COMMENTS: 75
Can Ecology and Commerce Coexist?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
In many ways this boat ride feels like a trip into the past. The forest is largely untouched here except for the sunny clearing around the house (although we did spot an illegal lumber operation downriver). The de Oliveiras live as people have for centuries -- drawing their daily meals and livelihood from the land, the river and the livestock. It's an enchanting place if you can get used to the mosquitoes. Yet beauty and peace do not translate into prosperity. The tiny house has no electricity, no telephone, no fans, no screens in the windows.
The great debates about sustainable development being waged in government assemblies and at environmental institutes, corporate headquarters and street protests around the world are really about this place. Is it possible to bring the de Oliveiras some of the advantages of modern life -- like high school and shoes for Alex -- without destroying other valuable things in the process? Valuable things like the Amazon rainforest itself, which is crucial to everyone on the planet as a source of ecological balance and potential new medicines.
José invites us to sit under the thatched palm shelter at the end of their dock and we pass the time telling stories and spouting opinions. For them it's a welcome break from working in the heat as well as an opportunity to show off baskets of freshly picked açaÃ, which they gathered from the tops of palm trees surrounding their home.
Açaà -- a fruit slightly larger than a blueberry with a similar colour -- is the reason we have come up the river. It has recently been discovered outside the rainforest as a "superfood" -- a nutritious bundle of amino acids, fibre, essential fatty acids and more of the highly coveted antioxidants than either red wine or blueberries. People often report feeling a surge of energy after eating it -- I certainly did when gobbling some after a long day on the river without lunch. Now that açaà (pronounced ah-sigh-EE) products are beginning to appear in health-food stores around the world, this berry offers new hope that development in the Amazon can become something more than a sad choice between environmental ruin and continuing poverty.
My boat mate, Travis Baumgardner, a 31-year-old Texan who came to Rio to study environmental geography and now runs Brazilian operations for the U.S. company Sambazon, believes açaà will prove to the people of the Amazon, in cold cash, that it's more lucrative to leave the rainforest standing than to chop it down to raise cattle or soybeans. That's why this boat ride is more than a trip into the past -- it's a journey toward a sustainable future.
Sambazon is part of a new wave of entrepreneurial companies seeking to promote ecological restoration and economic justice as an integral part of their business -- a concept known as "market-driven conservation." Together these firms -- which also include Guayakà (maté drinks), Manitoba Harvest (hemp foods), Adina World Beat Beverages (fruit drinks), Jungle Products (oils from tropical plants) and others -- hope to push the natural-foods industry "beyond organic." Rather than simply rejecting dubious practices like chemical pesticides and genetic modification, they are seeking to create products that actually make a positive contribution to the environment and local communities as part of how they are harvested and manufactured.
Launched in 2000, Sambazon sells açaà throughout North America, Europe and Brazil in the form of ready-to-drink smoothies, frozen packets, powder and capsules. The company was honoured last November with an Award for Corporate Excellence for U.S. businesses operating abroad by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The other winners were General Motors and Goldman Sachs. But Sambazon operates by quite a different set of principles than do most corporations. Company executives are proud to declare they purchase açaà from co-ops and growers at higher prices than those paid by the usual brokers and they pay workers at Sambazon's new fruit-processing plant in Macapá, near the mouth of the Amazon, three times the prevailing local wage. The firm also makes special efforts to help small farmers become certified as organic (an expensive and complicated ordeal for poor people unaccustomed to paperwork).
Sambazon founder Ryan Black, 32, a former professional U.S. football player for the Minnesota Vikings who first encountered açaà on an off-season surfing trip to Brazil, sees market-driven conservation as the next logical step for the booming organic industry. "We want to give something back as part of the production process. We want positive change to be engineered in how we do business."
He believes this can help bring democracy to the marketplace. "It means giving people what they want -- a chance to vote with their dollars. People can become policymakers, spending their money on the future they want to see."
That's an ambitious mission for any company, let alone one run by people who were not even born when Earth Day first dawned in 1970. But they are winning the support of respected figures in the fields of ecology and business. Meindert Brouwer -- a consultant working with the World Wildlife Fund and Hivos, the Dutch sustainable-development institute, who is the author of a forthcoming book about rainforest initiatives, Amazon Your Business -- says, "Sambazon is doing a great job. The açaà is harvested in an ecologically sound way. When they started they involved local NGOs, which has helped the local producers. These guys are quite young, and are an example of young entrepreneurs who are doing things differently. They represent a new generation of business."
Brouwer foresees this emerging "beyond organic" movement will become influential because it fits directly with a number of other business trends that he observes:
- A growing emphasis on transparency throughout the international business world
- Mounting influence of ideas about corporate social responsibility
- Consumer demand for authenticity in the products they use
- Increasing global calls to eliminate poverty
- Increasing pressure for the protection of nature
- A new concern among corporate leadership about diminishing natural resources
Jan Oosterwijk, a trailblazer in the socially responsible business movement who launched operations for both The Body Shop and Ben & Jerry in the Netherlands and other European countries, is another champion of the "market-driven conservation" approach. He's an investor in Sambazon (also, for full disclosure, in Ode magazine) and is considering putting capital into GuayakÃ, which he believes has gone the furthest in creating a new paradigm for organic businesses.
Guayakà markets maté, a tea-like drink from South America made from the yerba plant, which is grown in large fields in the usual manner of industrial agriculture. But yerba maté (pronounced YUR-ba MA-tay) can also be grown in the shade, like coffee, and Guayakà pays a premium price for organic yerba cultivated in the rainforest. The company offers growers a better deal for preserving their trees than they could get cutting them down to make way for cattle, lumber or conventional yerba. Oosterwijk sees that Guayakà is pushing the frontiers of organic agriculture with one project that supports farmers planting trees native rainforest trees in the middle of their yerba fields. Rather than just avoiding unsustainable farming methods, he notes, the company is pioneering new practices to reverse environmental destruction.
