This April 22, Earth Day turns 44. The green movement is not aging well. Like today’s U.S. Republican Party, it has a diversity problem and speaks primarily to a narrow, graying demographic slice of the United States.
In 2009, Francis Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said to the New York Times:
Our groups are not as diverse as we’d like, but every one of the major groups has diversity as a top priority.There’s great commitment to making the environmental movement representative of what the country is.
That’s debatable. Still, if such a commitment doesn’t pan out, environmentalists will surely become an endangered species. As Barry Yeoman wrote in a 2011 article for Audubon magazine:
For the environmental movement to survive, it must cultivate new leaders who mirror the demographics of a nation that’s now 36 percent minority.
In the Audubon piece, Beinecke says:
If we’re going to have a constituency 20 or 30 years from now, or even 10, it’s critical that we be more inclusive. If we fail to do that, the movement will erode–erode in numbers and erode in political weight.
This diminishing of political influence is already well underway, as Nicholas Lemann observed last year in the New Yorker, in large part because the big green groups operating inside the beltway have “concentrated on the inside game, at the expense of efforts at broad-based organizing.”
But even if Big Green did change its tactics and also add more black and brown faces in its ranks, its future would still look bleak. Part of the problem is that some of the long established groups like Audubon have an identity crisis that they can’t shake. Audubon flirted with diversifying its conservation mission in the 2000s, but has recently pulled back from that effort. (Disclosure: I was an editor at Audubon magazine from 2000-2008, where I had a front seat to the organization’s fitful existential crisis.)
Audubon isn’t the only venerable green group struggling to stay relevant. The Nature Conservancy, one of the most successful conservation organizations, does not appear to have a sustainable membership. As Paul Voosen noted in this article: Read More
The list of supermarkets, companies and restaurants hopping aboard the anti-GMO train keeps growing. Last year Whole Foods and Chipotle made headlines for their pledges to go GMO-free. [CORRECTION: Only Chipotle has made that pledge; Whole Foods has committed to labeling any of its products that contain GMOs] Numerous food companies have already slapped such a label on their products.
This week big grocery chains like Safeway have followed suit with a pre-emptive decision to not carry genetically modified salmon (trademarked as AquaBounty), which is awaiting approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). As Treehugger notes:
Should the FDA green-light the fish, opponents of the salmon hope to block AquaBounty’s channels to the market. In that regard, today’s announcement seems like a major win. Kroger and Safeway join dozens of other grocery stores that have already promised to not carry the genetically engineered fish, including Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Meijer and Aldi.
Anti-biotechnology activists may have been on the losing end of recent GMO labeling ballot initiatives in Washington and California, but their broader campaign again genetically modified foods appears to be succeeding. Never mind that it’s a fundamentally dishonest and disingenuous campaign. It’s not about the “right to know,” it’s about the right to be scared by misinformation and fear-mongering rhetoric. It’s about the right to be manipulated by activists and food companies. As Steve Savage observes: Read More
In the U.S. food is taken for granted. There are well-stocked supermarkets and no shortage of cookbooks and eateries to indulge appetites. This bountiful supply allows Americans to focus more on the aesthetics of food and, to an increasing degree, where and how it is produced.
For the millions around the globe who do not live in an affluent society, the main concern about food is more basic: Getting enough of it on a consistent basis. For many in Africa and Asia, this entails growing cash crops and staple foods.
As the Gates Foundation points out, agricultural enhancement in the developing world is also the key to a better life:
When farmers grow more food and earn more income, they are better able feed to their families, send their children to school, provide for their family’s health, and invest in their farms.
One way to do this is through biotechnology. Note that I said ONE WAY, not the only way. Nor is this just my opinion. Global sustainability guru Jeffrey Sachs has said this.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the GMO debate is how it is framed. Forget the cranks who dominate the discourse–I’m talking about smart, influential thought leaders who simplistically portray GMOs as a well-meaning technology that hasn’t delivered on its grand promises.
