A few years ago at farmers markets here and around the country, most customers would ask a farmer how she grew her vegetables and herbs. Eaters were concerned about organic growing habits and pesticide use on farms, and inquired about the methods used to grow the produce they were purchasing.
Nowadays at market, almost no one asks if Dragonfly Farms is certified organic. (We're not, but are pursuing Certified Naturally Grown status.) They don't even ask if we use synthetic pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers.
Consumer priorities, and the questions buyers ask, have shifted. Now the main farm-production question I hear is related to place: "Where is your farm?"
Customers used to worry about how food was produced; now they worry about where it is from. This switch is both interesting and somewhat troubling. It's interesting in part because it shows how the power of one captivating idea -- local -- can quickly eclipse the power of another -- organic.
It's troubling because, from the perspective of a movement against agribusiness-as-usual, organic farming has a lot more substance than local does. The organic farming movement has a history of opposing and actively questioning the status quo of Green Revolution -- style, high yield, industrial agriculture. The movement largely formed itself in opposition to the Green Revolution, drawing on the strength of pioneers like Sir Albert Howard, Jerome Rodale, and the publication of books like Silent Spring in the early 1960s.
The organic movement confronted industrial agriculture's use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers that devastated local ecosystems. It addressed the health of migrant farm workers and the health of people who ate foods with pesticide residues or milk with growth hormones. Organic growers tried to imitate natural systems on their farms, and the science of agroecology grew out of this movement. The goal of early organic movement farmers was to one day feed the world through a system of cultivation that paid attention to landscape, ecology, and human health. Today, movement-style organic agriculture in the United States has largely disappeared, and its substitution, from a perspective of ecological or moral consumerism, has become the term "local."
I could write a whole post, or even a book, on why and how this happened, but a significant part of organic's decline is tied to the federal regulation of the term "organic" and the accompanying commoditization of the term, which distanced it from its movement origins and turned it into just another grocery-store label. The affiliation with the United States Department of Agriculture, and the USDA's subsequent misguided approach to managing the organic program, caused many to lose faith in organic; at the same time, the strengthening of the term organic by making it a legally definable set of practices caused it to lose its power in the marketplace of ideas.
Let me be clear -- I'm not holding present-day organic up as a model of engagement with the larger industrial system. The part of organic I miss, the part that specifically addressed problems in the larger industrial system, fell by the wayside a while ago, as soon as organic agriculture became primarily associated with commodities and consumption. After this happened, it was easily supplanted by another morals-based purchasing option -- local food. That is, once the organic movement had become largely dissociated from organic products, the product (an organic widget versus a nonorganic widget) became the most important aspect of organic, leaving it vulnerable to being replaced by the next fad in eco-consumption.
At this moment, the rallying call within the alternative agriculture movement is the push for local food, which does not mean nearly the same as organic. The switch from a focus on organic to one on local, which I've watched happen over the past few years, causes me some consternation. My primary worry is that a local-oriented, consumer-based movement seems to avoid engaging with many of the problems associated with the industrial food system that organic as a movement specifically sought to address. Unlike organic, which did address flaws in industrial ag and then seemed to lose that critique once it became primarily a consumer movement, local has always been a consumer movement, and has never interacted much with the big picture of industrial ag. Thus, while many consumers seem to agree that it is "better" to buy local than not, most people do not seem to have thought through why this is, exactly. And therein lies the problem.
For me, there are a few important reasons for buying locally. Food is fresher and tastes better. Buying local food supports the hometown economy. Buying locally shortens the commodity chain, which opens up space for consumers to hold producers accountable for methods of production (which can range from use of pesticides to paying their laborers a fair wage). It also enhances the chance that producers will be fairly and adequately compensated for what they produce. (Think about the percentage of a dollar a tomato grower at farmers market keeps for a pound of her product versus the percentage a coffee farmer from Guatemala keeps for a pound of hers.)
These are my reasons for buying local food. If you ask lot of people at a farmers market, possibly the majority, why they buy locally, they will likely speak about freshness, and then say that it is better for the environment, mentioning something about food miles.
The concern with food miles is tied to climate change, with the general idea being that it takes less energy to produce and market food locally. Thus, fewer greenhouse gases are emitted buying a local apple than an apple from New Zealand. This, generally the primary argument for local agriculture, hinges upon an association with the transportation of food over long distances and climate change.
I find this problematic, mostly because a focus on buying locally avoids a critique of industrial agriculture from all perspectives except that of transportation. Theoretically, then, if one grew apples in Connecticut, using tons of pesticides (and believe me, tons of pesticides are used on apples), and employed poorly paid, undocumented workers who were exposed to said pesticides, but sold them within Connecticut to local consumers, these apples would be "better" than organic apples shipped from New Zealand.
Recent studies have questioned the true advantage of local from the climate-change perspective, noting that some regions have better growing conditions for certain products and thus use much less energy in their production, depending on season and how the products are shipped to their end markets. There's a good encapsulation of these studies at Environmental Defense Fund's blog, and Ethicurean has also tackled this topic. I'm not particularly interested in debating whether local food is more climate-friendly than regional or even internationally traded food, however. What concerns me most is that the alternative food movement has dropped out of its engagement with the way most of the food in this country is grown. I've watched this happen, as organic first became just another marketing sticker on a product, then faded into obscurity as local become the latest alt-ag end goal.
As this happened, the alternative food movement set up a system where the small percentage of people who shop locally happily buy their produce at the farmers market, while 99 percent of America's farmland remains planted in genetically-modified crops, gets regularly sprayed with a chemical cocktail of ecologically devastating compounds, and produces the sort of food that turns children into Type 2 diabetics.
How can the alt-ag folks regain their critique of industrial agriculture and actually begin changing the system? I believe the movement is going to have to take the very difficult steps of moving outside the rather comfortable zone of being primarily a market-based movement, that is, one based on changing the system by relying primarily on consumer purchases to send a signal to producers to change. Sure, that type of movement has left us with a growing percentage of organic farmland, but farmers are also putting more land into industrial ag production too, taking marginal land out of conservation programs as commodity prices rise.
Right now, industrial ag seems to run around in its own world, planting more corn and soy monocultures, causing nitrogen runoff that ends up killing the Gulf of Mexico, and advocating for a bigger and better Green Revolution to solve the latest food crisis, while the alternative food movement happily twirls to the beat of its own drum, and the two never meet.
An obvious point of engagement was through the farm bill, which, sadly, utterly flopped in terms of any sort of reformation of the system. So what now?
From a producer standpoint, there doesn't seem to be a ton of options. We grow organically; we sell locally -- yet industrial agriculture persists and grows. That's why I feel as if alternative ag needs to move outside of the producer-consumer sphere, outside of the marketplace, and back into the realm of policy, activism, and direct contact with the forces of agribusiness.From where I sit, that means getting in touch with some Colorado and southwestern groups who work toward making our regional forms of industrial agribusiness better, and helping those groups grow in strength -- through donations, volunteering, letter-writing -- whatever it takes. Here, industrial ag mostly revolves around the production of cheap beef, so that's the force that I'll be working to change. I challenge readers to think about where they can interact with the forces of industrial ag -- and then to go forth, and engage.
