Our Crushing Dilemmas
By George Monbiot
Thursday, May 05, 2011
The State of Environmentalism 1
Here is the first of a series of articles by George Monbiot, Simon Fairlie and Paul Kingsnorth on the dilemma faced by the environmental movement in the wake of the Fukishima disaster.
The Lost World
By George Monbiot
The Lost World
By George Monbiot
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Bolivia at UN: “We cannot command nature except by obeying her”
Original article
April 28, 2011
Speech of Ambassador Pablo Solón, permanent representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations, on the occasion of the General Assembly interactive dialogue on harmony with nature, April 20, 2011
Victor Hugo, the author of Les Misérables, once wrote: “How sad to think that nature speaks and mankind doesn’t listen.”
We are here today to attempt to have a dialogue not just among States, but also with nature. Although we often forget it, human beings are a force in nature. In reality, we are all a product of the same Big Bang that created the universe, although some only see wood for the fire when they walk through the forest.
These three questions are the point of departure for our discussion today:
The philosopher Francis Bacon said that we cannot command nature except by obeying her. The time for superheroes and superpowers is coming to an end.
Nature cannot be submitted to the wills of the laboratory. Science and technology are capable of everything including destroying the world itself.
It is time to stop and reaffirm the precautionary principle in the face of geo-engineering and all artificial manipulation of the climate. All new technologies should be evaluated to gauge their environmental, social and economic impacts.
The answer for the future lies not in scientific inventions but in our capacity to listen to nature.
The green economy considers it necessary, in the struggle to preserve biodiversity, to put a price on the free services that plants, animals and ecosystems offer humanity: the purification of water, the pollination of plants by bees, the protection of coral reefs and climatic regulation.
According to the green economy, we have to identify the specific functions of ecosystems and biodiversity that can be made subject to a monetary value, evaluate their current state, define the limits of those services, and set out in economic terms the cost of their conservation to develop a market for environmental services.
For the green economy, capitalism’s mistake is not having fully incorporated nature as part of capital. That is why its central proposal is to create “environmentally friendly” business and green jobs and in that way limit environmental degradation by bringing the laws of capitalism to bear on nature.
In other words, the transfusion of the rules of market will save nature.
This is not a hypothetical debate, since the third round of negotiations of the World Trade Organization will be about the trade in services and environmental goods.
Humanity finds itself at a crossroads: Why should we only respect the laws of human beings and not those of nature? Why do we call the person who kills his neighbor a criminal, but not he who extinguishes a species or contaminates a river? Why do we judge the life of human beings with parameters different from those that the guide the life of the system as a whole if all of us, absolutely all of us, rely on the life of the Earth System?
Is there no contradiction in recognizing only the rights of the human part of this system while all the rest of the system is reduced to a source of resources and raw materials – in other words, a business opportunity?
To speak of equilibrium is to speak of rights for all parts of the system. It could be that these rights are not identical for all things, since not all things are equal. But to think that only humans should enjoy privileges while other living things are simply objects is the worst mistake humanity has ever made. Decades ago, to talk about slaves as having the same rights as everyone else seemed like the same heresy that it is now to talk about glaciers or rivers or trees as having rights.
Nature is ruthless when it goes ignored.
It is incredible that it is easier to imagine the destruction of nature than to dream about overthrowing capitalism.
Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
We have not come here to watch a funeral.
April 28, 2011
Speech of Ambassador Pablo Solón, permanent representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations, on the occasion of the General Assembly interactive dialogue on harmony with nature, April 20, 2011
Victor Hugo, the author of Les Misérables, once wrote: “How sad to think that nature speaks and mankind doesn’t listen.”
We are here today to attempt to have a dialogue not just among States, but also with nature. Although we often forget it, human beings are a force in nature. In reality, we are all a product of the same Big Bang that created the universe, although some only see wood for the fire when they walk through the forest.