A prime example is Jon Foley’s recent essay, titled, “GMO’s, Silver Bullets and the Trap of Reductionist Thinking.” He starts off:
To begin, GMOs have done little to enhance the world’s food security. Mainly, that’s because GMO crops primarily in use today are feed corn (mostly for animal feed and ethanol), soybeans (mostly for animal feed), cotton and canola. But these aren’t crops that feed the world’s poor, or provide better nutrition to all. GMO efforts may have started off with good intentions to improve food security, but they ended up in crops that were better at improving profits. While the technology itself might “work,” it has so far been applied to the wrong parts of the food system to truly make a dent in global food security.
This is a narrow (dare I say reductionistic) way of looking at food security. Feeding the world’s poor, as Foley knows, also requires improving their livelihoods. It’s about lifting their incomes, helping them break the vicious cycle of poverty. There’s much that goes into that economic development equation but in Africa and other areas of the developing world, the role of commodity crops as an income generator for small farmers is crucial.
To cite one example, look at what happened after Bt cotton was introduced in India. (I’m not talking about a certain popular urban myth.) Recent studies show that Indian farmers who turned to genetically modified cotton have increased their yields, lowered their input costs and as a result, boosted their household incomes. Does that not contribute to food security?
Periodically, some readers accuse me of characterizing climate skepticism in an overly broad manner. There are various subspecies, they insist. So I should stop painting all climate skeptics as frothing conspiracy mongers.
My rejoinder is that I base my characterization on the loudest, most relentless climate skeptics, who have made themselves the representative voices of their movement.
In a nod to their different plumages, the climate analyst David Victor has in a recent talk identified three types of “denialism”: Paid shills, actual skeptics, and hobbyists, the latter constituting the majority.
Andy Revkin at his New York Times Dot Earth blog has excerpted highlights of the talk, including this passage that probably doesn’t still well with the missionary contingent in the climate-concerned sphere: Read More
The fundamentally flawed and distorted climate reporting by David Rose in the UK’s Daily Mail is often called out by science journalists and bloggers. His repeated misrepresentation of climate scientists has prompted the UK’s Met office to publicly respond on numerous occasions. It’s unfortunate that one reporter continues to flout basic journalistic principles on an important scientific issue, but at least he does not go unchallenged.
The same cannot be said for John Vidal, the Guardian’s environment editor, who is the David Rose of GMO reporting. Vidal’s coverage of genetically modified (GM) crops is not as outlandish as Rose’s climate coverage, but it is just as slanted. Both have an obvious bias that colors their articles.
For example, look at Vidal’s 2012 story on the discredited rat tumor study by Gilles-Eric Séralini. Respectable science journalists blanched at the circumstances surrounding the study and examined it critically. Vidal, on the other hand, went out of his way to take it seriously.
Last year, Vidal reported on an Indian village where farmers were supposedly producing record crop yields without herbicides and GM technology. One of the soil scientists quoted by Vidal wrote an interesting commentary on the piece, including this bit: Read More
The politicized and polarized nature of the climate debate is well established. Those who track the testy, emotionally-charged conversation on agricultural biotechnology wonder if the GMO discourse is heading down that road.
I’ve argued that the rhetorical tactics of GMO skeptics and climate skeptics are similar. Others have also come to see these commonalities (cherry-picking studies, trafficking in pseudoscience, etc). Additionally, it is unfortunate that numerous greens and progressives have allowed ideology to trump science when it comes to GMOs.
One might conclude that a public dialogue shaped by interest group politics and scientific distortions is a recipe for polarization. But that would be a wrong assumption. As Yale’s Dan Kahan recently said: Read More
When I want to escape the cacophony of civilization, I head to the country. I love to see all the grazing cows as I drive through a quaint rural backroad. The lush, wholesome scenery is exactly like the images on my organic milk and yogurt containers.
Maybe I come across an antique shop, where I find a wooden ironing board from the late 1800s. Not that I’d use it, but at least I’d have something in my cluttered urban dwelling to remind me of a simpler time.