New book looks at economic devastation in an Iowa meat-packing town
Farm lobby: Shoot the climate bill, but keep the Peterson goodies
Comments
View as Flat
Bart Anderson Posted 1:09 pm
11 Aug 2008
Moving on to policy?
Good post, as usual. Some comments.
Be careful about accepting this meme. Some of the studies were backed by special interests. Others - from better sources - merely point out the obvious, that food-miles are just one of many aspects of a complicated problem. Some articles in the media used these studies to promote FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). Food-miles are a good first approximation, and they are a powerful platform for education.
I think the key change was when the feds became involved in organic certification and industrial agriculture moved into the organics market.The problem was not with consumers, but with the fact that organics became co-opted.
I think the change in emphasis to Local is positive -- it will be harder for industrial ag to co-opt this label. It brings up other ideas that were neglected by a straight organics approach (e.g. local and traditional cuisines).
I don't think so. In my experience, people who are concerned about food often become obsessed with all aspects. Anything that gets people involved and thinking is to be encouraged.
Changing industrial ag is a HUGE challenge - making any progress at all is a big victory. It will take decades, and even then, the decisive factor will probably be economics: pesticides, fertilizers and industrial-scale operations may become uncompetitive as the price of oil and natural gas rises.Revolutionary movements always start small, and people are impatient for quick results.
The local-organic food movement is doing much more than just replacing a certain percentage of industrial ag. It is developing new models, new techniques, new ways of thinking about food. When I look at the books, innovations and cultural change, it seems to me that food is one of the success stories of sustainability. (Of course I'm here in the SF Bay Area, where sustainable food has really taken off. People's perception elsewhere may be different.)
Your desire to be involved in policy and activism seems to be more of a personal choice, rather than a comment on general strategy. This is going to be a long haul, so it makes sense to do what one feels is the most meaningful, go where one fits.
BTW, are you familiar with the work of nutritionists Marion Nestle and Joan Dye Gussow? They start off from food, but quickly end up with a critique of industrial agriculture.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:14 pm
11 Aug 2008
Better the devil you know?
There is at least a realistic possibility of visiting a local farm and determining just how destructive their practices are. Not all non-organic operations are necessarily evil.
And, really, who can ensure that organic produce from another state, South America, or China is really free of pesticides? There is a history of large business interests taking advantage of every opportunity to stick a positive label on their product. And consider the problems we are encountering with counterfeit electronics, apparel, and drugs. Sticking an organic label on crate of pesticide drenched apples is probably easy compared to manufacturing fake drugs.
There is also the small matter of getting cash to a farmer who might hire a local person to put a new roof on their house or watch their children. Sorry, but I really want to keep my neighbors employed.
Seems like a no-brainer that local would trump organic. And in a community where people really care about the safety of their food and protection of the environment, word will get around if a farmer is not responsible... a bad reputation is bad for business.
Not a good idea to poison your neighbors. But much easier to not worry about a little chemical residue -- because even though one prefers to use organic methods, one might occassionally head out under cover of darkness and spray something a bit stonger on their crop --- on food one sells to people hundreds of miles away.
Yeah... I'm skeptical regarding imported organic food... or even producs from other parts of North America. Feel free to try to assure me everything is perfectly safe and that nobody has ever tries to stick an organic label on non-organic food.
Permalink
Russ Posted 5:22 pm
11 Aug 2008
where this can go
I agree that historically once something is subsumed into the consumer "culture", that's usually both a sign that its spiritual and political vitality is waning, as well as a conscious operation on the part of commodity capitalism to drain whatever vitality is left.
I remember reading a Michael Pollan NYT magazine piece on Walmart's ominous embrace of "organic", and the fear that once the organic concept is co-opted by the machine, with all the monopoly and standardization and racing-to-the-bottom efficiency-seeking, that organic standards themselves would then be eroded away, the term would become fully commodified and drained of all content, the practice would be integrated into the assembly-line industrial process, and that would be the end for "organic" as a meaningful, vibrant efflorescence.
To the extent that these things are consumer fads, that it's hip to be green, I share your fear that the shift of emphasis from "organic" to "local" is both a manifestation of consumer fickleness and shallowness, but also part of a greenwashing shell game whereby the system tries to keep any particular sociopolitical threat from gaining real traction.
But I also agree with Bart's thought here:
While "the consumers" as a whole may be hopeless, there is also much potential mettle there, and not every activist springs fully formed and armored from the forehead of the ideal. We certainly should take advantage of ideational entry points like this as providing educational pivot points. Once somebody is interested in food miles, even if at the moment that's a whim on his part, it still provides an opening to engage both the transportation issue on a deeper level, as well as other climate-related, and eventually broader agricultural, issues.
This brings us to my take on localism.
Fad or not at the moment, localization is necessarily the fact of the future. Peak Oil militates this. So when I think about Peak Oil education, and what this means for food distribution, I think immediately that we must bolster the local-foods movement (that is, help build it into a true movement), with an emphasis on this as preparation for energy descent.
Looking at it from the other point of view, when I think of localization as it exists, CSAs etc., I see a foundation upon which the energy descent political and material organization can be built, and I would try to get those already involved (for the myriad non-Peak Oil reasons) to also see their endeavors in terms of preparation for energy descent.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 7:21 pm
11 Aug 2008
It's not clear what the desired outcome is
"I think the key change was when the feds became involved in organic certification and industrial agriculture moved into the organics market.
The problem was not with consumers, but with the fact that organics became co-opted.
I think the change in emphasis to Local is positive -- it will be harder for industrial ag to co-opt this label. It brings up other ideas that were neglected by a straight organics approach (e.g. local and traditional cuisines)."
The people involved in industrial agriculture are not going to just go away. They are going to continue to be involved in agriculture. So is the organic food movement trying to move industrial agiculture towards organic processes and co-opt it or what?
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:23 am
12 Aug 2008
Not "Either Or"
People should be demanding local and organic, not one or the other. But author Stephanie Paige Ogburn doesn't seem to realize the harms that non-local products cause, which include harms from non-local foods.
Sorry, but most of these are not environmental or ecological concerns, and the one that is is rather indirect. The environmental and ecological reasons to buy local are that doing so greatly reduces the consumption and burning of fossil fuels and doesn't support the other destructive aspects of industrial transportation. Once those harms are considered, it's just as important to buy local as it is to buy organic.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:05 am
12 Aug 2008
What happens to industrial ag
MAD MAC:
The people involved in industrial ag won't go away, as you point out, MM. However the processes that they are now using may become obsolete, and the corporations that depend on them may fade away or change form.It's not such a wild idea when you consider that industrial ag has only been around for a few decades. Industries come and go, and any industry that's dependent on cheap oil and NG is in for rough times in the years ahead.
