<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for How legislators can help the rural]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by ChristianHGross http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:09:53 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/1 Why We Are In The Mess

I have blogged time and time again that the reason why the farmer is dying off is because people are not willing to put their money where their mouth is. I am a capitalist by nature and will defend capitalism.

I put my money where my mouth is by buying organic produce whenever possible, fair trade products whenever possible, and locally whenever possible. Yes it costs more money, as my food bill is about 25% higher than if I bought the cheapest. BUT I also feel good about helping my fellow farmer. I have two close family members that rely on farming.

In fact I wish this blog would focus more on how to help farmers because farmers are the "canaries" in the mine.

]]> Why We Are In The Mess

I have blogged time and time again that the reason why the farmer is dying off is because people are not willing to put their money where their mouth is. I am a capitalist by nature and will defend capitalism.

I put my money where my mouth is by buying organic produce whenever possible, fair trade products whenever possible, and locally whenever possible. Yes it costs more money, as my food bill is about 25% higher than if I bought the cheapest. BUT I also feel good about helping my fellow farmer. I have two close family members that rely on farming.

In fact I wish this blog would focus more on how to help farmers because farmers are the "canaries" in the mine.

]]> Comment #2 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:00:24 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/2 It always amazes me ...

.. that so many organizations that they believe they are fighting to help small farmers, and therefore farming communities, continue to support the status quo, which is what got them into this mess in the first place.

At a seminar I attended in Washington, D.C. last September, I spoke with the head of one of these organizations (who shall remain anonymous), and expressed surprise that she was against any limits on subsidies per farm or per recipient, and was pushing for the restoration of price supports.

"But those always favor large, low-cost corporate producers," I argued.

"Yes, I know", she said, "but we need their buy-in in order to get more money into agriculture."

$#@&?!

One other observation: in country after country, commodity-linked and area-based subsidies drive up the price of farmland, making it more difficult for young farmers to enter the business. So how do most governments respond? Not by reducing the subsidies that artificially inflate farmland prices, but by offering subsidies and loans (typically in token amounts) to young farmers. One subsidy begets another, and another, and another.

Nothing short of a wholesale reform of agricultural policy is needed.

]]> It always amazes me ...

.. that so many organizations that they believe they are fighting to help small farmers, and therefore farming communities, continue to support the status quo, which is what got them into this mess in the first place.

At a seminar I attended in Washington, D.C. last September, I spoke with the head of one of these organizations (who shall remain anonymous), and expressed surprise that she was against any limits on subsidies per farm or per recipient, and was pushing for the restoration of price supports.

"But those always favor large, low-cost corporate producers," I argued.

"Yes, I know", she said, "but we need their buy-in in order to get more money into agriculture."

$#@&?!

One other observation: in country after country, commodity-linked and area-based subsidies drive up the price of farmland, making it more difficult for young farmers to enter the business. So how do most governments respond? Not by reducing the subsidies that artificially inflate farmland prices, but by offering subsidies and loans (typically in token amounts) to young farmers. One subsidy begets another, and another, and another.

Nothing short of a wholesale reform of agricultural policy is needed.

]]> Comment #3 by Whiskerfish http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:04:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/3 What's so special

about rural communities?

Why isn't it better if half these people just moved to the cities?

Whiskerfish

]]> What's so special

about rural communities?

Why isn't it better if half these people just moved to the cities?

Whiskerfish

]]> Comment #4 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:46:07 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/4 I'm with Whiskerfish, and Ron

Explain to me why is it important to keep these small towns alive? Those who have left the small towns are gainfully employed elsewhere. Note that our food production has not fallen off in tangent with the decline of these rural centers. So, this is not leading to starvation.

The future may be one of profitable organic farmers in close proximity to major urban centers, if that is what the market creates, and if the government and everyone else would stop trying to prop up a lifestyle that is an echo of our former agrarian economy.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> I'm with Whiskerfish, and Ron

Explain to me why is it important to keep these small towns alive? Those who have left the small towns are gainfully employed elsewhere. Note that our food production has not fallen off in tangent with the decline of these rural centers. So, this is not leading to starvation.

The future may be one of profitable organic farmers in close proximity to major urban centers, if that is what the market creates, and if the government and everyone else would stop trying to prop up a lifestyle that is an echo of our former agrarian economy.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #5 by blueberrysushi http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:02:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/5 Rural revitalization

As Karl Stauber has said, rural America has gone from America's storehouse to America's playground. A lot of rural communities have pitched their "livability" to people from urban areas, so-called "exurbanites," who bring their human and physical capital, along with their infrastructure demands and McMansions. This is an interesting change for rural America, and one that does not necessarily bode well for people concerned with sustainability.

I have heard many propose that the influx of educated, wealthy, often environmentally-oriented people can only bring improved ecological conditions to these communities. There is, in fact, a thesis that as nations develop, we become more and more environmentally friendly. This thesis, in my mind, completely overlooks our consumption: where are all of these preservationists getting their goods? As long as we can treat other countries as our storehouses, then rural America will continue to wither. It will be pretty places, nice scenery, detached from our definition of work and our buying habits. In my view, there is not a less sustainable way to treat our rural lands.

Indeed, while ranchers and loggers have borne the brunt of many environmentalists' ire, their use of the land for commodity purposes has, at least, kept many rural areas rural. The development of the rural landscape, termed "aspenization," has ensured that many areas that once depended on natural resources now depend on a service industry that perpetuates social stratification, with low-income service jobs (often taken up by migrant workers) providing a support system for the wealthy who want to play cowboy now and then. That may be an unfair generalization, but it is not altogether untrue. Developments have popped up across the country, but notably in the West, catering to second- and third-home buyers or just people looking for a vacation. These people bring their money and their jobs that do not depend on the landscapes around them, fundamentally changing what it means to be "rural." What was once a livelihood dependent on the land is now just scenery, a theme park.

I know that change is the only constant, but I cannot help but be saddened by this loss of our links to the world around us. As commodification of our resources continues, and as we lose all sense of where products came from (this desk I'm typing on, fake wood - probably raw products from Canada, processed in China), and nature becomes just another backdrop. The seasons change for our amusement, and the trees exist for pictures.

]]> Rural revitalization

As Karl Stauber has said, rural America has gone from America's storehouse to America's playground. A lot of rural communities have pitched their "livability" to people from urban areas, so-called "exurbanites," who bring their human and physical capital, along with their infrastructure demands and McMansions. This is an interesting change for rural America, and one that does not necessarily bode well for people concerned with sustainability.

I have heard many propose that the influx of educated, wealthy, often environmentally-oriented people can only bring improved ecological conditions to these communities. There is, in fact, a thesis that as nations develop, we become more and more environmentally friendly. This thesis, in my mind, completely overlooks our consumption: where are all of these preservationists getting their goods? As long as we can treat other countries as our storehouses, then rural America will continue to wither. It will be pretty places, nice scenery, detached from our definition of work and our buying habits. In my view, there is not a less sustainable way to treat our rural lands.

Indeed, while ranchers and loggers have borne the brunt of many environmentalists' ire, their use of the land for commodity purposes has, at least, kept many rural areas rural. The development of the rural landscape, termed "aspenization," has ensured that many areas that once depended on natural resources now depend on a service industry that perpetuates social stratification, with low-income service jobs (often taken up by migrant workers) providing a support system for the wealthy who want to play cowboy now and then. That may be an unfair generalization, but it is not altogether untrue. Developments have popped up across the country, but notably in the West, catering to second- and third-home buyers or just people looking for a vacation. These people bring their money and their jobs that do not depend on the landscapes around them, fundamentally changing what it means to be "rural." What was once a livelihood dependent on the land is now just scenery, a theme park.

I know that change is the only constant, but I cannot help but be saddened by this loss of our links to the world around us. As commodification of our resources continues, and as we lose all sense of where products came from (this desk I'm typing on, fake wood - probably raw products from Canada, processed in China), and nature becomes just another backdrop. The seasons change for our amusement, and the trees exist for pictures.

]]> Comment #6 by Steph Larsen http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:17:51 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/6 Why save rural?

There are a lot of answers to the question "Why care about rural communities?" One might be that with 55 million Americans living in these communities, it would be undemocratic to categorically ignore their voices. Another would be equality--we routinely spend tax dollars revitalizing run-down parts of urban areas, and rural areas deserve similar treatment. While it's possible that our food production has not decreased dramatically, it has also gotten more consolidated and unsustainable, adopting many practices that are arguably much worse for the environment than ever before. As an advocate for local organic food, I personally make sure that as much of my food as possible comes from local organic sources, but I speculate that every major urban area does not have the space for profitable local organic farmers to feed all the residents in the nearby city, especially with rampant urban sprawl. In addition, if even a majority of rural residents suddenly moved to the city, there would be a huge strain on infrastructure and resources, not to mention that an influx of labor would likely not do good things for wages and working conditions.

There is one argument, however, that I think we can all relate to, if you can bear with me for a moment. I want you to picture the place you consider home. Perhaps you are in that place now, and can look around, and feel how good it is to be there. Then, imagine what you would feel or do if someone told you that you couldn't, or shouldn't, live there anymore. Approximately 20% of Americans live in small towns and rural areas, and many of them are passionate about protecting their homes and communities. I think it's unfair for folks to suggest that rural residents leave the places in which they want to live.

Many of us, whether we realize it or not, have rural roots or depend on rural areas. I think the idea of allowing rural communities to go to waste would have unintended and unforeseen consequences. I admire that our country still allows for equal opportunity to all our residents, and I hope that these opportunities would not be denied due to geography.

]]> Why save rural?

There are a lot of answers to the question "Why care about rural communities?" One might be that with 55 million Americans living in these communities, it would be undemocratic to categorically ignore their voices. Another would be equality--we routinely spend tax dollars revitalizing run-down parts of urban areas, and rural areas deserve similar treatment. While it's possible that our food production has not decreased dramatically, it has also gotten more consolidated and unsustainable, adopting many practices that are arguably much worse for the environment than ever before. As an advocate for local organic food, I personally make sure that as much of my food as possible comes from local organic sources, but I speculate that every major urban area does not have the space for profitable local organic farmers to feed all the residents in the nearby city, especially with rampant urban sprawl. In addition, if even a majority of rural residents suddenly moved to the city, there would be a huge strain on infrastructure and resources, not to mention that an influx of labor would likely not do good things for wages and working conditions.

There is one argument, however, that I think we can all relate to, if you can bear with me for a moment. I want you to picture the place you consider home. Perhaps you are in that place now, and can look around, and feel how good it is to be there. Then, imagine what you would feel or do if someone told you that you couldn't, or shouldn't, live there anymore. Approximately 20% of Americans live in small towns and rural areas, and many of them are passionate about protecting their homes and communities. I think it's unfair for folks to suggest that rural residents leave the places in which they want to live.

Many of us, whether we realize it or not, have rural roots or depend on rural areas. I think the idea of allowing rural communities to go to waste would have unintended and unforeseen consequences. I admire that our country still allows for equal opportunity to all our residents, and I hope that these opportunities would not be denied due to geography.

]]> Comment #7 by Tom Philpott http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:39:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/7 supermarket delusions

I'm afraid that in a society where 98.5 percent of people lived divorced from the land, there's a prevalent fantasy, even in these parts, that rural areas don't matter. I'll weigh in on this more substantially soon.

Victual Reality

]]> supermarket delusions

I'm afraid that in a society where 98.5 percent of people lived divorced from the land, there's a prevalent fantasy, even in these parts, that rural areas don't matter. I'll weigh in on this more substantially soon.

Victual Reality

]]> Comment #8 by Rune http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:13:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/8 When the roots die, so does the soil

One of many reasons to care about the plight of smaller farmers, the abundance of which results in rural towns, is that to the extent they are uprooted and replaced with large scale industrial agriculture, soil degradation is being accelerated.  The negative impacts on farm productivity due to the advance of soil degradation are being counteracted with genetic engineering and substantial inputs of fossil fuels as well as pesticides and fertilizers synthesized from oil and natural gas, which is making the underlying problem steadily worse.  In fact, soil degradation is a problem, and in many places a matter of "serious concern," in the majority of farming areas in the United States.  Notably, agriculture accounts for about two-thirds of man made soil degradation in the U.S. (over grazing accounts for another 30%) compared to less than 30% of European or worldwide soil degradation, as indicated in this report.

Low impact farming, the type that conserves and grows soil, requires a large and highly educated farm management labor force.  Intensive industrial farming thrives on replacing wise farm managers and workers familiar with the land, weather, and a variety of nutritious crops, with massive machinery and fossil fuel used to push maximum yields out of mind bogglingly large tracts of land, usually planted with a single crop.  Every year, the soil is further thinned and exhausted as a result.  An enlarging region of the U.S. touched by drought, which is forecast to become the norm according to most global warming models, is most heavily impacted by the trend, as are the farmers that once dotted the landscape.

The immediate effects of this shift are shared worldwide in terms of releases of carbon that was once held by the soil into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming, and regionally in terms of silt and eutrophying fertilizers that are washed and blown from the soil to rivers, lakes, and oceans where it chokes and kills much of the biodiversity once found there.

Eventually, however, there will come a time when the loss of U.S. soil quality and the worsening effects climate destabilization cannot be overcome by the brute force approach of industrial agriculture to farm productivity needs.  We will be in serious need of well educated farmers who have studied their land and crops and prepared for changes that lie ahead for it.  Where will they be found after we have driven them from the land and exterminated the culture and values that would have promoted the brain trust we will need?

]]> When the roots die, so does the soil

One of many reasons to care about the plight of smaller farmers, the abundance of which results in rural towns, is that to the extent they are uprooted and replaced with large scale industrial agriculture, soil degradation is being accelerated.  The negative impacts on farm productivity due to the advance of soil degradation are being counteracted with genetic engineering and substantial inputs of fossil fuels as well as pesticides and fertilizers synthesized from oil and natural gas, which is making the underlying problem steadily worse.  In fact, soil degradation is a problem, and in many places a matter of "serious concern," in the majority of farming areas in the United States.  Notably, agriculture accounts for about two-thirds of man made soil degradation in the U.S. (over grazing accounts for another 30%) compared to less than 30% of European or worldwide soil degradation, as indicated in this report.

Low impact farming, the type that conserves and grows soil, requires a large and highly educated farm management labor force.  Intensive industrial farming thrives on replacing wise farm managers and workers familiar with the land, weather, and a variety of nutritious crops, with massive machinery and fossil fuel used to push maximum yields out of mind bogglingly large tracts of land, usually planted with a single crop.  Every year, the soil is further thinned and exhausted as a result.  An enlarging region of the U.S. touched by drought, which is forecast to become the norm according to most global warming models, is most heavily impacted by the trend, as are the farmers that once dotted the landscape.

The immediate effects of this shift are shared worldwide in terms of releases of carbon that was once held by the soil into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming, and regionally in terms of silt and eutrophying fertilizers that are washed and blown from the soil to rivers, lakes, and oceans where it chokes and kills much of the biodiversity once found there.

Eventually, however, there will come a time when the loss of U.S. soil quality and the worsening effects climate destabilization cannot be overcome by the brute force approach of industrial agriculture to farm productivity needs.  We will be in serious need of well educated farmers who have studied their land and crops and prepared for changes that lie ahead for it.  Where will they be found after we have driven them from the land and exterminated the culture and values that would have promoted the brain trust we will need?

]]> Comment #9 by gmunger http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:03:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/9 hey whisker, ron and bio-d

Ever read Wendell Berry? He's a farmer and poet from KY, and he has a lot to say about your question. I could not begin to even paraphrase him on this issue.

Maybe Tom will weigh in later and include some of Wendell's profound and inspiring words on this topic. I shall search for some relevant ideas to share as well.

]]> hey whisker, ron and bio-d

Ever read Wendell Berry? He's a farmer and poet from KY, and he has a lot to say about your question. I could not begin to even paraphrase him on this issue.

Maybe Tom will weigh in later and include some of Wendell's profound and inspiring words on this topic. I shall search for some relevant ideas to share as well.

]]> Comment #10 by John Crabtree http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:25:03 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/10 in response to whisker and bio-d

i know that i missed the debate but i just couldn't resist

there is one thing that i agree with biodiversivist on, namely that the government should stop their "propping up" behavior.  Of course, he makes an assumption about what is being "propped up" that follows the common myth that so many swallow.

What we're propping up out here with virtually unlimited government subsidies is the consolidated, corporate, high-tech production systems that you deem so valuable and invulnerable.

What's happening to small farmers, ranchers and rural communities is not the product of some invisible economic hand, some unchangeable natural phenomenon.  The consolidation, concentration and corporatization of agricultural assets in rural America is the product of public policy choices that were made by people and that can be changed by people.

Explain to me why urbanites like you seem to think rural people owe you something and that everyone that lives out here secretly dreams of living in your neighborhood?

A fair shake, that's all we need, no more than we deserve but no less either.  And if we cannot agree to create public policies that accomplish that, perhaps we should just go our separate ways, lol.  We'd have about 60 million people and 80% of the property in America, 98% of the food production, 98% of the energy production, and all the really nice places to look at.

Oh, and we'd have most of the nuclear weapons too, so be nice :-)

]]> in response to whisker and bio-d

i know that i missed the debate but i just couldn't resist

there is one thing that i agree with biodiversivist on, namely that the government should stop their "propping up" behavior.  Of course, he makes an assumption about what is being "propped up" that follows the common myth that so many swallow.

What we're propping up out here with virtually unlimited government subsidies is the consolidated, corporate, high-tech production systems that you deem so valuable and invulnerable.

What's happening to small farmers, ranchers and rural communities is not the product of some invisible economic hand, some unchangeable natural phenomenon.  The consolidation, concentration and corporatization of agricultural assets in rural America is the product of public policy choices that were made by people and that can be changed by people.

Explain to me why urbanites like you seem to think rural people owe you something and that everyone that lives out here secretly dreams of living in your neighborhood?

A fair shake, that's all we need, no more than we deserve but no less either.  And if we cannot agree to create public policies that accomplish that, perhaps we should just go our separate ways, lol.  We'd have about 60 million people and 80% of the property in America, 98% of the food production, 98% of the energy production, and all the really nice places to look at.

Oh, and we'd have most of the nuclear weapons too, so be nice :-)

]]> Comment #11 by usandthem http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/ Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:49:15 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/restoring-rural-roots/11 Farming

Hey whiskerfish! What the heck, are you not aware that those people on farms have lives that are worthwhile? Maybe you like depending on corporate farms that only care about the buck,but I don't and I sure don't trust big business at any level to care about my food or the land or the water or plants and animals.When was the last time that agribusiness indicated any caring for water pollution or enriching rather than depleting the land.Obviously whiskerfish has no idea about farming or healthy soil or what is involved with getting food from the land to the urban areas.I would have to think that whiskerfish lives in a large city or is totally unaware of any aspect of farming. Steph Larson's viewpoint is more articulate than mine.Read it and ponder.
 The farmlands of the WORLD are at the limit of production and still we keep thinking that everything is alright.Well,think about this!Why do you suppose that genetically engineered food is even being thought of? We at at the limits of what fertilizer and hybridized plants and insecticides and herbicides can do,so we are trying to make plants do what they should not do.All for the almighty buck.These plants have not even been throughly tested,but they are being grown out in the open like there is no danger of polluting our food supply PERMANENTLY.Enough for now,but read and learn a little more before you think that it is simple to grow safe and healthy food,when the science of food production is being surpressed by our current ,not so benevolent emperor.dubya

Why not ask why!?



]]> Farming

Hey whiskerfish! What the heck, are you not aware that those people on farms have lives that are worthwhile? Maybe you like depending on corporate farms that only care about the buck,but I don't and I sure don't trust big business at any level to care about my food or the land or the water or plants and animals.When was the last time that agribusiness indicated any caring for water pollution or enriching rather than depleting the land.Obviously whiskerfish has no idea about farming or healthy soil or what is involved with getting food from the land to the urban areas.I would have to think that whiskerfish lives in a large city or is totally unaware of any aspect of farming. Steph Larson's viewpoint is more articulate than mine.Read it and ponder.
 The farmlands of the WORLD are at the limit of production and still we keep thinking that everything is alright.Well,think about this!Why do you suppose that genetically engineered food is even being thought of? We at at the limits of what fertilizer and hybridized plants and insecticides and herbicides can do,so we are trying to make plants do what they should not do.All for the almighty buck.These plants have not even been throughly tested,but they are being grown out in the open like there is no danger of polluting our food supply PERMANENTLY.Enough for now,but read and learn a little more before you think that it is simple to grow safe and healthy food,when the science of food production is being surpressed by our current ,not so benevolent emperor.dubya

Why not ask why!?



]]>