting is one way. Working on using other forms of electrical generating devices such as wind turbines, private or otherwise, is another. Or, the best possible option, changing our habits and using much less electricity. Or, using none at all. Or, somewhere in between. Either way, habits need to be changed.

Fuel will cost too much to import.
Food will become more important than fuel.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Fair Trade, Local, Organic

Fair Trade - Equitable Trade
Fair is a four letter word. It often leads to those who have, being able to get more than those who don’t, just because it’s fair. Everyone gets the same. So, if those who have more participate, they get the same as those who have less. Those who have more don’t need any more at all. Those who have less need to get more so there is a balanced amount of resource distribution. This will allow for everyone having enough. That’s equitable. But, those who have more are the first to scream that it is unfair to give their share to someone who has less than them. In this case, fairness maintains the current power structure and distributes more resources to those who have the power.

Fair Trade is a first step. It allows those who are involved with the production of goods to get a premium price, but those producers don’t have direct negotiating rights to determine that price. The premiums that their goods do get, are determined by the market. A program called Good Trade provides direct negotiating rights to the growers and producers involved. Those growers and producers determine how much the purchaser will pay for their goods and not the other way around. The growers and producers can then make sure they get what they need to continue producing, surviving and thriving. The growers and producers then start to control the market and not the other way around. That is equitable. That is true Fair Trade, when everyone gets what they need.


Local
Local is being spun as a marketing gimmick. Walmart advertised “Local” on its web sites. For Walmart, produce from anywhere in the U.S. is considered local. The U.S. is a very large land mass. What local means to many people is not food being trucked 1500 or more miles. Local is basically meaningless unless defined. We need to define local. Give it some guts. Give it standards. This definition cannot come from a corporate source making profit from what is local. It must come from the people directly involved in the locale. It’s the people who need to insist that before anything be sold to them as “Local”, this thing honor a set of standards that the people have designed themselves.


Organic
“Organic” used to be a philosophy and a movement. Now, philosophy has been thrown out the window and the focus is on law and financial economy. Multinational corporations have become or bought organic food producers, manufacturers, distributors and sellers. Profit takes precedence over the health of the planet and the needs of the people.

Corporations as organic food producers is probably the single most destructive thing that happened to the organic movement. An entity that focuses on profit cannot participate in a movement that focuses on the benefit of the planet and the creatures living on it. Just because the law says something is organic, does not mean it is "Organic".

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Community, Land-Base, Sustainable Agriculture


Another late posting and I apologize for it. Here are a few tidbits of light thoughts before bed time.

Community
Community (My definition, combining the meaning and spirit of official ones.) -  A group of living organisms and the environment around them, interacting in a way that is mutually supporting and connects them all.


Land-base
Land-base - An area of land and water that supports a community, or several communities, of living organisms.


Sustainable Agriculture
Most people can understand the words of sustainable agriculture, but do they really understand what the term means?

How is sustainable defined in this case? If you can get it and keep getting it from your land-base, then it’s sustainable. If not, or if it runs out because you have depleted it or made it unusable, then it is not sustainable. This is how all creatures exist on the planet


except people.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Farming



Farming
One example of sustainable farming is an Indigenous tradition from the Oneida. It is called The Three sisters. The Three Sisters is an integrated agriculture system of growing corn, beans and squash together in a mutually supporting way. Industrial culture calls this method, intertillage.


Corn, beans and squash are grown together in the same mound. The corn provides a tall structure for the beans to grow on, the beans return and fix nitrogen into the soil for the corn, squash spreads out between the mounds to provide ground cover and limit weeds. These are complementary foods, meaning that when they are eaten together, or when two are eaten together, they work in unison to provide complete protein, minerals, amino acids and vitamins. The crop yield is more than enough to sustain large populations of humans. 

The traditional Oneida farm is called Tsyunhehkwa (Joon hey-kwa), meaning literally, “It provides life for us”.

Today, the Oneida food system has three parts - 
The Production Division - Shakoh^ta?slu.ni’he?, meaning, “He prepares the fields for them”.
The Processing division - Tsi?tkutekhuwa.y^he’, meaning, “Where they put the food away”.
And, the Distribution Division - Lutunhetsla?nikulale?, meaning, “They look after all living things”.

They look after all living things.

How many retail food outlets take this up as their mission? How about food distributors or wholesalers? What a different world it would be if this was the view of all entities associated with food production. 

CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) farms are a bridge between the sustainable and unsustainable. People in many cities seek out CSA farms. Most CSA farms need little marketing effort, as they find there is no lack of people wanting shares. But how do city customers view the  CSA entity as a food source? Are they simply buying a box of groceries, or are they seeing this as an alternative to a faulty system of food distribution? Or, somewhere in between?