This probably means that more human power will be involved in raising food. Richard Heinberg talks about 50 million farmers being required in America. It will take attention and ingenuity to have a productive agriculture without cheap fuels, pesticides and fertilizers.
About industrial ag co-opting the organic label ...
Actually, I think this is a victory for the organics movement. The number of acres being farmed organically has zoomed. New markets and techniques have been developed. Co-optation is a predictable part of social change, so it's nothing to be surprised at. Just savor the victory and move on.
The problem, as Stephanie describes above, is that "organic" is no longer at the cutting edge of change. "Local" seems to be where the exciting and interesting stuff is happening, and Stephanie even wants to go beyond that!
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 4:35 am
12 Aug 2008
The organic label
A lot of work has gone into making the organic label as sticky as it has. The USGBC has done much the same thing in a much shorter time with its LEED rating system. I think much of the charm of the LEED system is the tiered rating system, and it might work for an organic rating to work the same way. You get points based on how eco-friendly and responsible your practices are, and that includes how close to the farm you're selling your products.
It would certainly make things simpler at the farmers market. "Hey honey, this farmer's apples are rated Organic Plus and they're only five cents more expensive than the Organic Basic over there. Let's get these."
This is, of course, after the organic community finishes the discussion about what consititutes best organic practices in each region and if biodynamic practices should count. That is, probably somewhere around 2100.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Jonas Posted 7:26 am
12 Aug 2008
Activism and scientific rigor
Thanks for this very informative essay.
I think you nailed it when you said that most social, economic and environmental commonplaces used to legitimize localism are not unquestionable. In fact, most of these arguments are neither backed by economics or sociology, nor by science.
Your most important instinct:
This is a great choice, because it implies that you become more honest about the proposition of organic farming.
The realm of policy, activism and agribiz, is a very hard universe. You will get confronted by hard science (used by policy makers), by hard sociology (informing the critics of often simplistic activists) and by pure economics (which drives agribiz).
If, after taking these three hurdles, organic farming still comes out as a rational proposition, then that would be a great achievement. But the odds are that none of the hurdles are taken at all.
In any case, good luck with your attempt at designing a new strategy.
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 3:57 am
13 Aug 2008
If organic cost is a factor...
The Organic Trade Association reported last week that organic commodity prices are rising at HALF the rate of conventional, due to the use of products in bio-diesel. So the old argument that organic is too expensive is proving to be false and this organic gal sure is proud to eat organic! And I'm not consuming any GMOs (yuck!!!!)
"For as long as space endures, and for as long as living beings remain, until then may I too abide, to dispel the misery of the world." - Shantideva
Permalink
mkeating Posted 1:44 pm
13 Aug 2008
Organic ag's schizophrenia not USDA's fault
I've thoroughly enjoyed Stephanie's post and the comments of those who responded. It's been a good discussion of the critical issue confronting the alternative food movement today - the ascendancy of local foods and the bankruptcy of organic certification. Truth is, that people have wanted to do the right thing without taking the time to find out what that means, and they allowed themselves to suspend disbelief and accept organic certification as the be and end all of food decision making. People want to believe that a stick drawing of a cow on pasture on the label means that the milk was raised on grass; It sure wasn't hard to convince them of this. I'll add a few observations:
1. The USDA is not to blame for the deficiencies and contradictions that have eroded and will ultimately dis-credit organic certification. I feel that I can speak authoritatively on this subject since I've worked in organic agriculture since 1988 and, more specifically, worked at the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) between 1998 and 2001. I was the lead desk officer responsible for drafting organic crop and livestock standards and feel pretty familiar with these issues. I'll get right to my point: the fundamental flaws in organic certification preceded the federal government's oversight authority. The prospering of huge, globalized and corporate organic agriculture was well underway when USDA finalized the organic standards. Those standards do not represent a dilution of the previously existing state and private standards, nor have they been subsequently weakened. The USDA organic standard is the codification of the very loose / lowest common denominator organic standard that the organic industry (corporate producers, processors and retailers) had already gotten up and running. There are definitely major flaws in the USDA organic standards - check out the composting standard; it would make Sir Albert spin in his grave if he has not in fact been reincarnated) and many other arbitrary usurpations of authority by the USDA. But when it comes to the crop and livestock production practices, the USDA simply codified the gaping deficiencies that long existed in organic standards: no accounting for where the food was produced, no accounting for labor practices, and no accounting for scale. You really can't control scale in a cropping system; you can with livestock if you get serious about pasture, but we know that story. Please don't blame USDA: they didn't want anything to do with organic then, and they sure don't today! They will have quite a lot to do with it, for better AND for worse, in a Democratic administration. Truthfully, USDA has done more damage to organic standards due to its Kafkaesque bureaucratic nature than any Orwellian conspiracy. All the big corporate organic crowd - Mark Retzloff/Horizon, EarthBound Farms, Whole Foods, the big certification programs - thrived before, during and after the federalization of the organic standards. Pogo was right - we have met the enemy, and he is us!
2. Don't be displeased by the recent Farm Bill. It is impossible to go to Washington, DC and take away the goodies from corporate interests. IMPOSSIBLE. As Jack Nicholson said in Prizzis' Honor, "The Prizzis would rather eat their children than part with their money...and they are very fond of their children." Agri-business will have to collapse under its own weight; it will never be negotiated out of existence. We should rejoice at very significant - actually the most significant gains EVER - for organic and sustainable production and marketing practices. Conservation Stewardship Program brought back from the dead, Farmers Market Promotion Program funding up 500%, organic research funding up 300%, beginning and limited farmer funding up enormously. These are all extraordinary gains. One can now look across the spectrum of USDA services and see the outline - yes, only the outline, but it is there - of service delivery for alternative agriculture. That's a lot more than half a loaf. What can be done about agri-business? Learn the serenity prayer and start feeding each other.
3. There is no benefit to basing intelligent food policy on morals or values or activism. Do you appreciate how little time people have for those kind of concerns with the way we live today? As with the myth that organic certification addresses environmental, labor, animal welfare, small farmer and every other moral concern that kept consumers up at night, asking people to make emotional value decisions based on very limited information is a recipe for co-option. I say base the movement on self-interest: if you eat well, you will live long and prosper. By eat well I mean whole foods and lots, lots of quality saturated fat (I am a big Weston Price Foundation supporter) Look at what the processed food system has given us: mental, moral and physical collapse in two to three generations. Self-interest is the universal motivator. We need to get people eating real food again, and the more they do and start to experience the tangible benefits, the greater the momentum becomes.
Stephanie - thanks for a very thoughtful articulation of these all important issues. Please don't be hard on the local growers who can't jump through the organic hoops. The truth is, non-organic farms can be inferior, equivalent, or superior to their organic counterparts at whatever scale they operate. There is so much common sense community building that goes into local foods systems. I am sure that the growth will continue to explode, which is very encouraging.