These three questions are the point of departure for our discussion today:
First, what is nature? Is it a thing, a source of resources, a system, a home, a community of living and interdependent beings?
Second, are there rules in nature? Are there natural laws that govern its integrity, interrelationships, reproduction and transformation?
And third, are we as States and as a society recognizing, respecting and making sure that the rules of nature prevail?
The philosopher Francis Bacon said that we cannot command nature except by obeying her. The time for superheroes and superpowers is coming to an end.
Nature cannot be submitted to the wills of the laboratory. Science and technology are capable of everything including destroying the world itself.
It is time to stop and reaffirm the precautionary principle in the face of geo-engineering and all artificial manipulation of the climate. All new technologies should be evaluated to gauge their environmental, social and economic impacts.
The answer for the future lies not in scientific inventions but in our capacity to listen to nature.
The green economy considers it necessary, in the struggle to preserve biodiversity, to put a price on the free services that plants, animals and ecosystems offer humanity: the purification of water, the pollination of plants by bees, the protection of coral reefs and climatic regulation.
According to the green economy, we have to identify the specific functions of ecosystems and biodiversity that can be made subject to a monetary value, evaluate their current state, define the limits of those services, and set out in economic terms the cost of their conservation to develop a market for environmental services.
For the green economy, capitalism’s mistake is not having fully incorporated nature as part of capital. That is why its central proposal is to create “environmentally friendly” business and green jobs and in that way limit environmental degradation by bringing the laws of capitalism to bear on nature.
In other words, the transfusion of the rules of market will save nature.
This is not a hypothetical debate, since the third round of negotiations of the World Trade Organization will be about the trade in services and environmental goods.
Humanity finds itself at a crossroads: Why should we only respect the laws of human beings and not those of nature? Why do we call the person who kills his neighbor a criminal, but not he who extinguishes a species or contaminates a river? Why do we judge the life of human beings with parameters different from those that the guide the life of the system as a whole if all of us, absolutely all of us, rely on the life of the Earth System?
Is there no contradiction in recognizing only the rights of the human part of this system while all the rest of the system is reduced to a source of resources and raw materials – in other words, a business opportunity?
To speak of equilibrium is to speak of rights for all parts of the system. It could be that these rights are not identical for all things, since not all things are equal. But to think that only humans should enjoy privileges while other living things are simply objects is the worst mistake humanity has ever made. Decades ago, to talk about slaves as having the same rights as everyone else seemed like the same heresy that it is now to talk about glaciers or rivers or trees as having rights.
Nature is ruthless when it goes ignored.
It is incredible that it is easier to imagine the destruction of nature than to dream about overthrowing capitalism.
Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
We have not come here to watch a funeral.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
CAUTIOUS WELCOME FOR MANDATORY LABELLING OF GM FOODS
Biosafety in South Africa - Media Releases
5 APRIL 2011, Johannesburg, and Cape Town, South Africa.
The African Centre for Biosafety and SAFEAGE cautiously welcome the mandatory labeling regime established by the regulations made in terms of the Consumer Protection Act for GM food. According to Mariam Mayet of the ACB, “the mandatory labeling regime holds the promise of bringing to an end an era where consumers were deliberately kept in the dark about what they are eating.” Mayet, however cautions that the “regulations are fraught with legal uncertainties and ambiguities, which may give rise to interpretation problems, particularly with regard to the scope of the law.”
The groups also express concern that consumers could be faced with up to five labels on GM foods, owing to attempts by government to appease agribusiness. According to Fahrie Hassan of SAFAGE, “the labeling regime represents a compromise package, which allows industry to opt for labels where testing for GM content is undertaken, as well as for labels where no testing is required. This may result in consumers being confused about what the differences are between the various labels.”
