Changing Policy to Reflect Changing Times

“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”

– William Arthur Ward

From rapid deforestation to vast species extinction, heavily contaminated soil, water, and air, and anthropogenic climate change, we are living in an era of global quickening.  Changing weather patterns are occurring faster, to extreme degrees, shocking plant and animal species with unusual events, to the extent that now even the most uneducated layperson can visually and experientially understand what scientists have been warning of for several decades.  Regardless of why these changes are occurring, the fact is the Earth is changing, and if we have learned anything from the past lessons gleaned from fossils and glacial analysis of past climate change and mass species extinction it is imperative that we must adapt to these changes if we expect to survive.  With such rapid changes, we need to move beyond rhetorical questions of “is climate change real” and away from the optimistic apathy of “it will all work itself out” to active participation in physical solutions and adaptive behavior.  We need a shift in awareness of our own unconscious individual choices that result in actions that contribute to these problems to conscious decision making and action.  We need a shift in our collective community awareness that is translated into social and environmental policies that protect all living systems and reflect inherent value in Life itself.  We need policies on all levels, local, national, and global, immune to corporate pressures and financial temptation, policies that stand strong with integrity for the wellbeing for all, and not just those who can afford it.

Current approaches to addressing the complex web of environmental, social, and economic problems facing us today includes fining businesses and individuals, lodging complaints in public records, or filing lawsuits, but these don’t solve the root of the behavior that caused the problem in the first place.  It’s like swatting flies without removing the garbage they are breeding in.  True solutions to these anthropogenic problems are rooted in whole system thinking.  Here are just 2 examples of solutions that take a “whole system approach”:

 Problem:  Heavy industry polluting air and water supplies while producing excessive amounts of unrecycled materials that end up in vast landfills.

Solution:  Investment is needed in the innovation of scientists and systems designers to design a “soft” industrial model founded on recycling of all materials including cycling “wastes” back into the system, creating a net zero carbon footprint modeled off of the principles of nature itself.  Materials must biodegrade. Policies are needed that regulate the production of material items, assessing the true value of an item based upon its total environmental cost and benefit to humanity, resulting in the reduction of needless garbage and ecosystem degradation.  Policies are needed that place industries accountable for the garbage found in landfills and on sides of roads; it is this current system of industry whose name is littered across the highway.

 We live in an age of incredible technological knowledge and skill and the common person now walks around with powerful gadgets that are connected to satellites in space that enable them to communicate with anyone around the world.  We need to harness that innovation towards the development of technological systems that allow humans to enjoy the goods they want without sacrificing the rest of the Earth for them.  Innovation is needed in material engineering, to find low-cost options of degradable materials for items that are not intended to last a lifetime (a quick survey of national landfills would provide us with enough information as to which brands/companies need this innovation most).  Innovation is needed in mechanical engineering, to design filtration and production facilities that are manmade “green machines” that harness nature’s powerful tendencies to produce materials without emitting toxic wastes and chemicals.  We need innovation in architectural design that builds using natural patterns of stability and structural integrity, while installing internal systems that regulate the interior climate much like the body regulates its internal organs.  We need investment in education to make these innovations a national priority.

But before we can even do that, we need to ask ourselves some very difficult questions as a society.  Are the “goods” industries create even worth the “bad” they produce?  Do we really need these things?  What is the measure of worth we are basing value upon?  Why don’t we have any “checks and balances” for the inevitable quality of human greed?  If government is set up to protect its citizens, than these questions must be at the top of the list to consider, regardless of political fears of campaign finance monies being pulled.  Many government reforms need to be made, to bring the political process back to a state of transparency too seldom seen on The Hill.  To finance these critical investments in national innovation, we need to shift political priorities from where they currently stand, and invest in education and innovation to solve these great problems facing humanity.

Currently, for every tax dollar from 2011:

–  27% goes to fund military operations

–  21.4% goes to Medicare and Healthcare

–  14.5% goes to paying off our national debt

–  2.2% goes to social security, unemployment, and labor

–  4.5% goes to the government

–  4.4% goes to veteran’s benefits

4.3% goes to food & agriculture

– 3.9% goes to housing and community

–  2.5% goes to Education: Energy and Environment

–  1.3% goes to Transportation

–  1.2% goes to International Affairs

–  1% goes to Science  (www.nationalpriorities.org)

National security is rooted in the ability of a nation to protect and provide for itself.  Our security is at greatest risk with polluted water sources, artificial food sources, and ecosystem destruction, dangers we are doing to ourselves.  National security is at risk when our nation no longer invests in domestic jobs and local businesses.  By consolidating our understanding of “security” into terms that genuinely reflect the dangers facing humanity, and reforming the political process that allows for campaign finance contributions from powerful corporations (whose own self interests and profit margins are not in line with the greater good for the ecosystems they reap from), we can put national taxes to work on domestic innovations that serve multi-functions:  1) create long-term jobs, 2) restores ecosystems and reverses pollution, 3) produces perennial crops for food, fuel, fiber, pharmacopoeia, and animal fodder, 4) funds environmental education grounded in ecological science, 5) national security is secured by reduction of international conglomerate corporations exploiting international peoples and territories and by the domestic investment of all of the above.

Problem:  Massive corporate-owned mono-agriculture is depleting biodiversity with genetically modified organisms, and poisoning local water sources with contaminated soil erosion and agrochemicals, while local economies falter.

Solution:  Support local organic farmers who provide local employment, fresh food, and cultural nourishment to their communities as they support biodiversity of local wildlife and reduce carbon emissions through reduced transport of their goods and services; invest in the “crop insurance” of heirloom varieties that provide viable seeds for the following season; invest in perennial crops that can withstand fluxes in climate; invest in the education of new farmers that focuses on regenerative methods of agricultural production and ecosystem restoration.

