Sometimes just looking at my Twitter feed can be overwhelming: people calling attention to melting glaciers, deforestation, endangered animals, submerging islands, and then some people saying this is untrue; and then even more squabbles on what to do about it all. But take a step back and block out the noise and you might find that there is something that can be done, by all of us. That is the key actually. Each of us needs to take action. Governments have their responsibility but are often slow to move and cannot carry this through alone. There is much for us to do at our level. I liked this article because it sets out concrete action options for agriculture.
First, we should not sit back and “accept” climate change”. Taking steps to reduce emissions in agriculture, switching to climate resistant crops are among the possible solutions for growers to implement. However, there is a huge shortfall in the investment needed for research to come up with such solutions, that could be an area for governments as well as private individuals and corporations to make an impact. For consumers, we need to reduce food waste: buy according to a plan so nothing is thrown away unused, put smaller portions on the plate, work with restaurants to channel extra food to shelters or food banks. A big help would be to reduce meat consumption as well.
Even before we take these steps, a basic truth must be acknowledged: people, animals, crops and the environment they exist in succeed or fail in dealing with climate change as a unit. Conservation and preservation activities have to be in tandem with ensuring that people are able to maintain a decent existence. Where the goals are unclear or weighed excessively in one direction, conflicts will inevitably erupt. So instead of bringing all our resources to bear on meeting the challenge of climate change, we might be stuck in the trap of dealing with escalating social unrest as the struggle to control and access scarce resources becomes sharper and are thus, left vulnerable to climate shocks.
Ideological positions will have to be tempered with pragmatic solutions. All those wars on social media, passing judgement on the best/only way to grow/consume food, demonizing the other side, trying to score points, that is such an absurd waste of time and energy. It will take all options to walk through this storm; so technology and better farm practices, urban farming and ranches all will be part of the solution and throwing one or the other out is the equivalent of scoring an own goal.
The time to act is now, find a way to help and try to make it happen. And yes, this means going out and actually putting an effort into a program or an initiative; putting up a cute profile picture or retweeting to make a hashtag trend is not enough. We know what we must do and there are no excuses for not doing it.
Posted in Climate Change, Farm Technology, Food Security, GMO, Green, Hunger
Tagged biotechnology, climate change, Farming Technology, food security, Green, Hunger
This is a quick post. I just saw this piece on hydroponic tomatoes that are reported to be as flavorful as heirloom varieties. What is the environmental impact of large scale greenhouses used for growing crops that would otherwise not be grown in that area, one wonders? Time to plug in my favorite food rule: Eat in Season. In summer, enjoy the tomatoes, can them if you like for winter but when the snow comes in do think about all the root vegetables you could savor. The comments are also worth a read and it took only a quick glance to note that, yes, Monsanto had been mentioned, never mind that it has nothing to do with the story!
(Image Courtesy: freedigitalphotos.net)
This post in the Farming Friday series is delayed but the issue it highlights is crucial today as farmers are being displaced in many parts of the world as they lose their land to outside forces, sometimes government projects or corporate interests or urban expansion. This is the experience of specially of farmers from minority ethnic groups in Laos who are being deprived of their lands. While the framework to protect their rights does exist, it is not being put to use.
(Image Courtesy: freedigitalphotos.net)
I just came across this review of a book called “The Locavore’s Delusion”, and yes, it is a nod to that other book, in case you were wondering! The authors of the book tried to answer the question: why did we start eating a more global diet anyway? The article gives a summary of reasons that most people offer for opting to eat local: more tasty, nutritious, helps local economy etc , and the most often cited reason: it is good for the environment. This has been the subject of much discussion (some of which I wrote about here) and the point at issue is that the contribution to greenhouse gases comes more from the actual cultivation of crops rather than their transportation.
The answer the authors provide to the query, why did global food trade develop, is that it provides increased variety of foods, reduced prices and stability of supply. They also argue that efforts to counter this are really an effort to turn back the clock with negative consequences. If a region was hit by unexpected weather events or pest infestations and the crops failed, there would be no relief available if we functioned as closed off food islands. Indeed, they see the problem as being one of inadequate globalization where subsidies, trade barriers and other distortions are hindering an optimum situation of low prices and assured availability of food.
Some of the discussion here has been heard before but I liked the way the question was posed: why did we start expanding out of the local market? Perhaps we could ask the same question for the GMO question: why did we start developing them in the first place? Was it because some evil people were working up weird stuff in their labs and injecting it into food to try and rule the world like in some bad movie? No, it was because we need to tackle pests to stop crop loss. We will need it in the future to combat climate change. Imagine a flood event that submerges crops. Since genetically modified crops that could withstand the submersion were not planted, there is no food. But there is also no way to acquire it from anywhere else because food trade has given way to purely local markets. It could happen….
