Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] It is elegant, but is it feasible?

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] It is elegant, but is it feasible?
  • Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:49:51 -0700


I don't always agree with her, and she takes a lot of words to say something,
but this makes a lot of sense to me. K-I-S-S.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net
------------------------------------------

It is elegant, but is it feasible?
by Sharon Astyk
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-12-08/it-elegant-it-feasible
Published Dec 8 2010 by Casaubon's Book

As Urbanization Week continues, Liz Borkowski put up a great post about
feeding cities that includes a nice, rational (look at the comments for more
good stuff) discussion of the idea of Vertical Farming. I'm glad to see the
issue come up, because it has so much power. I'm grateful to Liz for
providing such a balanced and rational discussion, since most of them aren't.

I don't think I'm even overstating when I say that every time I go somewhere
and talk about food, someone asks me what I think of the idea of Vertical
Farming. It is the cool, trendy idea about feeding cities that gets tons of
attention - woohoo, let's build heated food towers in Manhattan. I can
understand the appeal in many ways.

Now this idea has been subject to some take downs, including this one by
George Monbiot (thanks to Moshe Braner for pointing me to this article), but
to me, the problem with vertical farming is the same problem that I have to
whatever the latest super-hot renewable technology that's going to save us as
soon as it comes out of development and becomes affordable, or even for fancy
light rail systems in smaller cities (note, I'm not opposd to all light
rail). The problem is that that the ideas are bad or wrong per se - the
problem is that they are complex and expensive, and we are puttiing the cart
before the horse when we leap to complex and expensive before we go for cheap
and simple.

We have a strong taste for complex and expensive, especially when it looks
cool - generally speaking, and in an era of cheap energy and economic
stability, there's at least an argument for doing the complicated fancy thing
- first, you can, second, the results are more elegant than what you can
generally get without complexity. But in a society with major economic
constraints and facing the reality of less, rather than more available energy
for consumption, complex and expensive becomes not only a bad idea, but
infeasible.

This isn't something we have to hypothesize about - ask yourself whether the
State government or city of New York can afford to build multi-million dollar
high rise, heated semi-solar food growing towers in mid-town Manhattan? Ask
whether your small city, already laying off cops and firefighters can afford
a huge new tranportation system? Ask whether you can wait for X miracle
technology to come online before you act? Where will the money come from
right now? And if we don't have the money right now, why do you think we can
do it further down the depletion curve, or after climate change starts taking
a larger and larger percentage of our GDP?

These are often elegant solutions, and that's how they get so much airplay -
I don't deny that, and like everyone, I have a taste for the elegant. It
would be fun for you to be able to go to your vertical farm and buy out of
season tomatoes - but it would be smarter if you could just get tomatoes in
season that were grown in your neighborhood, without the million dollar
investment. Moreover, given the energy required to make it happen, it almost
certainly would require less energy to fly tomatoes in from Florida. If you
could do it at all, do we really think that the ordinary middle class and
poor will be eating those vertical farm tomatoes? If not, why do we care?
Making sure the rich get tomatoes in February is simply not a priority for
me, and I suspect, shouldn't be for a society at large, if the larger
question is "feeding the city" not "feeding the affluent" (generally speaking
the affluent do a decent job of taking care of that for themselves, I've
heard)

More at the link
------------------------




  • [Livingontheland] It is elegant, but is it feasible?, Tradingpost, 12/10/2010

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page