"They show how business can be more of a force of restoration," Oosterwijk says about both Guayakà and Sambazon. "To save wildlife species. To promote fair trade for workers. To restore the Earth."
This emerging "beyond organic" movement (the origins of which can be traced to The Body Shop's and Ben & Jerry's earlier efforts to market products made with sustainable ingredients from threatened rainforests) is met with skepticism by some, who point out that these companies are selling products far out of the mainstream. Agribusiness giants are not up late at night worrying about being left behind in the açaÃ, maté or hemp markets.
"New products can be like an icebreaker in frozen waters," Oosterwijk contends, "and then the big boats follow. They can show the way for other companies."
After all, gourmet ice cream, sustainable outdoor wear, and natural body care products -- all huge markets now -- were seen as niche products when socially responsible firms like Ben & Jerry's, Patagonia, The Body Shop and Aveda rose to prominence in the 1990s. Indeed, the influential U.S. market-forecasting firm Mintel named "Amazon superfoods" (including açaÃ) No. 1 among its top 10 supermarket trends for 2007, with ethical business practises ranking second.
These new "beyond organic" initiatives are emerging at an interesting point in history. The future of the organic industry and the whole idea of socially responsible business seem up for grabs. Many people are shocked at how leading natural-product companies have been snapped up recently by huge corporations, including The Body Shop (L'Oreal), Tom's of Maine (Colgate-Palmolive) and Green & Black's chocolates (Cadbury Schweppes), joining earlier sales of Stonyfield Farms (Groupe Danone), Aveda (Estée Lauder) and Ben & Jerry's (Unilever). Concerns are also being voiced in many quarters about what happens now that huge firms like Kellogg's, General Mills and Heinz and mega-retailers like Wal-Mart have entered the organic market.
"I see that industrial organics will only get bigger," says noted environmental author Michael Pollan, whose 2006 bestseller The Omnivore's Dilemma examined both mainstream agribusiness and the organic food production. "The farmers who realize they can no longer compete in that environment realize that they can grow food better for new channels of distribution. There is room for both. Some will be selling better social values, some more humane treatment of animals. There are all kinds of ways to align the market with nature, and that's especially true with food. "Industrial organic is not the last word in food," Pollan continues. "There are issues organics don't deal with. When they were formulating organic rules, they focussed on a number of concerns mostly having to do with chemicals. They ignored social-welfare issues, they ignored labour; they didn't insist on animal welfare. There are many issues they don't deal with, like energy use. It's not clear, for instance, that organic production by itself will make any difference on global warming."
Ronnie Cummins, founder of the Organic Consumers Association, a U.S.-based network of 850,000 socially responsible shoppers, notes, "The good news is that organic foods are growing so fast that no one can keep up with the demand." But he urges consumers and businesses to expand the scope of what it means for a product to be called organic or sustainable. "Fair-trade products are growing even faster than organic in Western nations," Cummins adds. "And another trend that is very big now is to buy local. There's real synergy now with these ideas and the organic movement. We have a perfect storm of massive marketplace interest in new ideas."
One further idea that now inspires many socially conscious shoppers is supporting small-scale family growers instead of the factory farms that produce an increasingly large share of organic products. Jim Slama -- founder of FamilyFarmed.org -- is about to introduce a new label that will identify food as not only organic but grown by small farmers. "The bottom line is that organic consumers are driven by core values and want companies with those same values," he says. "Corporate organic doesn't do it for many of them." Cummins identifies a number of North American companies he considers "beyond organic":
- Dr. Bronner's, a personal-care products company committed to buying certified organic olive oil for soaps. Its suppliers are Palestinian farmers in the occupied West Bank, who tend 1,000-year-old orchards that have never been sprayed with pesticides, and workers on an Israeli kibbutz.
- Organic Valley, a dairy co-operative based in Wisconsin that has made regional production central to its business. Organic Valley milk, butter or cheese bought in the U.S. Midwest, New England, Pacific Northwest, California or Texas comes from family farms in that area.
- Intelligent Nutrients, the new company from Aveda founder Horst Rechelbacher, which applies rigorous organic and fair-trade standards to all the ingredients used in the body- and hair-care products, nutritional supplements and foods it sells.
- A growing number of organic fair-trade coffee importers, including Equal Exchange, Peace Coffee, Dean's Beans and Higher Grounds Trading Company.
- Eden Foods, a stalwart of the organic industry with a wide range of products, which has always supported family-farm producers and upheld strict standards for organic labelling.
Adina World Beat Beverages offers the clearest case of how today's "beyond organic" companies differ from earlier socially responsible entrepreneurs. It was co-founded by Greg Steltenpohl, who played a high-profile role in the first wave of natural-food companies as founder of Odwalla, the well-known juice company.
In launching Odwalla in 1980, Steltenpohl had a simple aim: to promote good health by offering a tasty alternative to sugary soft drinks. He succeeded at that, in part because his company was taken over in 2001 by Coca-Cola, which has access to nearly every corner shop and convenience store around the world.
Adina has a similar but broader mission. The idea came from co-founder Magatte Wade-Marchand, who on a trip home to her native Senegal noticed that American soft drinks had completely wiped out the healthier fruit-based drinks people once enjoyed. Drawing on drink recipes traditionally served at street stands in Senegal, Jamaica and Cuba, Adina brews juice drinks spiked with nutrition-charged herbs and supplements such as ginseng, astragalus, spirulina and sea buckthorn. Everyone at Adina strives for all the ingredients to be organic and fair-trade -- working more than three years, for instance, to get organic certification for the Senegalese women's co-operative supplying them with hibiscus.