The new 2012 Farm Bill was recently passed by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.  This five-year, $500 billion Farm Bill would eliminate direct payments to farmers, slash subsidies, bolster crop insurance, and consolidate conservation programs.  Committee chariwoman, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) commented, “By eliminating duplication, and streamlining and consolidating programs, we were able to continue investing in initiatives that help farmers and small businesses create jobs.”  As noted on the United States Committee for Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry newsroom, among the bill’s benefits are the following:

  • Eliminates direct payments. Farmers will no longer be paid for crops they are not growing, will not be paid for acres that are not actually planted, and will not receive support absent a drop in price or yields.
  • Consolidates two remaining farm programs into one, and will give farmers the ability to tailor risk management coverage—meaning better protection against real risks beyond a farmer’s control.
  • Strengthens crop insurance and expands access so farmers are not wiped out by a few days of bad weather.
  • Expanding export opportunities and helping farmers develop new markets for their goods.
  • Investing in research to help commercialize new agricultural innovations.
  • Growing bio-based manufacturing (businesses producing goods in America from raw agricultural products grown in America) by allowing bio-manufacturers to participate in existing U.S. Department of Agriculture loan programs, expanding the BioPreferred labeling initiative, and strengthening a procurement preference so the U.S. government will select bio-based products when purchasing needed goods.
  • Spurring advancements in bio-energy production, supporting advanced biomass energy production such as cellulosic ethanol and pellets from woody biomass for power.
  • Helping family farmers sell locally by increasing support for farmers’ markets and spurring the creation of food hubs to connect farmers to schools and other community-based consumers.
  • Extending rural development initiatives to help rural communities upgrade infrastructure and create an environment for small businesses to grow (Stabenow 2012).

As positive as many of these changes are, many believe that this important bill missed an opportunity to truly address the systems of agriculture in theUnited States.  Craig Cox, Senior Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Environmental Working Group said, “The 2012 farm bill should do more to support family farmers, protect the environment, promote healthy diets and support working families…It needlessly sacrifices conservation and feeding assistance programs to finance unlimited insurance subsidies and a new entitlement program for highly profitable farm businesses” (Folimer 2012).  Indeed, with so much influence from lobbying agribusinesses in Washington D.C., the voices of the local farmer who is struggling to keep the farm that was passed down for generations is often lost.  The concern is too much emphasis is being placed on “crop insurance” while GMO seeds with “suicide genes” engineered into their DNA is used in large, conventional agriculture.  As farmers have always known, true crop insurance comes with carefully selecting hardy seeds year after year, feeding the soil with organic composts and green manures, and diversifying species in the agro-ecological system.  Just as U.S. health insurance companies have profited from poor American diets that are largely comprised of hydrogenated corn syrups and artificial flavorings, so too would agricultural insurers benefit from the continued destruction of viable seed banks through the spread of GMO seeds and anthropogenic climate change.  True insurance comes from the prevention of such things.

In addition, funding has not been mobilized for programs designed to support new farmers as they begin the process of starting their own farm.  New farmers need incentive and support to start family farms before wealthy developers can scoop up prime agricultural land for housing projects that neglect to look longer than immediate profits.  We need policies to promote and protect our next generation of family farmers.

The complex interweave of problems facing us today requires an equally innovative approach to solving them.  Responsibility falls both on the individual to shift awareness of unconscious individual choices that result in actions that contribute to these problems to conscious decision making and action, and in our collective community awareness that is translated into social and environmental policies that protect all living systems and reflect inherent value in Life itself.  For this to happen, reforms in a broken political system must be made, and pressure by individuals must be placed on the democratic representatives bound to protect its citizens.

References

Folimer, Max.  “Massive Farm Bill Clears Senate Committee” April 26, 2012.  http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/04/26/massive-farm-bill-clears-senate

Stabenow, Senator Debbie.  “Chairwoman’s summary of the 2012 Farm Bill Committee Print.”  April 20, 2012.  United StatesCommittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.  http://www.ag.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/2012-farm-bill-committee-print

A Bright Future for Smart Cities

“We talk about civilization as though it’s a static state. There are no civilized people yet, it’s a process that’s constantly going on…”

– Jacque Fresco, The Venus Project

(Image Courtesy of zeitgeist-ny.com)

With human populations surpassing 7 billion in 2012, and nearly 3 billion now living in urban areas, it is being estimated that by 2025 approximately 70% of the world’s population will be living in cities (PRB 2010).  Such staggering numbers of people living closely in urban areas currently requires consumer goods such as food and material possessions to be produced in high volume from natural resources found all around the world, then transported into cities using vast quantities of fossil fuels.  Take the recent decline in ahi tuna markets experienced in restaurants across the U.S.:  what is really happening?

Massive fishing fleets spread extensive nets into the oceans at night, catching everything in their path.  Such mass-harvesting depletes sensitive fisheries and disrupts the food chain for other species relying upon the same nutrient source.  As fish populations decrease, local mangrove ecosystems are cut down to create man-made fish farms to support the demand for fresh fish.  When disease strikes the mono-aquaculture, the farms pump hormones and antibiotics into the fish.  Once harvested, the fish are placed on the backs of diesel trucks that drive to capital cities and then on to port towns where they are shipped as cargo on massive barges (fueled by coal or diesel), then  transported again on diesel trucks or trains where it is distributed to restaurants throughout urban areas.  Urbanites have become accustomed to consuming on an infinite scale, without thought to seasonal availability.  Indeed, the appetite for ahi tuna around the Great Lakes region is a result of the depletion of fresh fish along the shores of the Great Lakes.  The regional traditional diet of Lake Perch has been thwarted for many years by heavy industrial and waste water contamination, which remains to be adequately addressed.  This lack of local fish resulted in outsourcing to international waters for delicious fish such as ahi tuna, and the unconscious cycle of depletion and destruction continues.

By many estimates, the carbon footprint of the average American in the United States would require the equivalent of 6-8 Earths if all 7 billion humans on Earth were to consume like Americans.  As urban dwellers relate to the human made environments around them and are shielded from the realities and consequences of their choices, the disconnect between what urban dwellers consume and the resources they deplete is increasingly evident.  Indeed, many people who live in the city rarely make it out to spend time in rural areas to see the damage their craving whims create.  Is this really the peak of our human potential?

