Importance of food as eco-tech

My response to the
2017 Engage Global Competition: Technology for a Sustainable Future:

In contemplating what technology of the next 10 years will have the greatest impact on reducing climate change risk a reasonable starting point is asking what activities we do today have the greatest impact in creating climate change risk.  Quite possibly our food and agriculture choices may be the most impactful.  A frequently referenced 2006 report of the UN Food and agriculture organization titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” makes the case that 18% of greenhouse gases come from livestock. This alone should be enough to focus our attention on the role of animal agriculture, but an analysis by the Worldwatch Institute in 2009 suggests that this report understates the issue. Their conclusion is that greenhouse gas impact attributable to livestock production is 51%, more than half of all greenhouse gases. Technologies that could cut into the impact of livestock would significantly address climate change.

Progressive animal agronomists argue that how animals are raised is the problem. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are at the center of the problem.  Allen Savory argues that rotating grazing of dense herding of cattle actually captures carbon by building top soil.  Efforts to replicate Savory’s work have been equivocal at best.

There are at least two other forms of agriculture that promote carbon sequestration. Both are in their early stages of development.

Biochar is created by burning organic material in a low oxygen environment. The char that remains can be added to certain soils where it remains inert but builds topsoil and creates a habitat for microorganisms that in turn promote agricultural yield. 

Considering the importance of soil microorganisms one approach is to directly inoculate the soil with optimal microorganisms. Evidence shows that inoculating the soil can contribute to rapid topsoil growth, and increase productivity. Regenerative agriculture enthusiasts have argued that such methods applied to slightly over 10% of arable lands would compensate for anthropogenic atmospheric carbon.

Another approach to the problem of the impact of livestock production is faux meat. Various projects are underway to try to capture the gustatory experience of eating meat in food that is not from animals or animal byproducts. High-tech research has gone into some of these efforts, but time will tell if a generally acceptable substitute can be developed. Meat is not without its health risks, and it's possible that imitation meat  carry similar or even greater risks. It’s worth remembering that trans-fats in margarine were originally thought of as a healthier alternative to the saturated fat of butter, now the evidence is clear that trans-fats are worse.

Although there is no reason why actions that are healthy for the planet would have to be healthy for the individuals who take those actions, this does seems to be the case in a general sense for individuals avoiding meat dairy and eggs, and moving towards a more plant-based diet.

Climate specialists at the UN have called for individuals to avoid meat one day a week. Some environmental activists go further adopting a vegan lifestyle in order to model minimizing their climate footprint. In advanced economies the percent of individuals who adopt a vegan diet are a drop in the bucket, ranging from a fraction of a percent to 5%. Nonetheless there is some evidence to suggest that vegan diets are on the rise and a greater number of people are choosing meatless meals at least some of the time.

Just as the impact of carbon emissions from China's energy sector is a great concern, in the last 30 years China's meat consumption has increased 5 fold and currently represents over 1/4 of the worlds meat consumption. unchecked this would continue to grow.  Fortunately the Chinese government has set goals to decrease meat consumption by 50%.

Technology to lower the agricultural impact on climate change may involve production oriented solutions, and high tech foods, but ultimately lowering the carbon impact of what we eat may well require us to change what we eat. The technology needed to change what we eat is really the technology of social movements. This means encouraging people to eat a more plant based diet, critiquing factory farming and making links between meat and climate change, having goals for changing social policy.

Co-ops, climate change, and regenerative agriculture.

Dear Coop friends

As I read about the events in Paris at the UN climate talks most of what I hear is tepid.  As the various nations make commitments to carbon caps it looks like not enough. Perhaps you could call it good news that some weak agreements might come from this meeting unlike most past summits.  

But today I read some accounts from Paris that were genuinely hopeful.  December 3^rd was World Soil Day and climate and agriculture activists in Paris were writing about regenerative agriculture and soil carbon sequestration.  Activists are making the point that well documented agricultural processes can sequester as much as 10 tons of carbon per acer per year and this could reverse global warming. 

At the conference the French government has launched an initiative to bring together contributors in the public and private sectors to “demonstrate that agriculture, and agricultural soils in particular, can play a crucial role where food security and climate change are concerned.”  Apparently this is the first time climate negotiators have recognized the “imperative of transforming and regenerating our global food and farming system in order to reverse global warming.”