"In the past, organic and natural foods were about personal health," says Steltenpohl, "which is why they have become mainstream today. And that's very important. But it's impossible to separate the organic movement from environmental and social-justice issues.
"The idea now is to make the whole process of what you do," he adds, "the thing that does good in the world."
Guayakà was founded by Alex Pryor and David Karr, two students at California Polytechnic State University, in 1996. Pryor is a native of Argentina, where yerba maté outsells coffee 7-1, and he brought a big supply with him to school. While delivering a caffeine boost, maté contains far more nutrients than coffee or tea, which many drinkers (including me) report leaves them with a smoother feeling. Pryor's friends at college all started drinking maté during finals week, surprised at how they could study all night without the usual coffee jag. That convinced Pryor to undertake a class project marketing maté around campus, and things just took off from there. He soon invited Karr, his best friend and confirmed maté fanatic, to join him in introducing the drink to North Americans.
Pryor is now back home in Buenos Aires, running GuayakÃ's South American operation, while Karr oversees the business in North America, which sells yerba maté in tea bags, loose leaf packets and ready-to-drink beverages. GuayakÃ's yerba supply comes from the Ache Guayakà indigenous people (hence the name) in Paraguay who cultivate the crop beneath trees in their rainforest preserve, as well as from Argentine farmers who are preserving or reforesting endangered subtropical rainforests and a Brazilian farmers' co-op that harvests one of the remaining stands of wild yerba.
"We want to be a bridge between consumers looking for health products and growers who want to take care of the Earth," Pryor tells me as we finish lunch in the well-tended garden that separates his home from GuayakÃ's office in the backyard.
His English is quite good, but Pryor looks concerned, as if he hasn't made his point as forcefully as he would like. He jumps up and hurries into his office, bringing back a picture off the wall, which he hands to me. It's a photograph of a forest. I look up at him, a bit perplexed. "I went up in a plane to get this picture," he tells me. "It's one of our yerba maté fields in Paraguay."
It's a steamy spring day in Iguazú National Park, one of the last remnants of rainforest in northeastern Argentina. Only 5 percent of the original subtropical Atlantic Forest in Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil still stands. The rest has been chopped down for timber and agriculture, including plantations growing yerba for maté, which Argentines drink all day at work and home. Just outside the park boundaries, Alfonso and Gladys Werle give me a tour of their yerba fields, which look noticeably different from those I stopped to inspect along the highway a few miles away. The leaves are much greener, which Alfonso says is because he farms organically -- still a rarity in Argentina. He also claims organic maté tastes sweeter because it contains more of the vitamins, minerals and amino acids that gently balance the drink's caffeine kick.
But the most striking difference here is the trees, 14 different varieties such as cancharana and lapacho native to the Atlantic Forest, which Alfonso and Gladys have painstakingly planted throughout their fields. Their dream, and the dream of GuayakÃ, which buys their crop, is that in a few years this field will become a natural extension of the park's rainforest while still producing top-quality maté. Their farm already serves as an important wildlife corridor that allows jaguars and other threatened species to move freely between Iguazú and another national park in nearby Brazil. Alfonso, Gladys and Guayakà hope this land -- which also grows organic bananas, lemons and pineapples, and rings with the sound of birds, cows, pigs, chickens, dogs and children -- will become a showcase, proving that the Atlantic rainforest can be restored while offering farmers a secure livelihood and providing the world with ample food.
Alfonso suddenly strides into the centre of the field to examine one of the trees they planted. He looks at intently and then turns back toward us with a smile. "This is redesigning agriculture," he shouts.
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aouie01 on Mar 8, 2007 1:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sincerely,
Aouie
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brad on Mar 8, 2007 4:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes they can
Posted by: bonkers
» RE: Yes they can
Posted by: brad
» You'd Have To Be Bonkers To Think Ecology and Commerce Can Co-exist!!
Posted by: Douglas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jarmadi on Mar 8, 2007 5:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Vikings? (BTW, do you even follow football?)
Posted by: UTxORANGEblood
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tiellis on Mar 8, 2007 6:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure that an economy based on maximization of profits (which are nothing more, ultimately, than an arithmetical measure of the surplus value of commodities) can coexist with a finite planet whose first biological principle is optimization. Rather the market will inevitably seek to transform nature (which cannot be bought or sold) into commodities (which can) as rapidly and efficiently as possible, thereby destroying its own natural support system.
If the price of anything reflected its true ecological costs, nobody would be able to buy it. So instead, ecological costs are externalized--passed on to the public and to future generations--to make commodities affordable. Short term private profits inevitably take precedence over long-term public costs.
So what can we do? Begin with the awareness that every dollar is a vote--that money itself is a transform of information about what we truly value. To the exact extent we each assume responsibility for the ecological consequences of every dollar we spend or invest, we can rechannel the money flow toward more locally produced, energy-conserving, sustainably produced, and socially responsibly produced merchandise. Such consumer activism may not solve the bigger problem of the incompatibility between an endless growth economy and a finite planet, but at least it will buy us the time we need to learn how to grow gardens, grow communities, grow local enterprise, and grow public awareness, in anticipation of the great collapse of Glomart that will occur when fossil fuels peak and decline, and are therefore no longer cheap.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: But how? Not through makets!
Posted by: brad
» RE: But how? Not through makets!
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 8, 2007 6:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2. Fight to divert subsidization of BIG OIL/COAL/NUCLEAR to alternative renewables such as solar, wind, hemp, etc ...