 One solution to this blinded urban design, is to design our urban spaces to become more productive.  Aquaponics, a method of growing both vegetables hydroponically and market fish by circulating the fish waste through grow beds, stacks the needs and functions of food production with fish production and is based upon the natural patterns and tendencies of riparian zones (areas along streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans).  The herbs and vegetables growing in aquaponics beds utilize the nutrients in the waste from the fish, and at the same time aerate and filter the water for the fish.  In urban areas found along riparian zones, aquaponics could provide the necessary first step towards addressing increasing food demands while remediating ecological degradation, and at the same time reduce the amount of water needed to produce valuable edible resources.  When pumps are powered by renewable energies such as solar and wind, aquaponics is an ideal solution to a multifaceted problem. Organizations such as Growing Power (www.growingpower.org) and Sweet Water Organics (www.sweetwater-organic.com) in Milwaukee, WI, have brought this technology to the common table.  Together with UWM’s Institute for Fresh Water Studies, Growing Power is working to analyze the needs of fresh water Perch as a way of incorporating the reincorporation of the depleted perch populations into aquaponics food production systems as they reach out to disadvantaged individuals and communities in the heart of the urban jungle.

Other cities have turned urban problems such as high energy consumption and air pollution into local political solutions.  Green roofs, aka living roofs, use hardy plants to create a barrier between the sun’s rays and the tiles or shingles of the building’s roof.  In 2000, led by Mayor Daley, the City of Chicago put a “38,300 square foot green roof on a 12 story skyscraper…Twelve years later, that building now saves $5000 annually on utility bills” (Buczinsky 2012).  New York City has also seen a boom in green roofs installed on their buildings:  In Queens, a green roof installed on the Con Edison Learning Centre has seen a 34% reduction of heat loss in the winter months, and summer temperatures inside the building have been reduced by 84%, saving on air-conditioning costs and fuel.  Inspired, the City of Toronto has become the first north american city to mandate “all residential, commercial and institutional buildings over 2,000 square meters to have between 20 and 60 percent living roofs”, beginning April 30, 2012.

Canada Green Roof

Schools are getting on board as well, as they see educational opportunity that addresses budget crunches.  In Denver, CO, a public school converted their one-acre athletic field by turning it into an organic garden, and in just eight months it has been so successful that they have “harvested over 3,000 pounds of produce….salad greens and root vegetables, tomatoes, eggplant, peppers” for their school cafeteria (Huff 2012).  Other schools throughout California enjoy the efforts of Common Vision (www.commonvision.org), an organization that has planted thousands of fruit and nut trees at schools, traveling via biodiesel school buses converted into theatrical caravans that teach urban students through african drumming, dance, and theatrical presentations the importance and beauty of stewarding a future of fruit trees.

Still more community organizations, such as The Victory Garden Initiative (“Move Grass, Plant Food”) and the Fruity Nutty Group in Milwaukee, WI, are also turning to urban agroecology for edible solutions (www.victorygardeninitiative.org).  Planting “fruit tree guilds” in urban areas allows urban and suburban dwellers to plant edible perennials such as fruit and nut trees that are vertically stacked together like pieces in an ecological puzzle, in ways that mutually benefit the soils shared between species and attract beneficial insects and pollinators, and are also aesthetically pleasing and lead to the redevelopment of urban food forests.  Imagine walking down the street, and every plant you see is edible, medicinal, used for fuel or fibers or animal fodder!  How nice it would be to stop along an urban street, chatting with others as you stop to pick an apple or peach or plum.  All the nicer, say, if those cars we use sputtered out water vapor instead of carbon dioxides.

The Future of Design is a documentary highlighting structural and industrial engineer, Jacque Fresco’s work with The Venus Project, a project whose aim is to improve society through the worldwide utilization of a theoretical design that it calls a “resource-based economy”. The model aims to incorporate sustainable cities and valuesenergy efficiencycollective farmsnatural resource management and advanced automationinto a global socio-economic system based on social cooperation and scientific methodology (The Venus Project, 2012).  Though Fresco’s work was considered “futuristic” in earlier eras, today we are seeing many of his ideas sprout into action.  Urban CSAs (community supported agriculture) work collectively with local farmer cooperatives to provide fresh local organic produce to urban and suburban homes in the form of market baskets that the consumer can take home each week.  Even RSAs (restaurant supported agriculture) have developed, as restaurants saavy to the need for balance between consumption and ecological production seek to support local organic farmers and highlight their flavors in seasonal dishes (http://www.braiselocalfood.com).

With so many daunting issues caused by unconscious decision in urban and rural areas alike, it is inspiring to see so many conscious urban dwellers make positive changes that have multifaceted benefits to their urban communities.  Many are seeing the future that renowned architect, designer, and futurist Jacque Fresco has been seeing over his 96 years, and share his sage perspective:

“I have no notions of a perfect society, I don’t know what that means. I know we can do much better than what we’ve got.   I’m no utopian, I’m not a humanist that would like to see everybody living in warmth and harmony: I know that if we don’t live that way, we’ll kill each other and destroy the Earth.” (Jacque Fresco, The Venus Project).

References

Buczynski, Beth.  “Toronto Becomes First City to Mandate Green Roofs,” 2012.   http://crispgreen.com/2012/03/toronto-becomes-first-city-to-mandate-green-roofs/

Common Vision.  Oakland, CA.  www.commonvision.org

Fresco, Jacque.  The Venus Project.  Venus, FL.  www.thevenusproject.com

Growing Power.  Milwaukee, WI.  www.growingpower.org

Huff, Ethan A.  “School turns abandoned athletic field into organic garden that grows thousands of pounds of produce to serve in cafeteria,” 2011.  Natural News.  http://www.naturalnews.com/034319_school_food_fresh_produce_garden.html

Population Reference Bureau. 2010.  http://www.prb.org/educators/teachersguides/humanpopulation/urbanization.aspx

Sweet Water Organics.  Bay View, WI.  www.sweetwater-organic.ocom

The Victory Garden Initiative/Fruitty Nutty Group. Milwaukee, WI.  www.victorygardeninitiative.org

Plant a Tree, Harvest the Rain

Water.  That delicious ubiquitous substance that sets our emerald green and aquamarine planet apart from the every other planet in the known universe.  Earth’s oceans hold 97% of all the water found on our planet, but only 2.4% of all water found on Earth is freshwater, of that small margin over 87.2% is tied up in frozen glaciers, ice and snow.  The presence or absence of water is the only difference that distinguishes a lush tropical rainforest from a dry desert, an oasis from certain death.  Our own bodies are made up of 60% water, our brains 70%.  Without, where would we be?

According to UNICEF/WHO, 2 billion people lack access to safe water supplies (2012).  Globally, that’s approximately one in eight people, or three times the population of the entire United States.  The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that each year a population the size of Los Angeles, 3.575 million people, die from water-related disease (2008).  Traditional forms of water collection from rivers, streams, and ponds are no longer safe for the 2 billion people who rely upon available surface water sources for their daily drinking, washing, and bathing needs.  As human populations increase, agricultural production increases, which leads to an increase in both use and contamination of water sources.  This especially affects surface water, where agri-chemicals such as fertilizers and herbicides wash into rivers, streams, and ponds, and percolate down into groundwater sources, the largest source of available fresh water on the planet (12%).

While rainwater catchment on personal homes is the first step to increasing accessibility to fresh water for personal use, less than 0.001% of the total world water supply is actually found in the rain clouds.  Of the largest source of fresh water, groundwater is tapped increasingly by large agriculture, which extracts the precious resource as readily as oil is pumped from resevoirs.  Indeed, water is the new oil, and Big Ag is the largest consumer, irresponsibly irrigating crops:  flooding swaled beds or utilizing sprinklers that spray water into the air, losing much of the precious resource to evaporation by wind or sun.

To increase water supplies, agroecology can provide solutions proven by nature.  Planting native perennial species, such as fruit or nut trees, not only reduces water dependency from thirsty non-native species, but can also encourage the stabilization of weather patterns as plants absorb groundwater and pump it back into the atmosphere to form clouds (and eventually rain) through the hydrologic cycle.  So plant a tree today, harvest the rain tomorrow, and rest assured your children’s children will have an abundant Earth of plentiful water and food.

References

UNICEF/WHO. 2012. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Special Focus on Sanitation.

World Health Organization. 2008. Safer Water, Better Health: Costs, benefits, and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health.

Anthropogenic Climate Change calls for Anthropogenic Solutions

“I am speaking from an area of water that has never been water before. It has always been frozen solid. It is uncharted. There are no depth readings on the map because no ship has ever been able to measure them. No one has ever been anywhere near where we are now. We have sailed for the last 100 miles through open seas in an area that in the past would have only been accessible to the biggest ice-breakers.

Now it is clear water.”

–  Sir Peter Blake, Independent, 2001

Talking about climate change with western society is like talking to an alcoholic who just refuses to admit he has a problem, though his breath stinks and there are a pile of empty bottles surrounding him.  There is undeniable evidence all around us, in every corner of the Earth, that the climate is changing.  From the unseasonably warm March in Wisconsin (Monday, March 19th, Milwaukee, WI was shockingly enjoying weather warmer than Honolulu, Hawai’i and its early spring has seen temperatures remain at nearly 80° F over the previous two weeks), to the relentless rains throughout the tropics that has extended the rainy season far into the dry season (ruining corn, bean, and squash crops in subsistence farming cultures such as those in Guatemala), a changing climate is a phenomenon increasingly difficult to deny.  Speak to any farmer, gardener, or beekeeper, or wildlife ecologist with their feet firmly planted upon the earth, and you will hear strange tales of early blossoms, early bee activity, early mosquito activity, or depending on where you are:  late rains, late dry season, late cultivation, late harvests.

In fact, I was just in the highlands of Guatemala at the end of February, and the villagers of a small remote pueblo called La Pila, southeast of Patzún, pointed to their powdery mildewed corn stalks and snow pea plants and explained to me that their crops had failed because of climate change.  They can no longer plant their crops at the end of the rainy season as they used to because the rainy season has not stopped to give them an opportunity.  This means that annual plants that are susceptible to molds and mildews when exposed to excessive moisture are in danger of dying from too much rain.  For a culture who lives directly off the harvests of their annual crops, this means their families have no food and as a result, the men of the village have to leave their villages to find work to buy food that has been shipped in from afar.  For those considered “lucky”, some men are able to find enough work to earn as much as Q25.00 ($3.20 USD) a day, but this is not nearly enough to feed a hungry family.  What struck me the most was the tone of this dignified Kaq’chi’kel Mayan man, as he spoke intelligently of climate change as both an obvious phenomenon and the greatest challenge facing his people.  In this moment, I was newly astounded and ashamed at the arrogance of western culture, those privileged few who refuse to acknowledge the changing climate or the impact that human industry and their own consumption has had in accelerating the changes.

 “Whenever we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”

-John Muir

Geologists and climatologists and even anthropologists have long understood that the Earth’s climates shift throughout the centuries.  Arctic and Antarctic glaciers have provided scientists with a clear idea of our global climate history:  by drilling deep into an ice sheet, scientists can analyze the air bubbles that have been long trapped between the layers of ice and begin to put together a time line that includes CO² variance, volcanic eruptions, and temperature changes as indicated by oxygen isotopes.  The UN Environment Programme has provided a record reaching back over 800,000 years through the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA), and has seen that extreme climate changes have indeed occurred over the course of history.  There is good reason to believe that our Earth is currently experiencing, in part, a natural cycle of climate change.  Changes such as the amount of energy received from the sun, changes in the Earth’s orbit and changes in the way the ocean and atmosphere interact with each other occur regularly throughout the history of the Earth.  However, these natural changes are being compounded by anthropogenic changes in land use, deforestation, a growing world population, and an increase in greenhouse emissions.  In 2005, for example, burning fossil fuels released approximately 27 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere.   EPICA’s analyses of ice coring in the Antarctic indicates that the climate is warmer now than it has been since the beginning development of civilization, agriculture, and urbanization (J. Bouzel et al., 2007), a trend that coincides precisely with the development of the industrial revolution.

Despite the controversy surrounding human-caused climate change, this idea is not new.  In the years preceding his Nobel Prize in 1903, Swedish chemist and physicist, Svante August Arrhenius, introduced the connection between CO² levels in a warming atmosphere and human activities that increase CO² levels, such as coal burning (Nobel Lectures, 1966).  Arrhenius’ hypothesis wouldn’t be demonstrated scientifically until David Keeling, from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawai’i, produced annual measurements of CO² concentrations that indicated a substantial rise from 315 ppm in 1958 to 392 ppm in 2011 (NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, 2011).  In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to review scientific evidence on the causes and effects of human-caused climate change, and is comprised of scientists and government representatives from over 130 countries worldwide.  In 2007, the IPCC published an extensive report representing over 6 years of research by over 2,500 scientists, stating that there is a 90% probability that recent rapid climate changes result from human activities (AR4, 2007).  Some changes, such as the increased size of the hole in our protective ozone layer, are referred to as having a 99% probability of being caused by humans and carbon emissions (2007).  The report indicates effects of these climate changes such as a global warming of the climate by conservative estimations of  3°-8° F (1°-6° C), resulting in rapid arctic glacial melting and flooding of global sea levels by 3-6 ft. (1-2 m), putting cities such as London, Mumbai, Boston, Miami, and New Orleans under water (2007).

In 2011, NASA’s Earth Observatory reported: “before the industrial age, the ocean vented carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in balance with the carbon the ocean received during rock weathering. However, since carbon concentrations in the atmosphere have increased, the ocean now takes more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases. Over millennia, the ocean will absorb up to 85 percent of the extra carbon people have put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, but the process is slow because it is tied to the movement of water from the ocean’s surface to its depths” (NASA 2011). Draft diagram of the carbon cycle.(Image courtesy of NASA’s Earth Observatory http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov)

Already we are seeing these changes faster than even the IPCC report estimated.  In 2009, government officials of Tuvalu, an island in the Pacific that is located between Hawai’i and Australia, spoke with the UK about the very real threat of rising ocean levels submerging their small island, and the prospects of “climate refugees” : people displaced by climatically induced environmental disasters.  The prospects of mass global migration in an already compressed world brings certainty to future conflicts along political borders.  According to a documentary entitled, Climate Refugees (2010), “for the first time, the Pentagon now considers climate change a national security risk and the term climate wars is being talked about in war-room like environments in Washington D.C.: (2010).   Indeed, for the first time in history, these natural disasters and projected political conflicts result from rapid ecological changes that are largely anthropogenic, changes such as   “increased droughts, desertification, sea level rise, and the more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, cyclones, fires, mass flooding and tornadoes” (Climate Refugees, 2010).  

You cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that caused the problem

–  Albert Einstein

It is clear to me that we cannot begin to address solutions to climate change with the same degree of denial that has contributed to its anthropogenic acceleration.  Like an alcoholic struggling to come to terms with his addiction, before we can begin to undo all the harm we have done, we must first understand the depth of our involvement and admit our part in it all.  With this in mind, Cape Farewell, an innovative non-profit organization has begun to “instigate a cultural response to climate change.” Since 2003, the organization has worked in partnership with scientific and cultural institutions to deliver a climate program centered around engaging the public, “using the notion of expedition – Arctic, Island, Urban and Conceptual – to interrogate the scientific, social and economic realities that lead to climate disruption, and to inspire the creation of climate focused art which is disseminated across a range of platforms – exhibitions, festivals, publications, digital media and film” (2003).  All this is to begin the dialogue that challenges our communities to look at how they interact with each other and with the Earth and its resources in a new way.

My hope lies with the young creative minds, who see the ecological and social profit in planting trees that bare fruit while they cycle carbon emissions back into the soil, in areas where massive deforestation has led to desertification and food insecurity.  My hope lies with the solution-oriented minds who look to Nature’s pattern of resiliency for clues as to how science and engineering can reintegrate with cycles of renewable energy and waste cycling.  My hope lies with those social entrepreneurs who see that economic abundance is only possible when the Earth’s natural ecological abundance is intact.  Climate change has been accelerated in just a few generations by models of industry that are incompatible with the very Earth it stands upon.  The future of how humans live upon the Earth, how we design our homes, food systems, energy systems, waste cycling, and ecological restoration depends on creative, innovative minds that are unbound by traditional forms of thought that have led us down this path of ecological, economical, and cultural destruction.

Resources

Cape Farewell.  http://www.capefarewell.com/climate-science/the-science.html. 2003.

Climate Refugees. http://www.climaterefugees.com/, 2010.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Assessment Report 4 (AR4), 2007.  http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

J. Bouzel et al.  EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800KYr, Deuterurm Data and Temperature Estunares.  UN Environment Programme, 2007.

NASA Earth Observatory.  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/printall.php, 2011.

NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, 2011.

Nobel Lectures, Chemistry 1901-1921, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1966.

Toxicology and Remediation in Agroecology Systems

“In the 21st Century, every garden is a bioremediation project”

Ben Falk, Whole Systems Design, LLC

The Problem points to the Solution.

As human populations increase and spread outwards from urban areas, trails of industrial toxicity follow our every move.  Urban and suburban areas are constantly exposed to toxins from industrial manufacturing that seep into our soils, leach into our water sources, and hover in the air we breathe.  Our farmland is treated like an industrial production site, soaked with chemicals in the form of agro-fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that stick to the food we eat and wash into the water we consume daily.  These toxins include carcinogens (cancer-forming chemicals), endocrine disrupters (chemicals that disrupt hormone functioning), neurotoxins (attack nerve cells), mutagens (chemicals that change DNA in cells) and teratogens (that  cause abnormalities during embryonic development) that take on familiar forms throughout our homes and communities.

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring served as the voice of the canary in the mine shaft, exposing the toxic biomagnification of pesticides like DDT on the food chain.  Today, the siren is still ringing and has reached popular media.  In 2008, Dr. Joseph Mercola, founder of http://www.mercola.com, the second most popular wellness site after WebMD, published a listing of the most common household items that pose serious environmental and human health concerns over continued exposure.   In 2010, TIME magazine published a full listing of 10 most common toxins found in U.S. households, warning parents of the risks for exposure.  The following is a summary comprised by Professors William P. and Mary Ann Cunningham (2012):

Atrazine most widely used herbicide in America.  More than 60 million pounds are applied per year, mainly on corn and cereal grains, but also on golf courses, sugarcane, and Christmas trees.  Disrupt endocrine hormone functions in mammals, resulting in spontaneous abortions, low birth weights, and neurological disorders.  In 2003 the European Union withdrew regulatory approval for this herbicide, and several countries banned its use altogether. 

Phthalates are found in cosmetics, deodorants, and many plastics (such as polyvinyl chloride and PVC) used for food packaging, children’s toys, and medical devices.  Known to be toxic to laboratory animals, causing kidney and liver damage and possibly some cancers.  Endocrine disruptors have been linked to reproductive abnormalities and decreased fertility in humans.

BPA (BIsphenol A) a key ingredient of both polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, is one of the world’s most widely used chemical compounds.  Used in items ranging from baby bottles, automobile headlights, eyeglass lenses, CDs, DVDs, water pipes, the lings of cans and bottles, and tooth-protecting sealants.  Traces of BPA are found in humans nearly everywhere…In one study of several thousand adult Americans, 95% had measureable amounts of this chemical in their bodies.  Unbound molecules can leach out, especially when plastic is heated, washed with harsh detergents, scratched, or exposed to acidic compounds, such as tomato juice, vinegar, or soft drinks.  BPA is linked to a myriad health effects, including mamary and prostate cancer, reproductive organ defects, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, liver-enzyme abnormalities.

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C8) used to make nonstick, waterproof, and heat stable, stain-resitant products such as Teflon, Gortex, Scotchguard, and Stainmaster, in airplanes and computers to cosmetics and household cleaners.  Shown to cause liver damage as well as various cancers and reproductive and developmental damage.  In 2005, EPA announced the start of a study of human health effects of these chemicals.

Polybrominated diphenyl etheres (PBDEs) is a flame retardant used in textiles, foam in upholstery and plastic in appliances and computers.  150 million metric tons (330 million lbs) of PBDEs are used every year worldwide. European Union has already banned PBDEs.

Perchlorate is a waterborne contaminant left over from propellants and rocket fules.  Tests of cow’s milk and human breast milk detected perchlorate in nearly every sample from throughout the U.S.  Can intefere with iodine uptake in the thyroid gland, disrupting adult metabolism and childhood development.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are found in pesticides and are extremely widespread: found from Tropics to the Arctic.  POPs bioaccumulate in food webs and reach toxic concentrations in long-living top predators such as humans, sharks, raptors, swordfish, and bears.

One year after Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power reactors were severely damaged by climactic earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis that ravaged the island nation, they are still emitting high quantities of radioactive cesium, radioactive strontium, and other isotopes that cause cancer and birth deformities.  Arnold Gunderson, Energy Advisor from Fairewinds Associates in Vermont, found that areas from 30-60 km from the site are so contaminated with radioactivity that “people should not ever return.” In Tokyo, 250 km away, five samples were taken from soils and all were found to contain radioactivity strong enough to be considered nuclear waste by U.S. standards.  Despite the warnings provided by Fukushima, over 60 nuclear energy plants continue to be built today with no means for mitigating nuclear disasters.

“The question is whether any civilization can wage relentless war on life without destroying itself, and without losing the right to be called civilized.”
― Rachel Carson

One would think that such a glaring problem that affects so many areas of our lives would bring instant reform of industrial and agricultural practices. Despite widespread scientific research, analysis and stark evidence of the environmental and human health impact of these industrial chemicals,  these toxins are still being used daily.

What is the Solution to this toxic mess?

Fortunately for humans, Nature has been practicing sound ecological remediation and restoration for ions and can provide a model for dealing with our self-imposed mess.  In a 2007 workshop intensive with microbiologist Dr. Elaine Ingham of the Soil Food Web, Ingham introduced the concept of restoring deadened soils by following natural succession models of landscape regeneration.  For example, when a natural disaster hits (such as a volcanic explosion), the first pioneer species to inhabit the deadened areas are bacteria, soon followed by cyanobacteria, protozoa, nematodes, microarthopods and fungi, who break down toxicities left in the soil and make it suitable for plant growth (Ingham 2007).  Catering to these early successional microorganisms and/or innoculating soils with key pioneer microorganisms can accelerate the process of restoration in damaged landscapes.

When it comes to toxic landscapes, Paul Stamets, author of Mycelium Running, and other mycologists have come to understand that fungi in particular “are adept as molecular disassemblers, breaking down many recalcitrant, long-chained toxins into simpler, less toxic chemicals…Since many of the bonds that hold plant material together are similar to the bonds found in petroleum products, including diesel, oil, and many herbicides and pesticides, mycelial enzymes are well suited for decomposing a wide spectrum of durable toxic chemicals” (Stamets 2005).  Harnessing this unique ability and innoculating poisoned landscapes with mushroom species is the work involved in mycoremediation, using fungi to degrade or remove toxins from the environment.     

Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) breaking down bunker C oil (PAH) in soil test, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1999 (Stamets 2005)

In 1998, Stamets and a small research group from Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Sequim, Washington set aside 4 piles of diesel-contaminated soils from a maintenance yard operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) in Bellingham, WA.  The group placed the piles onto 4 large sheets of 6 mm black plastic polyethylene tarps at the Bellingham site.  Each pile was 3-4 ft tall by 20 ft long and 8 ft wide, and in one of the piles they included a layer of oyster mushroom sawdust spawn that was roughly 30% of the pile (Stamets 2005).  Two other piles received bacterial treatments and the last pile was an untreated control.  Four weeks later, only the fourth pile infused with mycelium showed any signs of life.  Not only were there large oyster mushrooms growing out of the pile (some as large as 12 inches in diameter), but the soil was sprouting seeds and showing clear signs of recovery.  Batelle Laboratory reported that total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) had plummeted from 20,000 ppm to less than 200 ppm in 8 weeks, making the once heavily contaminated soil acceptable for highway landscaping (Stamets 2005).  Even more interesting, upon further testing of the oyster mushrooms sprouting from the pile determined that no petroleum residues were detected n the oyster mushroom itself.

This trial, one of but hundreds conducted by Stamets and his associated mycologist research team, demonstrates the potential in utilizing mycoremediation techniques in urban, suburban, and even rural settings where chemical toxins have contaminated soils.  Many mushrooms naturally absorb radioactivity and some species are even hyperaccumulators, with an ability to absorb and concentrate radioactive elements at thousands of times above levels in the surrounding areas.  In Mycelium Running (2005), Paul Stamets provides an introductory list of no less than 18 species and the common chemical toxins that they break down (96).  He then goes on to cite 36 species that bioaccumulate six heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, radioactive cesium, lead, mercury and copper (106).  Many of these potent mycoremediators are familiar to most households.  For example, the North American masutake (Tricholoma magnivelare) accumulate arsenic, and shaggy manes (Coprinus comatus) accumulate both arsenic and lead.  Button mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus), found in grocery stores around the country, hyperaccumulate cadmium.  Wild turkey tail mushrooms (Trametes versicolor) and oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus pulmonarius) remove mercury from soils and aquatic systems (Stamets 2005).  Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster can look to these fungi friends for answers to the grave radioactive contamination still facing their nation, one year later.  For further information regarding specific species, refer to www.fungi.com.