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 2:32 pm
13 Aug 2008
Organics
A few responses, rather randomly, since there is always too much to respond to:
- I don't want to be an activist or a policy maker. It's much easier to sell things to people who want to buy them, like I do at market, than to be active in policy. But I think the hard roads of policy and activism are important avenues to take -- I'm doubtful a market-based movement will ever, even over a long period of time, change the system to anywhere near the degree that agrifood activists would like.
- I don't think the USDA ruined organic, but the decision to move organic under USDA highlights organic's decision, as it were, to become a label rather than a movement. And I do completely agree that it was the bureaucracy, not the conspiracy, that hurt organic in the USDA. I maintain that putting organic under the USDA was a move that cemented the movement's loss of ideological power and pushed it further in the direction of losing that power.
- I don't think changing the Farm Bill is impossible. It was changed 30+ years ago. It could be changed now. I am unsure if the sops to Cerberus in terms of organic and farmers market funding add up to the Farm Bill being anywhere close to worthwhile. Based on what's happened recently in farm policy, however, changing the Farm Bill (apparently) will take a leader who wants to change it, public opinion be damned. I'm not sure how to get a sustainable ag version of Earl Butz into power, but that might do the trick. I don't hold this farm Farm Bill, even with its millions here and there thrown to progressive organizations, up as anything we'd want to repeat, however. Because you can have all the research in the world to back up your point (see climate change and Jim Hansen, 1988) but if you can't get elected officials behind you, it doesn't matter. Organic, with zillions of dollars of research proving its worth, could very well find itself in the same boat. Of course I'm not affiliated with OFRF or other research institutions and am not getting any of this money, so maybe I'd feel differently if I were.
- Intelligent food policy or any policy comes from a moral/values standpoint. Policy is not simply people buying things; policy is elected officials, or their appointees, setting the way things work. The goal of activists and policy workers is to work so that policy makers understand the values of their constituents, and hopefully make decisions based on those values.
A major point of the post was the point that when the food and ag world moves out of policy and those values discussions and simply becomes a market movement, few are left to say: "Hey, industrial ag is wrong because the American people believe that it is wrong to pollute our rivers with fertilizer and pesticide runoff. The American people also believe it is wrong to use low wage laborers who are poisoned as a result of their work. And the American people believe it is wrong to ship food thousands of miles when it makes more economic and environmental sense to grow it close to home." So, if I were to work as an activist, policy analyst, and therefore a representative of the American people, I would be working to convince elected officials of these values that we as a nation hold, and pointing out how the current food system is the antithesis of those values. So while sure, as a member of the alternative food marketplace you can market whole food, local food, organic food, etc., to people based on self interest, what I was trying to say is that the alt-ag movement has lost strength because it is focused mainly on the marketplace, and that it should move more strongly in policy circles as a movement based on the values of our nation, which, I hope, is a nation that values both people and the environment.Stephanie
Permalink
Russ Posted 5:03 pm
13 Aug 2008
mkeating writes
Where it comes to these issues, it's a false dichotomy to feel you need to separate moral concerns from bottom-line self-interest, where both are fully engaged.
The environment - It's prima facie in our self-interest to seek cleaner water, which means less intensive synthetic fertilizer use (for less runoff); the CRP among other things helps reduce flooding and related erosion; a less industrialized agriculture producing less soot wouldn't poison the air we breathe so much, and would emit less carbon (I don't need to get into all the ways climate change will be to the detriment of man himself, even leaving the rest of the ecosystem aside).
Labor - A race to the bottom for wages, working conditions, worker safety, affordable worker housing etc. in any large industry is socially and economically bad for workers everywhere, so unless you're rich it is in your self-interest to care about this.
Animal welfare - Even if you're not morally worried about CAFOs, the fact is that these are unregulated germ warfare facilities without the most elementary safety measures. The diseases which can mutate here into god knows what more virulent forms, developing resistance to all antibiotics, sampling different, more efficient vectors, are a ticking time bomb which threaten us all, from the most gluttonous meat-gorger to the most abstemious vegan.
Small farmers - Two points here:
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:22 pm
13 Aug 2008
Russ, I'm afriad you are mistaken here
"As I said in my earlier comment, the post-fossil fuel era will be one of decentralization, scaling down, and localization. Wide distribution networks will be untenable, and large structures will collapse. So anyone who wants energy descent to be a controlled descent rather than a chaotic plummet must seek to foster devolution and localization now"
Large structures will prevail. Post fossil fuel era will simply replace fossil fuels with other means to support power and transportation needs. I know you WANT things to become more local, but it will never happen again.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Russ Posted 10:26 pm
13 Aug 2008
Mad mac,
No, I think you're the one who's mistaken.
Any post-fossil fuel energy infrastructure of any significant size can be built only on the foundation of cheap, plentiful fossil fuel. That's why Robert Hirsch says mankind would need 20 years head start on building this infrastructure before energy descent begins in earnest.
While in theory it may be possible to do this, in practice it is simply not going to be done. In the current political configuration it's not even possible to achieve such a meagerly modest goal as renewing credits for wind and solar.
It's all too clear that the bunker-hunkered dead-end scorched-earthers are all too intent on forcing civilizational suicide. Their entire agenda by now is pure obstruction:
-Deny climate change and forestall action until it's too late.
-Demagogue drilling and block renewable deployment until it's too late.
-Starve all public services and infrastructure into oblivion.
-To the extent they can't hijack regulatory agencies with treasonous political appointees, at least starve them of funding to render them impotent.
So government is not going to direct any "Manhattan project" or "Apollo program" or WW2 or New Deal or any analogy anyone chooses.
And as has become abundantly clear, private enterprise isn't going to do it either, not without massive government assistance which is not going to be forthcoming.
So a national renewable infrastructure is not going to be built. Instead men will keep drilling and burning unto the bitter end, and once the abundant juice runs out, the structures will be untenable and collapse.
You're right, I do want localization for its own sake, while I gather you don't.
But what either of us wants is irrelevant. Nature is going to devolve us, downsize us, localize us whether we want it or not.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:12 am
14 Aug 2008
What I WANT doesn't matter
"So government is not going to direct any "Manhattan project" or "Apollo program" or WW2 or New Deal or any analogy anyone chooses.
And as has become abundantly clear, private enterprise isn't going to do it either, not without massive government assistance which is not going to be forthcoming."
First of all, the world is bigger than the United States. What is successful in one place, will be emulated in others, for obvious reasons.
"But what either of us wants is irrelevant. Nature is going to devolve us, downsize us, localize us whether we want it or not."
"Us" being the South Americans and Africans, for sure. They are already bloated WAY beyond their capacity for sustainment.
The rest of "us" don't be so quick kemosabe.
This will be a blip on the historical radar screen. There might be a decade or two of really difficult times, and some mass death and warfare, before the transition is made. But it will be made.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Russ Posted 5:38 am
14 Aug 2008
blip
What will be a blip on the timeline of history is the industrial/technological era of energy gluttony.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:27 pm
14 Aug 2008
Down the road we'll be WAY more glutonous
Because we'll be able to. Just as in the 80s we were able to. The market and technology dictate all of this. Why do you hate that?