3. Instead of pissing off consumers and shouting guilty, fight to REWARD conservation in bigger ways and make it more marketable.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Nothing will solve all our problems?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: brad
» Typical DEA parroting BULLSHIT
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Typical DEA parroting BULLSHIT
Posted by: brad
» Didn't you know? All us DEA agents are anarchists who want to destroy industrialism.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Didn't you know? All us DEA agents are anarchists who want to destroy industrialism.
Posted by: brad
» Brad.. I'd like you to do me a favor.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.-I don't see your objection
Posted by: Drclaw
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 8, 2007 6:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Define Commerce
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Sugar
Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Grapes from Chile in Winter
Posted by: NoPCZone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 8, 2007 6:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» People always surrender to the invisible world, eventually
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthteller on Mar 8, 2007 6:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep trying to find ways to cut costs, as things like my health insurance contribution and prescription co-pay keep going up. The real answer to most of these concerns is to redevelope local production and market networks. Most of these socially responsible foreign enterprises still suffer from the need for cheap oil imputs to be cost-effective, something quickly comiing to an end.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rshaw on Mar 8, 2007 7:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've seen this before with the Corporate social responsibility stuff, look how well that worked! It didn't work at all for the most part, because corporations focus on the bottom line, that means this stuff is generally an externalities, that also means workers labor and our purchases are really about extracting profits from us.
Privileged people always want to think that we don't really need to change the system, if we just push corporations to make small changes all will be well. The changes are not the norm nor will they be, and they are superficial at best.
When will we learn that change must be involve taking away corporate power not creating it.
oh when will we learn?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Thanks for being willing to cut through some of the bullshit. nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» I couldn't have said it better.
Posted by: tlCampbell
» Small and local have the same built in problems.
Posted by: brad
» Yep, you said it for me........
Posted by: Lizmv
» Corporations v. local business.
Posted by: brad
» RE: Yep, you said it for me........
Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Holy Fucking Shit!
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Lets quickly add for all the free-marketers out there...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» This is true... there has never been a free market..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Lets quickly add for all the free-marketers out there...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brad on Mar 8, 2007 7:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we really want to understand why this happened we have to ask ourselves another question: ‘Why is it that we seem willing to live with the threat of apocalypse rather than trying to seriously alter a world where consumption, of anything, is seen as unrelieved virtue, production, of anything, is regarded as a social and economic necessity, and more, of anything (like children or cars or chemicals or PhDs or golf courses or recycling centres), is unquestioningly accepted?’
The answer, of course, is that the great majority of people do not want to do away with an economic system (it is called industrial capitalism) that provides them with material riches (sometimes in great abundance), longer lives, and non-stop palliatives like entertainment, alcohol, prescription drugs, sports and television. And the few who would like to do away with it are essentially powerless and ignored, accommodated, intimidated or repressed by the governmental and corporate powers-that-be.
The problem here is that industrial capitalism rests completely on two principles that simply fly in the face of ecological sanity. The first is the imperative of growth – of the market, of the firm, of industry, of first-quarter sales, of scientific knowledge and technological innovations, of population in general and a consuming population in particular. The second is the exploitation of resources, the using up of the earth’s irreplaceable treasures of every kind – from diamonds to oil, and forests to soil – for the benefit of human material comfort; there is only the merest consideration of the effects of this extraction, of what happens when the resources are manufactured into what economists call goods or of what happens when those goods are used, or how they are disposed of.
And it doesn’t matter that the search for techno-fixes is beyond the control of the techno-fixers to the point that Bill Joy – one of the giants of Silicon Valley – was moved just last year to caution against the potentially disastrous consequences of continuing research into genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechnology.
No these things don’t matter; our belief in the techno-fix is solid and beyond challenge. And that’s why we don’t take seriously those who warn of apocalypse. And that’s why we’re unlikely to realise how we can change the way we live so as to save our planet.
But I would add this: if there is any hope here, if we can convince enough people of the true nature of our economic system and the reality of the threats it poses to the world it will be because of our asking all the relevant questions. Not just the obvious ones: ‘Where does it hurt? Who did it? How long has this been going on?’ But the harder questions, too: ‘Why is this happening? What will it take to stop it? And how can we fashion the elements of an ecological society – one that is modest, attentive to nature’s laws and embraces the values of the living earth – as if that society were the only one available, and prevent a return to previous wrongs?’
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» DKs nailed it... Give me convenience, or give me death! nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: DKs nailed it... Give me convenience, or give me death! nm
Posted by: Krain61
» RE: Kirkpatrick sale in the Ecologist 2003.
Posted by: Krain61
» RE: Kirkpatrick sale in the Ecologist 2003.
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eddie torres on Mar 8, 2007 8:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, disciples of the US neo-cons will resurface in 2020 to launch wars-of-choice against religious 'undesirables' (7.5 billion) with nuclear weapons.
As long as your descendants can survive the 30 year "Great Contraction," your DNA will proceed to future human endeavours. Ryan Black's stand a pretty good chance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 8, 2007 8:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- all the air miles from all the green-related conferences and such since 1990
- all the paper used for all the reports (agenda 21 etc. etc.)
- all the energy expended to raise millions for Greenpeace etc.
- all the energy being expended in this new green gold rush
- the millions and millions (maybe billions) spent on ineffective green projects around the world
Total it up and your eye balls will pop out of your head.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I would love to see a green waste calculation
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: I would love to see a green waste calculation
Posted by: DaBear
» Let Me See If I Don't "Misunderestimate" You...
Posted by: grumble-bum
» History will judge you very badly
Posted by: Bobsays
» You Haven't A Clue How History Will Judge Anything!
Posted by: Douglas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grumble-bum on Mar 8, 2007 10:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like with an onion ("organic" or not), people face a multitude of layers when making socially & environmentally beneficial choices in their consumption.
