Bottoms up: Pollan on gardening

Growing your own food is fine, but governmental action is needed, and soon

Posted by Maywa Montenegro (Guest Contributor) at 3:39 PM on 21 Apr 2008

I like Michael Pollan -- really, I do -- which is why it was frustrating to see his wilted-salad-green entreaty to act on climate change in yesterday's paper:

The climate-change crisis is at its very bottom a crisis of lifestyle -- of character, even. The Big Problem is nothing more or less than the sum total of countless little everyday choices, most of them made by us (consumer spending represents 70 percent of our economy), and most of the rest of them made in the name of our needs and desires and preferences.

For us to wait for legislation or technology to solve the problem of how we're living our lives suggests we're not really serious about changing -- something our politicians cannot fail to notice. They will not move until we do. Indeed, to look to leaders and experts, to laws and money and grand schemes, to save us from our predicament represents precisely the sort of thinking -- passive, delegated, dependent for solutions on specialists -- that helped get us into this mess in the first place. It's hard to believe that the same sort of thinking could now get us out of it.

Pollan's grand solution? Plant a vegetable garden!

Rip out your lawn, if you have one, and if you don't -- if you live in a high-rise, or have a yard shrouded in shade -- look into getting a plot in a community garden. Measured against the Problem We Face, planting a garden sounds pretty benign, I know, but in fact it's one of the most powerful things an individual can do -- to reduce your carbon footprint, sure, but more important, to reduce your sense of dependence and dividedness: to change the cheap-energy mind.

To be fair, Pollan is right in his understanding that deep-rooted, sustaining change will require a tectonic shift in our mindsets; it will require reestablishing a rapport with nature, and it won't be predicated on pieces of legislation or even green company profiles. But -- and this is a big but -- we simply don't have time to wait around for this slower process to unfold. As Bill McKibben, Joseph Romm, and James Hansen are now saying, the planet is heating at a rate that alarms even scientists (a notoriously staid bunch). Unfortunately, any message that detracts or distracts from the pressing need for robust cap-and-trade legislation, a 350 ppm CO2 goal, aggressive funding for R&D for renewables, and most importantly, great leaps forward in efficiency (which in simplest terms, can equate to "use less energy"), is not exactly what we need.

When our presidential hopefuls are getting the message, from some sectors of the media, that lapel pins are of more concern to Americans than the state of the planet, I guess I'd hope that one of the environmentalists I most respect would pull in the opposite direction and use his pulpit to insist that the time for play is over, that the U.S. government must take action now at the very highest levels. In so doing, it would plant the seeds for international progress on the carbon crisis ... call it gardening on the global scale.

For story: Bottoms up: Pollan on gardening
11 Comments | Post a Comment

intent of the article

Pollan's point -- and I think it's a very important one, and one which he makes very well -- is that individual action and right living is important despite the discrepancy between the scale of the problem and the impact of the individual. I don't think that he is suggesting that this is in any way in conflict with, or in place of, political and legislative action.

Consider his audience: 99% of Americans are not politically involved. Telling those people, essentially, "You must get involved, RIGHT NOW, and affect massive and rapid change to our national politics" (i.e. the message you seem to think would be most appropriate) is not going to recruit any of those 99%. It will just reinforce their belief that the whole thing is too big for them, and give them another excuse to tune out.

On the other hand, the message he did provide was:

Yes, it matters what you do.
There are specific, concrete actions you can take RIGHT NOW, and you should. (No political message I am aware of is, or can be, that immediately concrete.)

With his message, I think he will reach some fraction of the currently-disconnected populace who are frustrated with the size of the problem and their individual impotence. Some of those people he reaches will act on his suggestion. Some of them will become engaged. Some of THEM might even become hardcore political activists and start working the legislative angle. Others may be inspired to make major lifestyle or career changes. Those are real, significant, important things. But you can't expect people to go from 0 to 60 in an instant. If you tell people "You must eat the whole elephant, right now", all you'll get is a bunch of turned-off, disconnected folks.

And yes, I see the immediacy and urgency of the problem. I realize that if we don't act dramatically and quickly, life as we know it is over. I even realize that that point may have already passed -- it may already be too late. Be that as it may, a screed about the need for urgent action is NOT going magically awaken the sleepers. But a well articulated explanation of how and why individuals can make a difference may reach some of them -- and that's alot better than reaching none of them.

by GreenEngineer at 3:53 PM on 21 Apr 2008

It's a mindset

It's a mindset. Once you grow some of your own food, you may begin wondering what else you can do for yourself, not in the sense of increasing isolation or individualism but in the sense of self-reliance. How can we become less reliant on corporations for our basic needs? And gardening opens people to a relationship with plants, soil, creepy crawlies, and a whole word of not-human interations. It's a good thing. Even growing in pots on balconys or a few herbs on the windowsill can open minds a bit. At least that's what I believe.

by SMLowry at 4:38 PM on 21 Apr 2008

Oh . .