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Russ Posted 11:48 pm
14 Aug 2008
Now this is just getting silly,
...but I guess I'll bite one last time.
I suppose leprechauns are going to provide the energy for this?
"The market" - yes. Just like, if five people are trapped in a bank vault with no food, but the bank manager offers the other four enough of the money, they'll be able to make him a sandwich.
Hmm, let's see....
Of course there's the obvious rape of the Earth, the poisoning of the air and water and soil, the poison accumulating in our bodies, and in the bodies of all animals.....
Ripping up the land, decapitating the hills, hacking down the forests, vacuuming the oceans, exterminating untold thousands of species.....
The concentration of power and wealth destroys society, represses all public life, despoils the workers, privatizes every commons, encloses every range (physical and spiritual), assaults every civil liberty and human freedom...
And why? To empower everything that's ugly and thuggish and stupid and shallow and bloated and greedy and lazy and parasitic and guttering and noisy and toxic and hateful.
That's the essence of modernity. Fossil fuel industry and technology, and their economic and political concomitants, have empowered only the dictatorship of stupidity, the dictatorship of mediocrity, the dictatorship of shallow materialism, the dictatorship of greed. There's nothing of any significant size in the world today which is made up of anything but these four elements.
At the same time it has genocidally assaulted the environment and the human spirit. Thus art is dead, philosophy is dead, spirituality is dead, even simple literacy is dead.....nobility, integrity, responsibility (no one has responsibilities anymore, only "rights"; no one is a steward anymore, only a selfish "owner"), simple morality - all dead.
All of it, everything, sacrificed bloodily on the altar of your "market", your "capitalism", your totalitarian death machine of materialism.
But like I said, you're almost out of juice, so those leprechauns better get cracking.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:37 pm
15 Aug 2008
Another ridiculous diatribe
"The concentration of power and wealth destroys society, represses all public life, despoils the workers, privatizes every commons, encloses every range (physical and spiritual), assaults every civil liberty and human freedom..."
It is IMPOSSIBLE not to concentrate wealth. It gets concentrated either through accrual in a free market, or it gets concentrated by political processes that in non-representative societies. And without the concentration of wealth, major projects can not be undertaken. Many here have called for a Manhattan project for energy - well, to do that would require the concentration of wealth.
Even so, the concentration of wealth does none of the things you suggested here. You are trying to paint a picture of a world that is somehow worse to live in than it was 500 years ago - which is ridiculous by any measure.
"That's the essence of modernity. Fossil fuel industry and technology, and their economic and political concomitants, have empowered only the dictatorship of stupidity, the dictatorship of mediocrity, the dictatorship of shallow materialism, the dictatorship of greed. There's nothing of any significant size in the world today which is made up of anything but these four elements."
A ridiculous, stupid statement if ever there was one. In the modern world we have rapid transportation systems, we have the best food security situation the world has EVER seen in its history (as articulated right here on Grist), we have superb modern communications, the arts are flourishing (you've just missed it - listen to the music, the entertainment provided today - there's something for every taste, even for elitist pricks.), life expectancies are FAR longer than they were historically; modern medicine has turned a appendectomy from a life threatening event to a routine operation, has conquered all sorts of maladies. And, if you are still pining for those pure days gone by, I have one word for you: Dentistry.
"All of it, everything, sacrificed bloodily on the altar of your "market", your "capitalism", your totalitarian death machine of materialism."
Give me a better economic - political example in history. I'm all ears.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Russ Posted 7:02 pm
15 Aug 2008
mac
Hmmm, you can call me "stupid" and "ridiculous" all you like. I'll refrain from responding in kind, but I will say that I think the record speaks for itself as to who is stupid and ridiculous.
As for being an "elitist prick", I assure you, coming from the likes of you I take that as the highest compliment.
I notice you didn't answer my very simple question - where are you going to get the energy to continue your gluttony?
(You avowed the term "gluttony". You are aware gluttony's a sin, are you not?)
I won't even engage with you the idiocy which has to be involved in believing there's such a thing as a "free" market.
For the benefit of any good-faith readers, I'll just reiterate that all markets are rigged, and the only question is how much the rigging is for the general benefit, as opposed to being rigged to aggrandize this wretched parasitic wealth structure.
I'm referring to markets in the context of large-scale politico-economic structures. I already told mac I don't believe "major projects" are any longer practically possible, and that even if they were I believe they're morally pernicious, so in the above quote he's showing a bizarre lack of reading comprehension, the way he seems to imply that I am among those who want a "manhattan project".
No, if the goal is to prop up the monster, I don't want it.
I'll grant you the food security - of course only for the economic elite, even in so fat a country as America.
As for the rest - I'm going to introduce you to a radical concept: quality as opposed to quantity.
"Rapid transportation" - to go WHERE? To do WHAT?
"Modern communications" - to communicate about WHAT? Given your tone, I'm picturing you as one of these idiots with a cell phone as an appendage to his head (or, more accurately, you are the appendage of the phone), even as none of your "conversations" have any significance at all.
"The arts are flourishing" - You already said you despise the arts [on the agricultural Waterloo thread, for anyone who wants to check], so I can't imagine upon what knowledge you say this.
"Life expectancies are FAR longer than they were historically." - Life expectancies to do WHAT?
I'm sure these questions are way over your head. It's just my silly morality which demands of me a question, if man has to be such a radically disruptive, destructive force on this planet, then there better be a radically transcendent point to it all.
So I demand of those who destroy, and who applaud the destruction, WHY?
I certainly don't see any point. But then, I don't want the destruction to continue. I want devolution, stewardship, simplicity.
I'll quote again your core rah-rah fascism:
Dogma - the non-existent "free" market, the conjuring of the bugbear of "non-representative societies" (Exactly where on Earth do you see a representative society? Concentrated wealth by definition eradicates "representation". Oh, I forgot - you dogmatically deny this.), the flat-earth belief that "major projects" must be undertaken, just for their own sakes.....
....just for the sake of an ideology called Greed Fundamentalism.
And never mind that the energy for this is running out.
Which brings me back to this - mac, I remind you, you didn't tell me where the energy is going to come from to continue your vaunted "gluttony".
What's the matter - do you have a proprietary interest in the magic of those leprechauns?
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 7:35 pm
15 Aug 2008
Russ, I didn't call you stupid
I said what you wrote was stupid - because it was.
America (and Thailand, where I live) ARE essentially free market societies. Look at my place - I bought my house, free enterprise at work. I opened a Cafe and a dance studio - free enterprise at work.
No society runs a totally free market except Somalia. There are socialist elements in all societies.
"I'll grant you the food security - of course only for the economic elite, even in so fat a country as America."
Where I live too. There are poor people here, there are no starving people here.
"Rapid transportation" - to go WHERE? To do WHAT?"
To go wherever you want, and do whatever you want.
"Life expectancies are FAR longer than they were historically." - Life expectancies to do WHAT?"
