While fair trade may not benefit all farmers, the unstated part is that conventional coffee has disadvantaged many more farmers. The article only really says that fairtrade may be suboptimal, not that conventional is doing so much better.

The article goes on at length about how the fairtrade price premium can stimulate overproduction, but also mentions how fair trade is a tiny part of coffee production, in which prices are already too low for labor. Something in the conventional system has massively stimulated overproduction as it is, but what that is is not addressed.

I'm guessing plenty of Grist food specialists will have something to say about the rather one-sided arguments about organic yields and land cover, but again there is no mention about problems related to mono-cropping and soil fertility.

While we do need better policies and better systems for validating labels, existing labels provide an important voice for citizen interests in a system where these issues were getting no traction. No one can look at the growth in organics and say people don't care about what's in their food or where it comes from. The growth in organics, fair trade or local foods makes it harder for politicians to ignore the issues that drive those movements. Labels are no substitute for good policies, and we still need to advocate for better policies. But when policiticians seem to have abdicated their role in public health these labels are helping stimulate change.

The article mentions that if farming went organic, then many more acres would need to be under cultivation and that we would need to farm the rain forest. This is a recyled version of the argument the agro-business funded Hudson Institute has been making for years.

Hello! The rain forest is being farmed - with GMO soybeans in Brazil, for example, to feed factory livestock farms. Brazil is now among the top three largest exporters of soybeans in the world and is burning rainforest and applying agro-chemicals to do so.

As for the claim that organic will take more land, this is entirely based upon the assumption that organic yields less and thus needs more land to farm. But the longest running study comparing organic and conventional methods, published in Science, found that organic agriculture has about 10 percent deficit in yield in grains. Several universities in the U.S. have found that deficit in the range of 4 percent to nil. Other studies have shown organic outperforms conventional farming in years of drought. Finally, the problem  with conventional farming has been soil depletion through overuse of chemicals - something that India is now experiencing and one reason they are looking beyond the Green Revolution to organic altenratives. Comparing one year's results might point to lower yield, but what about the long-term?

Finally, the article goes on about the energy costs of buying local. But the fundamental assumption is that the free market is a better solution than targeted buying by consumers. Free trade barriers, Third World farmers will benefit and everyone will be better off. I recall similar arguments with energy - after all, Iran and the Saudi's have the competitive advantage in that areana. But whoops, it also leads to problems like war in the Middle East. So much for competitive advantage.

Global warming, pollution, all those "externalities" that Grist likes to talk about are THE RESULT of the free market. If we left it to the free market, we'd be sun bathing in the North Pole.

Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

It seems once again that the article is focused on attacking unconventional thinking from a conventional standpoint without addressing the shortcomings with the conventional system. For example, the food-vehicle miles idea is a better way to think about the situation, but what does that have to do with driving by the consumers, who will have to drive to the supermarket anyway and often will drive extra?

And, this whole article is predicated on the food system in Britain, only citing examples such as carting in food from New Zealand. The authors of the research (from New Zealand, ahem)state that it is energy efficient to get dairy products, lamb, apples and onions from NZ to UK then to grow them in UK, because UK is more energy intensive. In a nearly identical climate, that only points that NZ's practices are smarter, not that it is better to deliver them from NZ to UK, and that UK should switch to these practices.

I guess I could have done a better job, but I have other things to do right now.

1. Buying local is part of a a "free market" solution- it's you the consumer freely choosing to buy from who you want to buy from- it is entirely consistent with classic economics

2. The Economist has been consistently opposed to agricultural subsidies and has been pretty good on climate change policy- these are very smart people who are not simply mouth pieces for rightwing orthodoxy

3. As to organics- even a 10% differential in land use multiplied across the world is huge. Also, many organic inputs are worse for the environment than conventional under some circumstances- the point being that you can't be default say organic is always better.

