Outline for Paper

Many claim that the introduction of industrial agricultural technology during the Green Revolution of the 1960s has created food security in India and other economically developing nations.  These industrial agricultural methods reduce the need for human labor while increasing the use of chemical fertilizers, and in turn produce higher yields of staple crops such as rice.  However, in light of the current world wide energy crisis, it is important to consider whether it is more energy efficient, and subsequently more sustainable, to increase rice yields by using industrial methods (synthetic fertilizer and decreased human labor), or using intensive organic methods (increased human labor and no synthetic fertilizers).  In this paper, I will argue that the Total Energy Ratio, per hectare, of organic farms in West Bengal, India is higher than the Total Energy Ratio of industrial farms (i.e. organic farms will produce more while requiring less energy input), and that it is therefore more economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable to utilize organic farming methods.  To do so, I will use data collected from farmers in West Bengal on the hours of labor they require, the amount of fertilizers used, and their crop yields over three growing seasons.  Additionally, I will use data collected from: 1) India’s Ministry of Agriculture on rice yields, fertilizer use, and farm size; 2) Stephan M. Freedman (University of Loyola Chicago) on energy expenditures for rice production in developing countries; 3) Stephen R. Moore (North Carolina State University) on energy efficiency ratios of biointensive techniques vs. those of industrial/mechanical techniques. 

Outline

Introduction

-       Issues of Food Security in the so-called developing world, and the Green Revolution

-       Why India?

o   Sustainability: ecology, economy, and social justice

-       A general lack of research on agricultural productivity variations within countries (Kravis, 1976 in Dayal, 1984)

-       Provide working definition for Organic Farms and Industrial farms

-       Thesis: The use of biointensive organic farming methods is more energy efficient than industrial farming methods, and therefore supports sustainability, protecting soil health and the rights of small farmers.

Body

-       Methodology

o   Location: West Bengal, India

o   Controls: small scale farms (app. 1-3.5 ha), with similar available resources (limited monetary resources, animal labor, limited mechanized labor), same region (similar climate conditions, similar irrigation/rainfall), growing High Yielding Varieties of Rice

o   Total Energy Ration: the ratio of input energy to output energy (in kJ)

§  = Total Energy Input (kJ/ha)/Total Energy Output (kJ/ha)

§  Industrial Farm:

·      Total Energy Inputs = {[(hours of human labor) x (energy of labor)]/(ha)}+ {[(energy required to make fertilizers) x (amount of fertilizers used)]/(ha)}

§  Organic Farm:

·      Total Energy Inputs = {[(hours of human labor) x (energy of labor)]/(ha)} + {[(hours required to make compost) x (energy of labor)]/(ha)}

o   Variables

§  Inputs: fertilizers (synthetic and non-synthetic), human labor

§  Outputs: crop yields

o   Surveying:

§  Gathering yearly data of small scale farmers on hours of labor, amounts of fertilizer used, and crop yields.

§  Over 3 growing seasons

-       Testing the Data

o   With the help of my wonderful friend:

§  Testing Total Energy Ratio data for normal distribution using K-S test (for both Industrial and Organic farms)

§  Comparing Total Energy Ratios using a T-Test

§  Comparing Human Labor Inputs (HR/HA)

§  Comparing total Energy Inputs (kJ/ha)

·      Total energy input for industrial farms is almost double that of organic, due to the large amounts of energy required for the production of synthetic fertilizers

§  Human Labor Inputs vs. Rice Energy Yield

§  Total Energy Inputs vs. Rice Energy Yield

Conclusion

-       organic farms require more human labor

-       The average Total Energy Ratio of industrial farms is 1.22 (a ratio of greater than 1 denotes more energy input than output)

-       From an energy standpoint, it does not make sense to use synthetic fertilizers.  Fertilizers also deplete soil quality, meaning greater amounts are required each consecutive year, and the soil quality will continue to decline causing soil erosion and eventually desertification

-       Human energy is more efficient and is also a renewable resource

-       Governments should subsidize organic farming methods, not the use of synthetic fertilizers (which are currently heavily subsidized), to promote soil health and sustainable agricultural practices, which is, in the end, what will provide India with real Food Security.

Exploring Scott Sanders’s A Conservationist Manifesto, “Part 1: Caring for Earth”

In Part 1, “Caring for Earth”, of Scott Sanders’ A Conservationist Manifesto, he calls for the development of a new rhetoric with which to approach the environment and our relationship to it. He emphasizes the need for a new ethic, criticizing our individualistic world-view, and declares a need to embrace a more holistic idea of community which includes and respects the environment’s vital role in it. The structures we use to understand the universe—science, religion, language—must be carefully examined. In his essays, Sanders suggests the need to adopt a new way of understanding and relating to the language we use in relation to the environment, as well as the need for a re-evaluation and development of more virtuous character.