From the 1 October 2011, food producers, importers and packagers will be required to choose one of three mandatory labels for GM foods and marketing materials. Where the GM content is at least 5%, the food will be labeled as ‘containing GMOs.’ Where the food is produced directly from GMO sources, there will be no need for testing, and food must be labeled as ‘produced using genetic modification’. Industry may also opt for ‘may contain GMOs’ labels in circumstances where they are able to argue that it is scientifically impractical and not feasible to test food for GM content. This provides industry with broad latitude to circumvent the labelling regime and the need for testing and in so doing, undermine consumer choice. According to Hassan: “We find this totally unacceptable.”
“ We support extensive public education and awareness programmes aimed at explaining to consumers what these different labels mean to them and hope that the Consumer Commission will assist with this task and ensure that groups such as ours, have a meaningful role to play in such a process,” said Hassan.
2 voluntary labels are also permissible; one denoting that the food “does not contain GMOs”, where the GM content is 0.9% or less and the other, stating that the “GM content is less than 5%”, where the GM content is between 1% and 4.9%. Few food products are likely to be labeled as not containing GMOs owing to the widespread contamination in South Africa between GM and non- GM food.
“We will remain vigilant and challenge labeling claims to safeguard the consumers Right to Know,” said Mayet.
Ends
Contact
Mariam Mayet, ACB 083 2694309
Fahrie Hassan SAFEAGE 072 4818835
Monday, April 25, 2011
New Blog
I have decided to split my blogging onto two different sites. This site, "Muthimuthi", will be mainly on environmental issues and will be more philosophical and activist in tone.
I have started a new site, "The Farm Gate", which will focus more on organic farming, gardening, food, health and living lightly, simply and sustainably.
I have started a new site, "The Farm Gate", which will focus more on organic farming, gardening, food, health and living lightly, simply and sustainably.
Monday, January 31, 2011
What is Green Politics
I came across this essay by Paul Kingsnorth, a writer and environmental activist from the UK. I think he illustrates the difference between the light green and the deep green perspective of politics. This same perspective can be applied to the green-washing of of our current economic system.
To be truly "green" is to identify oneself with a movement that is outside of the current political and economic paradigm. It is to be more radical than the Marxists!
Remember the original meaning of radical is 'to go to the root of'. I think this is appropriate to those who love Nature foremost.
To be truly "green" is to identify oneself with a movement that is outside of the current political and economic paradigm. It is to be more radical than the Marxists!
Remember the original meaning of radical is 'to go to the root of'. I think this is appropriate to those who love Nature foremost.
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Farm Gate: Organic Integrity
This article appeared in the Mercury Food and Wine supplement on 24 November 2010
Organic Integrity
I have heard a lot of opinion lately about the trustworthiness of food and other products that are purported to be Organic. There seems to be a definite level of distrust in products claiming to be organic.
The term "organic" has taken on many potent marketing associations. It has been used freely in marketing various products that have at best a tenuous link with true organic agriculture. The usage of the term "organic" is protected in most countries worldwide by legislation.
South Africa, unfortunately remains one of the few exceptions. Draft Organic legislation has sat with government now for a number of years. This has left open a loophole for unscrupulous traders and producers to exploit. Once the legislation is gazetted only properly certified producers and growers may claim the label Organic. At present anyone can label their products organic without complying with any standards. In fact they can be anything but organic.
Clarity is however on the horizon as the SA government is now about to finalise the draft organic standards.
The term "organic" is confusing in its definition and this has provided a further loophole for marketers to exploit. "Organic" as used in organic farming refers to a system of farming that sustains and improves the health of soils, ecosystems and people.
However, "organic" is also used to describe a branch of chemistry whose products are as far from the organic farming concept as can possibly be. DDT and Dieldrin spring to mind.
Another concern is that some growers on the whole comply with the accepted standards but are prepared to take short-cuts in order to increase profits.
What can the consumer do?
Ideally buy local, certified Organic.
Check to see if there is an organic bag or box scheme operating in your area. The organisers will be able to tell you of the origin of the produce. They should ideally be using certified produce and should gladly give you the farmers details.