4. As to the point that conventional soy beans are destroying the rain forest that is true- no one is saying that the conventional system is perfect- Brazil is faced with an interesting situation and if all goes well it might not be what environmentalists ideally want but it might not be too bad- in exchange for allowing a chunk of the rain forest to be developed for agriculture the government will permanently protect the rest- the ag business is so hugely responsible for Brazil's rise that it might end up making them wealthy enough to finally take preseving the majority of the rain forest in perpituity. I'm not saying this is ideal, but it's not a worse case scenario.

5. As to coffee growers being poor in the conventional system-yes- there is simply no room for 20+ countries and a hundred million farmers to live middle class lives growing coffee- the same could be said for dozens of things- countries that don't transition out of low value goods are destined to perpetual poverty and keeping large numbers in the coffee industry decade after decade is a bad strategy.

I believe it is inherent that the wealthy population of the world requires poor (and sometimes downright impoverished people) in order to produce for them. I cannot see a way, particularly with current economics, how this issue can be resolved. I would like your opinion on this matter as an economist from the conventional model of thought.

1. You really think capitalism needs poor people to be successful? How about the Great Depression? Record unemployment- millions looking for work- and it was capitalism's worst decade ever. This is a lingering fallacy that really needs to be debunked. Capitalism prospers when people HAVE MONEY to buy things- this require a strong middle class- China's rise is leading to higher wages and this is GOOD for capitalism.

2. Brazil's soybean industry is super high tech and super industrial and part of a larger diversified economy that includes manufacturing- look at the major coffee-growing economies and if only they could emulate Brazil they would be so lucky. Brazil still has huge problems but they are making big progress. Agricultural development is almost always the first step in development but it needs to transform from small-scale peasant agriculture- if it stagnates on that level the countries are doomed to poverty.

It's a lot of land, but WAY less than the 300% cited in the economist article. Given other factors (such as it not even being 10%) that marginal difference could be absorbed or made up elsewhere.

1. 'Record unemployment- millions looking for work- and it was capitalism's worst decade ever.' I wasn't saying that capitalism ONLY works when there are poor people. It very well could NOT work. Obviously, a market economy has failed in some instances. I was saying that in order to have a middle class (which generally does not produce, but sophisticates the raw product, or creates information or creates new products and inventions) you need a class that produces. Without raw product, there would be no middle class.

And in order to get the raw product, including food, the middle and upper classes need lower class in order to collect the raw product and deliver it and work on the processes created by the middle class. There are no ways to do away with this problem unless EVERYTHING is automated.

2. Super high tech soy bean industry: good or bad? They have replaced a diverse landscape... I'm not even going to argue all that. The difference between coffee and soy production is that soybeans are cheaper and thus much more efficient to grow on flat soil with very large inputs of (currently) petro-fuels. Coffee, on the other hand, only grows well in mountainous regions, and in the tropics mountainous regions are usually impossible to traverse using automated equipment. There is a need for actual manual labor. Until there will be significant strides in helicopter/gondola coffee picking, manual labor is what gets it to us. On top of that, in many of these localities, coffee is one of the best crops for export.

You know, and I'm not trying to take a shot, I think in many ways, economic theory has too much stake in the substitutability of the product/source. Land (topography, climate, soils, rainfall) is not the same everywhere, certain climates can only produce certain types of product. That's why midwestern US is not exactly known as the 'apple basket' of the world.

"These are very smart people who are not simply mouth pieces for rightwing orthodoxy"
- Well, they took the Hudson Institute line hook line and sinker and that think tank has repeatedy distorted studies and spread mistruths (claiming the entire spinach e. coli situation was due to organic spinach for example.).

"As to organics- even a 10% differential in land use multiplied across the world is huge."
- As the FAO has pointed out, there are food surpluses in the world and ample grassland for expansion, especially in near Asia. People aren't starving because we don't produce enough food - they are starving because they cannot afford to buy the food we produce. Organic is a low-cost method of producing higher-yielding crops in the third world, where farmers cannot afford chemical inputs.