Whatever you want. I think Jefferson articulated it best when he described it as "the pursuit of happiness" which I, unlike the members of the Grist, have managed to enjoy.
"Modern communications" - to communicate about WHAT? Given your tone, I'm picturing you as one of these idiots with a cell phone as an appendage to his head (or, more accurately, you are the appendage of the phone), even as none of your "conversations" have any significance at all."
Actually I don't like phones all that much. BUT, note your condescension. People who like to use cell phones to talk and text - perhaps about the trivial - are now idiots. As if every issue has to be big politics or heart surgery. This is a typical elitist attitude that considers what the average Joe desires to be beneath him, unimportant and not worthy. "Serious people" and "Activists" are important, their views must be considered, their desires are important. But Joe Six Pack - he's worthy only of contempt. Right.
"I'm sure these questions are way over your head."
Why do you think it's over my head? You think you're more intelligent than I am? Well of course you do. Almost all environmentalist are condescending by nature to those who have differing views. They can't help it.
"It's just my silly morality which demands of me a question, if man has to be such a radically disruptive, destructive force on this planet, then there better be a radically transcendent point to it all."
Ask away. People have been asking mans purpose since the beginning of time. If you ever get the answer, let us all know.
"The arts are flourishing" - You already said you despise the arts [on the agricultural Waterloo thread, for anyone who wants to check], so I can't imagine upon what knowledge you say this."
Actually I despise artists - because they too are condescending losers who think they have some special knowledge to impart on the rest of us. And I hate to use broad labels, so I probably should classify that with "most" - there are always exceptions.
"I certainly don't see any point. But then, I don't want the destruction to continue. I want devolution, stewardship, simplicity."
And I want a harem - but we just don't all get what we want in life do we? Welcome to the real world.
"And never mind that the energy for this is running out.
Which brings me back to this - mac, I remind you, you didn't tell me where the energy is going to come from to continue your vaunted "gluttony"."
It's your vaunted gluttony. I used solar to power my place because of concerns about the increase in expense of power. Where will major societies at large get power from? Nuclear, solar, wind..... give it a little time and there will be more sources at well. You grossly underestimate mans resourcefulness.
Lastly, you didn't answer my question:
What historical example of a wonderful society are you using for your model and how do you think it's possible to get there from here?
Also have you thought about dentistry in your model.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Russ Posted 9:19 pm
15 Aug 2008
mad mac
1. You "don't like phones all that much", but evidently you live in some paradise where there are no idiots who aggressively have cell phones blaring and who are constantly shouting idiocies into them.
It's an example of technology's totalitarian onslaught, the way technology helps eradicate both the private space (since now there's nowhere you can go where you're not "on call", or where you can avoid those who happily accept that) and the public space (since everyone's on call for private, capitalist goals, there's little left for civil society; and of course the physical mechanism of cell-phones themselves, the blaring, the interruption, is disruptive of all significant social interactions).
- You don't like phones that much, but you champion the predatory might-makes-right system. You're not concerned with negative externalities. In your "free market", cellphone junkies get to free ride on the backs of those who are subjected to having cell towers erected in their immediate vicinity. Why shouldn't all these freeloaders have to compensate the victims?
- It is "big politics". By which I mean, it is an issue of critical significance. Technological society is raising a cohort of hominids who will never learn what it is to become human.
If all they ever know is gadgets and machines, if their every moment is filled with this technological stimuli, far more pernicious than any drug, when will they ever learn how to think, and when will they ever have time to think?A core element of becoming human is developing the capacity for sustained thought. Your vapid noisy instant-gratification technology is an absolute assault upon this.
The effect is to deform homo sapiens into a docile, serviceable cog primate.
This is tautological. I obviously reject "whatever you want", since what most people seem to "want" does not justify the ecological destruction and social injustice which prevail.
You seem to have missed the import of the question. It's aggressive high-impact exploiters and destroyers like you who owe an answer, not those of us who want to live in peace with ourselves, with others, and with the Earth.
I asked, what justifies all of this? WHY would it be unfortunate if, for example, homo sapiens went extinct tomorrow?
My own answer would be, because the species does produce extraordinary individuals, like for example great artists. But you already said you despise artists, and you despise those who are exceptional.
So, if aliens came to Earth tomorrow and proposed to eradicate mankind on the grounds that man is an absolutely out-of-control destructive species, and that the planet deserves a chance to heal, since you've ruled out citing the glories of art and philosophy, I can't imagine what kind of answer you could give them.
BTW, just out of curiosity, since I've seen before the way you complain about the tone at Grist: if you don't like it, why are you here, and why do you argue? I've often wondered about self-proclaimed "patriots" and "christians", and anyone who goes on about how "great" America is - by their own lights, they're living in paradise. So why are they always so ANGRY?
Since you're an expatriate, maybe that last point doesn't apply to you personally, but nevertheless you do come here to argue and criticize, so why do you condemn that in anyone else who's just doing the same thing you do?
Of all of Nietzsche's critiques of christianity and christians, I think my favorite is this:
For me to believe in their "redeemer", they'd have to look more redeemed.
Yes, you were able to use solar, and "nuclear, solar, wind" are able to exist - all because they ride upon the foundation of cheap, plentiful fossil fuel (yes, fossil fuels are still cheap compared to their real existential cost).
"Man's resourcefulness". - Yes, "technology will save us", deus ex machina. Pay him enough and he'll make you a sandwich. Never mind that he has no bread or fixings.
Well, I don't know anything about dentistry, except that somehow man managed to exist for tens of thousands of years without fossil-fuel assisted dentistry.
I'm certainly not saying tooth care would be all that felicitous without modern technology, but then I never claimed that anything is going to be easy.
As for history, I've already expressed my admiration for the city-states of ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy. I'm not going to argue again about localization - I'm already clear on how I think energy descent is going to compel this.
So I guess my ideal would be a city-state centering on a watershed, with agriculture radiating out around it.
Is it possible to get there from here? I don't know. But I do know that time is running out for fossil-fuelled civilization, and I'm at least thinking about what we could try to achieve in the aftermath, rather than blithely dogmatizing about how it'll magically be business as usual.
Permalink
Russ Posted 11:47 pm
15 Aug 2008
A kindred spirit
I just wanted to link to this excellent essay by Bob Brannigan at today's Energy Bulletin.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 1:40 am
16 Aug 2008
Russ on phones and more
"1. You "don't like phones all that much", but evidently you live in some paradise where there are no idiots who aggressively have cell phones blaring and who are constantly shouting idiocies into them."
Well, it is true you can't separate a Thai girl from her cell phone. I ignore the internals of their conversations, however. My Thai isn't all that great anyway to be bothered.
"You don't like phones that much, but you champion ""the predatory might-makes-right system. You're not concerned with negative externalities. In your "free market", cellphone junkies get to free ride on the backs of those who are subjected to having cell towers erected in their immediate vicinity. Why shouldn't all these freeloaders have to compensate the victims?"
