But now I am wondering if I should put the cider press back up for sale. You see, my apple trees were in full bloom before the end of March when temperatures hit 90 degrees.

Then it dipped to 27 degrees earlier this week. A handy chart I found warns that fruit loss begins at 28 degrees, and if it hits 25 degrees, a near total loss occurs.

A lot of people are talking about the strange weather this spring. Come to think of it, a lot of people were talking about the weather last spring too.

That is when unexpected rain flooded thousands of acres of farmland along the Missouri river, and forced the closure of a key bridge between Nebraska and Iowa just 10 miles from my office at the Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, Nebraska. The cropland stayed under water all summer. The bridge stayed closed too, forcing many residents of the the small river town to add 60 miles to their daily commute.

To be sure, a mix of factors contributes to every weather event, and early research indicates that climate change was only one factor contributing to the warm temperatures this spring.

Taken together, though, these experiences are painting a picture of the sort of challenges we can expect to face as climate change intensifies.

The risks to our communities, and to agriculture in particular, are significant. Last year some corn and bean farmers in our county lost their entire crop to flooding. The two farm families who operate our local wineries were probably up late worrying about their fruit trees and grape vines as the temperatures fell on Tuesday.

When farmers we know suffer a crop loss from extreme weather, the political objection to acting on climate change seems dimmer in comparison.

There is a great moral risk in continuing to treat climate change as a political issue. Our communities and our farms are on the line. Out of respect for future generations, it is far past time to set politics aside and take reasonable action.

That is why it is time for farmers and rural people of conscious to step forward and lead. We know some farmers are already concerned. And a recent poll of farmers in Iowa found that 68 percent believe climate change is real and 45 percent believe human activity is a contributing factor.

We are stepping up our efforts too. In CFRA’s newsletter in June, we will run a feature on climate change, the challenges facing our communities and actions we can take. In early summer, we will issue a major new report on carbon, climate and agriculture.

We know that it will not always be easy. But the issue demands our leadership. For we must not allow political division to stand in the way of protecting our children and grandchildren from the risk of a changing climate.

Will you join us? To get involved as a leader on climate issues in your community, please get in touch. Shoot me an email at briand@cfra.org.

Originally published by the Center for Rural Affairs

I’m a vegetarian. But my husband’s not. And, go figure, my kids aren’t either. Which is exactly why I care about the meat I buy. Yes, I buy meat. I’d rather not, but if it’s coming into the house–and into my kids’ bodies–then I need to know exactly what I’m buying. And I not only want to know how it’s affecting my family’s health, I also care deeply about how it’s affecting our family’s environmental footprint (including climate change).

Enter Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) new Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change + Health. In it, EWG took a close look at how a variety of protein foods rank when their total, “cradle-to-grave” greenhouse gas emissions are calculated. Then we factored in the non-climate environmental impacts (like water pollution) and health effects of meat and confirmed that, indeed, not all meat is created equal.

Different foods generate different amounts of green house gases

Our lifecycle comparison shows that, pound for pound, lamb, beef, cheese, and pork generate the most greenhouse gases (GHGs) of the protein foods we looked at; beef emits four times as many GHGs as chicken! They also tend to be higher in saturated fat and have the worst overall environmental impacts because producing them requires the most resources, mainly chemical fertilizer, feed, fuel, pesticides, and water.

If you’re scratching your head, wondering how exactly eating meat generates GHGs, there are three main sources: Feed production, ruminant digestion, and manure. In other words, growing animal food, farting animal food, and pooping animal food. (Excuse our language, but it’s clearest–and likely more memorable–this way. Plus, my eight-year old son thinks it’s hilarious.) For a bite-sized description of the climate and environmental impacts of each stage of meat production (there are many: Growing feed, grazing, slaughtering, transporting all of it, eating, and wasting), see the meat lifecycle graphic on EWG’s Web site.

It’s Clear: We’re Eating Too Much Meat

For many, meat is a regular, familiar part of their diets. Eating meat in moderation can be a good source of complete protein and key vitamins and nutrients such as iron, zinc and vitamins B-12, B-6, and niacin. That said, we eat far more protein than we need: Kids get three to four times the recommended amount and adult men get twice the amount they need. And, of course, the nutritional benefits of meats can be reaped from other, less environmentally damaging food sources (like lentils and beans).

The scientific evidence is increasingly clear that eating too much meat–particularly red and processed meat–contributes to a wide variety of serious health problems like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), most human exposure to dioxins comes from food, almost entirely through animal fats. The best way to reduce the health risks associated with dioxins and other toxins is by limiting your dietary exposure to them.

Eating Less and Better Meat

If your health and the planet are on your “to do” list at all, you’ll accomplish a lot by trimming your portions, skipping it here and there (why not every Monday?), and choosing leaner, greener meat. Just like reducing home energy use or driving less, skipping meat once a week can make a meaningful difference in GHG emissions if we all do it. According to EWG’s calculations, if everyone in the U.S. chose a vegetarian diet, it would be the equivalent of taking 46 million cars off the road or not driving 555 billion miles. To present a likelier option, if everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, it would be like not driving 91 billion miles–or taking 7.6 million cars off the road.

At the same time, keep in mind that although important for improving your health and reducing your personal carbon footprint (of which you’re, thankfully, the boss), eating less (or no) meat, by itself, won’t stop climate change or eliminate environmental damage. The fork is powerful, but not all-powerful. But don’t let that stop you. Wield it anyway and support policy change to invest in greener energy and cleaner, more sustainable food production.

EWG’s Tips for Meat Eaters: Finding the Good Stuff

Often, it’s not our goals (often good), but rather lack of specific, trustworthy knowledge about smart consumer choices that stands between us and our best intentions. Which is why EWG put together our top tips for leaner, greener meat shopping (we also have a wallet card, available on our Web site). If you buy less meat overall (our top tip for meat eaters), you can more easily afford healthier, greener meat.

