It is difficult to express my dismay at yesterday’s supreme court ruling striking down any limits on corporate campaign financing under the guise of free speech.  As the NJ Star Ledger puts it “The conservative majority of the Supreme Court just made a mockery of its claim to judicial restraint, overturning decades of law and legal precedent with a decision that will inevitably corrupt our democracy.” (full article here, I am sure there are others)

We could completely muzzle corporations and not hurt any citizen’s right to free speech one bit – despite all the sloppy thinking and myth to the contrary, corporations are not people.  In fact, if you trace the legal precedents of this notion, used to subvert the 14th amendment to serve corporate power, you find a very insubstantial reed – essentially one railroad case containing what many think was a clerical error.

This ruling has transformed the basis of our democratic system from “one person one vote” to “one dollar one vote”; giving corporations, with their unparalleled ability to create large piles of cash, to vacuum dollars out of the economy,  the means to completely dominate our political system.  Any pretext that citizens have equal footing – or perhaps mattering at all – has been stripped away.

With the integrity of the supreme court completely shot, where can we turn?  This ruling, coupled with the inability to put any meaningful health care (not health insurance, but health care) plan in place makes it is clear that the federal government is of no use whatsoever when it comes to supporting the well-being of ordinary people.  The only thing that I can think of is that we have to start looking to ourselves, to our communities, for support and sustenance.

In practical terms, what does this mean? 

Continue reading →

Here is a collection of articles on local grain from …

“Green Mountains and Amber Waves” Vermont’s re-emerging grain sector (Fall 2007)

““Bread and Horses” Good Companion Bakery & CSA (Winter 2009)

““Jack Lazor and the Graining of Vermont” (Spring 2009)

““Who Will This Feed?” Grain and Oilseed Production (Spring 2009)

And one from Vermont Commons, “The Case for Vermont Grains“, by Eric Andrus

Enjoy!

[Originally posted at insevenyears.wordpress.com]

At one point, Vermont was considered the breadbasket of the nation. Based on data from the census of agriculture, production peaked around 1850, at roughly 536 thousand bushels.

In the early 188′s canals, then railroads pushed west, providing cheap transportation, access to virgin prairie soils. This, combined with the general trend of intensive, rather than extensive production, of farming for the market economy, led to a decline in production as Vermont hill farmers working the rocky New England soil hill found themselves unable to compete on price. Kansas replaced the Champlain Valley as the “Granary of New England”. By the end of the 19th century, western wheat had become so cheap that even growing for home production was unprofitable.

The chart below, based on production data from the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistical Service (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Vermont/index.asp) illustrate this. We see a steady decline from 1882 on, to below 50K bushels by 1897. But for a peak during the years of the first world war*, this decline continued until 1931, when this data series was discontinued.

The most current data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture reports 9 farms producing 13,722 bushels of wheat from 379 acres, with five of these producing winter wheat.

So, we’ve got a handful of farms left – grain production has not died out completely. And with the recent work by the Northern Grain Growers Association a small, but dedicated group, it looks like we are posed for a comeback; at least big enough to bake for the state.

[Originally posted at insevenyears.wordpress.com]

Land use policy can have a significant impact in terms of climate change mitigation. Soil is the third largest carbon pool on earth, with more than 30% of all GHG emissions arising from the land use sector.

Of this some 15,000 Million tons CO2 equivalent, deforestation for agriculture or livestock accounts for just over half. Hence a REDD strategy is essential to develop at Copenhagen.

The balance, some 6,500M T comes from agriculture. Thus, the potential for land use policy to have an impact is huge, and, with it, essential benefits in terms of securing a healthy food supply and creating a more robust agricultural economy.

So why has this strategy been, to a large extent, ignored? World Watch report # 179 “Mitigating Climate Change through Food and Land Use” lists several factors. Interestingly, quite a few of these are what I would call “cultural”.

For example, the report states “most climate leaders come out of atmospheric science or energy sectors, and are little aware of …”, and again, describing the diversity and resulting level of complexity in land use emissions patterns and resulting mitigation strategies; “actually quite comparable to energy systems, but because energy issues are more familiar … tackling energy-based solutions may seem more manageable …” And, lets face it, Farming just isn’t as Sexy as Energy.

So what are some of these strategies? Carbon-rich farming is one broad area, and includes strategies such as the use of organic farming practices to reduce the use of chemical nitrogen fertilizers. Fertilized soils release more than 2 billion tones Co2 Equivalent of Nitrous Oxide annually. Another strategy is the use of rotational grazing systems to restore rangelands.

One advantage of these types of mitigation is that in terms of technology and practices immediately scalable. We need not wait for an exotic technology to develop, or mature. And, these strategies not only avoid emissions, but they can extract and sequester carbon, bringing about reductions now.

So what do we want out of Copenhagen to support these strategies? The report makes several recommendations:
1) Include the full range of terrestrial emission reduction, storage and sequestration options in climate policy and investment.
2) Incorporate farming and land use investments into cap-and-trade systems
3) Link terrestrial climate mitigation with adaptation, rural development, and conservation strategies.
4) Encourage large, area-based programs
5) Encourage voluntary markets for GHG emissions offsets from agriculture and land use (Go Brian!)
6) Mobilize a worldwide, networked movement for climate-friendly food, forest and other land based production (Where’s Rupert?)

To this I would add a seventh, a challenge for the branding/marketing/culture change folks among us – How do we get Agriculture as sexy as Energy?

The Worldwatch report mentioned above is avaliable from their site – Worldwatch.org – or by clicking on the image above, for $12.95. Well worth it, and supporting a great organization. A more general report, providing a great overview, is avaliable as a free download here:

[Originally posted at insevenyears.wordpress.com]