Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

nafex - [NAFEX] Fluffy's point

nafex@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Alan Haigh <alandhaigh@gmail.com>
  • To: nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [NAFEX] Fluffy's point
  • Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:54:28 -0400

I believe Fluffy's point about the ratio of input to output is quite flawed when he takes on issues like public transit, which have clearly proven themselves to be much more energy efficient in every part of the world they're used compared to the American auto-centric model.  Even in Kenya, entrepreneurs drive around in vans and use them as buses because they can offer cheap (I.E. efficient) transportation.   He might consider me an idiot because he has some data that proves that European rail transit is not part of why they use much less energy per capita than Americans (you know the wide open spaces of the U.S and that kind of thing) but I doubt he could actually win a debate on a forum with experts on public transit, even if he left muttering about what idiots they are.
 
That said, he still makes a valid and important point when it comes to organic food production.  Rivka will probably argue this, but when I go to a farm market around here and compare organic to other stands, the offerings are relatively poor and expensive in general, especially when it comes to fruit.  Even the heads of lettuce tend to be smaller and much more expensive than that offered by small farms that do use some synthetic chemicals.
 
This suggests to me that at least here in the humid northeast, using some chemicals allows commercial growers to make more efficient use of their land, labor and petro fuel.  Of course if you add all the information about environmental degradation you might get another equation but I actually doubt it given that the organic produce grown here costs literally twice as much.  Virtually all agriculture is environmentally disruptive and more efficient agriculture is less so.
 
I believe that in drier climates with less disease and insect pressure this comparison will not be the same, but I do think when you're talking about improving the environment by using organic production you have to consider inputs to outputs and realize that better production is also an essential part of the equation.
 
I also think Fluffy's point is valid when it comes to the "environmentally concsious" consumer who feels virtuous bringing the empty bottled water bottles to the recycling center along with a lot of other frivolous and poorly made manufactured goods.  Recycling something doesn't erase the environmental impact of its production.  But this doesn't mean that there is no virtue in putting other peoples junk to practical use just because the source doesn't get the tree-huggers seal of approval. 
 
 
 
 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page