When shopping, always read the labels (and check our label decoder)! Look for:

• Grass-fed or pasture-raised meat: Has fewer antibiotics and hormones and in some cases may have more nutrients and less fat; the animals live in more humane, open, sanitary conditions and well-managed systems reduce erosion and water pollution, conserve carbon and preserve biodiversity and wildlife.
• Lean cuts: Less fat will likely mean fewer cancer-causing toxins in your body.
• No antibiotics or hormones: Reduces unnecessary exposure and helps keep human medicines effective.
• Certified organic: Keeps pesticides, chemical fertilizers and genetically modified foods off the land, out of the water and out of our bodies.
• Certified humane: Means no growth hormones or antibiotics and ensures that animals were raised with enough space and no cages or crates.
• Unprocessed, nitrite-free, and low sodium: Avoid lunchmeats, hot dogs, prepackaged smoked meats, and chicken nuggets.
• Sustainable seafood: Avoid airfreighted fish, most farmed salmon, and consult Monterey Bay Aquarium’s list of the most sustainable seafood choices.
• Local: Supports your local economy and protects farm land.

If you can’t find these healthier products (we know that in some places it takes a little hunting), ask your grocer to carry them (as more and more people ask, they will become more readily available). And consult eatwellguide or eatwild, both terrific online resources, to find a nearby store with greener, pasture-raised meat.

Wasting less and eating less and greener meat is a powerful investment in yourself and our planet–that’s easier to make than you might think. Start today by taking EWG’s pledge to eat less meat. (and hey, it’s Monday, why not make today your first Meatless Monday?). It’s good to be part of the solution, isn’t it?

The Summit took place at UC Davis on March 31 and the 200 participants included a diverse range of farmers and ranchers, researchers, non-profit staff, government agency representatives, and agricultural business people.

CalCAN began the day by releasing a new report entitled Ready…Or Not? An Assessment of California Agriculture’s Readiness for Climate Change. The report assessed the adequacy and availability of resources for California agriculture to address climate change. Specifically, it looked at how much California-based scientific research is available on agricultural practices that mitigate climate change and help farmers adapt, the amount of technical assistance available to growers, and the level of direct payments to growers for climate-friendly conservation practices. The findings? Not reassuring. Here’s a sample:

• There are currently only 39 publicly funded studies that examined agricultural adaptation and/or mitigation to climate change;

• Of these, only 10 percent examined organic systems, which science is finding have significant climate benefits;

• Budget cuts have decimated the state’s Cooperative Extension services, historically a major source of technical assistance for California’s producers; and

• Unlike several other agricultural states, California lacks state-funded direct incentive programs for producers to adopt on-farm conservation programs. In 2009, the USDA’s farm bill conservation program had insufficient funding for 70 percent of the California farmers and ranchers who applied.

The necessity to more adequately respond to this lack of preparation was underscored with a few recurring themes at the Summit.

First, the science on agriculture and climate mitigation, though continuing to improve, is still somewhat contradictory and complex, and it lacks a sustainable agriculture focus. A presentation by Dr. Michel Cavigelli from the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, presented data from one of the only comprehensive studies on the ability of organic agriculture to lower the global warming potential of grain production. Unfortunately, nothing this comprehensive is available for California.

Second, because the science is still developing, practical solutions for growers are elusive and certainly not institutionalized or supported economically. Though the Summit featured some partnerships between researchers and farmers, there is relatively little participatory research taking place and not enough technical advice to producers to guide them on best practices.

Other topics in the wide-ranging program for the Summit included:

• The potential of various management practices on rangelands for sequestering carbon, and the multiple ecosystems services that rangelands provide;

• The need for more powerful policy tools to protect farmland which benefit climate protection by limiting urban sprawl and maintaining open space with a lower carbon footprint;

• The latest developments in on-farm renewable energy opportunities;

• The complex and dynamic relationships in soil management that influence nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide fluxes; and

• The potential for pasture-fed dairy operations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when compared to feedlot dairies.

In spite of the limitations and emerging nature of the field of agriculture and climate change, participants at the Summit were notably enthusiastic and engaged, eager to be part of the solution to climate change.

One of the current issues is a state bill sponsored by Senator Wolk—the Agriculture Climate Benefits Act (SB 237)—that would assure that future revenue generated by the state’s climate change law designated to agriculture will be spent on climate-friendly sustainable agriculture practices. SB 237 passed out of its first committee hearing on April 4 and will soon be considered by the full Senate.

To stay apprised of these issues, more information can be found at the CalCAN Web site.

Renata Brillinger is the Executive Director of the California Climate and Agriculture Network. She can be reached at Renata@calclimateag.org.

One group of researchers examined the historic links between climate change and incidents of war in Europe and Asia. Going back a millennium, they uncovered a “strikingly high” correlation between temperature variation and the number of wars. Their explanation? Climate change has “significant direct effects on land-carrying capacity” which in turn “affects the food supply per capita.” In their words, “the paths to those disasters operated through a reduction in agricultural production.”

As one might guess, these researchers, working from institutions in China, the U.S., and U.K., found that the highest correlation between climate change and war occurred in arid regions, precisely the areas where food supplies were must vulnerable to climatic perturbations.

Another group of researchers, based at Berkeley, NYU, Harvard and Stanford, focused on Africa. They too found “strong historical linkages between civil war and temperature…with warmer years leading to significant increases in the likelihood of war.” What might we then expect to happen in Africa in the future? The researchers point out that, “When combined with climate model projections of future temperature trends, this historical response to temperature suggests a roughly 54% increase in armed conflict incidence by 2030, or an additional 393,000 battle deaths if future wars are as deadly as recent wars.”

Bear in mind that projected temperature increases for 2030 are a fraction of those predicted later in the century. One shudders to think how global peace and security will be affected then. The point has not been lost on military leaders.

In 2007, as food riots erupted in the state of West Bengal in India and over tortilla prices in Mexico, 11 retired US three and four-star admirals and generals, including General Anthony Zinni, former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Central Command, issued a report warning that climate change will be a “threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world” and that it would “add to tensions even in stable regions….” In Africa these military leaders foresee climate change being an “incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism.” In the Middle East, they state “the potential for escalating tensions, economic disruption, and armed conflict is great.” And they believe that Asia “could be among the hardest hit regions.”

Climate change causes agricultural problems that in turn give rise to hardship, hunger, unrest, and even war. Not a pretty picture. In this context it is hardly surprising that the CIA is establishing a new Center for the Study of Climate Change, or that the Pentagon now includes climate change among the security threats it assesses in its quadrennial defense reviews.

We need not rely solely on statistical correlations in academic papers to demonstrate the link between food and political insecurity. Just look back at 2007-8, when the price of rice surged 200 percent and wheat and maize rose by more than 100 percent. Across the world, riots erupted and at least one government fell as a result. This year food prices have returned to record levels. The government of Tunisia has fallen, and Egypt is on the brink. In both cases, discontent over food issues has been part of the mix.