Some would have us blissfully remove only the outer layer (traditional Corporate/Industrial production models), while not realizing that every layer of the onion is capable of becoming a new protective outer layer. In other words, one need only look to the multiple formerly independent & "green" companies listed in the article who have been "forced" by the Marketplace to sell into the same industrial giants they initially served as alternatives to.
Others, seeing this potential for Corporate corruption of otherwise beneficial products & ideas, insist that we peel away all of the layers, or simply throw away the onion altogether. As appealing as this absolutist stance may be (I often find myself wishing we would just "burn it all down & start again", in my more frustrated moments), a "nothing or nothing" approach will simply never be willingly adopted by Humanity as a whole. The cat's out of the bag, folks. Barring massive catastrophe, we will never return to a money-free Eden. Even if we did, we'd find ourselves in crisis again, eventually. Witness recent discoveries about the rise & fall of the earliest Mayans...
So, consumers must make the best choices they can in attempting to find an onion they can both peel & still eat. Something the article doesn't cover in any real depth is local sustainability networks. It chooses to focus on a handful of companies that do a better/"greener" job at bringing what are essentially luxury products into the North American market while providing the people who produce them with a potentially higher standard of living. This is wonderful, on some levels. I do feel better drinking my Fair-Trade certified coffee or enjoying the healthier option of Yerba Mate drinks & knowing that they are being produced less destructively & literally humanely. But that doesn't address the fact that neither of these products are indigenous to my locale. They must be shipped vast distances to reach my stomach, thus largely negating any positive environmental impact initially felt in their country of origin. The article states that Yerba Mate is grown in a Mass-Ag fashion for domestic consumption in it's home country, yet grown "green" for ours. So, as much as I enjoy the product, wouldn't a better focus of the profiled company be to change the way the localized market gets it's Yerba buzz? That would more closely fit the definition of "beyond organic", as I have come to understand it.
As any visit to Whole Foods (or soon enough - shudder - Wal*Mart!) demonstrates, "organic" is an easily manipulated & negated term. The real change needs to take place in making "smaller" choices, in enclosing the supply chain into tighter loops. The "beyond organic" concept would say that sometimes this means choosing a non-"organic" product over an "organic" one, based on locality & sustainability issues. For instance, when shopping for a bell pepper or grass-fed beef steak, I would want to choose the one that is grown closer to my home (thus reducing transport impact & strengthening my local economy) whether it's certified as "organic" or not. This means that I may have to make a few sacrifices if I wish to really practice it, but if done consistently also gives me a little moral room to "splurge" on products that might not strictly fit the paradigm. Such as this computer I'm typing on.
Whew. Choices, choices, choices...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 8, 2007 10:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's laudable that there are folks trying to just do what makes sense ecologically, however imperfect their efforts might be to the armchair-perfectionado-generalistas on Alternet's comment forums. It seems to me that only a bioregionally bounded economic system can even hope to be sustainably "beyond organic." In fact, IMM, Jay's use of the classic yuppie phrase "beyond organic" is what sends chills down my spine. These wealthy entitled types who can afford the carbon heavy plane tix to the Amazon (I wonder if he really "worked all day in the heat" without lunch.. hard to imagine a Jay being capable of that--I kept picturing scenes from Heart of Darkness while reading Jay's idyllic-intended "prose") always have a gift for hijacking real people's work with a euphemism that smacks of an Ivy League marketing degree bias. Ick.
I wonder when that Dimitri-sailboat-network-guy is gonna start moving "beyond organic" coffee and Yerba Maté between Central Am and North Am? I wonder what local-globalised economies trading between bioregions would look like... Maybe then my indigenous soap plant harvest excess would get me a cup a coffee now and again. What'd really rock my world is if I could grow my own supply of THC... now there's a sustainable export crop!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Mar 8, 2007 12:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You might ask "What can we do about it?"
Plenty -- just SPEAKING UP would be a great help. How do we educate people about a critical problem by ignoring it? Seriously, what other problem do we treat like that?
Some people fear dealing with overpopulation leads to genocide. It should be obvious that birth control prevents genocide. Ignoring overpopulation leads to genocide.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: As usual, population growth is too scary to even think about, let alone speak about.
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: As usual, population growth is too scary to even think about, let alone speak about.
Posted by: Pat Kittle
» RE: As usual, population growth is too scary to even think about, let alone speak about.
Posted by: itsjusterk
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edith on Mar 8, 2007 12:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Substitutes for carbon based materials may be in the future, but they are not in the near future. Yet urgent cutbacks in carbon dioxide emissions are demanded now. Perhaps these are wise demands. But who is looking out for the consumer and for the worker who simply used the form of transportation and power that Big Industry provided.
People's livelihoods are at stake ant the greens, whom I admire, cannot simply focus on elimination of CO2 emissions. Real people in the near term will be badly hurt by sharp cutbacks in CO2. What is to be done?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Everyone in Britain is watching a programme about the global warming myth
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: workers of the world
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» what is the lincoln initiative?
Posted by: itsjusterk
» RE: what is the lincoln initiative?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» "What is to be done?" (about overpopulation, right?)
Posted by: Pat Kittle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bob t on Mar 9, 2007 7:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I AM the last catholic in america that is not a republican or a papist since the pope sold out his values for political power in america and over america. Wake up america elect a catholic or a republican or any radical right wing religious and there will be no more america just one giant corporatocracy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: itsjusterk on Mar 9, 2007 10:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Family dollars are now like mini wal marts. We sell crap: Awful food, cheap products, and pre paid phones (anything to take poor people's money). And everything comes wrapped in plastic. I feel awful because this is really the only place that my neighbors shop. They praise Wal mart and think it is the mecca of shopping. And would go there if only it was closer.
