<x-charset ISO-8859-1>Hi Kirk Interesting one - I posted it before, but no harm in posting it again. There was some discussion on it: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/31859/
A couple of weeks ago it came up at SANET, the SustAg list, with quite a lot more discussion, including some objections by Biofuel member Kim Travis, with which I agreed. I posted a response to the original post there, from Misha - sustainable food production and sustainable fuel/energy have a lot in common, quite a lot about both in my reply, so I'll post it again here: >Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 06:46:29 +0900 >To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: The oil we eat > >Howdy Misha, and all > >And peace be unto you too. But hey, cheer up a bit - we haven't >quite managed to destroy exactly everything yet. "Abandon hope all >ye who enter here" is what it says on the gates of hell, and we >ain't there yet either. As David/the Dalai Lama said, optimism is >the only option, and not only that, it makes sense - could even be a >bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you get it right (an >optimistic view!). > >Anyway, as one poverty-level-income community activist to another, >yes, I saw the piece, and posted it at our Biofuel mailing list, >where it got itself discussed some, though not as much as I'd've >liked. Pleased to have it in our archives though, along with a few >others such. It's here: > >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/31846/ >The Oil We Eat: Following the food chain back to Iraq > >Here's another one: > >Eating Fossil Fuels >by Dale Allen Pfeiffer >http://idaho.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/6361_comment.php > >Another: > >Eating Oil - Food supply in a changing climate. >By Andy Jones >from Resurgence issue 216 >January / February 2003 >http://resurgence.gn.apc.org/issues/jones216.htm > >The Biofuel mailing list, by the way, run by Journey to Forever, is >rather wide-ranging. Biofuels as alternatives come with a context, >the full energy context, and it all gets examined there, by a very >international membership. > >Anyway, what did I say about it... I enjoyed Manning's piece, a good >read, but he didn't take it far enough, IMO. Indeed, industrialised >agriculture's extraction and "value"-adding "food system" is not >farming at all, and nothing about it is sustainable, not even its >perpetrators' bottom-lines. But where all these articles have been >weak is in failing to realise the potential of sustainable >agriculture, which after all is not just some idealistic >head-in-the-clouds theory, it's something millions of farmers >worldwide are doing, with millions more joining them all the time. >Organic farmers grow maize without the use of fossil-fuel inputs, >getting the same or better yields and better prices. And not >wrecking the place, no "externalities". Nothing special. Richard >Manning gets it more right than the others have done - at least he >realises there is such a thing as a sustainable way of doing it, but >not how far it goes. As Kim said, just about everything it says was >predicted decades ago by the pioneers of modern sustainable farming, >who also showed that none of it is at all necessary. > >But I don't agree with Manning's main thesis. The sentence you quote >struck me too: > >>Writes Manning: "[The rise of a]griculture was not so much about food >>as it was about the accumulation of wealth. It benefited some humans, >>and those people have been in charge ever since." > >I rather agree that "they" have been in charge ever since, but not >for that reason, and I don't think that's how it happened. Even if >it did happen that way, why did some benefit more than others? What >gave them the edge in the first place? > >G.T. Wrench, in his "Reconstruction by Way of the Soil", paints a >vivid picture of the tension between the nomadic pastoralists of the >plains and settled peasant farmers in the river valleys, the latter >following the law of return and the former abusing it, overriding >it, via overstocking. "In this character, indeed, they were like to >other kinds of speculators, many prominent at the present time." And >when they'd overgrazed the land, burnt all the trees and the >droughts came... "Then, with increasing numbers, they might >successfully make themselves masters of the land of settled farmers >and the food and wealth, which they had not the wit to get by their >own skill and toil. Hence they praised war, not as a means of >defence in the way in which a sturdy peasantry has so often >successfully defended itself and its soil, but as a means to mastery >and wealth. To them life was not only a struggle for existence, but >a will to power over their enemies, an assertion of the right of the >better-armed and of the more savage nature over what they regarded >as possible, and if possible legitimate, prey." > >This seems to me a better explanation of why some benefited from >agriculture more than others did. > >Conversely, peasant communities under threat of attack by brigands >and bandits if not hordes of marauding nomads might well have been >sturdy enough as Wrench says, but defending the community in an >emergency requires a different social structure from that suited to >cultivating a river valley: it needs a command structure, with >emergency powers. It's easy to imagine how such powers might >increasingly be to a commander's liking, until the day the battle is >won but peace fails to break out, and the command structure becomes >permanent, and enforced. > >There are many possible permutations of this picture, and they're >easy to find supporting references for. Toynbee, other historians, >see something similar. > >So instead of Manning's problem of agriculture, we have instead the >problem of power, rather more convincing, IMO. > >Huxley said only angels can handle power responsibly but they're not >interested in the job, or something like that. Most people aren't. > >"It's said that 'power corrupts', but actually it's more true that >power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by >other things than power. When they do act, they think of it as >service, which has limits. The tyrant, though, seeks mastery, for >which he is insatiable, implacable." (David Brin) > >Humans are just fine, nearly all of them. Their institutions are >another matter. The story of history, the one vs the other. It's a >story of steady progress, with constant setbacks. > >So we left feudalism behind... or did we? We see so much about >American family farmers, those that survive at all, being reduced to >virtual serfdom to an agribiz corporation. It's not because they're >less competitive, or any nonsense such as economies of scale. > >This is from the top page in our Small Farms section: >http://journeytoforever.org/farm.html >Small farms: Journey to Forever > >>Sustainable farms are small. They're mixed -- mixed crops, mixed >>trees and mixed livestock, with all three mixed together in an >>integrated pattern that mimics natural biodiversity and reaps the >>benefits of collaborating with nature. >> >>The main benefit is health: healthy crops and livestock, healthy >>soil, and healthy yields, along with low input costs. >> >>This kind of farming is intense and needs close management, and >>since they're usually family farms, this is why they're small: a >>family can't manage a bigger farm properly. >> >>Anyway, there's no need to: mixed family farms provide sustenance, >>food security and a healthy surplus for sale or barter -- they far >>out-produce the bigger, mechanized farms. >> >>In Thailand, farms of two to four acres produce 60% more rice per >>acre than bigger farms. In Taiwan net income per acre of farms of >>less than 1.25 acres is nearly double that of farms over five >>acres. In Latin America, small farms are three to 14 times more >>productive per acre than the large farms. Across the Third World, >>small farms are 2-10 times more productive per acre than larger >>farms. >> >>In the US, farms smaller than 27 acres have more than 10 times the >>dollar-per-acre output of larger farms. In Britain a recent study >>of the hidden costs of industrial farming raised the bill to ‚Q.3 >>billion -- almost as much as the farm industry's total income. >> >>In the US, small farms have three times as many trees per acre as >>larger farms, have more biodiversity and do less environmental >>damage. And since they're diversified, they're not tied to the >>vagaries of a single-product market. >> >>Economies of scale might work in a factory, but on a farm it's just >>an illusion: agricultural economists now accept there's an "inverse >>relationship between farm size and output". >> >>"Small family and part-time farms are at least as efficient as >>larger commercial operations. There is evidence of diseconomies of >>scale as farm size increases." -- "Are Large Farms More Efficient?" >>Professor Willis L. Peterson, University of Minnesota, 1997. >>Abstract: >>http://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/minnas/9702.html >>Download (Acrobat file, 52kb): >>http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/mn/p97-02.pdf > >There are a lot of references there, worth a look. > >The dominance of the agribiz corporations wasn't achieved via >anything much to do with normal market mechanisms (if indeed such >things still exist), but, mostly, the same way the original >dominance was established, that Manning talks of. By bullying. >Here's an example: > >>"From the 1930's to the 1960's the free-range system was the popular >>way to raise poultry in the United States. It produced meaty, tender >>birds at a reasonable cost, using a reasonable amount of labor and >>providing valuable fertility to the land. Many farmers raised >>10,000-20,000 birds per year on short-grass pasture ("range"), both >>chickens and turkeys. With the rise of industrial agriculture and the >>development of the confinement broiler barn, this sustainable and >>profitable system was discontinued by means of withdrawing growers >>contracts. Left with no market or processing facilities the practice >>was abandoned within two or three years. However, even though the >>system was phased out here in the U.S., it has continuing popularity >>in Europe, even to the point of having legislated standards. In >>France, in 2000, over 20% of all poultry (90 million birds!) was >>raised using the free-range system." >>https://raju.safe-order.net/free-rangepoultry/free-rangepoultryindex2.htm >>Back40Books > >Well, even if feudalism's changed its clothes, at least the remnants >of the aristocracy don't wield the absolute power of yore. But... >This is from PR! A Social History Of Spin, by Stuart Ewen, Chapter >1, Visiting Edward Bernays (the "Father of Spin"): > >"The "social conscience," to which Bernays had referred, arrived at >that moment when aristocratic paradigms of deference could no longer >hold up in the face of modern, democratic, public ideals that were >boiling up among the "lower strata" of society. At that juncture, >strategies of social