Now, two U.K. government departments are warning that global warming may cut India’s farm output by a quarter. Similar decreases in production of major staples have been predicted for Africa in the pages of the journal Science.

Clearly climate change and security are fused together by the impact of climate change on food production. It is this link that will undermine global peace and security in the future. So, as General Zinni notes, we can act now, or “we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.”

In other words, it should be a military priority to prepare agriculture for climate change. Yet this is only starting to register even as a development priority. Country after country and crop after crop, farmers will need new varieties in the field that are adapted to the higher temperatures and to the new pests and diseases that will follow in their wake.

New varieties are not possible without access to crop diversity. So if past is prologue, we need to be coming to grips with the fact that conserving the crop diversity necessary for increasing food production, particularly in a climate changing world, is a national security issue for all countries.

In essence, General Zinni and his colleagues are saying that converting at least some swords into ploughshares to avoid future conflict makes good military sense.

The good news is that this is a rare military expense that can be shared between all nations. Less than a half of one percent of the increase in global military spending between 2008 and 2009 would be sufficient to ensure the conservation and availability of crop diversity forever! Invested in an endowment it would generate sufficient income to maintain our most potent weapon in the fight to adapt agriculture to climate change-crop diversity.

Think of it this way: Failure to sever the link between climate change and war represents a breach of security and a threat to peace. Failure to take easy steps to adapt agriculture to climate change is a failure to react to an avoidable threat. Strategically, and morally, unforgivable. An unmistakable message is coming from our early warning systems. If we ever intend to stop food fights, we’ll have to conserve crop diversity, not just throw it at each other.

She had her epiphany at the dinner table. It was just a year and a half ago now. Dessert was lone gone, but her kids were still at the table talking. She sat back in her chair, and realized: oh my gosh, this is the one thing I’ve done right as a parent. She reflected how it hadn’t happened by itself. It had been a conscious effort to create family dinner rituals at home. Perhaps, she wondered, she could share this with other people…

Laurie David, producer of the Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and author of The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming, is fired up about family dinners. She’s used her epiphany to write a wonderfully inspiring, and deeply enlightening book that demonstrates how family dinners have the potential–if we embrace them–to be so much more than just, “Hey Mom, what’s for dinner?”

The Family Dinner argues that parents face immense challenges in reaching their kids today, and yet the daily ritual of family dinner, the simple act of eating, talking and sharing at the dinner table, can help bridge the divide. Chock full of great ways to connect with your kids, one meal at a time, it uses recipes, fun table games, the advice of renowned experts, Laurie’s own lessons learned with former husband Larry David and their two daughters, and a whole lot of love, it makes the case that you should stay at the dinner table sharing with your kids, and not just run off to see another rerun of, well, Seinfeld…

One of your contributors, physician Dean Ornish, writes this book is a ‘recipe for joy, health and healing.’ Did you set out to write such a recipe?

I love that quote, I think it’s true in retrospect. But no, I didn’t write with that lofty purpose. I did, however, hope to share what I’ve learned as a parent. There’s so much in our culture today that separates us, that tears at the family fabric: the TV, the computer, the cellphone. It’s getting harder and harder to connect with our kids. Luckily, family rituals can come to the rescue.

What does the ritual of dinner mean, why is it so important?

Well, dinner isn’t just about the food. It’s just as much about the conversation. It’s about gratitude. It’s about laughter. It’s about learning. Studies show that the dinner table is the number one place where we learn about family history and lore. It’s also the place where we get civilized. And where we civilize our children. Where they learn to form and air their opinions, and to listen, and to reform their opinions. Where we teach kids the things they need to become productive members of their community.

I didn’t understood this at first–it only came to me in the process of writing the book. I discovered the staggering research that everything a parent is concerned with, or worries about–alcohol, drugs, nutrition, promiscuity, grades–can be improved by sitting down for family dinner. By eating and sharing together.

Did you start early with your own kids?

As soon as they could sit in their high chairs. At first, I was just desperate for some happy family moments. I keyed in on the dinner hour as the time to grab them. Listen, parenting is hard. It’s challenging. You need to grab happy moments. You can’t wait for them. You need to create them! I’m very grateful for this realization. Because when kids get older, it gets much harder. And when kids enter their teens, that’s when most people stop their family rituals. Which is exactly when they need them more than ever! Dinner is love.

So what can parents do to encourage family dinner rituals?

Start small. It’s all there in the book. Begin by slowing down. Turn off the distractions. Encourage everyone to pitch in. Try conversation starters. Listen, air opinions, ask follow-ups. Make it fun with games and laughter. Don’t miss a teaching opportunity. Repeat tomorrow.

Was Larry down with all this?

Larry didn’t have great role models growing up, which I talk about in the book. He didn’t have many happy dinner memories. His family ate to refuel, then back out the door. But yes, he did go along with it. I’m sort of a strong presence–he didn’t have much choice! But Larry needed to be educated too. He didn’t see the value of dinner conversation at first. There were many nights when I’d kick him under the table–participate, participate!

How were your own childhood dinner memories?

Well, I think that’s the reason I place so much importance on this ritual. Family dinners for me weren’t so happy. It was like, who’s going to cry first? Who’s going to fight whom? How do I get rid of the peas in my mouth. How quickly can I get from this table, out the door, and on my bike. I didn’t want to repeat history. My hope was to gradually create, through trial-and-error, my own ideal of what family dinners could be.

Family dinners invariably involve food. You have delicious-looking recipes in your book, tell us about them.

All the recipes were developed by Kirstin Uhrenholdt, who grew up on a fruit farm in Denmark. When dinner was falling by the wayside, Larry and I working full time, long long hours, I was fortunate that he gave me the gift of hiring somebody to help us cook. We got lucky–Kirstin turned out to be this incredibly gifted, loving person. Everything she touches turns beautiful. She taught me what I never learned from my mother.

One of the important concepts of this book is you cook for the family. These are all family recipes. This is family food–not kid food. Leading from that, the second major food concept is participation. Ideally, everyone at the table should help prepare the table in some way. Everyone benefits when we have a more personal relationship with the food we eat.