Frequent the local Farmers Markets. This will give you the opportunity to meet with the actual farmers. Ask for certification or if they are not certified see if they would be happy for you to visit their farms. A word of warning. A number of stall holders are merely purchasing on the municipal market and reselling. Check that they are the real growers or that they are selling on behalf of a real organic grower.
If you purchase your produce from a supermarket or greengrocer check that the produce sold as "organic" has certification details on the labels. This needs to give the name of the certifying authority and the registration number of the grower or producer. It is preferable that the name of the grower be clear and some form of contact details be provided. This is not strictly necessary but shows that the grower is prepared to stand behind her produce. The grower can be traced through the certifying authority whom can provide details on the grower and will also provide copies of the certification standards.
Dedicated organic growers are proud of their craft. Some see it as a sacred duty to provide healthy, wholesome, real food and will be only to happy to meet consumers and show them what they do.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Climate Change - Papers from 2010
A thought provoking post on Climate Progress. We are in serious trouble and need to be doing far more than just lifestyle changes.
Friday, January 07, 2011
The Farm Gate: Organic or Hydroponic
(This is the second of a series of articles that I wrote for the Food and Wine supplement of the Mercury, September 2010)
The other day a retailer remarked “A salad pack is a salad pack. Customers don't care if its organic or not as long as the packaging is good!” I certainly hope consumers are making more informed choices as there is certainly a lot more to salad packs than what just meets the eye.
Over 90% of salad packs that not labelled organic are hydroponically grown so it will be safe to make a direct comparison with the organic alternative.
Hydroponics can be defined as a method of growing plants in a nutrient solution without needing soil. It can best be summed up by the phrase “feed the plant not the soil”. Plants are fed directly through the roots by synthetic fertilisers in a water solution.
This is the exact opposite of the Organic method. “Feed the soil not the plant” is the catchphrase of the organic movement. Organic agriculture focuses on the health of the soil as it is recognises that true plant and animal health relies on a balanced interconnection of all members of the soil ecosystem. Plants are fed primarily through the soil ecosystem and not through nutrients added to the soil.
The hydroponic system is an industrial short cut to higher productivity and yield that mainly benefits the producer as it has a more predictable business model, uses less labour and produces higher yields.
The Organic system is health centred and focuses on quality as opposed to quantity. It produces safer, more nutritious and better tasting produce in manner that promotes the health of the soil and the environment, promotes biodiversity, and focuses on fair trade and labour practises.
The main differences between organic and hydroponic salad packs can be summed up as follows:
At the end of the day it is the consumer, purchasing sustenance for themselves, their family and friends who must make the choice. The choice has to be for their health and benefit, not for the benefit of the producers and retailers. It is not the packaging that matters, but the produce within.
The other day a retailer remarked “A salad pack is a salad pack. Customers don't care if its organic or not as long as the packaging is good!” I certainly hope consumers are making more informed choices as there is certainly a lot more to salad packs than what just meets the eye.
Over 90% of salad packs that not labelled organic are hydroponically grown so it will be safe to make a direct comparison with the organic alternative.
Hydroponics can be defined as a method of growing plants in a nutrient solution without needing soil. It can best be summed up by the phrase “feed the plant not the soil”. Plants are fed directly through the roots by synthetic fertilisers in a water solution.
This is the exact opposite of the Organic method. “Feed the soil not the plant” is the catchphrase of the organic movement. Organic agriculture focuses on the health of the soil as it is recognises that true plant and animal health relies on a balanced interconnection of all members of the soil ecosystem. Plants are fed primarily through the soil ecosystem and not through nutrients added to the soil.
The hydroponic system is an industrial short cut to higher productivity and yield that mainly benefits the producer as it has a more predictable business model, uses less labour and produces higher yields.
The Organic system is health centred and focuses on quality as opposed to quantity. It produces safer, more nutritious and better tasting produce in manner that promotes the health of the soil and the environment, promotes biodiversity, and focuses on fair trade and labour practises.