rule began to change, and the life and career >of Edward Bernays, I should add, serves as a testament to that >change. > >"The explosive ideals of democracy challenged ancient customs that >had long upheld social inequality. A public claiming the birthright >of democratic citizenship and social justice increasingly called >upon institutions and people of power to justify themselves and >their privileges. In the crucible of these changes, aristocracy >began to give way to technocracy as a strategy of rule. Bernays came >to maturity in a society where the exigencies of power were-by >necessity-increasingly exercised from behind the pretext of the >"common good." Bernays, the child of aristocratic pretense who >fashioned himself into a technician of mass persuasion, was the >product of a "social conscience" that had grasped the fact that a >once submissive Dumb Jack, in the contemporary world, would no >longer be willing to quietly place his tired head in his folded >hands at the end of each day, only to awaken and serve again the >next morning. Born into privilege, developing into a technocrat, >Bernays' biography illustrates the onus that the twentieth century >has placed on social and economic elites; they have had to justify >themselves continually to a public whose hearts and minds now bear >the ideals of democracy." >http://www.bway.net/~drstu/chapter.html > >"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of >great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of >corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means >of protecting corporate power against democracy." -- Alex Carey, >Australian social scientist > >Yea verily. > >So here we are in the purported Information Age and indeed the >problem turns out to be one of information rather than how to grow >stuff sustainably, we've always known how to do that, and these days >we know it better and better. > >This article captures the problem quite well, rather depressingly >(we encounter this all the time): >Rupert Murdoch and My Sister >Richard Edmondson: >January 17 / 18, 2004 >http://www.counterpunch.org/edmondson01172004.html > >And this one outlines it quite well, at least in the US now: > >The G.O.P, Inc. >How a Theology of "Free Markets" Destroyed the Party and Brought >Calamity to the Nation >Richard W. Behan >January 19, 2004 >http://www.counterpunch.org/behan01192004.html > >So, Misha, what's the answer? You are, for one - a community >activist who's well-versed in food and agriculture issues, >poverty-level-income or not. We have to take all this stuff back. >Just keep going, and strength to yer arm! > >To return to the Biofuel mailing list, it's worth noting that >there's a lot in common between sustainable biofuels production and >sustainable food production. One issue that quite often gets >discussed at the Biofuel list is a suitable response to the >oft-asked question "How much land would it take..." (to grow enough >biofuels to replace the West's current massive, wasteful, >inequitable and unsustainable levels of energy overconsumption, plus >expected growth). The usual answer is "Too much!" (so let's forget >the whole thing and get on with our gas-guzzling). A rational and >sustainable energy future will need great reductions in energy use, >great improvements in energy efficiency, and probably most >important, decentralisation of supply, to local, farm, or community >level, where a wide range of available alternatives can be applied >in appropriate combinations as befits (fits) the circumstances. Not >only does it not make sense to use energy to transport energy (or >food!) long distances to localities where many types of local >resources lie unused, but in many instances local supply can be much >more efficient, exploiting many niches and local opportunities that >simply don't begin to figure in a centralised supply scenario. > >To ask the question again at that level, one answer is "No land at >all." I haven't done this yet, I haven't had the chance, but I've >done most of the bits and pieces and I know enough and have enough >experience to know it's feasible, while others I know are well on >the way to proving it. It should be possible for an integrated, >mixed farm, practising what the Martens's call "organic by design" >methods (low input-high output), to produce most or all of the >farm's energy needs from an ever-changing variety of by-products, >without the dedicated use of any land at all, and probably be able >to manage an excess for sale. > >There's also this: how much fossil-energy, in fuel, fertilizers and >pesticides, would be required to produce enough food to feed 900 >million people? (Food, that is, stuff people eat, not commodities >produced for trade.) Answer: none. According to the FAO, more than >15% of the world's food supply is produced by city farms (in 1993, >expected to grow to 33% by 2005), with virtually no inputs other >than wastes (thus vastly decreasing city sanitation problems as >well), and with the use of no farming land at all. > >This was one response to the "How much land" question: > > >We did a study in India where we showed that it is > >possible to take care of energy needs completely by biomass and its various > >derivatives for a block of about 100 villages. You can access the study at; > >http://education.vsnl.com/nimbkar/taluka.html > > > >Cheers. > > > >Dr. Anil K. Rajvanshi > >Director > >Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute > >P.O.Box 44, Phaltan - 415523 > >Maharashtra, INDIA > >Ph: 91-2166-222396/220945 > > > >http://www.nariphaltan.org > >http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net > >E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Last, the estimable Dr Wrench wrote only three books, all of them a >helluva good read, and all three are available free, full-text, >online at our Small Farms Library - recommended: >http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html >Small farms library > >Anyway, I'm more of a Paleolithic type of caveman, all this >newfangled Neolithic stuff's a bit fancy for me. > >Best wishes > >Keith Addison >Journey to Forever > > >>Howdy, all-- >> >>Well, I've been waiting about a month to see if any of the folks in >>institutional sustainable agriculture on this list would bring up a >>discussion of Montana writer Richard Manning's cover story in the >>February 2004 issue of /Harper's/: "The Oil We Eat: Following the >>Food Chain Back to Iraq." >> >>Not a peep on what is clearly humanity's most crucial issue: >> >>The relationship between energy and food, and what is going to happen >>now that we've destroyed everything there is to destroy, grounded our >>very lives in violently destructive systems, and we still want more. >> >>So I guess it's up to us poverty-level-income community activists to >>bring it up here. >> >>:^) >> >>Who has seen the piece? >> >>What did you think? >> >>The hijacking of human civilization by agriculture is the topic of >>Manning's book, and the /Harper's/ piece summarizes his perspective. >>He kind of applies ecological economics to the agricultures, and his >>basic analysis is around energy budgets and land tenure. >> >>Good stuff, and it's pathetic, to me, that it isn't getting discussed >>widely within the field. >> >>No, easier to blame consumers for being ignorant, and to continue >>with the lucrative Yuppie Chow projects, or single-issue-focus stuff. >>Talking about this stuff is *hard* and not at all comfortable like, >>say, technical minutiae of production systems or poetry about seeds >>and soil (though Manning is part of the same "Prairie Writers Circle" >>at the Land Institute that also churns out said poetry). >> >>I thought the most nascent point in Manning's /Harper's/ piece was >>the oft-quoted bit by George Kennan in 1948: >> >>>We [in the U.S.] have about 50 percent of the world's wealth but >>>only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation, we cannot >>>fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the >>>coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will >>>permit us to maintain the position of disparity without positive >>>detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to >>>dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming, and our attention >>>will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national >>>objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today >>>the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.... >> >>Kennan asserted that maintaining such a concentration of wealth >>(i.e., unjust disparity) requires violent action. And Manning >>believes (I think rightly) that the baseline disparity and violence >>upon which human societies rest is agricultural. >> >>Writes Manning: "[The rise of a]griculture was not so much about food >>as it was about the accumulation of wealth. It benefited some humans, >>and those people have been in charge ever since." >> >>I spent all of last year studying the rise of the agricultures in the >>Holocene, primarily because I'd come to the same conclusion as >>Manning's, and was looking for evidence to prove myself wrong. >> >>Alas, my studies only underscored the conclusion.The culture of the >>Neolithic has been drummed into each of us so thoroughly that we >>can't even think outside those boxes. >> >>Any SANETters want to try? Or do we want to keep recycling the same >>old stories? >> >>It grieves me to conclude, as I have, that sustainable agriculture in >>most quarters is irrelevant for the 21st century. But in many places >>I've lived and worked and visited, it appears to be the way du jour >>to hide from the realities of the new millennium, while upholding >>certain entitlements and expectations. If you dare, read Manning's >>piece. If you dare, let's talk. >> >> >>peace >>mish >> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>Michele Gale-Sinex >> >>Home office: 360-459-5683 >>Home office fax: Same as above, phone first for enabling >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>Sustainable agriculture! That's what Alice Waters does! You must feel >>lucky to be living in Berkeley, since we have so much sustainable >>agriculture here! >>--Berkeley resident equating agriculture with $75 prix fixe meals >>that must be booked months in advance at uber-upscale restaurants >> >>******************************************************** >The Oil We Eat (from Harper's) >author: Richard Manning >The journalist's rule says: follow the money. This rule, however, is >not >really axiomatic but derivative, in that money, as even our vice >president >will tell you, is really a way of tracking energy. We'll follow the >energy. > >The secret of great wealth with no obvious source is some forgotten >crime, >forgotten because it was done neatly. > >--Balzac > >The journalist's rule says: follow the money. This rule, however, is >not >really axiomatic but derivative, in that money, as even our vice >president >will tell you, is really a way of tracking energy. We'll follow the >energy. <snip> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ </x-charset>