For example, at our house, when we make soup, we take the chicken out, and then chop up fresh vegetables. Then we put everything on the Lazy Susan, pour out the broth into individual bowls, and everyone makes their own soup. That way we all participate in the meal. We all feel we’ve helped make it. Which means we’ll ultimately eat more (and waste less), and take greater pride in the meal.

Let me ask, are we facing a food-quality crisis in this country?

Once you become aware of how we produce the great majority of food in the U.S. and you’re feeding your kids–well, you’re forced to wake up fast. You find yourself asking, is this really healthy? As a responsible parent, and even as a responsible human being, you have to say this may not be the best choice.

When it comes to meat, I don’t think it’s about labels, about either-or. You don’t have to be a vegetarian. You might just want to consider being a meat-reducer. In the old days, it was a once-a-week special. Now we’re eating meat literally three times a day. That’s incredibly unhealthy, and totally unsustainable.

Which is why I really like the Meatless Monday idea. What I find so exciting is it’s something everyone can do. It’s an easy ask, that benefits you and the planet. Plus, I think if you eat less meat, you’re going to enjoy it more. It’s sort of like when I was a kid. You had to wait for the right season to get a particular fresh fruit or fresh vegetables. How amazing that first strawberry tasted in June! Everything just tastes better when it’s eaten in season and hasn’t been trucked 1,500 miles.

Originally published on Huffington Post

Join Laurie David in conversation about her book and the importance of family dinners in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club on Tuesday, November 9. Tickets can be purchased here.

Right now, no one seems to be acknowledging what a huge role the food system plays in the emissions game (responsible for up to 1/3 of total emissions), and how much can be gained by phasing out fossil fuel-dependent agriculture. The film’s producers hope it will be a useful educational tool for communities and policy makers alike.  Watch it, forward it on to your friends and colleagues.  The movie will have its theatrical premiere in NYC at Lincoln Center’s Green Screens on July 29, along with a film called Climate Refugees, which focuses on the people being displaced by climate change. There will be a panel discussion afterward with Anna Lappé and Siena Chrisman, along with Michael Nash and Justin Hogan from Climate Refugees.

Check out The Food and Climate Connection here:

The Food and Climate Connection from WhyHunger on Vimeo.

Anna Lappé’s latest book, Diet for a Hot Planet: The Climate Crisis at the End of Your Fork and What You Can Do About It, investigates the intersection between the environmental crisis and the food system in more detail than any book that has come before it. Lappé’s rendering makes us realize the imperative of addressing these issues, and empowers us to do so by demystifying corporate spin, giving thorough examples of people making change, debunking the myths for maintaining the status quo, and more. Lappé talked to me last week about climate friendly farming, policy and the state of the food movement.

CIVIL EATS: Why do you think these issues, food and the environment, have remained separated for so long?

ANNA LAPPÉ: We already did know a lot about the impact food does have on the environment, but to learn what a key driver food and agriculture are in terms of deforestation, in terms of nitrous oxide and methane emissions, and overall that the food sector is contributing a third of greenhouse gas emissions — and yet we never hear about it. As we’ve seen agriculture become much more of an industrialized process, I think there has been a real consciousness shift where for many of us there isn’t a connection anymore between food and nature. I think its made sense politically that the biggest sectors contributing to climate change — energy and transport — have gotten most of the focus in terms of our understanding about climate change. But now that there’s even more understanding about how much we absolutely need to get emissions down, we are starting to realize that we need to widen the focus to all sectors that are contributing.

CE: Do you see environmental organizations coming around and starting to take food on as a cause?

AL: Food and agriculture use 70% of all the earth’s clean water sources, and when you look at the fact that its largely agricultural-chemical runoff that is contributing to dead zones in the gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay and all around the world, you could go down a long list of the environmental impacts of food, and you could say to yourself, shouldn’t all environmental groups have food as one of their key platforms? So I still don’t think we’re at a place where food is as central as I think it could and should be, but I do think its interesting to see how in the past couple of years many groups that have historically just focused on more traditional environmental issues are starting to develop campaigns that focus on food.

CE: When most people think about the environmental impact of food they often start talking about food miles. How does transportation of food rank in the overall picture of the impact of the food system on the environment?

AL: Food miles, the hundred mile diet, and the locavore movement have gotten a lot of press. Of course greenhouse gas emissions are just one piece of environmental impact, but if you look at those related to the food on our plate what you find is that transportation is actually a tiny percentage. What matters more is the production practices the farmer chose to use, whether synthetic fertilizers or agricultural chemicals were involved, and how well the soil was managed. What I’ve heard a lot of people say then is, “oh then local doesn’t matter.” But I think what is important is for us to develop a more sophisticated understanding of what we mean by local. The locavores that I know, they don’t just care about how many miles away their food is, but they are making that choice for local food because of a whole set of values.

CE: There seemed to be a real shift in the debate when the UN report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow” came out in 2006. Now they are considering revising the report. How you think this report could be improved upon or expanded?

AL: What I noticed when I was reading Livestock’s Long Shadow is a real honesty in the presentation of the data. I think its a very sophisticated report, but I think that they were also very clear [in saying] more research needs to be done. This is really trying to pin a flag on the board to say we need to be looking at the livestock sector. These are highly complicated systems that we are talking about, and they are also moving systems in the sense that things are constantly changing. I think that we shouldn’t get too focused on bickering over the percentages. To the extent that [Livestock’s Long Shadow and] the other studies that my book is based on put food and agriculture on the map is really important and the more we study them the more we’ll learn about what is causing this crisis and what we can do to address it.

CE: The healthcare bill has passed, and the Senate is pushing the climate change bill forward, but agriculture is largely left out. Is there is an obvious place for us to begin this debate again?

AL: Waxman-Markey [shows us] how agribusiness could lobby in the future in terms of the climate bill and the farm bill. They lobbied [House Agriculture Chairman] Collin Peterson to get into Waxman-Markey provisions that would have made it possible to get carbon offsets for chemical no-till farming, [and] would have [boosted] corn-based ethanol. I’m worried about are two things: first, that agriculture will be left out of the climate bill, and second, that it will be put in, but put in in the wrong way, that it will look like subsidizing more of the same agriculture that we already know is causing so much of the [climate] crisis and not helping us solve it.

CE: How do we convince farmers that climate-friendly farming is good for them, too — including their bottom line?