(Image Courtesy: freedigitalphotos.net)
Posted in Book Review, Climate Change, Farm Technology, Food Security, GMO, Green, Hunger
Tagged biotechnology, Book Review, climate change, Farming Technology, food security, Genetically Modified Organisms, Green, Hunger
Thanks to a free weekend from Showtime, I was able to catch up on another episode of their show on climate change, “Years of Living Dangerously”. (I reviewed the first episode here).This episode had two story lines: one, in which Ms. Lesley Stahl travels to Greenland to explore the melting glaciers; and the second, where Mr. Ian Somerhalder brings us the climate debate going on in the evangelical community in the USA, a debate that has a significant impact on actual policy making.
We were treated to stunning views of glaciers which drove home the point of how beautiful our planet is and how callous we are in our stewardship of all that it offers. The rumble of the glaciers cracking served as reminders of how quickly all this could vanish. In fact, the melting of glaciers is also opening up possibilities for oil exploration and there is more investment going on in this right now than the GDP of Greenland! This provides income boosting opportunities for the inhabitants of Greenland and here we come up against the reality of climate change: when the environment changes and people’s livelihoods are threatened, policy making and taking action becomes more fraught.
The other narrative thread revisits some territory from the first episode: the attempt to establish that climate change is real and happening now to those whose belief in their faith casts doubt over this. The starting point is the campaign to shut down coal plants in North Carolina and elsewhere in the country. Mr. Somerhalder’s foundation has been committed to calling attention to the issue of the impact of coal in an effective campaign on social media. But, initiatives like this are being met with resistance by certain faith based groups. We meet pastor Rick Joyner who remains unconvinced about the evidence on climate change despite his daughter’s efforts. She is joined in her effort by Dr. Katherine Hayhoe who also featured in the first episode; and is a skilled and dedicated communicator on climate change issues.
To illustrate the impact of climate change, we are introduced to the oyster fishermen of Apalachicola Bay which was once full of oysters but is almost empty today. Increased use of water upstream due to drought, and a rise in the sea level, has changed the salinity level of the bay waters making it unsuitable for oysters. A source of income and food has disappeared and, as we know, this story with different players is being repeated all over the world.
The show does not present easy answers: we hear the dilemma of the leadership of Greenland, “our country is not a museum”, people have to survive and they want to give their families a good life; we watch as a tentative coexistence between faith and science develops, but finally it is up to each of us to find our position and act on it. What is worrisome is that time is not on our side and we need to make changes soon.
I wish that the potential impact of climate change on our food system was highlighted in Years of Living Dangerously. Perhaps that will come in other episodes, there is certainly enough material on it for a whole show to itself!
(Image Courtesy: freedigitalphotos.net)
As the last post mentioned, the US government’s latest report on climate change takes note of the challenges that await farmers in the coming years. But, as we know, farmers are dealing with variable and unpredictable weather right now, so that the crops they grew and the way they grow them is also changing.How are they doing so, what are they changing?
One interesting aspect of the response to changes in climate has been the rediscovery and resurgence of neglected/marginal crops. Often, these would be crops indigenous to a certain area which required little tending and were, sort of, taken for granted. Now, their ability to grow in marginal areas has become an advantage. An example here would be the case of the lima bean in Kenya. This bean remains dormant in the soil, waiting for the rain and so can survive dry spells,so it has moved from being a marginal crop to the center stage of cultivation.
“Climate Smart Agriculture” which consists of ensuring food security, adaptation and mitigation (as defined by the FAO) is redefining farming in different countries. The success stories range from harvesting water to grow millet in the Sahel to adoption of rice production techniques to use less water by smallholder farmers in Vietnam; from carbon farming initiatives in Australia to reduction in the contribution of Danish agriculture to emissions by better use of manure and lower use of inorganic fertilizers.
And what about American farmers? Some of them, it seems, see the disruption in climate as simply another weather pattern, but they are also aware of the need to follow good practices on the farm to be able to deal with the weather patterns. This means that they are quick to adopt the climate efficient techniques suggested by the USDA: practicing no-till farming, planting cover crops etc.
Whether changes come by way of policy decisions , as responses to the threat to a way of life or as pragmatic reactions to constraints, all these changes will add up to a better food system. But will they be enough to get us through the crisis ahead?
The current drought in California poses a problem for salmon in their breeding season. Here is a wonderful story of how farmers helped the fish in need!