In the section titled “Building Arks,” Sanders appeals to our character, claiming a need for “an ethic of restraint” (13). This ethic of restraint calls to mind environmental theorist Philip Cafaro’s idea of “virtue ethics,” or a resistance of environmental vice. Cafaro describes vice “throughout the evolution of the Western tradition,” and suggests that “four commonalities tend to hold. First, selfishness and self-centerdness are condemned, whereas legitimate self-concern and self-development are praised… Second…the tradition insists that vice is both bad for individuals and harmful to communities… Third, the tradition sees vice as contradicting and eventually undermining reason, hence destroying our ability to understand our proper place in the world and act morally… Fourth, and partly as a consequence of this diminished rationality, the tradition sees vice as cutting us off from reality or at least from what is most important in life… What holds these four aspects of vice together is that they all involve harm: to ourselves, to those around us, or to both” (Cafaro, Environmental Virtue Ethics, 137).
If we think of virtuous and vicious behavior in this way, it becomes clear why Sanders emphasizes the need to cultivate character to be more virtuous, and to include the environment as a part of the community that requires virtuous action to sustain.

This virtuous behavior he refers to as the building of arks, and these virtuous people he calls the ark builders. An ark can be “…any human structure, invention, or collaboration that preserves the wisdom necessary for meeting our needs without despoiling the planet.” (14) Among the examples he gives are co-ops, art centers, or a community garden. The ark builders, similarly, “…don’t identify themselves as consumers but as conservers. Their aim in life is not to devour as much as possible, but to savor the necessities of life” (p. 17). He argues that we must avoid participation in the global economy, and instead focus on supporting local economies. He seems to abide by James Lovelock’s assertion that we are past the tipping point, that the effects of climate change will be felt in a very real and uncomfortable way (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange). The world itself will not end, but the world as we know it will. There will be huge loss of biodiversity as flooding destroys coastal ecosystems. Population displacement will happen at a devastating scale. But, all the same, there will be certain groups that will benefit from the effects of climate change. Northern Canada, for example, will likely become more inhabitable as climates rise. Economies, like that of the United States, which rely on perpetual expansion will no longer be viable. This onslaught of devastation he refers to as “the flood,” building further upon his religious analogy of the flood God sent as punishment for the immorality of His people (the ark and ark builders being an obvious analogy to Noah and the ark God commanded him to construct to protect the earth’s biological diversity). Therefore, Sanders insists on the need to reshape our ideas of community.

He uses religion and science as examples of story telling structures that help people to better understand and remember their relationship to the natural environment, or a sort of universal community. He insists that “[s]cience no less than religion is an attempt to draw narrative lines between puzzling dots of data” (87). He later expands on the importance of storytelling in his essay “The Warehouse and the Wilderness,” claiming that “like a woven basket or a clay pot, a story is a container. It provides a shape for holding some character, some act or insight, some lesson we can’t afford to lose” (74). The Warehouse and the Wilderness stories are symbolic of “two guiding narratives—about the world as a Warehouse or as a Wilderness—[which] embody two contrary orientations toward life. Is nature our servant or our teacher?... Like any grand myths, they profoundly shape the actions and values of those who embrace them” (82). But as he advocates for the necessity of storytelling, he simultaneously warns against getting to caught up in language, for we are always at risk of getting too caught up in the language that describes the world rather than living in the world itself.

In “Common Wealth,” Sanders goes on to describe the history of people’s perception and distribution of the commons. Originally referring to the lands and waters all people shared and relied upon, the commons has since come to include “far more than the lands and waters originally belonging to the commons, although of course lands and waters are crucial. We [also] depend on countless shared goods, from a stable climate and prolific ocean to honest government and excellent schools” (28). He cites Jean-Jacques Rosseau in saying that it was the privatization of the commons that led to social injustice, and the “so-called free-market” (32) is an example of this exploitation of non-renewable resources.
He then distinguishes talk of the common wealth from talk of the commons. The common wealth, he states, originally referred to the general welfare. The common wealth “embraces much more than the body politic; it embraces all those natural and cultural goods that we share by virtue of our membership in the human family” (28). He goes on to cite examples of said goods, including “air, waters, soils…outer space;…the human gene pool and the diversity of species[, and] language in all its forms” (28-9). In other words, these goods are such that “[n]one of us, as individuals or even as nations, could create these goods from scratch, or replace them if they were lost” (29).
In the last section I will discuss, his essay titled “A Few Earthy Words,” he begins to set about the task of reconsidering and redefining the vocabulary we often use that shapes our ideas of our relationship to the environment. He explores the root meanings, as well as the popular associations people draw from words like “growth,” “resource,” “wealth,” and “economy,” among others. Growth, he argues, must not be thought of as something which can continue to expand forever. Rather, growth should be seen as a cycle which rises and falls in order to maintain the flow of life indefinitely.