I do not shop there. Until recently I didn't shop at all. I just took stuff. Mainly from upscale corporate stores.
I and others like me go to those stores for a reason. Well a few reasons.
1) we can rationalize It. Stealing from a mom and pop store would have direct effects, but stealing from a big corporation has little effect. And if you really hate the company, it makes you feel good, like your doing something right. We all know this is bullshit; we just want things we can't afford.
2) The quality. imagine choosing between canned salmon and organic salmon steaks.
3) It's Easy stores in my neighborhood are all about the loss prevention. And if they tackled someone thinking they were stealing, and were wrong. The person would probably never think to sue, and would come back simply because of lack of options. Upper-class stores even if they caught someone stealing would still be too worried about liability to be rude to them.
But most people are not like me. Most people believe stealing is wrong, immoral (I just think of it as capitalism).
And "environmentally safe", "organic" products are just a luxury they cannot even afford to think about.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Abi Tucker on Mar 11, 2007 5:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffF on Mar 12, 2007 5:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pfm on Mar 13, 2007 11:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Mar 17, 2007 4:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At first the directors doubled their incomes with extreme salaryraises and bonusses of hundreds of thousands of euroos.
Now prices no go LOWER but go up with 100%...
So the result of marketing economie here was no gain for the consumer..
Strange is that FRANCE still has its state controlled electricity.
Before the GREEN parties shouted: Blame on France, the electricity is made in atomic factories......
But in France the price is 50% for the consumer so the Dutch corporations buy it also there
and we still have to pay the high price, because the GREEN party says; it is OK not made from peak oil or coal, it is real nature saving.
And using food to make ethanol to put in your car is a shame.
Remember 1 gallon gasoline now costs here $ 10,= including green house saving taxes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aouie01 on Mar 8, 2007 1:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sincerely,
Aouie
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brad on Mar 8, 2007 4:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes they can
Posted by: bonkers
» RE: Yes they can
Posted by: brad
» You'd Have To Be Bonkers To Think Ecology and Commerce Can Co-exist!!
Posted by: Douglas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jarmadi on Mar 8, 2007 5:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Vikings? (BTW, do you even follow football?)
Posted by: UTxORANGEblood
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tiellis on Mar 8, 2007 6:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure that an economy based on maximization of profits (which are nothing more, ultimately, than an arithmetical measure of the surplus value of commodities) can coexist with a finite planet whose first biological principle is optimization. Rather the market will inevitably seek to transform nature (which cannot be bought or sold) into commodities (which can) as rapidly and efficiently as possible, thereby destroying its own natural support system.
If the price of anything reflected its true ecological costs, nobody would be able to buy it. So instead, ecological costs are externalized--passed on to the public and to future generations--to make commodities affordable. Short term private profits inevitably take precedence over long-term public costs.
So what can we do? Begin with the awareness that every dollar is a vote--that money itself is a transform of information about what we truly value. To the exact extent we each assume responsibility for the ecological consequences of every dollar we spend or invest, we can rechannel the money flow toward more locally produced, energy-conserving, sustainably produced, and socially responsibly produced merchandise. Such consumer activism may not solve the bigger problem of the incompatibility between an endless growth economy and a finite planet, but at least it will buy us the time we need to learn how to grow gardens, grow communities, grow local enterprise, and grow public awareness, in anticipation of the great collapse of Glomart that will occur when fossil fuels peak and decline, and are therefore no longer cheap.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: But how? Not through makets!
Posted by: brad
» RE: But how? Not through makets!
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 8, 2007 6:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2. Fight to divert subsidization of BIG OIL/COAL/NUCLEAR to alternative renewables such as solar, wind, hemp, etc ...
3. Instead of pissing off consumers and shouting guilty, fight to REWARD conservation in bigger ways and make it more marketable.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Nothing will solve all our problems?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.
Posted by: brad
» Typical DEA parroting BULLSHIT
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Typical DEA parroting BULLSHIT
Posted by: brad
» Didn't you know? All us DEA agents are anarchists who want to destroy industrialism.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Didn't you know? All us DEA agents are anarchists who want to destroy industrialism.
Posted by: brad
» Brad.. I'd like you to do me a favor.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Typical greenwashing as usual. Here are 3 better ideas.-I don't see your objection
Posted by: Drclaw
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 8, 2007 6:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Define Commerce
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» Sugar
Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Grapes from Chile in Winter
Posted by: NoPCZone
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 8, 2007 6:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» People always surrender to the invisible world, eventually
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthteller on Mar 8, 2007 6:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep trying to find ways to cut costs, as things like my health insurance contribution and prescription co-pay keep going up. The real answer to most of these concerns is to redevelope local production and market networks. Most of these socially responsible foreign enterprises still suffer from the need for cheap oil imputs to be cost-effective, something quickly comiing to an end.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rshaw on Mar 8, 2007 7:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've seen this before with the Corporate social responsibility stuff, look how well that worked! It didn't work at all for the most part, because corporations focus on the bottom line, that means this stuff is generally an externalities, that also means workers labor and our purchases are really about extracting profits from us.
Privileged people always want to think that we don't really need to change the system, if we just push corporations to make small changes all will be well. The changes are not the norm nor will they be, and they are superficial at best.
When will we learn that change must be involve taking away corporate power not creating it.
oh when will we learn?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Thanks for being willing to cut through some of the bullshit. nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» I couldn't have said it better.
Posted by: tlCampbell
» Small and local have the same built in problems.
Posted by: brad
» Yep, you said it for me........
Posted by: Lizmv
» Corporations v. local business.
Posted by: brad
» RE: Yep, you said it for me........
Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Holy Fucking Shit!
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Lets quickly add for all the free-marketers out there...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» This is true... there has never been a free market..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Lets quickly add for all the free-marketers out there...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: brad on Mar 8, 2007 7:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we really want to understand why this happened we have to ask ourselves another question: ‘Why is it that we seem willing to live with the threat of apocalypse rather than trying to seriously alter a world where consumption, of anything, is seen as unrelieved virtue, production, of anything, is regarded as a social and economic necessity, and more, of anything (like children or cars or chemicals or PhDs or golf courses or recycling centres), is unquestioningly accepted?’
The answer, of course, is that the great majority of people do not want to do away with an economic system (it is called industrial capitalism) that provides them with material riches (sometimes in great abundance), longer lives, and non-stop palliatives like entertainment, alcohol, prescription drugs, sports and television. And the few who would like to do away with it are essentially powerless and ignored, accommodated, intimidated or repressed by the governmental and corporate powers-that-be.
The problem here is that industrial capitalism rests completely on two principles that simply fly in the face of ecological sanity. The first is the imperative of growth – of the market, of the firm, of industry, of first-quarter sales, of scientific knowledge and technological innovations, of population in general and a consuming population in particular. The second is the exploitation of resources, the using up of the earth’s irreplaceable treasures of every kind – from diamonds to oil, and forests to soil – for the benefit of human material comfort; there is only the merest consideration of the effects of this extraction, of what happens when the resources are manufactured into what economists call goods or of what happens when those goods are used, or how they are disposed of.
And it doesn’t matter that the search for techno-fixes is beyond the control of the techno-fixers to the point that Bill Joy – one of the giants of Silicon Valley – was moved just last year to caution against the potentially disastrous consequences of continuing research into genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechnology.
No these things don’t matter; our belief in the techno-fix is solid and beyond challenge. And that’s why we don’t take seriously those who warn of apocalypse. And that’s why we’re unlikely to realise how we can change the way we live so as to save our planet.
But I would add this: if there is any hope here, if we can convince enough people of the true nature of our economic system and the reality of the threats it poses to the world it will be because of our asking all the relevant questions. Not just the obvious ones: ‘Where does it hurt? Who did it? How long has this been going on?’ But the harder questions, too: ‘Why is this happening? What will it take to stop it? And how can we fashion the elements of an ecological society – one that is modest, attentive to nature’s laws and embraces the values of the living earth – as if that society were the only one available, and prevent a return to previous wrongs?’
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» DKs nailed it... Give me convenience, or give me death! nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: DKs nailed it... Give me convenience, or give me death! nm
Posted by: Krain61
» RE: Kirkpatrick sale in the Ecologist 2003.
Posted by: Krain61
» RE: Kirkpatrick sale in the Ecologist 2003.
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eddie torres on Mar 8, 2007 8:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, disciples of the US neo-cons will resurface in 2020 to launch wars-of-choice against religious 'undesirables' (7.5 billion) with nuclear weapons.
As long as your descendants can survive the 30 year "Great Contraction," your DNA will proceed to future human endeavours. Ryan Black's stand a pretty good chance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 8, 2007 8:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- all the air miles from all the green-related conferences and such since 1990
- all the paper used for all the reports (agenda 21 etc. etc.)
- all the energy expended to raise millions for Greenpeace etc.
- all the energy being expended in this new green gold rush
- the millions and millions (maybe billions) spent on ineffective green projects around the world
Total it up and your eye balls will pop out of your head.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I would love to see a green waste calculation
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: I would love to see a green waste calculation
Posted by: DaBear
» Let Me See If I Don't "Misunderestimate" You...
Posted by: grumble-bum
» History will judge you very badly
Posted by: Bobsays
» You Haven't A Clue How History Will Judge Anything!
Posted by: Douglas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grumble-bum on Mar 8, 2007 10:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like with an onion ("organic" or not), people face a multitude of layers when making socially & environmentally beneficial choices in their consumption.
Some would have us blissfully remove only the outer layer (traditional Corporate/Industrial production models), while not realizing that every layer of the onion is capable of becoming a new protective outer layer. In other words, one need only look to the multiple formerly independent & "green" companies listed in the article who have been "forced" by the Marketplace to sell into the same industrial giants they initially served as alternatives to.
Others, seeing this potential for Corporate corruption of otherwise beneficial products & ideas, insist that we peel away all of the layers, or simply throw away the onion altogether. As appealing as this absolutist stance may be (I often find myself wishing we would just "burn it all down & start again", in my more frustrated moments), a "nothing or nothing" approach will simply never be willingly adopted by Humanity as a whole. The cat's out of the bag, folks. Barring massive catastrophe, we will never return to a money-free Eden. Even if we did, we'd find ourselves in crisis again, eventually. Witness recent discoveries about the rise & fall of the earliest Mayans...
So, consumers must make the best choices they can in attempting to find an onion they can both peel & still eat. Something the article doesn't cover in any real depth is local sustainability networks. It chooses to focus on a handful of companies that do a better/"greener" job at bringing what are essentially luxury products into the North American market while providing the people who produce them with a potentially higher standard of living. This is wonderful, on some levels. I do feel better drinking my Fair-Trade certified coffee or enjoying the healthier option of Yerba Mate drinks & knowing that they are being produced less destructively & literally humanely. But that doesn't address the fact that neither of these products are indigenous to my locale. They must be shipped vast distances to reach my stomach, thus largely negating any positive environmental impact initially felt in their country of origin. The article states that Yerba Mate is grown in a Mass-Ag fashion for domestic consumption in it's home country, yet grown "green" for ours. So, as much as I enjoy the product, wouldn't a better focus of the profiled company be to change the way the localized market gets it's Yerba buzz? That would more closely fit the definition of "beyond organic", as I have come to understand it.
