Ed Dowding

Avatar

Progress seems to have forgotten how to have fun.

I am currently running to be an MEP candidate. Please take a few moments to read more at www.ElectEd.in

Green Revolution in India Wilts as Subsidies Backfire

In the 1970s, India dramatically increased food production, finally allowing this giant country to feed itself. But government efforts to continue that miracle by encouraging farmers to use fertilizers have backfired, forcing the country to expand its reliance on imported food.

India has been providing farmers with heavily subsidized fertilizer for more than three decades. The overuse of one type—urea—is so degrading the soil that yields on some crops are falling and import levels are rising. So are food prices, which jumped 19% last year. The country now produces less rice per hectare than its far poorer neighbors: Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

“The soil health is deteriorating, but we don’t know how to make it better,” he says. “As the fertility of the soil is declining, more fertilizer is required.”

Increased demand and the soaring price of hydrocarbons, the main ingredient of many fertilizers, have taken India’s annual subsidy bill to more than $20 billion last year, from about $640 million in 1976.

Source WSJ India, via ViewsFlow

“Hubris” is pretty much the dominant theme of the last 50 years, isn’t it? No wonder the Greeks considered it to be the gravest crime there could be.

0

Ethical bottled water is an oxymoron

‘How Bad For The Environment Can Throwing Away One Plastic Bottle Be?’ 30 Million People Wonder

All agreed that disposing of what would eventually amount to 50 tons of thermoplastic polymer resin wasn’t the end of the world.

“It’s not like I don’t care, because I do, and most of the time I don’t even buy bottled water,” thought Missouri school teacher Heather Delamere, the 450,000th caring and progressive individual to have done so that morning, and the 850,000th to have purchased the environmentally damaging vessel due to being thirsty, in a huge rush, and away from home. “It’s really not worth beating myself up over.”

“What’s one little bottle in the grand scheme of things, you know?” added each and every single one of them.

Source: The Onion, again

In other news, please please please please don’t buy or drink commercial bottled water. It’s such a patently ridiculous idea, which consumes so many resources so utterly unnecessarily to deliver something which is cheaply and abundantly available that it brands anyone who drinks it as a naive idiot. Like driving your children half a mile to school in a Hummer, it’s only really justifiable if you’re in an desert war-zone.

And please don’t come back with that “but they give their profits to charity” plea. Unless of course you have £100,000 and would like to invest in my ethical landmine company? We’re going to change the dirty world of weapons by working at it from within. Biodegradable plastics which only start decomposing once the product has been used, and fair-trade, recycled explosives! (We’re providing as many as TEN jobs for Congolese amputees, just another of the ways we’re changing this dirty business! Even our workforce of amputee employees will be sustainable!)

3

A farm for the future

I finally got around to watching A Farm for the Future (available on Google Video) a few nights ago, and found it to be a great introduction to the concepts of permaculture.

Key things to realise (some not from the programme):

  1. Current methods of farming will not continue to feed you during your lifetime.
  2. We (and I mean all of us, including YOU, reading this right now) are running out of oil.
  3. Before it runs out it will get much more expensive.
  4. Oil is the most expensive component of current methods of food production.
  5. Your food is going to get much more expensive.
  6. We import about 40% of our food (in the UK)
  7. As food gets more expensive, other countries are going to stop exporting it so they can feed their own populations.
  8. Oil-fuelled production food production is only 10% efficient in energy, and about 20% efficient in land use.
  9. We could – if we choose to – produce up to 50 times more food from the same land. (Ok that’s a touch unrealistic since there are bound to be inefficiencies, but let’s be conservative and say just 5 times as much. It still makes sense, right?)
  10. We haven’t even got touched on the nutritional or lifestyle benefits yet. I’ll leave that to other posts, but suffice to say you could live a healthier, happier, longer life.

Here are my notes from the programme itself:

  • It was in 1981 that we crossed the “using more than we’re finding” threshold with oil.
  • “It’s not just that current lifestyle are unethical – they’re unsustainable”.
  • 10 calories of fossil fuel are required for 1 calorie of food (global average).
  • GM crops are also dependent on fossil fuels, even though they may use less – ergo they are not a long term answer.
  • A litre of oil is the energy equivalent of 1 person working for a week; the oil we use equates to 22bn (unfed) slaves (c.3x world population).
  • There are 150,000 farmers in the Uk, with an average age of 60.
  • Normally cattle are taken off fields in the winter since they turn pasture into mud. But with a blend of tough/soft, deep/shall rooted (etc.) grasses you can leave the cattle there year round. Thus no hay production required, or unused land area. It took 60 years for one chap to perfect that, in one area.
  • Don’t dig. It destroys the life in the top 6″ of soil which plants thrive on. (See other posts on permaculture, too.)
  • Don’t look after plants, cultivate soil.
  • 95% of all food is dependent on synthetic fertiliser.
  • Permaculture: conscious design of a better system (Wikipedia link).
  • Khaki Campbell ducks eat lots of slugs and lay lots of eggs.
  • Willow, lime, and ash leaves / branches are good fodder crops for animals.
  • In a well considered permaculture plot, 12 man-days maintenance and 40 man-days of harvest will feed about 10 people per acre.
  • Nuts are more efficient to grow than cereal crops. Sweet chestnuts can yield 2 tons per acre (about 60% that of wheat, with much less effort).
  • During WWII, 40% of food came from small domestic production.