"Also, many organic inputs are worse for the environment than conventional under some circumstances"
- Many? Such as? The article mentions copper, which is used by conventional farmers as well. Organic farmers are limited in its application. The article makes the case for no-till farming, which in conventional farming is possible with huge herbicide use and GMO crops. Anyone reading Acres USA realizes no- and low-till  IS practiced by organic farmers but they rely on crop and rotation strategies rather than herbicides.

"Agricultural development is almost always the first step in development but it needs to transform from small-scale peasant agriculture- if it stagnates on that level the countries are doomed to poverty."

But there are many cases where intensive agriculture simply concentrates land and production in the hands of the few, and leaves the masses in teaming cities. This is development? There is a way to approach agricultural development, without the downside of intensive, costly and concentrated production, which leaves farmers unemployable. Simple steps like drip irrigation on small-scale plots and yes, organic methods, which as I said earlier are low cost. India is pushing forward in this direction precisely because intensive agriculture has left so many people out of the equation, has required so much water, and still not provided adequate sustenance for its population.


Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

This is what I argue in my paper on the possibility of a true Global Citizens Movement

I agree with the Economist that markets and improved technologies will not save the day. We need a widespread social movement -- one that demands investment in the infrastructure needed to promote lifestyle transformation. Why do people drive SUVs anywhere?? Let's build our homes close to where we work and shop, let's invest in public transit and make it convenient and affordable.

New regulations, taxes, and investments are needed if we are to create an ecologically sustainable and socially just planetary society. This won't happen by putting out our recyclables and buying organic -- such action is mostly symbolic, signaling a desire to do something and solidarity with others who also share that desire. It is consciousness raising, but hardly emotionally satisfying or ecologically significant.

We need a hopeful rigorous vision, offering plausible solutions to global systemic problems that can inspire a social movement. For those of you who agree with this line of thought, you might want to check out the work of the Great Transition Initiative, which is a network of some of the best scholars, futurists, and policy experts from around the world attempting to articulate a hopeful vision of our global future.

Orion is the Organizer for the Great Transition Initiative(www.GTInitiative.org)

Turns out, the Economist discovered organic and fair trade aren't utopia-perfect, and buying local alone won't cure all human woes. Wow! Brilliant observation! Wait -- Haven't the activists in the organic, fair trade, and local movements been pointing out the issues brought up in this article for years, and actually working to do something about them? Could it be that the Economist is simply taking these movements' healthy self-critiques, and trying to use these critiques to bash the movements altogether?

This is a great example of how a mainstream pub puts down innovative and complex solutions-in-process, thereby leaving us with nothing but the current bad ideas and bad policy -- and a sense of apathetic resignation to boot. Solving our environmental problems isn't a simple issue, and those deep in the organic, fair trade, and local food movements are most aware of the kinks that need to be ironed out. Taking this Economist piece seriously requires putting aside any attemt to rethink our assumptions, categories, and biases, and passively accepting that the status quo is as good as it gets.

(also posted on greenlagirl):

http://greenlagirl.com/

P.S. I am going to get back to all of the other comments soon as well. Thanks.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

In any case -- Looking forward to reading some posts 'bout the Economist analyses that could really (and I hope realistically -- more realistically and effectively than the efforts of organic, fair trade, or local food movements) change things on the magnitude you describe --

http://greenlagirl.com/

They require subscription but if you have access to lexisnexis you can get them. Highlights: carbon taxes, opposition to subsidies, the use of market solutions to solve fisheries problems and other open access issues- good stuff.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

1. sulfur is highly toxic and used quite intensively by organic growers. here in monterey many of the organic nitrate fertilizers from strawberries are damaging sloughs and coastal watersheds- i'm not claiming conventional is better than organic, only that organic has plenty of problems of its own

2. the concentration of agricultural production is tricky- in many ways it's great- we are rich because less than 2% of our people work in agriculture not despite of this- but there are many problems with concentration, especially due to subsidies which are the most responsible- take production subsidies out of the equation and the picture would be better

3. i don't think it's fair to say that the economist took the hudson institute line- there are some very smart people besides them who caution major transitions to organics

4. what i'm for is a system without subsidies, where producers pay for the environmental damage they cause, and then let everyone compete on an equal footing- sound ok to you?