I think this is important for us in the food sector of the consumer coop movement.  Those of us deeply involved in the running of the food coop know the story:  we brought organic to the retail food world, others adopted, now even Kroger’s has a its own line of organics; we spearheaded the promotion of local farmers and now even out of town businesses are selling “local.”  With the flooding of the market with products that reflect our values we are victims of our own success.  My thought is that regenerative agriculture is our next opportunity to lead.

While it is true that organic and regenerative have considerable overlap they are not the same.  Just as most chemical agriculture is eroding top soil, plenty of organic farmers are engaged in practices that results in a degeneration of the carbon levels in the soil. 

I think food coops are naturally suited to provide leadership around regenerative agriculture. Here are three ways that food coops in general and our food coop in particular could contribute to the regenerative agriculture movement. 

 We can start talking about it, with our members and in our store and with our local farmer friends. Food grown with regenerative methods that pulls carbon into the soil is a value added proposition for anyone who cares about global warming.  But this is an idea that is not generally understood, we’ve got to educate, and that is something we do well.  Perhaps we can find a way to distill our message to a few letters and certain products care wear a “RGN” moniker the way  products are now labeled “ORG” (of course the ORG wouldn’t go away) But maybe regenerative agriculture requires more of the story. This farmer does inter cropping, this farmer does no till, this farmer does agroforestry and so on

We can encourage our local farm friends to embrace the concept. For many small organic farmers they may already be involved in regenerating the carbon in their soli.  We want them to talk about it, to call it by name. Just as the first organic certification programs were farmer driven, we can encourage regenerative farmers to organize and articulate what they do that goes beyond the organic label.  Organic now means whatever the government wants it to mean.  I think some farmers will be excited to have a way to articulate what they do that’s different without direction from the government

Finally we can talk with the big agricultural coops about regenerative agriculture. This is not something we have historically done well, but it is in line with the principle of cooperation among cooperatives. My impression is that the big ag farmers generally aren’t interested in “environmental causes” and many big farmers are climate skeptics, nonetheless, big farmers are losing top soil and may be open to things that could change that.

There is a multi-sector coop organization Mid America Cooperative Council that has interested me but I haven’t been quite sure if connecting with it made sense.  Now, thinking about regenerative agriculture I think we should be at that table. As Rod Kelsey from MACC said to me “We really need a more diverse coop sectors represented.  You all will find strength in diverse thought. “Clearly a small food coop representative can’t show up and try to tell big Ag how to do business, but we could ask questions, “is top soil loss a problem for your members?” “Do you know anything about regenerative agriculture?” “What are your best practices?”  This kind of soft advocacy is advocacy for our members and an opportunity for us to learn.  And completing the loop our members should know that when they shop at our store they are supporting us in having those conversations.

The French Initiative http://4p1000.org/understand  

Regeneration International is an advocacy organization http://regenerationinternational.org/

Mid America Cooperative Council  http://macc.coop/

Michigan Radio and Enbridge Energy

An open letter to Michigan Radio and The Environment Report.

Dear Michigan Radio Team,

Let me start by saying I have a lot of respect for the work you all do every day to bring us radio news content. As one who considers himself media savvy I generally feel that among the major media outlets you are relatively unbiased in you reporting.

Unfortunately, every time I hear that the Environment Report is now sponsored by Enbridge Energy it undermines my trust in your reporting. 

We desperately need quality environmental reporting.  The planet that we all love is in desperate straights. We need courageous reporters who are not afraid to point fingers at the corporations that pose a threat to our environment. Global climate change is the most significant environmental issues we face. Many of us are concerned about the development of Canadian tar sands, and their effect on global warming. James Hansen has said that if  Canadian proceeds to exploit the oil in the tar sands "it will be game over for the climate." Enbridge is one of the major transporters of this oil.

Holy Cow!!! Enbridge is sponsoring your environmental reporting?! You're not Fox News. The whole point of having public radio is to have media that is not beholden to corporate interests.

My guess is that the funding Enbridge offers is "unrestricted". But such money is never really without strings. Some times the influence of money is invisible. And good people even with the best of intentions and the highest levels of integrity can be influenced by funding with out even being aware that it is happening. 

How long will Embridge be funding the Environment Report?

I still have faith in Michigan Public Radio. I know you can find other sources of funding for the Environment Report.  I know you can expand your coverage of global warming, tar sands oil, and the role that Enbridge's pipelines have to play.