Oh my goodness. Sorry about the mistakes. "interactions" and "balconies". My inner-editor kicked in too late.

by SMLowry at 4:40 PM on 21 Apr 2008

cutting co2 emissions won't do it

Maywa, some good points, but as the fourth assessment FAQ section 10.3 of IPCC states, even 100% reductions in co2 emissions in 2007 will only reduce atmospheric ppm by about 40 ppm by the year 2100. That means that 100% reductions will maintain what James Hansen calls dangerous levels not just for a few years, but for generations!

Cutting emissions will help with energy independence, and that's a big deal. But expecting it to solve climate change by itself is a gallant cavalry charge into the barbed wire.

Enhancing the biological carbon cycle will be more effective, and help with the food crisis as well. This will require a transformation of agriculture, but the models are already there.

soilcarboncoalition.org

by Peter Donovan at 4:44 PM on 21 Apr 2008

No time to pick up that fire-extinguisher ...

I'm too busy trying to put out the flames with this rug!

I'm really mystified by this slam at what you (not he) called a "grand solution." As I read that piece, and as I re-read the sections you quoted, I see him saying quite clearly that the fastest way to your proposed path, significant legislation, is by getting people to be intimately involved in a basic (fundamental even) interaction with the environment in a way that makes a profound change in their world view -- by growing food, by turning status-devices of lawns into portals that help people get over the cheap energy mindset.

The key figures you cite ARE all calling for significant legislation at the highest levels -- to no avail thus far, because the people who count votes for a living look at what people really DO as opposed to what they say in order to know what they really think. And, to most people, climate change is an "issue" at most, and thus it gets, at most, lip service.

But let Congressman Jane's district fill up with people who write and say "You know, Rep. Jane, I never thought I'd do something like this, but I am so concerned about climate change and its effects on my kids and grandkids that I've taken up the lawn and started growing a lot of our vegetables. It isn't much, but we all have to do as much as we can, and this is something I can do" and you'll really see a significant change in Jane's attitude.

I've been giving presentations on the "5% Solution to the Climate Crisis" (more info available here, including the slides http://oregonpeaceworks.web.aplus.net/site/index.php?opti ...)
and I can tell you that people are HUNGRY for some sense that what THEY can do matters and that someone is asking them to do something other than write a check that will wind up funding TV advertising and more direct-mail fundraising pitches.

I'm sorry but I think you missed the boat on this entirely.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 6:05 PM on 21 Apr 2008

I'm with JMG

I read the article before I read this post. It seemed clear (to me) that Pollan's argument was that personal action alone cannot solve the problem, policy alone cannot solve the problem; both are needed.

Which is why it is so disappointing to hear politicians (like Barack) say that the best thing we can do is to make more efficient cars. We need to change what we do as well as how we do it. In Pollan's words, changing the cheap-energy way of doing things, not just making the cheap-energy way of doing things more efficient. As citizens, that means not just voting and pestering politicians but also changing how we do things.

by mihan at 8:14 AM on 22 Apr 2008

On missing the boat...

Thanks, everyone for your comments. I anticipated an outpouring of In Defense of Pollan (sorry, too good to pass up), and all your points are well taken. What I was trying--and obviously failing--to get across is that I DO AGREE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE of what Pollan is saying. Lasting change will require revolution in BOTH policy and in mindset (which will or should come first is debatable, since they are obviously intertwined). To borrow from a fantastic new book by James Gustave Speth, the potential drivers of transformative change will be twofold: It will require reframing the dominant values that contribute to today's social and environmental alienation. It will require nothing less than a "new consciousness" that gives priority to "nonmaterialistic lives and to our relationships with one another and the natural world."

Just as importantly, however, it will take a new politics---"a new and vital democratic politics premised on addressing America's growing political inequality and capable of embracing neglected environmental and social needs and sustaining the difficult actions needed."