Sanders makes a pretty strong case for the use of language and storytelling structures as a fundamental way of shaping a healthier, more sustainable attitude towards and relationship with the environment we are inevitably embedded within. I particularly like the way he makes a rather subtle case for the use of religion and science as modes of developing sustainable ideas and behaviors. I feel people too often see religion’s ability to shape people’s values as simply a way of oppressing the masses, rather than acknowledging the benefits such structure can provide. He also suggests the idea that religion and science do not have to be in conflict with one another in this pursuit, but instead can work in harmony with one another.

Questions for Dr. Brabson

1) I was arguing with a friend over lunch a couple of weeks ago about whether or not there was a consensus amongst the science community on anthropogenic climate change. He simply refused to believe that scientists could come to a consensus about anything at all, not just climate change. I'm not a scientist, and I don't read too many scientific journals that do not pertain to climate change. How would you respond to my friend's claim that scientific consensus is virtually non-existant?

2) I recently watched the movie "Dirt! The Movie," so, obviously, I'm now an expert on dirt. As you've done intensive studies on soil, how do you feel about the impact of pesticides/herbicides and the use of monoculture and their subsequent effects on soil? Is there a way to plant monocultures while sustaining soil health, or is it a losing game?

3) What are your thoughts about genetically engineered/modified seeds and their effects on soil health? Aside from planting and pest control methods, have any correlations been drawn between soil health and GE seeds?

Barack Obama and His Fancy Eco-Friendly Talk

I voted for Obama. But I have mixed feelings about his environmental policies. His campaign was full of fancy eco-friendly talk that, in many ways, still didn’t really boil down to anything substantial. For instance, his proposed plan was to “encourage organic and sustainable agriculture” by increasing funds that would help farmers to afford the costs associated with compliance with national organic certification standards (www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf). What about decreasing farm subsidies that support farmers who produce absurd amounts of genetically engineered crops in monocultures that rob the soil of its health, causing soil erosion, not to mention the health effects these foods may very well prove to have on humans. How about capping big businesses like GM seed manufacturing giant Monsanto from acquiring a monopoly not only on the American food market, but the international one as well? Want to help small farmers, Obama? How about stepping in and stopping Monsanto from suing farmers whose fields have been unintentionally contaminated by neighboring fields?
In the end, I understand his logic. You can’t hate on Monsanto in your presidential campaign. First of all, I’m willing to bet the majority of the country still doesn’t know what Monsanto is or does (but in the next few years, they will), much less the devastating effects their products have on the environment and low income farmers all over the world. Second of all, Monsanto has big and deeply rooted ties to the US Government (http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob121.cfm#7), so openly criticizing their company and its devastating effects its policies have on farmers around the world would be political suicide.
Sure, I could stand to have a ‘greener’ president. But mostly, I’d love to have a greener Congress. The President has essentially no real power over these matters. He can propose a bill, he can support a bill, he can veto a bill… but he can’t actually pass one and make it into law.
Yet I can’t let him off the hook entirely, either. Some may argue that the president is little more than a political puppet (http://hooverch.blogspot.com/2010/09/do-we-have-president.html), but even if that is so, he’s a very important puppet with a voice that people hear. He needs to rally the support of his constituents on these issues – he needs to speak out loudly about environmental issues.
As for those who are upset with Obama’s administration (rather than simply Obama himself as the executive), I understand and share their frustrations. I, too, want to know why the administration is not fighting for cleaner energy, and instead supporting utility companies like Duke Energy, American Electric Power, Southern Company, and others (http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/08/obama-utilities-pollution-green-house-gases) when they are have spoken so ardently about the need to pursue sources of clean, efficient energy. But I get lost in the titles – is it Obama, or is it the “Obama Administration?” It is hard to know exactly where he stands, but if we look at the administration’s actions as a reflection of his stance, I think environmental advocates have every right to be upset.

Regulation!