AL: Unfortunately, a lot of farmers are locked into a certain way of farming that relies heavily on fossil fuels because of policies that have been put in place over the years that have created a certain kind of infrastructure that caters to and benefits large-scale commodity and livestock factory farms, and really shuts out more diverse crop farming, smaller-scale farming and a more regionalized system. So I think that its not fair to say, farmers, you should just wake up all of a sudden and change your practices. In the same way that we think about the infrastructure changes that need to happen in the transportation and the energy sectors, we need to think about the same revolution in the food sector. I don’t think anyone would expect somebody living in a town without a bus system, subway system or high speed rail to take public transportation to work, and we certainly wouldn’t expect them to be digging the subway tunnel themselves, or putting in a high-speed rail line themselves. With bold changes to the food sector, you create opportunities for farmers who want to be farming in ways that are better for the environment, because you’ve actually built the infrastructure that they can tap into.

CE: You spend a large part of your book discussing the ‘spin’ in the debate around environmental issues in agriculture. Why was it important to you to deconstruct these ideas?

AL: I felt that it was so important to talk about greenwashing, because we’re seeing an incredible number of examples of companies rebranding themselves as a caretaker of the environment, without really actually substantively changing their practices. I think there’s two things that we can learn from that: First, if a company like BP is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to rebrand itself as green, they’re only doing that because they actually think people care, and that to me in an odd way is kind of reassuring and positive. And second, we have to be more savvy about really assessing when companies are substantively changing their practices, and when they are just coming up with a logo and a new campaign slogan. And part of that savviness is understanding that there are some companies and there are some practices that by their very nature are not good for the environment.

CE: One of the questions you tackle head on in this book is whether sustainable agriculture has what it takes to feed the world. Why do you think the arguments about yield are not telling the whole story?

AL: Yield is this really crude figure that doesn’t tell us that much at all. For instance with chemical agriculture, it doesn’t express the cost of agricultural chemicals in terms of the price the farmers had to pay, or the costs of synthetic fertilizer in terms of the deterioration of the soil, or the impact of the chemical runoff from the fields as far as local water quality and public health. And yield is only just a snapshot of the moment. It doesn’t help us understand what the yield might be next year, the year after, or the year after that. There’s been some really good studies in some of the areas in India, farmers that were suppose to be the sort of proving ground of the high yield of chemical farming and the so-called green revolution, and what you find is that, if you look over time, and when I went to the Punjab I saw this first hand, is yes you had a spike in yield in the beginning of the introduction of these agricultural chemicals and these water-intensive industrial agricultural practices, but over the years you saw yield fall not just back to the levels before chemicals were introduced, but actually fall far below these levels. At the same time, you saw a total devastation of the local economy as farmers became indebted to the banks because they had to buy these chemicals. The second thing about yield is that I think there is some pretty compelling evidence, which I write about in the book, that if you look at organic agriculture that is done in a very knowledge-intensive way — by organic agriculture I don’t mean just take away the chemicals, I mean developing, honing, advancing practices working with nature for soil fertility, pest resistance, weed management — what you see is that yields can actually be comparable. Not to mention all the other benefits of the added soil health and the added human health of not being exposed to toxic chemicals, and of course the added benefit of farmers not having to pay for inputs.

CE: Some say that we should embrace the risks of biotechnology because we don’t have a choice. Why do you disagree?

AL: I think this idea that we have to embrace risk is total scaremongering on the part of the biotech industry. I mentioned studies in the book that are showing that we have these agro-ecological, natural ways to create farms and soils that are healthier, able to withstand drought [and] flooding that we know [are] going to become more extreme. I think we can look back historically at all the promises the biotech industry has made about what their crops are going to do and see that each one of those promises has fallen flat, and at the same time there’s been a lot of unintended consequences because of the release of these crops into the environment. I tend to take a precautionary principle approach, [which] tells us that if there is a potential of risk, that we should move forward cautiously.

CE: I was curious what your definition of climate-friendly farming is.

AL: There is so much contrast in what farming looks like. And I think similarly, climate friendly farming can apply to a lot of different practices, a lot of different scales. I think primarily I try to emphasize is the importance of farming practices that reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, reduce if not eliminate the reliance on synthetic fertilizers, reduce if not eliminate the use of petroleum based agricultural chemicals, and that is thinking about farming as part of a natural cycle — how to create a healthy water cycle, a healthy carbon cycle, a healthy nitrogen cycle. How do we do that with a farm? I think there are many, many examples around the world of farms that are providing abundant sources of food and doing it in a way that is creating a more healthy ecosystem without depleting it, creating healthier soil as opposed to depleting the soil. I was just reading Vandana Shiva’s book Soil Not Oil, and she gave this example of when a twig on a tree breaks, the tree can grow back that limb, but when a part in a car breaks, you’ve got to bring that car to the mechanic. Climate-friendly farming is about creating a kind of farm that can heal itself, can provide its own fertility and its own sources of pest resistance and weed management.

CE: You’ve managed to write a book that is about heavy subjects but is not depressing! What are some of the things that give you hope?

AL: Since my first book, Hope’s Edge, I’ve tried to redefine my own sense of hope. I’ve embraced the definition of hope that is not necessarily based on evidence of, say, whether we’re decreasing the amount of greenhouse gases or not. Hope really comes from an internal, endogenous energy source. You feel hope when you are taking action, [or] when you align yourself with ways of being in the world that you think really reflect your values. So I think that when you talk about food and climate change, it is hopeful in a sense that, first of all, connecting yourself with a sustainable food system is increasingly becoming something that more and more of us in this country can do. And the second thing that gives me hope is, as I researched the book, finding out about so many under-reported stories of people who are up against the huge power of agribusiness and yet are still able to create healthy farms, or work to bring healthy food into their communities and their schools.

CE: What are some of the best ways to engage people on these issues? What are the specific things that they can do that can be empowering?

AL: I think this question of what we can do, it really is about each of us tapping into what gets us most excited. When it comes to changing the food system, what is particularly exciting is that there are so many different entry points. Food is a public health issue, food is a family health issue. As a new mom, when I think about food that is good for the climate I also know that its food that is going to be good for my daughter. Food is also a social issue, its a human rights issue, and people can get engaged with it that way, asking the question why is it that certain communities in this country have no ability to access food that is both good for the climate and good for their bodies? I think that what is exciting to see is that as there has been essentially a stalemate on the international level in terms of binding agreements about how to reduce emissions and how to turn around the climate crisis, what we are seeing is communities and cities stepping up to take real leadership and say, look, we’re not going to wait for something to come down to us from the international level. What can we do right here, right now, in our own communities?