My rather long-winded point is that I see the "grand solutions" and the "small solutions" as equal players in driving environmental progress. The reason I critiqued Pollan is that I'm afraid his arguments will be mis-used by those in the establishment to drag their feet on legislation. It's very similar, in fact, to why Joseph Romm gets so indignant about technophilic solutions to climate change. The intentions of Pielke et. al are solid---they care about reducing GHG emissions more, indeed, than most people---but their arguments are in danger of being co-opted by those who would use them as rationale for doing nothing.

by Maywa Montenegro at 10:13 AM on 22 Apr 2008
[ Parent ]

Gardening is a subversive act

I don't know that I agree with your assessment that Pielke, etc are in fact well intentioned but misguided, but if I accept that premise for the sake of argument, I think I understand your point.

However, even at that point, I have to disagree. There are a couple of places where the analogy breaks down, in my view.

Pielke and the other techno-optimists argue the position that it doesn't make sense to make major changes, either in our infrastructure or in our personal habits, until better technology comes along (to make those changes painless, in their ideal). Whereas Pollan suggests specific personal actions that can be taken, right now, to push things in the right direction. Even if he's not encouraging people to do the very best thing they could do about the problem, he's encouraging them to do something that is good and useful and positive, and that's a whole lot better than nothing.

I also think you are underestimating the power of Pollan's suggestions. They are presented in a very mild and even-handed fashion, but they are actually quite radical: pull up your lawn, and plant food. That strikes right at the heart of the American suburban dream. The lawn is a holdover from the lord's manor house, when a big lawn meant you owned a big herd of sheep (and enough peasants to shepherd them). Pollan is suggesting disposing of that icon of affluence in favor of something much more practical and real. That's revolutionary.

Also, I think you are underestimating the personal emotional and psychological impact that gardening and growing your own food can have. It can totally transform your relationship with your food and with your natural environment. It is frequently and surprisingly addictive, and it encourages people to pay close attention to elements of the natural world that most modern Americans are disconnected from, like the weather and the insects and what else is in bloom. It strikes directly at the industrial agricultural system, one of our most insidious and ultimately dangerous dependencies. It restores a basic connection between people and their environment. That connection has dominated most of human history, but has been forgotten in recent generations, and I'm convinced that that is part of the reason that people can rationalize the damage that our civilization does to the world: they are ecologically illiterate and they have forgotten that our health and prosperity is ultimately and intimately tied to that of other living systems. And there are certain crops - salad, artichoke, most berries - where the flavor of fresh-picked simply cannot be equaled by anything from the store. That in itself is a visceral eye-opening experience.

They say that there is no evangelist as earnest as the converted. That would be true here, for sure. I'm an engineer, and someone who until about 7 years ago had no interest whatsoever in gardening, and only a passing and casual interest in the environment. Gardening has opened my eyes to fundamental relationships that cannot easily be described but that are clearly and obviously true from experience. It has attuned me to the natural world and taught me to pay attention. And it has had this effect on others that I have talked to -- this isn't just my experience talking.

Don't underestimate the power of planting a garden.

by GreenEngineer at 10:53 AM on 22 Apr 2008

my 2 cents

> "I'm afraid [Pollan's] arguments will be mis-used by those in the establishment to drag their feet on legislation."

And they're embraced on a local level - working in the garden is much more pleasant than trying to collect signatures in front of the supermarket.

by Anna Haynes at 1:18 PM on 22 Apr 2008

Agree 100%

I like Pollan too but Maywa's point is CRUCIAL. This is not really a criticism of Pollan, but if action is going to be taken now (and by "now", I mean 2008/2009) how many new gardens will really be planted in the next couple years? The work that enviropolitical organizers like McKibben have done, organizing rallies, creative campaigns, etc., have put climate change legislation on the map in a big way in a very short amount of time. Even subtle (or accidental) suggestions like Pollan's that most people are "waiting" on their leaders, while maybe true, hurt the cause because they infer that political action hasn't, and won't, truly accomplish anything.

by AllenT45 at 9:30 AM on 23 Apr 2008

Climate Change on the map?

AllenT45 wrote:

The work that enviropolitical organizers like McKibben have done, organizing rallies, creative campaigns, etc., have put climate change legislation on the map in a big way in a very short amount of time.

I guess that you had no chanced yet to see Maywa's "Me Worry" post. According to the information from the Pew studies that she posted, all of the grand stand media attracting actions by Ted Glick and Mckibben, have done little to change public opinion.

Even Frank Luntz got the message and that took some doing for him to admit it. Maybe we should hire Luntz to shape a campaign to country the one he defined originally.

We need to start replacing politicians who don't have the guts to do the right thing. Maybe the only way to do that is to being with the simple act of gardening because what we are doing right now is not working.

Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US

by wesrolley at 10:30 AM on 23 Apr 2008
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.