In areas where water is contaminated due to runoff or leaching of chemical toxins, mycofiltration systems can be inexpensively built.  Stamet’s use of mycorrhizal-infused filters has been shown to filter:

  • pathogens including protozoa, bacteria, and viruses
  • silt
  • chemical toxins

and has been shown favorable results in reducing contamination when installed around:

  • farms and suburban/urban areas
  • watersheds
  • factories
  • roads (Stamets 2005).

References.

Cunningham, William P. and Mary Ann.  Environmental Science:  A Global Concern, Twelfth Edition.  New York:  McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2012.  76-93. PRINT.

Gunderson, Arnold.  Gundersen: One Year Anniversary of Fukushima Daiichi.  RT, March 2012.  (VIDEO)

Ingham, Dr. Elaine.  Soil Food Web Course.  Davis, California.  2007.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph.  http://www.mercola.com

Stamets, Paul.  Mycorrhizal Running.  Berkeley:  Ten Speed Press, 2005.  PRINT.

Walsh, Bryan.  “Environmental Toxins:  The Perils of Plastic”  TIME magazine. 2010.  http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1976909_1976908_1976938,00.html

Biological Communities and Species Interactions

“Today we are faced with a challenge that calls for a shift in our thinking, so that humanity stops threatening its life-support system.”

~Wangari Maathai

Clear cutting in Amazon, Brazil

When seeking to find solutions to the problems of how we manage our natural resources, one need only look to Nature for wisdom and inspiration to find millenia-worth of infallible ecological design.  Agroecology utilizes this  by observing and understanding the relationships between organisms and their environment can teach us how to better care for the ecosystems that support us.

Two words that spring forth immediately when one thinks of a pristine natural environment, such as a virgin rainforest or an estuary or coral reef, are abundance and diversity.  But what do these words mean?  And how are they related to each other? According to William P. and Mary Ann Cunningham (2012), these two concepts are closely interlinked.  “Abundance is an expression of the total number of organisms in a biological community, while diversity is a measure of the number of different species, ecological niches, or genetic variation present” (Cunningham 2012).  When an ecosystem has an abundance of a particular species (such as an redwood forest) the diversity of the total ecological community present tends to be limited to a few species.  Conversely, when an ecosystem has great biodiversity (such as a virgin rainforest), the abundance of one particular species is usually limited in population due to the sheer number of other species sharing the same available resources.

                  

In 1927, British ecologist  Charles Elton observed what indigenous people have always known:  that each individual species had a specific role within a community of species, or ecological niche which determines the way it obtains food, the relationships it has with other species, and the ecological services provided to its community (Cunningham 2012).  In fact, as American limnologist G.E. Hutchinson would later observe, “every species exists within a range of physical and chemical conditions (temperature, light levels, acidity, humidity, salinity, etc.) and also biological interactions (predators and prey present, defenses, nutritional resources available, etc.)”(Cunningham 2012).  As each species habitates their ecological niche, a closely interconnected community emerges, or guild of species that mutually benefit or support each other.  This highly interconnected community has the potential to form a very elaborate food web, greatly increasing the resiliency and stability of an ecosystem.

        

Modern agriculture is a far cry from this symbiotic relationship and bases its simplistic designs on what is referred to as the competitive exclusion principle, which states that “no two species can occupy the same ecological niche for long. The one that is more efficient in using available resources will exclude the other” (Cunningham 2012).  Therefore, with this mentality, one cannot plant two different crops together as one’s yield will be greatly reduced due to the out-competition of available resources.  However, what modern agriculture does not take the time to observe is that resource partitioning “allows several species to utilize different parts of the same resource and coexist within a single habitat” (Cunningham 2012).  This is to say that if one plants two species with similar root structures and nutritional needs, one species will certainly out-compete the other for available resources.  However, if one plants two species with complimentary root structures, growth habits and nutritional needs (such as corn with beans and squash) a symbiotic relationship often enhances the survival of one or both species.

                           

Squash covers the ground to prevent weeds,and the corn provides a trellis for the beans.  This technique, called the Three Sisters method, has been used by indigenous populations in Mesoamerica for thousands of years.

                     

The propensity for mutually beneficial relationships in natural ecosystems is seen in many different contexts.  In Central and South America, acacia trees (Acacia collinsii) and ants (Pseudomyrmex ferruginea) hold a well-known close relationship with each other.  The acacias provide shelter and food for the ants, who in turn fiercely defend their territory, driving away herbivorous insects that would feed on the acacias.  

Ants and acacia; Source:  http://science.kennesaw.edu/~jdirnber/Bio2108/Lecture/LecEcology/EcologyComm.html

Another commonly seen example of ecological symbiosis is the relationship between over-story trees that also fix nitrogen in the soil (Erythrina sp.) and under-story species that produce fruit or nuts (i.e. Coffea sp.).  The overstory tree provides key nutrients for the plants below, while providing shade and organic  material that decomposes to fertilize the soil.

Commensalism is yet one more type of symbiosis commonly found in natural ecosystems, in which “one member clearly benefits and the other apparently is neither benefited nor harmed” (Cunningham 2012).  Mosses and epiphytes, such as bromeliads and orchids, that grow on trees in the moist tropics are perfect examples.  The production of vanilla in agroforestry systems utilizes this relationship without harm to its parent tree.  In addition, the incorporation of this species in a fruit or nut orchard in the tropics greatly diversifies the harvest available throughout the year.

 What is most interesting to observe as a global ecological pattern is that as we move from the equator toward either pole, “diversity decreases but abundance within species increases” (Cunningham 2012).  The rich, complex diversity of the forests of the Equatorian Amazon gradually becomes simpler as we move North and find ourselves in thick Pine forests or ancient Oak forests or coastal Redwood forests, with but only a handful of species cohabitating.  Even desert ecosystems, with the limited resources available, hold a dominant species (i.e. cactus) with limited bio-diversity.  And yet, one may travel the world over and find an increasingly mono-cultural form of modern agricultural technique producing human food that defies all ecological rules.  The rich diversity of highly elaborate symbiotic native rainforests are plowed to make room for acreage of palm oil or sugarcane or banana monocrops.  The brittle tropical soil, unprotected by the plethora of root forms, dries quickly in the tropical heat and is easily blown away by winds and rains.  This massive erosion creates a need for increased nutrition to feed the mono-crops, and modern agriculture has declared it necessary to pump the soils and foods we eat with high doses of chemically produced fertilizers rather than enjoying the natural accumulation of biomass that decomposes to provide rich compost for the understory plants.  When the monocrop weakens due to the harsh environment they are being forced to grow in, pests and diseases plague the crop and take advantage of their inability to fight off with immunity.  In a natural ecosystem, the complexity of the food web creates a strength that enhances each organism as a stronger whole.