I love the warm, fuzzy sensation I get when I see all the barns and farm fields in the country. It makes me feel rooted to the earth. The landscape is just like a beautiful painting you admire from a distance.
And don’t you love the smell of woodsmoke in the winter? Nothing is more home and hearth than a wood-burning fireplace. It’s primal.
And what about the people that live in the country, who tend to the cows, the fields, and the rustic barns? Read More
Have you ever wondered why some people are fearful of GMOs? Even if you shake your head at this question, it is important to ponder because most discussions of genetically modified crops are shaped more by emotions than facts. This is why the evidence-driven search for truth by Nathanael Johnson was not appreciated by anti-GMO food activists.
Fears of the unfamiliar and ‘unnatural’, and concerns about health or environmental impacts, have frequently prevented approval and adoption of the crops, especially in Europe, where protesters have destroyed experiments.
To really grasp what’s behind this, you have to understand the underlying psychological reasons that lead people to be scared of GMOs. David Ropeik provides a great explainer in the current issue of Cosmos, as Australian science magazine. His piece is part of a package of articles that explores various controversial issues surrounding GMOs and more generally, agriculture. I’ll be discussing many of these pieces in this space over the next several weeks. (Disclosure: I’m a senior editor at Cosmos.) The stakes for agriculture, the environment and food security are considerable. There are unfortunate consequences to biotech opposition, as Cosmos editor-in-chief Elizabeth Finkel notes in her feature:
Paradoxically, activists are attacking precisely those technologies that are helping to reduce chemical use and lifting poor farmers out of poverty.
But it’s not just activists who are opposed to GMOs. As former Guardian reporter Leo Hickman wrote last year:
Polling indicates that, despite a small drop in recent years, opposition to GM food in the UK – and to a greater extent across the rest of Europe – is significant and rigid.
It’s important to understand why this is. Hickman next provided a succinct explanation:
There are many reasons for this – a complicated cocktail of emotion, psychology, politics, ideology and science – but the blunt reality for advocates of GM crops is that they still face a steep incline before them.
A straightforward definition from Wikipedia:
Green revolution refers to to a series of research, development, and technology transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1960s, that increased agriculture production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s.
The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the “Father of the Green Revolution” credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers.
Can we agree that this was, on balance, a good thing? You know, kinda like the industrial revolution. Yes, the latter created new problems that had to be addressed–there were pros and cons–but would you rather go back to living in a pre-industrial society?
The same holds true for the green revolution. It’s fine to acknowledge its downsides, as Robert Zeigler, director general of the International Rice Research Institute, does here in the current issue of Cosmos magazine: Read More
As I have discovered, there are numerous ways to get yourself on the outs with groups of people who otherwise share your values and politics. You could, for example, call out screechy climate demagogues or critique the rhetoric of saintly, well-meaning climate activists.
You could also argue that environmentalism needs to be reinvented and make the case that some of the holiest leaders of the green movement are agenda-driven ideologues who spread urban legends. Even better: Take on a beloved, celebrated leader of the food movement or criticize irresponsible fear-mongering of GMOs in the media. One day I’ll write a book called, “How to lose friends and piss off everyone else.”
But there’s one sacred cow even I have mostly avoided skewering: The Church of the Organic. And that’s because I have been a parishioner. (Gasp!) But trust me when I say it’s really out of lazy habit. And I only started worshipping there after I had kids, just to be…you know…on the safe side. I’m like that agnostic who doesn’t want to rule out the existence of god, just in case…
I know, it’s cowardly. But as a cigarette-smoking neighbor told me recently, “everybody has to have at least one vice.” And mine is paying large sums of money to support my delusion that organic produce and dairy are healthier than conventional foods.
But Melinda Wenner Moyer, who once apparently shared this delusion also out of love for her kids, has recently dared to go where few tread: Behind the Sacral Organic curtain, in search of deeper understanding. What she found wasn’t pretty, yo: Read More