Thank you for taking time to listen to my concerns.  

Sincerely,

Gaia Kile

Addressing global warming, the EPA, and the question of democracy.

The big news this week is that the Obama administration through the EPA has proposed a 30% cut in greenhouse gasses from power plants by the year 2030. After we say the obvious, it’s still in the proposal stage, power production is just one source of greenhouse gasses, 30% is too little and possibly too little to late, what do we say? Pundits could wax poetic all day about each of these points.

I want to go behind the question of what the EPA proposal means to how it happened. I’m not talking about the specifics of the back room deals or who convinced whom that this proposal should be put forward in its current form.  I want to ask is this some reflection of democracy working, at least almost working?

Let me frame that question more fully.  Many of us voted for Obama first out of hope, and then out of despair.  In voting for a candidate who promised change in the nations response to global warming, Did we set in motion this action by the Obama administration? Do the proposals weaknesses reflect the compromises that are necessary when the populous has divergent opinions? Do the proposals strengths reflect populist political voices being heard?  Or, as it often feels, is democracy long since done with, and oligarchs and big money are now running the show.

I would like to think that this proposal promises to be one of the positive effects of voting for Obama.  It's up there with an imperfect health care law, some early gestures towards nuclear disarmament, opening up the military to openly gay people(which we're not sure is such a good thing since the world is probably better off when fewer people are allowed to fight), and the bailing out GM and Chrysler  (which was actually important because it showed that the government could "nationalize" a major portion of the auto industry) and a possibly somewhat quicker sort of withdrawal of most troops from Iraq. Without a doubt I do believe that Obama's politics are far better than either Romney or McCain. I believe this particularly in the area of global climate change politics. 

A more cynical view of things sees this all as orchestrated by political puppeteers representing the interests of the super rich. In this view these puppeteers, often called lobbyists, some times called advisers, even known as trusted political allies, all work together to create a picture in which the only logical choice is the one that the power élite want. Obama the liberal compromises to the right , a conservative president would compromise to the left, but the results are fairly similar.

Does a 30% cut in carbon emissions from power plants represent what the science of climate change suggests is necessary, where the cost and benefit lines cross on the graph, or is it some compromise between the interests of the coal industry and the interests of the insurance industry looking a extreme weather and rising tides.

While both the “democracy in action” and the “power overlords” scenarios are both a bit cartoon, reality likely has some amount of each.  We can squabble over how much of each, but in the meantime it’s worth acting like we have some democratic power.  If you care about the planet,  who doesn’t? I’d like to encourage you to make an effort to comment to the EPA on this proposal. We have until the end of September to do so. I think comments should emphasize that 30% is not enough.  There are also 4 public hearings around the country worth attending in the last week of July

If climate change activists don’t comment we may get a 28% cut in carbon or less. I’d be surprised if it went up to 35%.  Wherever those numbers end up two things are clear: it will be better than no numbers, and it won’t be enough. Even still cutting emissions on electric power generation is only part of the picture. The tar sands pipelines could reverse any gains this proposal promises. Other pieces of the picture include: addressing  industrial contributions to greenhouse gasses;  taming  the excesses of consumer society; creating energy competent buildings, and reinventing agriculture away from agribusiness. There are political arenas where there is more to do.  Promoting tough international treaties, State, county and city level legislation,  Local initiatives(like the cooperative investments known as community solar) , Grass roots organizing and direct action (like blockades of the XL and Embridge pipelines)  are all part of the solution.

If 30 % cut in greenhouse emissions for electricity generation is a reflection of the percent of corporate interests for and against carbon control, and if this proposal stimulates further growth in the renewable energy sector and in any way inhibits the carbon sector, we can hope that the corporate world will reflect this shift in its future influence on political decisions, offering proposals that are increasingly effective. Of course I’d rather have it that we could just trust democracy to direct our political leaders to fully address the problem of human driven climate change, I’m just not sure that that is the system we have.

20/20 vision on minimum wage

Yesterday president Obama came to Ann Arbor to talk about raising the minimum wage. Since tickets went mostly to students and many students slept out overnight to be in line to get them, I wasn't there. I know the basic message was a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016. Considering current politics in Washington it's hard to imagine the success of this proposal. There's more hope for statewide proposals including the Michigan ballot initiative for a $10.10 minimum wage.  The group “Raise the Minimum Wage” identify legislative or ballot campaigns in nine states and the District of Columbia all focused on raising the minimum wage. Even Alabama has a minimum wage proposal modest though it is at $8.50 an hour. The raise the minimum-wage campaign points out that if minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would now be $10.74 an hour. But as Elizabeth Warren recently pointed out if the minimum wage had kept up with productivity since 1960 it would now be somewhere in the area of $22 an hour.