When modern agriculturists argue that massive mono-cropping increases their productivity, they are erroneously combining industrial business terminology associated with profits with living ecological systems.  Productivity within a factory setting indicates a high quantity of product in a short amount of time, yielding a net profit.  In ecological terms, primary productivity is “the rate of biomass production”, which directly indicates the rate of solar energy being converted to chemical energy in photosynthesis (Cunningham 2012).  Any energy left after the respiration of the plants is considered net primary production.  Ecosystems with high productivity are tropical forests, coral reefs, and estuaries, because of their abundant supplies of all these resources.  Deserts, on the other hand, lack water which limits photosynthesis and reduces plant growth, as do the low temperatures experienced in the  Arctic tundras or high mountainous environments.  High yields from any plant in these conditions can not be sustained for long.

Ecological complexity within plant communities and species interconnectedness are important ecological indicators of a productive environment. Our modern agricultural systems base their production on man-made industrial concepts and create unsustainable ecological deserts where once diversity reigned strong.  As humans continue to experience increased destruction of precious resources we rely upon, such as virgin forests, estuaries, and coral reefs, our very survival is being challenged with each diminishing species.  Survival of the fittest may no longer refer to the domination of the strongest species, as was once assumed, but it is increasingly evident that the survival of organisms (including humans) relies upon those who can live cooperatively together.

Work Cited

Cunningham, William P. and Mary Ann.  Environmental Science:  A Global Concern, Twelfth Edition.  New York:  McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2012.  76-93. PRINT.

Whole Ecosystem Design

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Agro-ecology is a methodology of producing food, fibers, fuels, or pharmacopeia (agro-) in a symbiotic manner, supporting both the local environment and its interdependent organisms, as it mimics a natural ecosystem (-ecology).  Rather than combating natural phenomenon such as topography, annual rainfall, climate, and the propensity for nature to fill spaces with plant matter (i.e. “weeds”), agro-ecology recognizes these natural patterns as assets to the local environment and seeks to nurture and produce an abundance of resources in a whole-system design that maximizes the utility of a unique growing environment.  Just as a virgin forest contains a myriad of levels of productivity (large canopies protecting smaller shade-loving trees below, shrubs and bushes tucked beneath the smaller trees, low-growing grasses or groundcovers, ephiphytes and orquids tucked into branches, vines  connecting the overstory to the understory, mycelium running between tree roots, etc.), an agro-ecological system designs its’ production to maximize vertical growing niches, with every season bringing a perennial abundance to harvest.  Each element of a successful agro-ecological system supports and interacts with every other element in symbiosis and requires very little external inputs to the system, demonstrating true sustainability.

According to Professor Stephen R. Gleissman, of the University of California-Santa Cruz,  the ecological practices that sustain traditional agriculture are benefits to both the natural ecosystem and the producer.  Traditional agro-ecology has been utilized by our earliest hunter-gatherer ancestors all over the world, and the wisdom of its ways has nearly been lost in recent years to industrial agriculture’s maxim, “Bigger is better”.   The benefits of traditional agro-ecosystems are that they:

  • “Do not depend on purchased inputs.
  • Make use of locally available and renewable resources.
  • Emphasize nutrient recycling.
  • Are beneficial for both on- and off-farm environments.
  • Are adapted to local conditions.
  • Take full advantage of micro-environments.
  • Maximize yield while sustaining productive capacity.
  • Maintain spatial and temporal diversity and continuity use production to meet local needs first.
  • Rely on and conserve local genetic diversity.
  • Rely on and conserve indigenous knowledge and culture” (Gleissman).

In an article highlighted by the Sierra Club, “Agroecology: How to Feed the World Without Destroying It” (Spinks, 2011), agro-ecology systems design is quickly gaining recognition for its ability to address a multitude of diverse problems.  In addition to “shifting the view of agriculture’s and natural systems’ roles in our lives — from one of dominance to coexistence, ” agroecological food systems also offer a solution for the dependence our industrial model of agricultural production has on carbon-based fossil fuels (Spinks 2011).  In a world where imminent depletion of fossil fuels plays a huge role on global economics dependent upon the fossil fuels, this solution is a welcome sign of hope the world over.

In fact, according to a United Nations’ Human Rights Council report submitted on “The Right to Food,” by Olivier De Schutter (2010), which was drawn upon extensive review of five years worth of published scientific literature:

 “[The U.N.] identifies agroecology as a mode of agricultural development which not only shows strong conceptual connections with the right to food, but has proven results for fast progress in the concretization of this human right for many vulnerable groups in various countries and environments. Moreover, agroecology delivers advantages that are complementary to better known conventional approaches such as breeding high-yielding varieties, [a]nd it strongly contributes to the broader economic development” (De Schutter, 2010).

Agroecology not only raises productivity at the field level but also has a far-reaching effect on local economies by increasing accessibility to a diversity of food and production across socio-economic levels, thereby reducing rural poverty.  Not only does it improve local nutrition through diverse food production, addressing food insecurity at the local level, but agroecological design also generously contributes to the sequestration of carbon, crucial in our increasingly important adaption to climate change.  The transformation of our industrial-modeled agricultural systems to whole ecosystem design for food, fuel, fiber, and pharmacopeia production has far-reaching beneficial local solutions to our global problems.

Works Cited

De Schutter, Olivier.  “The Right to Food,” The United Nations Human Rights Council:  2010. http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf.

Gleissman, Stephen R.  “Sustainability in Traditional Agroecosystems:
Ecologically sound practices that sustain traditional agriculture.” University of California- Santa Cruz. http://www.agroecology.org/Principles_Trad.html

Spinks, Rosie.  “Agroecology: How to Feed the World Without Destroying It.”  Sierra Club,  2011. http://sierraclub.typepad.com/greenlife/2011/03/real-food-can-feed-the-world.html.

Related articles