The article quotes Parke Wilde's comment.

http://greenlagirl.com/

The problem is that the aledged root causes that "free" market advocates identify, frequently benefit corporate power as usual and hurt those fighting corporate power.  Cherry picking is the same rule in conservative liberarianism as it was in the "intelligence" used by the neo-conservatives to justify invading Iraq.

It's the neo-culture emulating the methods used by the villianous, fictional  police state in "1984".  It's as if the propagandists studied Orwell's work in order to do a better job at dictatorship of the proletariat than the failed ones in Russia and China.  Using a multinational corporate version.

JS tries to put a friendly face on it.  But it's the same old jive.  Talk of his liberal credentials doesn't change his methods.  The headline on this article says it all.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

"(There is no clear evidence that conventional food is harmful or that organic food is nutritionally superior.)"

Sound familiar?  It should.

It is the same anthem used by the corpor-right around global climate change and the link between smoking and cancer and "creationism" versus evolution.  Refer to Al's "An Inconvenient Truth".

It works by raising doubt, calling scientific evidence and reasoning "theory".  Then the walk down the garden path starts, accept the false premise and you have bought into the false conclusion.  It is just that simple.


http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

As others are pointing out here and elsewhere online, an inexcusable proportion of the The Economist's key criticisms don't stand up to scrutiny. One that I haven't seen debunked is that demand for Certified Fair Trade foods - in this case, coffee - somehow increases demand for their non-fair trade counterparts, thereby increasing production and lowering prices even more. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this is like arguing that demand for Priuses increases demand for Hummers or that demand for organic apples increases demand for all apples. There is coffee (and tea and chocolate and bananas etc.) and there is Certified Fair Trade coffee. When shoppers buy more Fair Trade products, demand for THOSE PRODUCTS increases, sending a signal that it's safe for more producers to switch to growing these commodities in this more socially and environmentally responsible way. Another signal is sent to producers of the non-Fair Trade commodities: demand is falling, produce less.

Syd Baumel
Publisher, Eatkind.net

But seriously, if you all are interested in being serious here are my responses:

1. Tom- I pointed out the subsidy issue because that is much more responsible for environmental destruction than anything else- we could buy organic and fair trade all day and it wouldn't come close to the benefits of removing agricultural subsidies- that's all- let's keep our eye on the ball

2. Those who think organic and fair trade are different than 'corporate' need to go check out the composition of these industries- they are not simply 'mom and pop' operations

3. Personally, I would rather support a good corporation (like Starbucks) than a small business full of people who treat their workers like crap- there is no correlation between the size of a business and how it treats workers

4. Those who think that coffee-producing nations have a future in focusing on coffee should read a little about the history of economic development- I for one would like to see more doctors, computer programers and engineers in the developing world and less farmers, but hey, I'm just an economist who wants people to live middle class lives instead of slaving away in fields all of their life so don't pay attention to what I say

5. I buy all organic and all local food, but the difference is, I don't romanticize it- it's great- I love it- but industrial food can be efficient and safe and healthy too and I eat it sometimes also. I just happen to be relatively wealthy by world standards and choose to spend some of that money on specialty fresh food.

And they will surely reciprocate that preference, if you become important enough to rate it.  That is the goal of all budding corporate think tank spokespersons.

To join the corporate jet class.   With the likes of the bonnie princes of the divine right of capital like duuhbya himself.

If you can get onto the latest debate on cable news on the corporate side with CATO or AEI under your talking head?  You made it!!

Good luck with that.  

We the people will keep right on going on the level of real competitive capitalism, small business, the real growth engine of the world economy down through history.  

The princes, wether theocratically corporate feudal with an eveangelical oily sheen like duuhbya or with an oily jihadic sheen like Bandar, are vampires feeding off the blood of we the people and our businesses.

  Gaaawd wants it that way, it's the divine right of capital to victimize us all for our own good.  