An approach like this would be suffocating. Ostensibly every time anyone tried to do anything entrepreneurial they would require "someone's" permission. This is simply handing ever more control to bureaucrats to determine the courses our lives take. If that's the way you want to live, fine. But I'll take the more laissez fair approach that Thailand offers.
"It is "big politics". By which I mean, it is an issue of critical significance. Technological society is raising a cohort of hominids who will never learn what it is to become human."
It is up to each individual to figure that out, not have someone figure it out for them and not for people like you to tell them what is and is not OK.
"If all they ever know is gadgets and machines, if their every moment is filled with this technological stimuli, far more pernicious than any drug, when will they ever learn how to think, and when will they ever have time to think?"
Again, that's their business, not yours. I notice you are sitting here using a new piece of technology aren't you? Who are you to tell someone else what technology is OK and what isn't?
"This is tautological. I obviously reject "whatever you want", since what most people seem to "want" does not justify the ecological destruction and social injustice which prevail."
The question was stupid in the first place. To go where? That would be based on the individuals requirements to get from point A to point B. Therefore, each case has its own requirements.
"You seem to have missed the import of the question. It's aggressive high-impact exploiters and destroyers like you who owe an answer, not those of us who want to live in peace with ourselves, with others, and with the Earth."
I don't owe you anything. Where do you get off? WTF???? Funny how you know so little about me, yet are quick to label me a "high impact exploiter". And do you think because you want to "live in peace" you get a free pass? Man you are so full of yourself it's beyond hubris.
Yes, you were able to use solar, and "nuclear, solar, wind" are able to exist - all because they ride upon the foundation of cheap, plentiful fossil fuel (yes, fossil fuels are still cheap compared to their real existential cost).
"Man's resourcefulness". - Yes, "technology will save us", deus ex machina. Pay him enough and he'll make you a sandwich. Never mind that he has no bread or fixings."
And here you just dismiss it - no reasoned thought. Just "it's not going to happen". Why not? Well because you don't want it to. You want a global catstrophe that wipes out 6 billion people or so. I guess you haven't thought about the ecological impacts of what that would mean, have you?
"Well, I don't know anything about dentistry, except that somehow man managed to exist for tens of thousands of years without fossil-fuel assisted dentistry."
With a great deal of pain, discomfort and short lives.
"Is it possible to get there from here? I don't know. But I do know that time is running out for fossil-fuelled civilization, and I'm at least thinking about what we could try to achieve in the aftermath, rather than blithely dogmatizing about how it'll magically be business as usual."
No your not. You are dogmatizing to death. You hate the current socio-economic structure of both the US and the world in general. It seethes out of every sentence you write. You WANT the world to crash and burn. You WANT the apocalypse. If the current energy issues are solved, and 20 years from now there is no crisis, you won't like that. You want it to happen because you hate modern civilization.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Russ Posted 2:15 pm
16 Aug 2008
mac
In other words, every time thugs wanted to attack they would need their victims' permission.
You know, it occurs to me, apropos of the dustup you and drx had over some term, that I've heard some nasty stories about the Thai sex trade.
But that's not "fine" with you totalitarians. Tell me where the frontier is where I can get away from all the capitalist scum, and I'll pack my bags tomorrow.
By that of course you mean, it's up to the coercive mass to impose itself upon the individual.
It's unfortunate that reading comprehension has become so poor. By "where" I of course meant, what's the point of a materialistic lifestyle, and why is it suddenly so important for all this scum to go jetting around the world, where for tens of thousands of years man did just fine without it?
Sigh...
I've said many times what I think is going to happen and why.
For any good-faith readers out there, here you see a version of the global warming holocaust denier process - no matter how many times you explain it to them, the next time they pretend you never explained it at all, hoping to deceive some neophyte to the issue.
As for man's population, I'm the one who's trying to figure out how to ameliorate the necessary retrenchment to 2 billion or so, what's estimated as the non-fossil fuel carrying capacity of the Earth.
You're the one who wants to do nothing until nature forces the crash, which will probably send population plummetting way below that.
Again, as you know damn well, I've explained this many times. I have indeed offered reasoned thought. You're the one who thinks leprechauns are going to provide massive energy.
(You STILL haven't answered the question I've now asked SEVERAL times - where are you going to get the energy?)
I'm not going to bother with this anymore.
We'll see.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:24 pm
16 Aug 2008
You are living on Planet Russ
"In other words, every time thugs wanted to attack they would need their victims' permission."
No, that would be assault - against the law. But what you obviously want to do is make requirements for techonological development and entrepreneurship even more constrained than they are now - and that's simply going to discourage development.
"You know, it occurs to me, apropos of the dustup you and drx had over some term, that I've heard some nasty stories about the Thai sex trade.""
You've "heard some nasty stories"? Isn't that nice. But you've never been here. This is like Wolverine who started commenting on US involvement in Somalia which he wisely dropped since I lived there for two years and was considered an area expert by the US military. My Somali nickname was "the white Somali - or Somali Caadan. Prostitution has been a normal part of the Thai social structure for about 150 years. It functions completely differently from back home. Trying to put a western moral spin on what happens here, or in Africa, is a collosal waste of time - they don't give a shit what you think of their culture.
"By that of course you mean, it's up to the coercive mass to impose itself upon the individual."
No I mean exactly the opposite. Did I write in Chinese or something?
"It's unfortunate that reading comprehension has become so poor. By "where" I of course meant, what's the point of a materialistic lifestyle, and why is it suddenly so important for all this scum to go jetting around the world, where for tens of thousands of years man did just fine without it?"
It's unfortunate that elitist pricks don't write what they mean........ When talking in the context of transportation, where would tend to refer to geography. What's the point of a materialistic lifestyle? It's comfortable. My father in law did not have a materialistic lifestyle. I lived in his home for two months - along with a host of vermin because his home was not "materialistic". What's the point in any lifestyle? Again, it's a bullshit, loaded question. It comes down to "what's the point of life" which no one can answer.
"global warming holocaust"
Now it's not just an ecological issue that has to be confronted because it could have severe impacts - it's a holocaust.
"As for man's population, I'm the one who's trying to figure out how to ameliorate the necessary retrenchment to 2 billion or so, what's estimated as the non-fossil fuel carrying capacity of the Earth."
The only way to "retrench" to two billion is to kill four billion plus. Even China's one child policy (in a state which is essentially an oligarchy with enormous state control over the individual) could not stop population growth there.
"You're the one who wants to do nothing until nature forces the crash, which will probably send population plummetting way below that."
I did not say "do nothing". What I said is that the market and technology are going to find new energy sources to replace fossil fuel.
You want MASSIVE political, social and economic reorganization of ostensibly the country and the planet. Grand political and economic reorganization has NEVER happened in world history without serious bloodshed. The kind of reorganization you are talking about could only be wrought via world war.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
hankherrera Posted 11:00 am
19 Aug 2008
Back to the article....