Now with my environmental hat on I'm going to tell you that increased productivity is not always a good thing. Don't get me wrong I'm all in favor of more resources and a better life for all of us. But gadgets alone don't get us a better life, and the processes for making much of what masquerades as progress are so contaminating to our environment that they detract from the quality of our lives. If raises in wages translate to increased increased consumption, a greater carbon footprint, further global deforestation and more new questionable chemical compounds and more new questionable chemical compounds then it's not clear the world can afford it. (Of course it goes without saying the world cannot afford the superrich either). The only real downturn in global carbon emissions was in 2007 and 2008 after the housing market crash and global recession.

 We are going to have to think about how to build a society that is shaped around needs including human needs and the biological needs of our environment we may have to think in terms of both more and less.

Of course it's important to keep in mind both what could be and what should be. From the standpoint of the latter I would argue that what we need is (excuse the pun) a 20/20 vision. How about increasing the minimum wage to $20 an hour, just shy of the productive gains of our economy, but at the same time reducing the workweek to 20 hours. It seems to me that this splits the difference. At the same time that it would raise the income of a full-time minimum-wage worker to an amount similar to what they would be making under Obama's proposal, it would reduce the workweek giving working people more time to pursue the myriad interests that make life great. Perhaps that means pursuing education, perhaps more time for creative endeavors, time enough to participate in our political system, more time for parents to spend with their children.

Remember this conversation is not about what could happen at this point in the American political process. But even from the standpoint of should many people are likely to ask how this would even be possible. Where would the resources come from in a shrinking economy. As I mentioned above the world can no longer afford the superrich. If we look at just the richest 400 families in the United States, they make more than the bottom 180 million Americans. We need to figure out how to redistribute not just the wealth of those 400 families, not just the 1%  easily the top 10% could live comfortably with considerably less in their pockets. There is of course the concern that if we just shot up and hours worked decreased the result would simply be across the board inflation with less resources available and more people scrambling for them. Within the context of our current economic system that no doubt would largely be true. When I suggest that we should want a minimum-wage of $20 an hour and a workweek of 20 hours a week I'm arguing for a wholesale redesign of our economic system.

So in the politics of the real when Obama calls for $10.10 minimum wage he is doing this not to achieve it at the federal level which as I've argued is not so likely in the current political atmosphere of Washington, but he is using this push as a political tool. In part it is a tool to try to engender support for the Democratic Party, in part it is the bully pulpit from which he can promote an idea that is building momentum among the states.

For now the achievable political goal of state-by-state raises in the minimum wage deserves our support. At the same time we need to begin to envision much bigger changes in how our society does business.

Same-sex Marriage in Michigan: on the ground report

I heard rumors from friends the night before, “I'm getting married on Monday, no wait, I'm getting married tomorrow.” In response to an end of the week decision by a federal judge to strike down Michigan's prohibition on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional, the Washtenaw  County Clerk Lawrence Kestenbaum decided to open the clerk's office for Saturday hours from nine to noon so that marriage certificates could be issued. As I noticed a number of my friends were planning to jump on the opportunity and tie and their respective knots I knew I wanted to be there to celebrate as well.

At five to 9:00 my family bundled up and headed down to the courthouse, we hadn't gotten a formal invitation to any weddings, but with such short notice who's to stand on formality. For a moment or two I worried that I was “being there for history” slut, but the happiness I felt for several particular friends who were now getting married made it clear to me that I was being there to celebrate my friends. When we got there at 9:05 we were met by my friend Kevin from the People's Food Co-op handing out complimentary coffees just outside the building. He said that everyone had just crowded into the lobby, so we followed on in. 

The lobby was chaotic with chatter and occasional cheers sometimes even very poor efforts at humming a couple of bars of a wedding song. Amidst the brides and brides and grooms and grooms there were children of all ages (more about them later). There was the largest group of religious leaders I've seen in quite a while, and I've never seen so many rainbow colored stoles among the religious vestments. Then there were a handful of folks like me there just to celebrate this small step forward in the march for equality, and the marriages of our friends.