You are helping maintain the natural order according to the neo-culture that is bound and determined to secure the benefits of gaaawd's own freedonm for all people everywhere, even if they have to kill most of them in the process.

They are on a mission from gaaawd! And only corporate efficiency can possible win this crusade.  Government of, by, and for we the people only gets in the way.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

That neo-culture keeps on marching to war.  With the cross of exxxoooon, going on before!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

So how the hell (pardon my french) are we supposed to get coffee, or potatoes, or carrots, or greens, or whatever? You seem to think that fieldwork is done away with as soon as you get doctors, or lawyers, or economists. But despite all of this, the clear majority of the food that we eat (i.e. good fresh food hopefully) is picked and given to you by people who are not 'slaving' away, but rather do it because they like it.

That's a bit of a sentimental argument, but the truth is that the people that pick the crops are absolutely necessary.

1.  Agree.  This is a big one.  It's these subsidies that make my vegetarian sandwich cost more than a hamburger.  I hate that.

2.  Yes, pretty the whole prepackaged organic food industry is owned by the same big corporations that own the 'conventional' food industry.  I'm not sure how much difference this makes, but I'll choose Organic Valley over Horizon pretty much any day.

3.  I was in a Starbucks once; I can't remember why.  (I don't drink coffee.)  My sense is that, in general, the bigger the corporation, the more it will concentrate wealth among the wealthy and spend it somewhere else.  However, I've also found that the small businesses, surprisingly, often have rather poor service.

4.  Farm life is a good life, but farmers should produce food for themselves rather than commodities to export.  

5.  I'm a believer in organic and buy it whenever I can.  My paycheck is stretched quite thin, but buying organic is very important to me.

1. Starbucks is one of the most progressive corporations in the world- with full health benefits even for part-time employees- the biggest and most influential corporations- Microsoft, Google, etc.- are doing some amazing work- some corporations are bad but so are some people- again, show me evidence that the larger a corporation gets the worse its environmental performace- you won't be able to- I'll bet on that

2. Atreyger- I said few farmers, not zero farmers- we have less than 2% of the population working in agriculture and produce more food than ever in our history- maybe you want a future where large majorities still slave away doing back breaking work in fields but I don't- I don't romanticize hard manual labor from behind a keyboard- those who want to stay in farming fine, but I bet if they had a choice they would love to have more economic opportunities that got them out of the fields- and where does that choice come from? A market economy

I know a few farmers and they're in it for the hard manual labor and producing off the land.

The 2% figure I don't think includes migrant labor.

There are some clear benefits to some aspects of industrial agriculture, but most are accrued through research not practice.

clearly subsidies are deleterious, cause they create things like the corn mafia

we're only capable of maintaing 2% due to oversimplification of food products (mostly beef and corn) and CHEAP petroleum

any other similar market economy relies on other countries to produce food, i.e. britain,etc. they all import.

a comparison of us to these 'small' economies is relatively meaningless, b/c of difference in land scale.

if I could make more money as a starting farmer, i would do it in a hardbeat, I am sick of and because of looking at a computer screen all day.

fortran blows

I work in a cubicle, looking at a computer most of the time.  If I could support my family by farming, I would do that instead.  Fresh air, excercise, and the soft earth under my feet -- that's a good life.  This -- sitting in this cell, two plants visible, under fluorescent light -- is artificial life.  

When I was in college, about 15 years ago, I had to make a decision.  Go for personal happiness and abandon the modern lifestyle, or personal sacrifice and work within the system.  And here I am.

There are some benefits to our modern society, and I take advantage of some of them; but as someone who works both in an office and on a farm, I would choose the farm.  The grass is way greener at home.

Given the latest renewable technology your farm/home could replace your income selling electricity back to the grid.  

And with a new energy policy that takes away corporate welfare for the exxonmob and gives tax credits for investing in renewables to farmers and home and small business owners, you could inverst in the transitioon while still working the day job a few more years.

Then farmers could farm organically for quality, instead of trying to compete in an agribizz monopoly game on quantity.  25% of Wisconsin dairy farmers have gone to organic-friendly rotational grazing.  It is far more profitable than regular dairy farming (hopelessly trying to compete  with illegal worker manned feedlot dairying in the southwest). And the rotational grazing method gives farmers a couple of months off in the winter.

The potato McDie's uses for it's french fries needs 17 applications of different agrichemicals in the first two weeks!  Otherwise the variety gets a flaw in the skin that makes ugly fries, gaaaasp!!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

I don't think anyone here endorses supporting "a small business full of people who treat their workers like crap" or "organic" farms that find every loophole possible in the current organic standards to benefit their bottom line. Your tendency toward ridiculous hyperbole in describing grassroots movements is both puzzling and disturbing.

In short, I'm quite shocked at your willingness to assume the best of big corps, and the worst of organic, fair trade, and local movements. What gives?

http://greenlagirl.com/

I don't know the details about the Honduras episode, so educate me. Maybe on that issue they were wrong. Maybe not. I don't know. Have you heard Starbucks point of view or do you just assume that any claim against a big company is true?

How about this- we agree that it is results we agree on, not whether a company is big or small- that's a start. And from there we can examine different practices and make our judgments. But given Starbucks incrediblly generous benefits and pay packages for retail work I stand by my original claim until proven otherwise.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

This is the beauty of rotational grazing (especially organic, it boosts the price farmers get) it allows for this winter vacation by resting the cows in the winter, when feed prices are high.

And due to lower overhead (no hugely expensive machinery loan payments, GMO seed, and agri-chemicals) and better prices they can actually afford a vacation.

Now add in biogas digestion and wind and solar and the $$ from energy sales into the grid and biodisel from algae solsar collectors would rival the profits from the milk.

We need to get bio-willy off of fuel farming (that only benefits corporate agri-bizz) and onto this bandwagon.  

He can still be bio-(diesel)-willy, but tout biodiesel from algae and biogas from manure and farmers as electric power producers from wind, solar, and manure/farm waste biogas with fuel cell V2G technology.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

I think that monopolies ARE inherently corrupt.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If a large corporation competes fairly and is regulated to shut out the temptation of becoming monopolistic, then it could be possible to maintain it's integrity.

We have virtually no regulation or enforcement around anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws left.  The hidden agenda behind these pro-corporate arguments is to continue the disastrous legacy of industry self (no) regulation, only seriously opposed by TR (the "trust buster") a century ago, and  re-energized in the 80s by the so-called "Reagan revolution".

The abuses by the ultra-powerful corporate class have reached a deadly level with the oil wars lead by lord cheney of halliburton.

Ironically, most arguments in favor of monopoly corporate rule, use so-called "free" markets as their ultimate justification!  Incredible.

Blinded by the (neo-corporate) right!  Dreaming of living that corporate jetset lifestyle?  Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/25/101437/786

Also, we have relatively strong anti-trust laws in both the U.S. and the EU but they are largely inconsequential in many agricultural markets because of so much competition. There is some growing monopsony power with big retail buyers for sure, but those are actually hugely beneficial to consumers.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Companies -- particularly publicly traded companies -- exist to make money. That's their focus.

The responsibility for seeing to it that companies are constrained in such a way as to benefit the public falls on, yes, the public sector.

Companies of any size will pay for the externalities we make them pay for. They'll treat employees as well as labor laws dictate.

I hate this focus on companies like they're people -- nicer or meaner people. The focus should be on laws and regulations.

grist.org

The ability of companies to convince people they ARE "good guys" by doing 1 or 2 "nice" things derails effective action. Yes, we can argue that there is the occasional corp that actually cares about a better world -- but that's v. much the exception than the rule.

Which is to say to J.S. that -- while I think your Q to me's a bit nervy considering that you've clearly not investigated Starbucks beyond its press releases before touting it as a model of a morally excellent corp -- yes, I've done a helluva lot of research on Starbucks, including talking to Sue Mecklenberg, Cindy Hoots, Andy Fouche, many many baristas and store / district managers, etc. etc. And I've done enough research to know that while Starbucks has an excellent PR & marketing dept., it's hardly an ethical company overall. The effort to push Starbucks to treat all the people it deals with AS PEOPLE has been a near-decade-long struggle already.

And I say that while admitting that, compared to many other big publicly traded corps, Starbucks does better. Of course, that's not saying much.

Which makes me marvel again on how quick J.S. is to deride fair trade, organic, and local movements for not being perfect, while defending big corps cuz, well, they can't be expected to be perfect.

http://greenlagirl.com/

As to the CSR article- one of the authors is a good friend and yes I am familiar with his argument. Overall, I tend to agree although I think I do have problems with their paper.

In my view X amount of energy and effort spent on getting the right politicians elected and forwarding better national and international legislation is almost always better than spending that same X amount of effort and energy on promoting CSR-style reform.

To be continued....

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

Who made corporations citizens?  Corporations bribing government officials.  If you don't like that, try fighting the power,instead of making excuses.  You can't have it both ways.  

Corporate citizens want to be "more equal" ("some animals are more equal than others") with a get out of jail free card, tax haven "headquarters"  offshore, and freedom from regulation.  But then when it comes time to separate  right from wrong, they are not responsible, they are not "people".

The end (profit) does not justify the means, sorry boys.  Efficiency and "free" market rationale cannot replace right and wrong. And the laws we the people have to abide by ARE based on ethics.

But of course ethics are all relative, right?  And impossible to compute.  Tough, that's life.  Deal with it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Another benefit of organic agriculture is eliminating fertilizer runoff.  That extra nitrogen in the wetland, river, and lake ecosystems generates huge quantities of extra methane gas.  It is released into the atmosphere where it serves as a 20 times worse GHG than cO2.

Also organic ag stores CO2 in cellulose in the soil.  The prairie soil was 20 feet deep when settlers started growing wheat, there was a wheat boom, then a bust when soil was dep[leted a few decades later.  1000s of years of stored CO2 was released by that first wave, then fertilizer was added to strip the soil even faster.  Now it's a sterile growing media, only able to produce by flooding it with chemical fertilizer daily.

That creates a huge runoff problem, requiring more fertilizer.  It's a vicious cycle.

How much CO2 would a switch to organic farming store?

A recent study of prairie ecosystems states that 1.8 tons of cO2 are stored per year per acre.  Extrapolating that out, a park ( Prairie National Park?) the equivalent land area to a square 200 miles on a side would sequester all US CO2 emissions.

Even if organic soil only retains half that amount, the conversion of agribizz to organic would absorb dangerous levels of cO2 out of the atmosphere fairly quickly.  maybe 10 to 20 years if only the uS made these changes, maybe only 5 years if the whole globe switched to organic farming and renewable energy.

That's quick enough to head off the worst devestation from global climate change.

I think that using robotic equipment (solar electric powered) as a replacement for diesel tractor/oil fertilizer, chemically toxic, drain-the-Colorado-river-dry irrigated agriculture.  Would make organic ag much more productive than the status quo.  

Does an ethical approach to business yield bigger profits?  Yep.


http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

But without even evaluating these arguments, you were happy to endorse The Economist's views -- just as you were happy to name Starbucks as a great example of a great corporation without actually looking deeper into what Starbucks is doing.

Because your opinions aren't really well-researched, both your critiques (against fair trade, local, and organic movements) and your praises (for Starbucks) seem like knee-jerk reactions to me than an intelligent look at our situation here.

In any case, in case you ARE interested in finding out more about the movements you critique, here's FLO's response to the Economist article.

http://greenlagirl.com/

1. Organic is not by default good for the environment or workers- probably most organic production is, but not all. And isn't this a shame? Shouldn't after all the work that went into organic it be a given that an organic apple or grape, no matter if it meets the absolute minimum standards, be better than a non-organic one? I think so, but this isn't true.