As any visit to Whole Foods (or soon enough - shudder - Wal*Mart!) demonstrates, "organic" is an easily manipulated & negated term. The real change needs to take place in making "smaller" choices, in enclosing the supply chain into tighter loops. The "beyond organic" concept would say that sometimes this means choosing a non-"organic" product over an "organic" one, based on locality & sustainability issues. For instance, when shopping for a bell pepper or grass-fed beef steak, I would want to choose the one that is grown closer to my home (thus reducing transport impact & strengthening my local economy) whether it's certified as "organic" or not. This means that I may have to make a few sacrifices if I wish to really practice it, but if done consistently also gives me a little moral room to "splurge" on products that might not strictly fit the paradigm. Such as this computer I'm typing on.
Whew. Choices, choices, choices...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 8, 2007 10:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's laudable that there are folks trying to just do what makes sense ecologically, however imperfect their efforts might be to the armchair-perfectionado-generalistas on Alternet's comment forums. It seems to me that only a bioregionally bounded economic system can even hope to be sustainably "beyond organic." In fact, IMM, Jay's use of the classic yuppie phrase "beyond organic" is what sends chills down my spine. These wealthy entitled types who can afford the carbon heavy plane tix to the Amazon (I wonder if he really "worked all day in the heat" without lunch.. hard to imagine a Jay being capable of that--I kept picturing scenes from Heart of Darkness while reading Jay's idyllic-intended "prose") always have a gift for hijacking real people's work with a euphemism that smacks of an Ivy League marketing degree bias. Ick.
I wonder when that Dimitri-sailboat-network-guy is gonna start moving "beyond organic" coffee and Yerba Maté between Central Am and North Am? I wonder what local-globalised economies trading between bioregions would look like... Maybe then my indigenous soap plant harvest excess would get me a cup a coffee now and again. What'd really rock my world is if I could grow my own supply of THC... now there's a sustainable export crop!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Mar 8, 2007 12:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You might ask "What can we do about it?"
Plenty -- just SPEAKING UP would be a great help. How do we educate people about a critical problem by ignoring it? Seriously, what other problem do we treat like that?
Some people fear dealing with overpopulation leads to genocide. It should be obvious that birth control prevents genocide. Ignoring overpopulation leads to genocide.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: As usual, population growth is too scary to even think about, let alone speak about.
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: As usual, population growth is too scary to even think about, let alone speak about.
Posted by: Pat Kittle
» RE: As usual, population growth is too scary to even think about, let alone speak about.
Posted by: itsjusterk
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edith on Mar 8, 2007 12:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Substitutes for carbon based materials may be in the future, but they are not in the near future. Yet urgent cutbacks in carbon dioxide emissions are demanded now. Perhaps these are wise demands. But who is looking out for the consumer and for the worker who simply used the form of transportation and power that Big Industry provided.
People's livelihoods are at stake ant the greens, whom I admire, cannot simply focus on elimination of CO2 emissions. Real people in the near term will be badly hurt by sharp cutbacks in CO2. What is to be done?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Everyone in Britain is watching a programme about the global warming myth
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: workers of the world
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» what is the lincoln initiative?
Posted by: itsjusterk
» RE: what is the lincoln initiative?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» "What is to be done?" (about overpopulation, right?)
Posted by: Pat Kittle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bob t on Mar 9, 2007 7:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I AM the last catholic in america that is not a republican or a papist since the pope sold out his values for political power in america and over america. Wake up america elect a catholic or a republican or any radical right wing religious and there will be no more america just one giant corporatocracy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: itsjusterk on Mar 9, 2007 10:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Family dollars are now like mini wal marts. We sell crap: Awful food, cheap products, and pre paid phones (anything to take poor people's money). And everything comes wrapped in plastic. I feel awful because this is really the only place that my neighbors shop. They praise Wal mart and think it is the mecca of shopping. And would go there if only it was closer.
I do not shop there. Until recently I didn't shop at all. I just took stuff. Mainly from upscale corporate stores.
I and others like me go to those stores for a reason. Well a few reasons.
1) we can rationalize It. Stealing from a mom and pop store would have direct effects, but stealing from a big corporation has little effect. And if you really hate the company, it makes you feel good, like your doing something right. We all know this is bullshit; we just want things we can't afford.
2) The quality. imagine choosing between canned salmon and organic salmon steaks.
3) It's Easy stores in my neighborhood are all about the loss prevention. And if they tackled someone thinking they were stealing, and were wrong. The person would probably never think to sue, and would come back simply because of lack of options. Upper-class stores even if they caught someone stealing would still be too worried about liability to be rude to them.
But most people are not like me. Most people believe stealing is wrong, immoral (I just think of it as capitalism).
And "environmentally safe", "organic" products are just a luxury they cannot even afford to think about.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Abi Tucker on Mar 11, 2007 5:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffF on Mar 12, 2007 5:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pfm on Mar 13, 2007 11:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Mar 17, 2007 4:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At first the directors doubled their incomes with extreme salaryraises and bonusses of hundreds of thousands of euroos.
Now prices no go LOWER but go up with 100%...
So the result of marketing economie here was no gain for the consumer..
Strange is that FRANCE still has its state controlled electricity.
Before the GREEN parties shouted: Blame on France, the electricity is made in atomic factories......
But in France the price is 50% for the consumer so the Dutch corporations buy it also there
and we still have to pay the high price, because the GREEN party says; it is OK not made from peak oil or coal, it is real nature saving.
And using food to make ethanol to put in your car is a shame.
Remember 1 gallon gasoline now costs here $ 10,= including green house saving taxes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say