Numbers between one and 50 were handed out to couples; apparently some other couples had numbers from an occasion in the fall where it looked like same-sex marriage was going to become state sanctioned. These numbers were also honored so I think the actual number of weddings today was closer to 80. Slowly couples would enter the clerk's office do the paperwork and come out with signed and sealed marriage certificates. This would garner a cheer from those of us milling in the lobby. In the space downstairs brief marriage ceremonies were sprouting like early spring flowers.

The many friends of mine who were getting married were like a tapestry of people who have woven through my life. Adrian and I lived in a co-op together many many years ago, and then again came into my life when we were both in a birthing class and our partners were each pregnant each with their first child. Beth (not my partner Beth) worked at a homeless shelter with me back in the 90s, and later we ran into her working at a car dealership when we were shopping for a new car. More recently I did some organizing around the international year of the co-op with her spouse Lisa. We became friends with Katie and Diana through mutual friends, and their daughter is a classmate of our son Teo. There was Jeannie who is one of those activists I should have meant long ago but I just met and befriended her about a year ago and now I get together with her and a couple of others once a month in a group I call the wisdom council. Zev’s teacher Peter was also getting married this morning.

There were lots of other people who I knew who were milling around included one of my graduate school professors, our families Rabbi Loren, one of the carpenters who work on my house addition, a friend I’ve known since undergrad and her spouse (already got married in Vermont they told me). It was no surprise that there were lots of families who knew Beth (my partner Beth) from Liberty Pediatrics.

My friend and Rabbi Loren told me that she had been on call all week to potentially officiate a ceremony in case the judge struck down the homophobic law and same-sex marriages became legal. It reminded me of doulas and midwives I know who are on call for births. She said that she had thought that she wouldn't have to worry about Saturday, after all the County Clerk's office is usually closed Saturdays, so she made plans which may have been a little disrupted, but she thought it was worth.

Although Zev and Teo initially came only for the first 10 minutes or so, Zev managed to return with about a half a dozen friends for his teacher Peter's wedding, and when there was a delay between the paperwork and the ceremony because Peter and his husband were waiting for their daughter to show up Zev ran down to the food co-op's to get a couple of bottles of sparkling cider.

The greatest honor I had for the day was holding one of the corners of the huppa for Carla and Adrian's wedding. They needed a tall person and they called me over from the other side of the room. The person holding the corner next to mine was standing on a chair. I suppose this says something about how formal everything was. This particular wedding was also particularly lively as their Rabbi got about half the room to chant amen at the end of several blessings. Remember this is a room that had three or four marriages going on at any one time as well as a lot of background chatter and cheering.

The best question I was asked was as part of an interview for an Internet news program. She wanted to know if I had any thoughts about the links between this the struggle for marriage equality, and the struggles to end homelessness. I had lots I could have said, but in short I said any injury to one is an injury to all this is true in the struggle for freedom and it is true in the struggle for basic resources. Expanding political equality and economic equality should certainly go hand-in-hand.

The most fun thing to watch was the daughter of my friends Katie and Diana, she was bubbling with excitement all morning, and although it was a long wait in a crowded lobby she held bouquets of flowers and seemed to continually bounce. She was not the only child of a couple getting married today, she was just a child I knew the best. I'm sure if I have been watching I would have seen similar continual enthusiasm in many of the other children milling around the lobby (in fact the only upset kid I saw was outside of the courthouse crying that he didn't want to go home).

Now marriage is not always just about the couple involved, and here is where the politics of marriage become important. Love makes a family, but love is a hard thing for the state to measure. In family law marriage is very important. The suit that brought this marriage victory to Michigan was originally brought primarily as a suit for maternal rights for a lesbian co-parent. Two of my friends told me that it was marriage today and on Monday they were filing the adoption papers. Prior to today same-sex parenting couples in Michigan had to live with the fear that if the parent with legal guardianship would die or suffer severe disability the other parent could lose not just their partner but their children as well. I suspect that this was the subtext for far too many families getting married today. 

So we celebrated as we throw off this despotic past. But we are not through the ordeal yet. There are more rounds in court. I am ironically optimistic that the mostly conservative Supreme Court will support today's decision only because the state’s case for discrimination is so pathetic. Today however I raise a glass to celebrate my friends and their loving families. Congratulations one and all!