This dazzling discourse aside, isn't one goal for both organic production and sustainable production in general the constant improvement in soil health? Regenerative agriculture is a term for this practice. Farmers large, medium and small can practice regenerative agriculture. Local regenerative agriculture can optimize if not maximize the production of healthy food. Local food then becomes a set or series of value choices within a locality, within a community. Most if not all localities can produce a substantial number of the food products that most people eat every day, such as dairy, meat, grains, vegetables and fruit. Regenerative local food systems have the potential to deliver tasty, healthy, fresh real food to local eaters, contributing additional environmental and economic benefits. If we realized this potential, would Stephanie's critique still apply?
One other small point: To supplant the global, industrial supply chain, local supply chains would have to deliver healthy food with the same reliability and consistency as global, industrial supply chains now deliver manufactured, edible substitute substances (MESSes). Advocacy for alternative agriculture does not adequately account for this supply requirement.
One last point: Food justice requires that any food system give full access to fresh, affordable, healthy food to all communities.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:05 pm
19 Aug 2008
Hank this is a very good point
"One other small point: To supplant the global, industrial supply chain, local supply chains would have to deliver healthy food with the same reliability and consistency as global, industrial supply chains now deliver manufactured, edible substitute substances (MESSes). Advocacy for alternative agriculture does not adequately account for this supply requirement."
There are many areas of the world where local isn't going to happen because it can't. There are more people living in those locals than the water supply can support. Almost all of the Middle East fits this description. Some of Africa as well.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:02 pm
19 Aug 2008
Not so hard to beat MESSes
hankherra:
I don't think this is true, and it will lead to mistaken strategies. Two reasons.First, industrial food is very good at delivering MESSes (love that acronym!) and local supply chains should NOT compete head to head.
This is basic marketing. Instead of imitating the giants, you determine the unique value that you offer the customer, and market to that.
For example: Fresh and local, knowing the person who grew your food, heirloom varieties, great taste, supporting the local community. Plus the factor of it being chic.
Second, even though industrial food can presently deliver food cheaply, that will probably not be true in the future (as fuel, fertilizers and water become more expensive). So, all that is necessary is for alternative food systems to beat the declining economics of the food giants.
Things are changing, and huge industrial systems are not very nimble when it comes to change.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:29 pm
19 Aug 2008
Bart you missed the point
If the industrial food production chain becomes unable to provide food for export to non-food growing regions, and if Organic food growing processes can not replace that, then the people who live in East Africa, the Middle East, North Africa and other water poor regions of the world will die by the hundreds of millions. They CAN'T go local.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
auntiegrav Posted 3:55 am
20 Aug 2008
Matters of trust and honesty
We can go 'round and 'round about the benefits and movements and politics of the various 'non'profit systems, but the bottom line comes down to being able to trust without having to have a system to do so. Local trumps certified organic because it isn't 'certified', it is trust-based and simple. All of the lobbying efforts of organic orgs are good, and I appreciate them, but they are enabled BECAUSE people buy their foods over long distances and create wealth for someone to pay these organizations. If the money was kept in their pocket, then the individuals and small farms would have more political power. Would you feel safer paying 50 bucks per hour to your neighboring farmer, or to a government inspector at the end of a long chain of lobbyists and slacker contracts and policies?
Current economic conditions are pointing at the complexity of our System of systems and chortling about how stupid we have been. Most of the resources we sucked out of the ground to build our empires have been put into landfills and spewed into the air, while people are actually less happy and secure than they were 100 trillion dollars/tons of minerals ago. What do we have to show for it? We will all be forced to evaluate our trust systems and resources more frugally in the future, simply because they will be more expensive. It used to be cheap to 'hire' grocery stores to go to Mexico and beat wage slaves into weed-pulling submission. It also used to be cheap to pay farmers to go out and breath petroleum-based pesticides all day. No longer. Three meals to a revolution, people. 3 meals.
"It's not me"-Martin Blank
Permalink
auntiegrav Posted 4:06 am
20 Aug 2008
Who says they should live?
Before some sanctimonious bleeding heart starts yelling, we need to truly evaluate what we believe we are as a species. So far, we are nothing but a blight on the face of the earth, causing green things to die and dry up, spreading invasive species around with our transportation systems, and basically, acting as though the nature of the planet is some foe we must vanquish, even though doing so will kill us.
We really need to ask, "What are people for?" In the context of what life does in all cases except humanity. That means, we need to contribute more usefulness to our children than we consume in resources. Pretty simple. The complicated parts come in when we ask, "How many of us do we need to accomplish this?" "How many people can the various regions of the earth support permanently?", and "Can we work to improve those numbers to reasonably support the numbers of people we currently have spawned onto the planet?" "How will we maintain our own diversity for security against catastrophic events?"
If any particular region turns out to be unsustainable (most populous countries are actually in better shape Net Creative-wise than the industrial ones.), then cooperative actions need to be taken to improve the situation. If we don't, the randomness of nature will change the numbers FOR us.
"It's not me"-Martin Blank
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:17 am
20 Aug 2008
Autie, your post begs the question...
Who needs to ask these questions?
"We really need to ask, "What are people for?" In the context of what life does in all cases except humanity. That means, we need to contribute more usefulness to our children than we consume in resources. Pretty simple."
The question is simple enough, but who is "suppose to ask it" and, more importantly, who do you expect to answer it?
"The complicated parts come in when we ask, "How many of us do we need to accomplish this?"
No, the complicated part comes in when we expect someone to answer this.
"How many people can the various regions of the earth support permanently?"
Which of course begs the question, what do you do with the excess Herr Himmler?
"Can we work to improve those numbers to reasonably support the numbers of people we currently have spawned onto the planet?"
Not without killing off the "excess" we can't. So who's planning on being first into the gas chamber?
"If any particular region turns out to be unsustainable (most populous countries are actually in better shape Net Creative-wise than the industrial ones.), then cooperative actions need to be taken to improve the situation."
It's the cooperative actions part that concerns me. The only historical examples I know of where "cooperative actions" were taken in order to reduce populations were ethnic exterminations and mass murder. Global thermal nuclear war might do the trick. It's easy to say that large populations are a problem, straining global resources, it's another to suggest what might be done about them.
"If we don't, the randomness of nature will change the numbers FOR us."
My vote goes to the randomness of nature, because I sure as hell don't trust environmentalist to get such a question right.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:19 pm
20 Aug 2008
An inconvenient truth
I guess raising questions about how to achieve population reductions without whole sale slaughter are uncomfortable and that the idea that it is not possible is something Grist members don't want to admit or face.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 10:04 am
26 Aug 2008
4 organic tomatoes $5 last Saturday
At the farmers market. An indulgence for my daughter who wanted those tomatoes. Not a mistake that I will repeat again soon.
What happened to organic is that it became an excuse to charge double the price of goods without the certificate even when costs per unit can be comparable.
Sorry about staying on topic; I couldn't hack into another futile exercise in denial of the basic factual foundation of Malthus' mathematics.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink