What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

superreader — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:15:17 GMT

C Ed Wright asked "Anyone here know what a CSA is?"

CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture, and it's a local food movement where farmers work directly with consumers. People invest up front in the farm, becoming shareholders of the harvest. They receive a proportional share of the harvest each week. This stable funding lets the farmer focus on growing instead of marketing, increases bioldiversity on the land and the likelihood the land will stay in production rather than be sent to devlopment. Shareholders get the very freshest seasonal local produce at the peak of ripeness, usually with no pesticides and often Certified Naturally Grown or Certified Organic. More info on the CSA movement is at:

More info

· Local Harvest: What is CSA and how does it work? www.localharvest.org/csa/

· Wilson College: What is CSA? www.wilson.edu/wilson/asp/content.asp?id=1273

· UMass Amherst: Community Supported Agriculture www.umassvegetable.org/food_farming_systems/csa/

Eileen, Earthwize Farms Team

www.earthwizefarms.com

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

Julieanne — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:26:27 GMT

Rett

You say there is no scientific proof that the earth is warming due to man. Even if that were true, and I am not going to talk science here, we still need to do all we can to stop polluting the planet. I can't see anyone making 'obscene amounts of money' by encouraging us to use less energy and water.

We are also running out of oil, and have to find alternate sources of energy. We consume too much and dump stuff when new things come along. Whether this will affect the climate or not I can't say (I'm not getting into that argument) but it will make for a cleaner earth if we change our ways.

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

Julieanne — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:24:07 GMT

C Ed Wright

'Miracle grow .........no different than natural 'organic' nutrient salts in solution'. WRONG!

This is an old argument that everything can be reduced to a chemical. It completely ignores the biological process of how plants take up nutrients.

Most people make the mistake when thinking of organic farming of stressing the lack of chemical pesticides, fungicides etc. It's not just about that. It is about using insect predators to deal with the pests, feeding the soil naturally (carbon-based materials), using crop rotation and growing mixed crops so there are not large areas of one type of plant to attract a particular pest. It is a lot of things too numerous to mention here, but the emphasis is on how one feeds the soil - certainly not with Miracle Grow!

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

Julieanne — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:03:19 GMT

C Ed Wright

I agree, sometimes I don't know what message someone is referring to. But there is not always a 'reply' button on all messages - don't know why. That is why I put your name on top - there was no 'reply'.

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

Nebraskamom7 — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:00:21 GMT

I don't know where the stats came from that "agricultural runoff is the primary reason why 60 percent of US rivers and streams are polluted". On any given day, spring through fall, when driving in the city, I never cease to be amazed by the number of lawn care companies out and about spraying chemicals on the lawns of businesses and homes to make them vibrantly green and weed free (even in drought years) and then see the number of lawn water sprinklers running (even during rainy weather) and the water is running down the street into the storm sewers. While I don't disagree that there are farmers who are very careless with runoff, I think if you added up the number of city dwellers who fit the above scenario, it might surprise you as to whom the real culprit is. And how about the industries who "legally" dump their "approved waste" into the rivers. Just some things to think about. I guess as someone who makes a living by farming, I get a little tired of "farm runoff" being blamed for so much stream and river pollution and never is there any mention of the city folks who send chemical pollution straight into the storm sewers just because they have to have the nicest looking grass, flowers, trees, etc in the neighborhood.

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

walterserth — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:48:29 GMT

Mr. Pollen is right, but many are not aware of other obstacles in getting good food to our tables. Here are some examples: I represent the largest potential source of grassfed beef in America, probably bigger than everyone else put together. Large grocery chains won't buy because large distributors haven't. Burger chains for the same reason. Plus, their boards are afraid of 30 month old beef. The liability scares them because the government advises against older beef and does not distinguish between cornfed and grassfed. Even though there is no E-coli problem in grassfed beef. One of the largest health food chains in the country toured our ranches. No interest, I was told because a key person was a vegetarian and wasn't interested in animal products. Then there's the health food chains. They charge 30-40% mark up. Regular grocerys, far less. Most do not know what is healthy in animal products and they don't want to. They think organic meat is healthy. It is, if it's grassfed. If it's cornfed it will still contribute towards your heart attack. Organic? The greatest thing to happen to vegges since rain. But what is organic today, would not have been three years ago. Changes had to be made to increase the supply after some of the food giants wanted it in their food stores. Then there's the consumer. Most do not know whats healthy, they rely on what their told. What if the people telling you don't know? If you research you might learn, but even then most do not know there's two different group's of nutritionist. One gets their information from the food companies, the other from independent research. The two are 180 degrees opposite on fats and oils. Finally, there are the Farmers Markets. A excellent source and a valuable aid for the small local farmer. However you might want to look hard at the large displays. If all their boxes have the names of food companies on them, they probably are buying their vegges from a distributor.

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

Tweetybird — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:27:17 GMT

CSA = Community Supported Agriculture

I belong to one in here in Illinois; I buy fresh organic produce (veggies, fruit, and herbs) right from the farm once a week from May through October. It couldn't be fresher or healthier.

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

C Ed Wright — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:01:56 GMT

Sustainable agriculture is a wonderful thing that we need our agribusiness giants to wrap their heads around. No question about that. Especially since we're doing with corn almost exactly what we did with wheat to cause the infamous Dust Bowl disaster. It's really not all that complicated or difficult or more expensive, either: The cows, sheep, etc., all have to be grazing somewhere, and all the crops have to be planted somewhere, you switch all the somewheres around each year. It's already computerized...

There's a wonderful Storey book available, "Raising a Calf for Beef", that describes a far better way -- a little bit more labor-intensive but manageable -- to fatten the animal than feedlot-finishing: You start each calf's day with a scoop of grain, adjusted to the size of the growing animal; THEN it's put out to pasture (after partial weaning, of course). After 18 months you get so-called "baby beef" from a nearly full-size animal that is a close second to Kobe Beef but is ten thousand times more natural for & kinder to the animal in the process; finely marbled like Prime but with an amount more like Choice or even Select, not the heavy few lines of last-minute fat as in feedlot-finished beef that ends two years of super-lean pasturing.

But I could only get part way through the interview because a raucus klaxon kept going off in my head hoarsely barking "Berkely!" ... "Berkely!" ... Berkely!" while a red light flashed and a siren shrilly wailed "Le-e-EFTI-i-ist...le-e-EFTI-i-st,,,le-e-EFTI-i-st...!" Just couldn't take all the Lefteranto about carbon footprints and greenhouse gasses. I began thinking how expensive it would be to round up ll the Leftists and bus them to all the farms so they could unload all their bull manure into the fields where it could do some good. Maybe we could entice them to WALK there by telling them there are TONS of new regulations right there in the fields just waiting for them but they have to get there on foot...

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

Pat Ormsby — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:14:13 GMT

Many people see "environmentalism" in a narrow, corporate-controlled sense: antisocial elitists. None of the environmentalists I know personally advocates biofuels. All are involved in sustainable farming initiatives, all advocate a return to more simplicity. None considers Al Gore a real environmentalist. None voted for him. All are trying to bring the left and right together to work towards long-term solutions. Many do not identify themselves as "environmentalists" because of the negative connotations that word has picked up in a corporate-controlled media.

Because of my health advocacy, I have been called an "environmentalist" in the pejorative sense. Okay, I might as well admit it: because I advocate health, a simpler lifestyle, and cooperation to achieve sustainability, I am an environmentalist! And so are most of the people on this site.

The real problem with environmentalists as I see it is that we step on a lot of corporate toes. They don't like independent science. Another problem with us is that we are only human. Let's compare corporate vices to human ones. Corporations are amoral abstractions but they run on immorality, and those that don't compete likewise get crushed. They use dishonesty more and more effectively with experience.

Humans have ego involvement and are loathe to give up ideas even when presented with contrary evidence. We all do this to some degree. But anyone can see through it.

How do we break through the corporate media walls and reach the public? You've got to try harder and harder, and once you've managed to get some attention, either you've sort of exaggerated or if you've been really careful not to, someone else comes along and sensationalizes the subject, then uses it as a straw man to attack you.

Let's recognize our true friends and enemies.

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

Vincent Mross — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:23:43 GMT

Excellent article! Another point about sustainability in general... Many people don't realize that our fractional reserve banking system (which is one giant ponzi scheme) requires exponential growth of the economy just to keep up with the exponential growth of the money supply. This puts companies in the position of having to bring disposable products to market just to keep the treadmill going and the bills paid as inflation spirals ever higher. An excellent short animated film which explains this very clearly and should be required viewing in every grade school across the country is "Money as Debt":

http://www.moneyasdebt.net

Also, check out "Fiat Empire":

video.google.com/videoplay

http://www.fiatempire.com/

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

Dr Rik — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:18:40 GMT

Having spent much of my life in rural areas, it was a constant source of frustration (in a democratic society) to see urban groups making decisions that affected vast areas that they don't even understand.

Urban environmentalists don't necessarily have a good picture of game management, agricultural vs. wilderness preserve, and a host of other issues that country people live with everyday.

City based environmental groups often have a philosophical or religious agenda that is disconnected from rural reality.

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

gallucci — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:14:13 GMT

Correction:

Pfiesteria is not a bacterium. It is a dinoflagellate, in the protist Kingdom.