It is the responsibility of the US government, at every level, to act in ways that decrease social injustice and ensure equal opportunity for its citizens to enjoy a healthy quality of life, both now and in future generations. As humans, we rely deeply upon the health and balance of our natural environment to maintain such a quality of life. It is therefore the responsibility of the government to regulate environmental matters that pose, or could potentially pose, a threat to this delicate ecological balance. However, the more we learn more about our relationship as humans to our natural environment, the more complex this issue of environmental regulation becomes. Exactly when and how should the government intervene in such matters most effectively?
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution (also known as the Commerce Clause) states that “Congress shall have the Power To…regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” This means that any environmental issue that has trans-boundary implications should be federally regulated, as opposed to regulation by State and local governments. It follows, then, that federal agencies should have the responsibility of overseeing issues of food safety, specifically in terms of food that is grown in one state and then exported for sale elsewhere. And in fact, this responsibility does lie mainly with two government agencies: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The USDA is responsible for regulation of meat, poultry, and egg products, while the FDA is left to oversee the remaining 80 percent of the food supply. But how efficient can this system really be when the USDA employs 7,800 employees to inspect chickens, pigs, and cows that become packaged meats, and the FDA employs only 1,307 to inspect the significantly larger amount of products under their jurisdiction? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/business/17leafy.html?ref=agriculture_department). Even on the surface, it is clearly an inefficient and ineffective system.
Look more closely, and you become even more discouraged. With the numerous cases of salmonella outbreaks and other food-borne pathogens, and subsequent recalls of various foods (i.e., eggs, tomatoes), it is obvious that these agencies are failing to adequately fulfill their duties to see to it that the public receives access to a healthy food supply.
Some states—such as California, Arizona, and Florida—have acted independently to improve regulatory practices in order to encourage consumers to continue buying their products by appointing different state government agencies to oversee the regulation process (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/business/17leafy.html?ref=agriculture_department). Would it be better then for individual states to take over such responsibilities? The answer remains unclear, though I am inclined to answer ‘no.’ Self-regulation always seems to end in benefit solely to the institution in question. The solution, instead, seems to lie in improving federal regulation practices.

Federal regulation of environmental policy can take various forms, but market-based instruments (MBIs)—policies that offer businesses economic incentives to reduce their carbon emissions—seem to be the most viable. Encouraging voluntary action alone is simply not enough. However, voluntary action, as a supplement to federally implemented MBIs, is essential to tackling the current environmental concerns we face today.
But, alas, the solution is not so simple. There are various forms of MBIs the government can choose to implement, such as eco-taxes or tradable permits.
If the government uses eco-taxes as their regulation method of choice, it is likely that companies would simply raise prices to compensate for increased cost of production (eco-taxes), allowing them to push the economic burden to consumers. Eco-taxes also fail to encourage continued reduction in emissions, as companies would not benefit from exceeding the set regulatory standards.
Tradable permits offer a solution to this problem. Here we see real economic incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions, and continue to do so. If a company buys, or is allotted, a permit allowing them a certain amount of emissions, they stand to benefit from reducing their emissions and selling off the remaining allotment to other companies who may find it less cost-effective to reduce theirs. So although each company may not be reducing their environmental impact, the net result is the same.
Still, this is not a fail-proof system. Select groups of consumers, such as regions that still rely on traditional sources of energy (Indiana, for example) will inevitably bear the economic burden when their companies fail to benefit from a reduction of emissions. Instead these companies will purchase additional permits, which adds to the cost of production, and decreases the margin of profit. Inevitably, these consumers (typically the poorer) will face higher price increases than those who are not affected by such externalities.
Surely, there is no easy nor perfect solution. However, I favor tradable permits, because although their economic implications may be somewhat grim, the environmental implications are more desirable than those of eco-taxes. But little good will MBIs do if regulating the use of these permits is lacking. The regulatory agencies need either more money for more employees (which would mean even more tax increases), or a more efficient and transparent system.

Where I Stand

I consider myself an environmentalist.  Then again, today, it’s pretty easy to call yourself an environmentalist, but it can be pretty difficult to find a comfortable balance between enjoying modern amenities and luxuries, and being conscious of the rates and methods of our consumption and their impact on the environment.  Environmental issues are vast and deep, and becoming an expert can be daunting—I don’t pretend to be an expert.  Rather, for the time being, I’ve focused on a particular environmental concern of mine – maintaining food security while sustaining biodiversity. 