Many CSA farms require that their members work on the farm itself. These workers help the farmers offset the enormous amounts of labor that it takes to run the farm and get the crops to harvest. The CSAs that have a working membership also have the highest retention rate of members. People get connected to the farm if they work there. They see where their food comes from first hand. They help grow and mature it. They help harvest and prepare it. They also help deliver it. They participate directly in their food source. They see the effort and love it takes to produce food for themselves and for other people.

In industrial society, and especially in cities, there is a profound disconnect from the source of people’s food. Food is purchased in stores and how it got to the store is almost never witnessed. Possibly, the delivery trucks are seen, and that is all. But, by working the land to produce their own food, people who live in cities regain the connections they have lost. They become part of the real world again.
Many CSA farms are attempting to be more sustainable. In the context of CSA farms, sustainability is choosing what works in their area. Besides trying to live in equilibrium with the land - taking from the land as much as the farm gives back to the land - farmers are using techniques adapted to their climates. Hoop houses, green houses, cover crops and crop rotation can help. But, in cold climates the green houses have to be heated above 32 degrees in order to produce food in the winter. To do this by burning fuel is counterproductive, expensive and not sustainable. Using passive heating techniques to offset or eliminate the use of fuel is a much more sound approach.

If done correctly, farming puts back into the soil potentially everything it takes. However, this is a very difficult goal to achieve. It requires careful planning and knowledge from the farmer. It requires a society willing to support the farmer’s efforts and to do without when conditions dictate it. Labor, knowledge, commitment, community and a love of the earth are what is needed for a more sustainable farming future.

Farming is very difficult. In today’s society many farmers purchase some form of labor saving input for their farm, like sprays, compost or machinery. The machines have to be built, parts have to be made, fuel to manufacture the machines has to be drilled for, transported, refined, transported again and finally used. Sprays and compost have to be manufactured, trucked to the stores so they can be bought, and so on.

A family farm or independent farm has a very difficult time making a living solely from farming. The farmers often have jobs outside of the farm in order to maintain a steady and consistent cash flow. Some farmers cannot make ends meet and quit, moving back into the cities. Those who continue cite the amount of labor and how hard it is to produce food for others. But they also cite how enjoyable farming is. They believe in the system of food production they are participating in. They are passionate. They are in touch with the Earth.

However, as farms get larger, the work load increases to the point where a farmer must use more machinery to farm, thus making the farm less and less sustainable. A large, fully mechanized corporate run farm cannot be sustained without vast amounts of infrastructure behind it, nor can a small family farm using machinery and goods that are factory made. The factories that manufacture all these things do not put back.

One model for an alternate farming structure is the Old Order Amish style of farming. In this style of farming, few machines are used. Transportation is not motorized. Agriculture is done by human and animal power. Fertilizing is done by composting and using the manure produced by animals. Yields are substantial enough to produce surplus. This surplus is sometimes sold or traded using a communally owned truck. Community structure is mutually supporting. Homes and out buildings are built by hand and by members of the community.

Resources are shared

not sold.

The future of local agriculture, and quite possibly all food distribution, is that farmers must ultimately unify in small, localized organizations to pool resources and to strengthen themselves as individual farmers. This can be extended to the surrounding populations who could pool with the farmers, sharing their labor and their resources in a mutual relationship and creating an interdependent community.

There was a time in human history when the entire surrounding population would come out and harvest the crops that they all planted together on land that they all shared. They all lived and worked in accordance with the seasons. Everyone grew their own food together for the whole community. The community worked together. Today, the seasons are heralded by retail merchandise changes. Only a few people are farmers. Most everyone else buys their food from a store. 
In this country all people can be fed with organic based agriculture, especially if people change their eating habits and expectations. But this takes labor and knowledge not machines, chemicals and manipulated genes. To do this there need to be more farmers, not necessarily more land under tillage. The corporate and mono-crop operations need to be broken up into smaller farms owned by more farmers. Less plants need to be grown to feed animals for slaughter or to provide ingredients for processed foods or to manufacture fuel. More plants need to be grown to be fed directly to people. The land needs to grow different plants and not all the same plant. There needs to be diversity. There needs to be companion growing, intertillage and the mindset of The Three Sisters. There needs to be a greater attachment of those who live in cities to their food supply.

There needs to be a greater awareness of the rhythms of the Earth.

There need to be more gardeners.
There need to be more gardens

everywhere.


“If we’re not sustainable or living a sustainable life the Earth will figure it out, and that will be OK.”
Erin Altemus