I suppose the question is “Neat. Is there any large scale permaculture so that we can feed lots of people? All the ones, like me, maybe in the cities, who don’t garden?”

Large scale production permaculture is probably going on somewhere (I understand that Pittsburgh Permaculture showcases examples), but to a certain extent it’s a bit of an antithesis to the small, intensive, and hyper-local principles. However the cities still need to be fed so.. a few answers:

  1. The goal is community efficiency not self-sufficiency
  2. It can be a great business opportunity, especially if more people know about why it’s being done.
  3. It’s not an industrial farm, so don’t expect it to behave like one. If the old models aren’t working, don’t expect to see permaculture behaving in the same way. (That said there are some neat multi-storey urban farms.)
0

Do you have unused land in London? Get free money!

A share of £75,000 is now up for grabs for London’s green-fingered community groups. The cash is available as part of the Capital Growth scheme, supported by the Mayor of London and managed by London Food Link, which encourages Londoners to grow their own food in under-used areas of the capital.

People can apply online for sums between £200 and £1500 to turn underused land into a vegetable patch. It is even possible to use grow bags on a concreted piece of ground to ‘grow your- own’. Under the scheme Londoners receive both financial and practical support to produce food, such as access to training and expert advice.

0

Hubris and humus – Lessons from the garden

After a day and a half of driving rain, which seemed very befitting once the mountains and forests were made dark by the thick cloud cover, the weather cleared up on Sunday afternoon so we went out to the garden to do some pruning, since it is the season.

We read up about it in all the books we have, and whilst they seem to mostly agree that there’s no ‘right’ way, they then go on to say their favoured approach, which means that a novice has nothing to choose ‘twixt them all; thus rather than agreeing there is ‘no right way’, there are instead as many ‘right’ ways as there are authors who express a preference.

So we read on to try to find a consensus, and this guide to pruning apple trees is as good a synthesis as there is. For convenience, after the first few years of growth it can be summarised thus:

How to Prune

Chop off 1/3rd of the stuff that has grown since last year. Make a clean cut just above the nearest bud.

That’s it. It’s not that hard, really, is it? But, by Pan and all the attendant forest deities, do they labour the point! A huge superfluity of detail, all of which seems to amount to precious little. Mind you, let’s see how much fruit we have this autumn…

But since the sap is low and the hubris is high, and the lesson in pruning was so short, let’s cover advanced pruning.

Advanced Pruning

A good fruit tree is goblet shaped, to wit, arcing branches forming a hollow ‘cup’. Cut back anything which is distorts the goblet shape.

Which makes sense, really, and provides half the answer to the question we come to next.

What is the point of pruning?

  1. Maximum growing space, within easy reach: The “goblet rule” yields a tree in a shape which gives the maximum surface area within a reachable height, which in turn means plenty of fruit that you can pick before the wasps get it.
  2. Plenty of fruit: keep the plants pissed off and struggling, and pushing out more life to compensate for the assault.

I remembered I’d learned (and then forgotten) this same lesson last summer, growing vegetables in our polytunnel near Totnes. A plant grows leaves so it has energy to create flowers, which it then uses to propagate its genes. So if you pick just a few leaves from it, it thinks “Doh! Damned rabbits / slugs / predators! But ok it’s just a few leaves. I’ll grow a few more to get things back on track, and then I’ll get going on sexytime and make seeds and flowers.” If you pick too many it thinks “Ok this is shit. I’m clearly not going to make it here. I’m under-nourished. I’m ill. I die.” So you pick just a few to keep it keenly in sight of the goal, but then move the goal posts to get more and more out of it.

There’s another interesting thing I learned about plants last summer, too. If a plant grows in rich soil it grows more leaves than flowers – the more energy it can get through the leaves, the better flowers it can make. If a plant grows in poor soil it grows more flowers than leaves. This seems to genetically acknowledge that since it can’t move or do much to improve the soil around it, its best opportunity is to breed. I’m sure there’s a political poster opportunity in there somewhere.