            I spent a large portion of my summer in India with my twin sister researching seed saving practices and efforts to preserve biodiversity through sustainable farming initiatives.  We spent the majority of our time with two organizations, Navdanya, in a village called Ramgarh, Uttar Pradesh, and the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation, located in Chennai, Tamil Nadu.   Both of these organizations strive to empower farmers, especially women farmers (who make up the majority of farmers in India and much of the ‘developing world’), and preserve biodiversity by effectively managing the world’s resources.  While these two organizations differ in many significant ways, they both focus on the importance of conserving our world’s resources in a way that effectively supports the abundant life on this planet, and will continue to do so.  It was this foundational ideology that attracted my sister and me to these organizations, so I suppose that makes me a conservationist.  In some ways I should call myself a holist as well, but I stick to the conservationist label, as ultimately I am concerned with the preservation of the human race, though I do believe that this is deeply connected to responsible sustainment of all life forms on this planet.  However, the line between conservationist and holist is, for me, a fuzzy one—not in my understanding of the terms, but in my devotion to either philosophy.  In my ideology I strive towards holism--I want to treat the earth and the life it sustains as of equal value as human beings, and to always be mindful of my dependence on the world around me, as well as its dependence on me.  In practice, I am honestly more of a conservationist.  The struggle to unite ourselves in belief and practice is an age old one, and it is the same one that makes it so easy to call yourself an environmentalist while failing to live up to those beliefs actively in our daily lives.  

            If I won’t call myself an environmental expert, I certainly won’t call myself a political one.  Let’s be honest—sometimes I pretend to know more, or anything, about politics to sound smart.  Politics was always something I considered fascinating and important in my life, but alas, still I find little motivation to keep myself as informed as I wish I would be.  Growing up, my parents claimed to be Republican, but I don't think they were much of anything.  They own a business, so economically I suppose they leaned to the right.  Socially, I don't think they leaned anywhere.  Frankly, I think they were too busy raising seven children to really give their political loyalties much consideration.  As their children grew up, however, that started to change.  My big brothers probably influenced my political opinions the most.  My oldest brother, Joe, who is 35, was probably my biggest influence.  He is a die hard liberal, as is his amazing wife, Kelly.  Together, I think they have done a pretty good job of liberalizing our entire family, including my parents.  So it's likely I 'inherited' my political stance from them.  In my defense, however, I feel I had ample opportunity to 'swing Right,' because I also spent my first 8 years of schooling in parochial schools, 7 of which were spent in Catholic school.  I was in sixth grade during the Bush vs. Gore elections, and our school held a mock election where all us wee ones got to cast a ballot.  My teacher told us that God would be really upset with us if we voted for Al Gore, and that we would need to ask his forgiveness.  Still, I voted for Gore.  Granted, I hated my sixth grade teacher--I even put my first and last name on the ballot so she would know exactly where I stood, and that it was nowhere near her.  I probably would have voted for Oprah if she had told me not to. But she wasn't the only conservative influence in my life... just the one that stands out the most.  In any case, I realize I have my biases.
            Regardless, I feel confident in calling myself a Democrat. I support government regulation in many aspects of the political and social spheres.  I hate paying taxes, don’t get me wrong—but I believe in them.  Just as I believe that human life is dependent on all life on this planet, I believe that within human society, every segment of the population is a vital and necessary part of the whole.  There are those groups and individuals who are, for many various reasons, unable to care for themselves completely independently.  It is a community’s responsibility to care for every individual that makes up the whole, even when not every individual can be an equal contributor.  In other words, I don’t yell at homeless people to ‘get a fucking job’ when they ask me for a cigarette outside the bar.  I either give them a cigarette, or I don’t.  But I don’t resent the fact that my family’s tax dollars may (or may not, let's be honest) support services that provide them beds to sleep in, food to live off of, and medical care to keep them healthy.  We all depend on one another for something, even if it isn’t immediately apparent. 

            Here’s where it gets somewhat tricky for me.  Yes, I believe in government regulation of business and natural resources.  At the same time, I disagree with the way in which the government regulates and controls agriculture in this country, as well as deeply influences agricultural policy in other countries, such as India.  Government subsidies of genetically modified corn and soy do not regulate that business—they determine it.  The US government does not regulate the power that companies like Monsanto hold over the world’s food—it enables it.  In this way, I support small, local business that is free from regulations that dictate whether or not a farmer can save his seeds.   I would support government regulation of seed saving practices if it meant that the government supported seed saving practices, but it doesn’t.  And the fact of the matter is, seeds shouldn’t even need to be regulated.  Once seeds stopped being considered common property and began to be treated as a commodity is when the question of seed saving policy even became an issue.  I don’t believe any one person or company should have the right to patent life, and if no one can patent life/seeds and therefore profit from it, there remains no need to regulate it. 

            So, this appears to be my dilemma: I believe in government regulation so far as it ensures social welfare, but when regulation stops looking out for the little guy—the small farmer, the small business owner, the ‘local’ as well as the national—I can’t advocate for it.  Farmers need to be given the freedom to grow what they want to grow, how they want to grow it.  And government subsidies on crops as they stand currently do not afford farmers this opportunity.