The main differences between organic and hydroponic salad packs can be summed up as follows:
- No pesticides or fungicides have been used on Organic lettuce. Some hydroponic growers claim they use minimal pesticides or fungicides but there is no independent certification process to verify this, such as exists for a certified Organic grower.
- The inherent quality of organic lettuce is high. It has higher levels of nutrients than conventionally grown crops. The taste of organic lettuce is superior and it has a higher shelf life.
- Lettuce for organic salad packs is washed in pure water with no added chemicals.
- The growing process of organic lettuce is beneficial to the environment. It promotes biodiversity, builds soil health and maintains water quality. Organic growing has a low carbon footprint as it locks away more carbon than it produces in the soil.
- Hydroponic growing has a high carbon footprint in that it relies on fertilisers that are manufactured using fossil fuels. The buildings and infrastructure of a hydroponic farm have a negative impact on biodiversity and landscape. Hydroponic growing may potentially use less water than organic but can pollute waterways and ground water with nutrient rich waste water.
- Organic salad packs are not always more expensive than hydroponic ones. A brief perusal of the shelves at major greengrocer chains will confirm this.
At the end of the day it is the consumer, purchasing sustenance for themselves, their family and friends who must make the choice. The choice has to be for their health and benefit, not for the benefit of the producers and retailers. It is not the packaging that matters, but the produce within.
The Farm Gate: Pest control on an Organic Farm
(This is an article that I wrote for the August 2010 Food and Wine supplement of the Mercury)
I was asked a question recently about the safety of so called organic pesticides and fungicides. It is an interesting observation that most of us cannot see beyond the industrial farming paradigm. There is the assumption that any vegetable planted must be sprayed and drenched with wonder products otherwise it will be devastated overnight. So, obviously organic farmers must do the same, but with approved organic substances. The truth is that we do things a lot differently.
The emphasis of Organic pest and disease control is prevention. To do this organic farmers employ a number of methods.
The first is our focus on the soil. The soil is the foundation of Organic farming. A healthy soil means healthy plants, healthy animals and healthy humans. A healthy soil is rich in biodiversity. Each species of soil organism plays its part in enhancing the health of the crops that grow in it.
For instance mycorrhiza fungi interact with plant roots to improve their ability to take up nutrients.
A healthy plant has a healthy immune system and is able to produce sufficient of its own phytochemical defences against pests and diseases. Pests, like all predators will always seek out the weak first. Pests like nothing better than a field full of nitrogen bloated, chemically fed crops.
Our second method is to protect and enhance the biodiversity and balance of the natural environment of the farm. We rely on beneficial fungi, bacteria, plants, and animals to control pests through predation and repelling them. Birds and bats are some of our best pest control agents.
Thirdly we employ inter-cropping to help minimize the chances of disease or infestation. Inter-cropping means planting many different crops together rather than as a mono-crop or the same crop in a large area. This reduces the footprint of each crop and allows the different crop species to work together in mutually beneficial ways. Some plants such as the aromatic herbs repel insects, while other crops act as trap crops luring the pests away from others.
The fourth method is rotation. Rotation means planting different crops in succession and never in the same place twice in a row. Each crops adds substances and removes nutrients differently from the soil. For instance Rocket adds substances that repel root nematodes. Rotation enhances soil quality and biodiversity.
Fifthly, organic farmers try and plant seasonally. Crops planted in season will always be healthier and more hardy than those planted out of season. Swiss chard planted over our hot season is susceptible to cercospora spot. Swiss Chard purchased during this period has more than likely been heavily sprayed with fungicide.
If all else fails organic farmers can use certain natural approved substances to cure an infestation but only after seeking permission from the certifying body. However if an infestation occurs the impact is minimised by the diversity of an organic farm and most attacks are short lived.
The use of organic pesticides must be seen as a last resort and most organic farmers do not use them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)