In addition to the havoc being wreaked on the environment, one of the biggest trespasses of industrial agriculture has been the elimination of millions of jobs, resulting in the emptying out of rural communities worldwide. The repercussions of the loss of opportunity for rural America has been tragic: many towns are now plagued by dilapidated schools and poor health services, and a rising epidemic of methamphetamine use and production has filled in where more beneficial small businesses used to thrive.

This emptying out was never better cataloged than in John Steinbeck’s great novel, The Grapes of Wrath. Written in 1939 after Steinbeck had researched and reported for years on the plight of the American farm worker during the early industrialization of agriculture, he captured the phenomenon thusly:

And then the dispossessed were drawn west — from Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico; from Nevada and Arkansas families, tribes, dusted out, tractored out. Carloads, caravans, homeless and hungry; twenty thousand and fifty thousand and a hundred thousand and two hundred thousand. They streamed over the mountains, hungry and restless — restless as ants, scurrying to find work to do — to lift, to push, to pull, to pick, to cut — anything, any burden to bear, for food.

As our Great Recession economy continues to shed jobs — an additional 85,000 were lost in December holding the unemployment rate at 10% — we should be creating opportunities in sustainable farming, the original, shovel-ready green job. Reconsidering what it is to farm will require completely new thinking about agriculture, combining the best of scientific knowledge while finding a balance between scale and community. Unfortunately, those who rely on the status quo of industrialized agriculture for their bacon see farming as a linear pursuit with one end: bigger farms using technical solutions — and thus fewer human actors.

Yet never before have we been so food insecure — 49 million Americans are currently not eating three meals per day, and one billion people in the world are hungry. The hungry cannot afford to eat — because there is too much labor in the world and not enough jobs. We claim to want to feed the world, but today’s farmers don’t even feed themselves; they make commodity products to be shipped far away and reformulated and sent back to their supermarket shelves. They do this because we’ve told them to, with our tax dollars and purchasing power. However, our system should not be about producing more food, but about producing better food on a human scale and cutting out the processors and the middlemen.

Stallman’s arguments against this smaller approach to agriculture ignores reality. There are still migrant workers doing backbreaking labor on farms often subject to doing the same monotonous movements for hours: picking tomatoes all day in the hot sun, or hand harvesting cotton (a common occurrence in light of the epidemic of superweeds in the south resistant to herbicides). By contrast, small farms are usually owned and worked primarily by the farmer. In addition, small farms are diversified to guarantee a profit through direct sales, and to stave off risk if one crop fails — and this just so happens to be a more worker-friendly (as the farmer gets to vary his/her work), resource efficient and an environmentally-conscious way to farm, too.

American policy makers have historically cowered in the face of the AFBF, but that organization is aging and old-fashioned. It’s time for politicians to see that another way is possible and that so much is at stake, and it’s time for new policies that reflect this knowledge. As the AFBF goes kicking and screaming into the 2010’s, it is worth remembering that America’s farmers (and most AFBF members) are on average 57 years old. We will need more farmers no matter what, however we hope to feed ourselves in the future, and newcomer farmers often do not agree with the climate change-denying AFBF. Second, we just don’t know whether sustainable agriculture can feed the world, but we do know that our current system has a ‘use by’ date, and that smaller, diversified systems have better yields and better protect our natural resources. Isn’t it worth a try? It would be unethical to continue the status quo knowing what we know about the nitrates heading downstream, topsoil loss, the fluctuating price of a barrel of oil, and of course, the fact that our children will die younger than we will because of what they eat.

It is time to revalue the farming profession and rebuild our communities again. It is time to break up the 10,000 acre farms into one hundred plots, and plant young people in the countryside who can use sustainable practices to rebuild the soil and bring it back to life.

Building a system that employs more farmers is not a step backwards, it is an acknowledgment of our respect for nature and a guarantee against future hunger. Perhaps we’ve lost Stallman’s generation on this front, both because industry has a strong hold on the AFBF and because it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. But farming is being reconsidered and changed as more and more young people realize the vital role they play in reinventing the food system and take up the challenge of doing it from scratch.

Land is a resource for the common good, and only small farms can rebuild what has been lost in rural America. This change will take the conscious effort by policy makers to go against the laissez-faire capitalism that has propelled us into industrial agriculture in the first place.

Around one third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the way we produce, process, distribute and consume the food we eat according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Meanwhile, farmers the world over will be the most affected by climate change, as higher carbon in the atmosphere and higher temperatures increase erratic weather patterns, pests, and disease occurrence, while decreasing water availability, disrupting relationships with pollinators and lowering yield and the efficacy of herbicides like glyphosate (aka Roundup) — all detailed in a revealing new report from the USDA called The Effects of Climate Change on U.S. Ecosystems [pdf].

We should all give the USDA credit for keeping the ties between agriculture, food and climate change at the forefront of the discussion. Even in Copenhagen, where agriculture is getting less attention than it arguably should be considering its impact and potential for mitigating climate change, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack spoke about the need for research, and seeing agriculture as an opportunity for climate change mitigation. He even said to the delegates in Copenhagen, “We need to develop cropping and livestock systems that are resilient to climate change.” While I agree on the surface with these statements, taking a deeper look reveals potentially problematic ideas for just how to do this.

Outlined in Vilsack’s prepared remarks are a few clues for how the U.S. is looking at adapting agriculture in the face of climate change. I find it valuable to do a little point-by-point debunking here, so we can look at the facts again, laid out so clearly in the USDA report above, and come up with real solutions. And since the U.S. is responsible for the most greenhouse gases, and we were the first to adopt intensive agriculture practices, we have an opportunity to lead the world to a more sustainable future.