2. I read the Fair Trade article and it's good to know that producers are diversifying, but the Economists' point still stands: the more lucrative coffee becomes the more people may be lured back into it, which will then cause another bust cycle down the road. I wish this weren't so but it's basic economics of commodities.

3. Locally produced food is great, but in many instances it is not better for the environment. Also, I like supporting farmers in other parts of the world; without overseas markets many developing nations would be much poorer.

4. Finally, I stand by my point about Starbucks, which has been rated one of the most socially responsible firms in America. I have also included an article that is somewhat critical of the company, but which demonstrates the catch-22 it faces since it can never live up to the expectations of activists.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/28/leadership-starbucks-cha...

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

You REALLY want to be a person who does not exploit others? How about you go on a strict diet of water (from your own well of course), eggs from various birds ( from your own coup), milk from your cow, fruits, vegetables, wheat, grain, barley, oats, etc (from your own fields of course, that you work with only the people who would consume the product). Ready for the crushing blow, you're exploiting the birds, you're exploiting the plants, and you're even exploiting the cow, DAMNIT free Willie!  (By the way this seems vaguely familiar, oh yea the Amish do it, and you've never made fun of the Amish have you?)

In the end there are those of us who spend time complaining and looking at how bad the world is and hating everything about the structure and there are those of us who accept we live in a modern society. The later of the two realize we should worry about being better people, helping others and the advancement of the human race, rather than thinking about catching up others, because it is only through full enlightenment that we will finally find the answers we all seek.

If you don't think so then you should be doing the above mentioned process of self servitude and not exploiting others and probably living like you are Amish. I'm not saying they're wrong, they are amazing people who live truly great human lives, hell they are the epitome of what you want as a society!

Now go sign up to fight in Iran.  Woohoo, go "exploit" some Persians.  It'll all work out just fine.

Persians hold a grudge?  Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Not the worst form, though. That would be going to war to seize someonone else's natural resources.

My last name is Bush, it's just a nick name, sort of like the Amazing Dr. X, ohm you must be a super villain! HAHAHA Taking face value generalizations is a nice crutch though. Although I'm quite glad you figured out that Iran is Persian and not Arab, very nice. And what really makes you think that we would go to war with Iran? Oh! I know, its GEN Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs saying that Bush's logic is flawed, that's right the military saying that that the Iran allegations are flawed..... Now what are we going to do about attacking Iran without the consent of the top military brass?

Wackatalpidae:

I should not have used Amish, and for that I am sorry. But they do not exploit America; most democratic countries would gladly harbor such great people. I'm glad you can say such good people are "exploiting" America in a security game... I believe they pay taxes so in all reality they can do what they want in the US.

But I was using an educated guess, that if people want to not exploit then become pacifist, what's wrong with that if we all are pacifists, we don't need to worry about war.... HAHAHA all you have to do is look at Africa to see what happens to people who are true pacifists (Kofi Annan and Rwanda). Thus stemming back to humans being innately exploitive? (Not a word I know, but it seems to fit eh?)

I'm sure the above folks who are all about the fair trade would probably agree that we should not have gone to war with Iraq. By the way we haven't gained much if any oil from Iraq, so your argument is flawed).

Both of you are much smarter than your assumptions, I'm merely assuming that though hopefully I'm smarter than mine.

You brought up the Amish as something to strive for. All you have to do is pay your taxes and you are not exploiting rest of community who do your dirty work. NO! You can be a pacifist, but don't pretend you are superior. It does not work unless everyone is a pacifist.

Be honest. Easier to let someone else die. Or in this case, easier to let someone else march on Washinton to protest a war. I'm not asking Amish to sign up for an unjust war. Pacifist or not, no Americans should be in Iraq! But don't try to tell me they would be just fine without a stable democracy to build their community in. Responsibility does not end with paying taxes and voting. If you are quietly living while the rest of the world burns, you are either exploiting and protected by someone else or you will not last much longer.

I am also against this war but for other reasons than you, please read this http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP%20B ...

But it is weird that we're building other infrastructure before oil, if this was about oil don't you think that we would have had tried to restard the oil?