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

Corvidae — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:21:39 GMT

I like what this article had to say. The problem I have with some (NOT all) environmentalists is their application of dualistic thinking to environmental issues - the separation of humans and nature as if the two are completely opposed. (i.e. if there's anything human in an area, suddenly it's not 'nature' or 'natural' and therefore corrupted). Humans are animals too, and a part of nature. Our activities can, in fact, be good for the environment (for example, note ladybug's comments on the use of controlled burns by Native Americans). 'Nature' can use us as much as we use it. Unfortunately, much use of the land/environment these days ISN'T good for either the environment or ourselves. Balancing human needs with those of the environment, preferably for the betterment of both, is an art we are still learning. I am hopeful, however...

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

Otorongo — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:14:34 GMT

I agree with you both, writer4rent and Beccadog. I consider myself an environmentalist. Although I don't take insult, I am disappointed that Michael Pollan is generalizing and with generalizing come common assumptions, which serve no one.

Permaculture has been around for 20 years or more. It's nothing new. I know and have known many sustainable farmers. That's not new either. However, I know only a miniscule number of eco/native landscapers. Fortunately this is catching on and the numbers are slowly increasing, as is the information .

Now that's an area of contention. Landscaping the traditional way means, cut down the trees, rip everything out, kill all the insects, put up a fences and traps to deter animals and replant with exotics and grass. That's the most awful crime against nature in my book. It's called rape the environment and destroy habitat for numerous plant and wildlife species.

I have a 1 acre lot, mostly wooded with an inground pool that's been converted to a huge frog pond. I've researched and identified the plants and trees that exist here before removing anything. Than gradually began removing what is Not native.

Although many exotics are beautiful, for instance the butterfly bush, which attracts and feeds butterflies. Unfortunately few people know how invasive it is and that butterflies who visit it will not lay their eggs on it. Hence there is no next generation of the species.

Many exotics compete for habitat, usually pushing out the native species and escaping into the woods, upsetting the delecate balance of the entire echo system, whether it's a macro or micro environment.

Native plants are not only beautiful, they grow easily because they are meant to be here and are easy to maintain. They attrack and support the native wildlife, create food and shelter for them and enhance the soil and the plants that thrive on the forest floor (the litter layer). Even if you don't have a forest, don't rake or mow your leaves, leave them they feed the soil and support wildflowers and keep the grass from growing (no lawnmower, no gas, no work).

I also have a 400 square foot vegetable/herb garden. The rabbits, ground hogs and occational snapping turtle are not interested in it because they have what they need nearby. Friends and family are shocked that my garden has not been touched in 20 years.

When the neighbors start removing and cutting things down, it sends the wildlife packing to my yard.

It upsets me, but I'm happy to know they have someplace to retreat to. I love to hear the birds singing and the frogs croaking. It is a most beautiful experience.

Yes we should be thinking about pristine places and keeping them that way and no we don't need to encroach on those last few places left in the world unless it's done respecfully during eco-visiting or not at all.

Large groups like the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife should be honored for fighting the big fight, to save what's left of our planet. It's not that they're thinking is everything must be untouched, it's that the untouched areas must remain untouched for the sake of not loosing any more or our natural resourses, national treasures, wild plants and wildlife. That's the battle they chose. They can't fight every battle. In order to be successful their fight must be focused and it is.

We on the other hand need to focus on another battle. We need to work with what we have, instead of trashing more of our natural resourses, national treasures, wild plants and wildlife. The key is think small. Look in your kitchen, in your bathroom, in your living room, look in your own back yard.

Good land management is important in every yard, not just the pristine forests and prairies.

Don't be fooled into thinking it's only about the the larger places because it's not. Nor is it just about recycling, and composting. Nor is it just about consuming less. Nor is it just about our food choices or sustainable agriculture. Nor is it just about restoring your own land or back yard to it's natural origins. It's about deeply caring to live a fully sustainable life.

Educate yourself and don't listen to sound bites and prophaganda on TV, radio and the rag news. They will only distract you from the task at hand.

Know that your dollars spent or not spent, tell the big boys what you want and don't want.

Don't be lulled into the idea that you don't count or you're only one person and what can one person do. We can make a difference, but we must work at it and overcome our own short comings and short signtedness.

Don't wait for the big boys to do it for you, because they don't care to.

Take the first step. Choose one place to start and never turn back. When you've accomplished your first task of living a sustainable life, expand your horizons. Living every day of your life with the upmost respect for everything else in your environment. It's the only way we're going to save the planet.

One person at a time. It's contagious, do it, be the example!

Look at the man or woman in the mirror and start there.

Love and Light to you all.

re: What is Wrong with Environmentalism?

dshacks — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:28:26 GMT

With 6 billion people on the panet already and heading for 10 the demands for increases in resources, food, water, energy and probaly air are not sustainable. Going back to ancient farming techniques are just not an option if we intend to feed our expanding herd. If you live in a city of any size farming is just not an option. Unless we lower the population by choice, nature will lower it for us. You can't beat the system, you can only live within its limits.