No-Till. Here is a classic case of agribusiness co-opting a perfectly good solution and making it bad (and then whispering it into the USDA’s ear). Sustainable no-till practices involve building soil fertility with cover crops, which sequester carbon, and then turning them into a healthy mulch. No chemicals are used, and soil fertility increases. This practice is being studied at places like the Rodale Institute. The co-opted version, on the other hand, which i’ll refer to as chemical no-till, is the one touted by Monsanto with it’s Roundup Ready seeds, which can be planted and doused with glyphosate — killing the weeds and not the soybeans. Aside from the fact that superweeds are more and more common as pesticides increase in use, the life in the soil is also being killed by these chemicals. What this means is that the earthworms, protozoa, ants and other decomposers that are actively ’tilling’ the soil are not there to do so. Furthermore, bacteria in the soil, like rhizobia, actively fix nitrogen. Without nitrogen-fixing soil life to intervene, a putrefaction process called denitrification results in lost soil fertility, as nitrogen is released as nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. What is totally not funny about nitrous oxide is the fact that it is 298 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Do you get where I’m going with this? Nitrous oxide may only represent 7.9% of our greenhouse gas emissions in total, but it is one powerful source, coming directly from synthetic agriculture fields.

Carbon Markets. Sure it sounds good to offer cash benefits to farmers who use more sustainable farming practices. But what would this look like? Would it encourage farmers to utilize fewer fossil fuels, or to transition to organic farming? A lot of Big Ag players would kick up dust if that were the case, even though these are truly the ways to draw down our agricultural footprint. Unfortunately there are some ugly manipulations of carbon markets to watch out for. And according to a report by Helena Paul et al and prepared for the Bonn Climate talks last June called Agriculture and Climate Change: Real Problems, False Solutions [pdf], getting this wrong could mean exacerbating global warming instead of preventing it. Paul told the Ecologist about a few worries: First, that chemical no-till might be one of the so-called “sustainable” practices that qualify. Second, that stipulating the use of biochar, or charcoal, as a soil remediation technique, could result in plantations as sources for the biomass, adding incentive to cut down forests. Thirdly, she mentions that some Big Ag players argue for further intensification of livestock operations, making the case for using manure to make biogas. We can’t afford such paltry solutions.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). If Monsanto had its way, our government would be paying farmers to grow GMOs. However, GMO manufacturers have been promising ‘sustainable’ drought tolerant and higher yielding crops for decades now with no results. All these companies have figured out how to do in the short-term is to create herbicide resistant plants and plants that make pesticides. Meanwhile, these technologies have brought with them a whole host of new problems for the environment: genetic contamination; the addition of 318 million pounds of chemicals into our soils, water and air; and a significant loss of biodiversity. There are agro-ecological solutions that could be employed now to build our soils and sequester carbon — because this is a new technology that hasn’t been tested in the long term, and we need solutions now, it is worth rethinking the billions spent on GMOs for twenty years from now.

Ethanol. Vilsack and President Obama talk about ethanol as if it had the potential to quench our thirst for oil. What you need to know is this: ethanol takes more energy to make than it produces. However, a cottage industry has emerged to get politicians to support ethanol — the growth in use of which helped fan the flames of last year’s food crisis. Unfortunately ethanol offers a talking point, and fulfills our desire to give a quick, silver bullet solution to a difficult problem: how to maintain our standard of living in the coming resource-starved era.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has said that we will need to double world food production by 2030 in order to feed 9 billion people. I often see this statistic: 14% of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, while 17% come from deforestation, used by agribusiness to justify industrial farming as saving rain forests. In fact, it is the commodity market that encourages deforestation through increasing the size of farms and through over-production. Most of what is produced in this way is wasted or fed to factory-farmed animals. Since smaller, diverse and well-managed fields are more productive, we do not need to cut down the forest in order to feed a growing population sustainable food. Indeed, there will have to be more farmers willing to do the work, eaters willing to eat less meat, and better policies that support farmers before agribusiness. And I agree with Vilsack, we need more research. We also need to nurture soil life, as that is where the real heavy lifting is happening in agriculture.

Here in New York City, we are hopeful that we can change the climate impact food has in our city. But without federal, agricultural solutions to these problems, we will all continue dog-paddling through the flotsam and jetsam of unhealthy, resource-intensive, climate damaging food-like substances.

Photo: Reuters, Protesters in Copenhagen

As an ecologically-minded horticulturist, I like to think about everything with an ecological framework. Ecology, simply, is the study of organisms in relation to other organisms and the environment. Many things could be said to be wrong with the state of our nation’s political life, but if there is one to emphasize, it is the lack of a political ecology.  We tend to compartmentalize political issues, along the lines of our individual political identities (sometimes referred to as issues “silos”), and this often negates efforts to connect the dots between diverse issues.

If there is one political identity that should be able to look past these divides and see the importance of ecological connections between movements and struggles, it is that of the environmentalist. The environmentalist’s worldview is steeped in the interdependent view of life; the understanding that one action can cause reactions beyond the expected.  And the most visible (and seemingly the most active) environmentalists, these days, are the food sustainability activists.  Yet even food activists themselves have their silos: urban food access, farmland preservation, nutrition education, and so on. I hope this article will help us see our commonality outside of our silos, and see how to use that to better work towards change.

How are food activists taking the political climate and working it for change? I’d say they’re doing pretty well, in general.  Just a casual reading of this blog can show you the diverse projects, attitudes, and self-criticisms of this set.  However, I feel that there still lacks an inclination or willingness to question certain political behaviors. Namely, the three problems I see are:

1) Attachment to conventional political “truths” and strategies given a dearth of evidence supporting them as leading to the change we seek;

2) Ready acceptance of token political gestures and mainstream media coverage of our issues as tantamount to political change;

and

3) A lack of ecological awareness of how other modern political issues shape, structure, and limit our “food movement”, and a coincident lack of rhetorical cohesion or expression of the grander change we seek while we work towards change in our individual silos.

Let’s take these problems from last to first.

What do we want, as a “movement”? Well, clearly, we are into a food system that provides food for all that is “good, clean, and fair.” But is that all? Are our values also in favor of health care for all that is “good, clean and fair”? What about the right to housing? What about a governmental system that is accountable to the people it governs? What about having a country where education is funded more than war? What about the right to walk down a street and not be harassed by police for being dark-skinned?

Yes, these are all different issues, and perhaps not everyone in our silo feels the same way about them all, but we can’t deny that what brings us to our food movement are values that are held in common with the movements working on these other issues. It is not up to me to define these values, but it seems clear that there is a vision informing our movement that it is at least partly shared with these others. And whatever they are, these values have not been elucidated on the national stage for a long time.  As pointed out by cognitive scientist George Lakoff, the past 30 years have seen the conservative right dominating national politics with their framing of the issues and advancement of their policies, with the Democratic party ineffectually going along for the ride.