Back to pruning. Pruning seems to be the same “keep ‘em struggling” approach. Make the tree think things are just on the slightly troublesome side of good, and watch it pull out the stops. Like getting a ‘C’ at school, it’s a bit of a wake up call that you need to put in more effort. Actually that’s a light metaphor. Maybe more like being caned – if I’m going to go down the anthropomorphic line it needs to be a corporal punishment; but at the same time once which the recipient can easily tolerate and comes with the territory.

This is also very similar to the lessons the Fraggles taught us. I’d always wondered about the Dozers, being the happy drone workforce who in their simple ignorance just kept on churning out buildings – apparently for their own use – which the Fraggles would them come along and consume. In the naivety of my youth I thought this was skilfully crafted to enculture a new generation of Americans with a sense of neo-Emperialist consumption rights (perhaps to compensate for the pinko-liberal melting-pot theories pedaled by Big Bird), or acclimatise them to a new relationship with China, all those happy little yellow-hatted zen workers.

But I digress. Wildly. I should probably add that all the gardening stuff may well be wrong, too. It is, as you can tell, a series of largely anthropomorphic models wantonly extrapolated from minimal quantities of fact, currently undergoing a year of unscientific field trials.

0

Good.is’ most popular infographics of 2009

http://www.good.is/post/transparency-good-s-most-popular-infographics-of-2009/

0

Supermarkets are still totally gay

I don’t think anyone really needs much convincing over the unintended consequences of supermarkets (inner city decline, fewer jobs in retailing, etc), but they aren’t delivering the savings we think they do, either.

The EC is currently investigating the failure of supermarkets to pass price cuts on to shoppers. The cost of butter has fallen by 39% over the past year however the price paid by consumers has only gone down by 2%. The commission has also discovered that the price of skimmed milk powder was down 49%, cheese down 18% and milk down 31% but again the price paid by consumers has only fallen by 2%. (Source)

The Ethical Consumer has some excellent advice on supermarket shopping, which I’d strongly recommend you read. A few highlights:

Supermarkets have long been loudly competing over price, each using advertising to directly compare and undercut one another. They’re now being accused of hiking up the price of food more than that of inflation.

Many people believe supermarket food to be cheaper, but this is just a line we’ve been fed by the supermarkets themselves.

Through careful advertising, and placing of competitively priced loss-leaders, supermarkets are able to sneak up and hit us where it hurts for other products whose value is not so well known, and where they may actually be charging more than small independent retailers on the high street.

According to an article in the Telegraph this year, red peppers at Sainsbury’s cost £5.87 a kilo — far in excess of the average £3.45 at the independent shops — and Tesco was charging £8.87 for a kilo of Chilean cherries, considerably more than the average £6.81 that traditional greengrocers were charging.

0

How not to sell permaculture

…we will be co-creating a warm, nurturing heartspace to explore the personal and social aspects of permaculture…

0

Peak Everything

dn14950-1_567

0

The World According to Monsanto

I’ve just been watching ‘The World According to Monsanto’. It’s pretty compelling stuff. As one of the contributors says,

“Seed is more powerful than bombs, more powerful than guns”

and given that, you’d have thought that we’d be a little more careful about what we do it.

70% of the food in the USA contains bio-engineered ingredients. They are not allowed by law to label if a product contains GM ingredients.

Monsanto has repeatedly falsified studies, bribed, and spread misinformation, sometimes even allowing their agents to masquerade as scientists to run a smear campaign against those scientists who contest their studies.

This is simply bad science.

I’m not anti-GM crops, but I do think that progressing at such speed, with such scant and ambiguous positive evidence, is dangerous folly. This is, after all, the whole world’s food supply we’re talking about.

In fact this whole documentary is basically about bad science: tailoring interpretations to achieve economic ends.  It’s worth having a watch. It’s even conveniently divided up into bite-sized 10 minute chunks.

Summary of arguments against GM crops:

  • Don’t do what they say
  • Tested to only very low standards, riding on a ’substantial equivalence’ test (NB this similar to how Thalidomide occured)
  • Can not be contained and can thus undermine the genes of related and non-related organisms.
  • Create dependency on chemical companies
  • Take from the soil without putting back
  • Reduce biodiversity and encourage monoculture
  • Contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance
  • Genes can mutate with harmful effect
  • “Sleeper” genes could be accidentally switched on and active genes could become “silent”
  • They impact on birds, insects and soil biota
  • Transfer of allergenic genes, triggering reactions in humans and animals
  • Mixing of GM products in the food chain
  • Transfer of antibiotic resistance
  • Loss of farmers’ access to plant material since keeping seeds it not permitted both by legal terms, and terminator and / or traitor genes
  • Intellectual property rights could slow research

Sources: ‘The World According to Monsanto’ Online For Free. | The Good Human and  http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo8.htm

0

Next,