Granted, the U.S. political system is not simple, nor would it be solvable through one book, blog, or piece of well-written legislation. But there are patterns in the structural dismantling and dysfunction of government that have become frighteningly damaging within the past 30-50 years. These patterns, such as the privatization of government, the deregulation of the marketplace, the corporatization of public space and the commons, the globalization of capital, and the increased involvement of moneyed interests in government, are not just some natural development of the United States experiment in democracy.  They are a result of efforts by the moneyed class and their functionaries, at each step of the way, to bring them about, and (sadly) a failure of those opposed to stop it. For one example, look to the World Trade Organization, a supra-national corporate organization with the power to force the policies of “free trade” on any country in the world, regardless of what the voting populace thinks or wants. “Free trade” isn’t; more appropriately it would be called corporately-managed trade.

What does this have to do with us, the food people, you might ask? Well, on to problem two.

How do we confront these issues, as community gardeners, or farmers, or anti-hunger activists? Well, we start by framing our stories, our struggles, in the language of the values we hold for a better world overall — including issues not in our silos. Then we refuse to accept as victories changes that don’t actually challenge this current political structure, insisting instead on holding to solutions which represent our values.

An example of this is the White House organic garden. From the original New York Times article about the garden:

Dan Barber, an owner of Blue Hill at Stone Barns, an organic restaurant in Pocantico Hills, N.Y., that grows many of its own ingredients, said: “The power of Michelle Obama and the garden can create a very powerful message about eating healthy and more delicious food. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it could translate into real change.”

Symbol of renewed interest in healthy, fresh food? Sure. Indicator of social or political change? I don’t see it. Cultural values surely change as the ideas that frame our lives evolve. Healthy, local eating may become more important to some people due to this White House garden. But the reality remains that whatever a person’s values are, healthy local eating will remain more expensive than the cheap processed foods Mrs. Obama decries (and therefore be less common), as long as the political and economic structures remain the same.

At the very least, a symbolic victory should contain a kernel of the truth about the change we seek, even if it is merely vocally expressed but not acted on.  If we are to be happy about a politician grandstanding on our issue of good food, or another New York Times article “discovering” the latest good food project or personality, we should be ready to see through it critically; to ask ourselves whether it promotes the larger vision of the world we seek, and not just a piecemeal feel-good band-aid of activist relief.

The last issue is perhaps the one that will garner me the least fans. I propose that we stop looking to the Obama administration, or any federally-elected Democratic officials, as boosters for our movement. I could list endless things the Democrats have done that upset my values (from voting repeatedly for the occupation of Iraq to defending torture), but here I’ll stick to ones that relate more directly to the sustainable food issue.

First, think of those Mexican ejido farmers, struggling to grow and sell their heirloom varieties of Maize in a market newly-flooded with cheap U.S. Agribusiness corn. Who made this possible? NAFTA was passed by Clinton, our last Democratic “savior.” Barack Obama campaigned on a strong promise to reform free trade agreements like NAFTA and now, post-election, has rescinded that promise.

Second, think of climate change, a major player in the future of agriculture. James Hansen, the foremost NASA climate change scientist, has written up a letter to President Obama, as reported in the Guardian UK:

Hansen wrote that there is a “profound disconnect” between public policy on climate change and the magnitude of the problem as described by the science. He praised Obama’s campaign rhetoric about “a planet in peril”, but said that how the new president responds in office will be crucial. Hansen lambasts the current international approach of setting targets to be met through “cap and trade” schemes as not up to the task. “This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity,” [Hansen] wrote.

President Obama’s solution to climate change has been, surprise surprise, cap and trade.  At least, some argue, he promised during his campaign to sell off 100% of cap-and-trade “allowances”, the permits for every ton of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. This would mean money from polluters for permits, slated to fund the largest investment in renewable energy in history. Now the president has backed away from that commitment, and through the recent Waxman/Markey Bill, 85% of these permits will be given away to industries that pollute.

Lastly, health care reform — or as it is disguised now, health “insurance” reform. As a farmer who does not have health insurance (not an uncommon occurrence) and like everyone else, no assurance of health, this is a big deal. President Obama pledged to fight for a public health insurance option (not even universal health care, the reality in many other more sane countries), in fact, he has said that it must be a part of any health care reform plan. We, “the people” elected him, partly on this promise. And now, with control of both legislative houses, and the support of the electorate, there is talk of removing the public option. We in the food movement believe in a right to healthy food, as a very common sense preventative measure to future health problems. But for me, it can’t stop there, because I believe that risks exist beyond diet-related disease, and that those risks can effect anyone. And NO ONE should be denied the right to take care of those problems due to lack of wealth. So instead of talking in the conservative frame of insurance, maybe we should talk about the right to CARE. But I digress — my point is merely that, even in the most conducive political circumstances, our saviors the Dems can’t even get it together to pass the most basic and non-threatening kinds of reform. This is our democracy in action.

So companies can continue to pollute (CO2, not to mention other noxious chemicals), jobs can move to wherever the environmental regulations are most lax, and we’ll keep voting for incremental change that doesn’t reflect what we actually want: a healthy environment, meaningful employment, social and economic equality, universal access to health care, good and affordable education, and a democracy that means something.

The usual counter-argument I field when I discuss the need to move past the Democratic Party to promote progressive politics is that I ask too much. Many insist that change doesn’t happen that fast; that there are many factors that keep Obama et al from acting the way we want them too; that we don’t understand these factors and that we should have patience.

Well, if we truly believe that change is needed (to avoid the worst effects of peak oil, to mitigate climate change, to revive our democracy, to leave a sane, healthy world to our children), and we have the values and ideas that can lead us there, why did we vote for Obama under the banner of change and those values, if we expected him to not actually do anything? Is this democracy?

One last comparison, to maybe frame this issue in terms that the food silo understands. We have (luckily) moved past the notion that changes in buying patterns alone can change the food system, but we still believe (rightfully) that when we “vote with our fork” we can affect on our food system. All I ask is that we move that concept to the political system, and stop voting for candidates, a party, and a political structure that doesn’t reflect the values we hold. Whether the answer is to form a third political party (as the abolitionists and suffragettes did) or directly confront the Democrats more forcefully, I don’t propose to know. I’m just sayin’: our food system won’t heal without a healthy political system, and what we got right now just ain’t working.