An open letter to Donald Trump

Dear Mr. Trump,

Congratulations on your election.  You certainly surprised me and a great many others here on the west coast.  Normally I am not one to write to leadership, as it seems that positions are deeply entrenched.  You, however, have shown a willingness to modify your positions in response to your constituency.  As a repeal/revamp of the Affordable Care Act is at the top of your priority list, I thought I would offer my perspectives.

First, though, I would ask that you make a public effort to mend the rifts caused by one of the most negative campaigns in history.  Among your supporters there are those who are openly and angrily racist, white supremacist, homophobic, and transphobic.  These people are a small minority of American citizens, but they have felt emboldened by your election to bring their hate into the public sphere.  On behalf of my friends who are black, Muslim, gay, and transgender, I ask that you publicly denounce these people and their behavior.  For better or worse, the haters mostly gave you their votes, but you do not need their support to govern.  Every American has a right to feel safe in this country, and too many have been living in fear since last Tuesday.

With regard to health care, here is my proposal:

  1.  Keep the private insurance companies, at least for now.  The federal government is nearly collapsing under its own weight, and the added bureaucracy involved in federal single-payer health insurance may well be untenable.  I feel that single-payer insurance would be a positive step but that it is best administered at the state level.
  2. Change the individual mandate to an individual incentive, e.g. an additional tax deduction for insured taxpayers rather than a tax penalty.  People like carrots better than sticks, and the effect would be the same in encouraging healthy people to carry insurance.
  3. Standardize risk pooling.  Create a set of criteria that insurance companies may use to set premiums (e.g. age, tobacco use, local cost of care, chosen coverage/deductibles), and require insurance companies to charge equal premiums for equal plans to everyone.  No more special “large group” employer and institution plans with lower premiums and higher benefits.   My car insurance is the same whether I work for Google or run my own farm.  Health insurance ought to work the same way.
  4. Standardize costs of care.  An MRI has a specific cost in terms of labor, equipment, and overhead, and this is the same regardless of the patient.  So an MRI ought to cost, say, $700 for everyone, NOT (as is currently the case) $600 for in-network insurance companies, $900 for out-of-network insurance companies, and $1200 for patients paying out-of-pocket.  With cost standardization, we could greatly increase transparency while eliminating the in-network/out-of-network distinction and allowing (as you have suggested) for insurance companies to provide nationwide coverage and compete across state lines.

Thanks, and best of luck in governing our divided nation.

Sincerely,

Mark Luterra

Corvallis, Oregon

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on An open letter to Donald Trump

Thoughts on a worrisome election

Well…this is strange. I never thought I would say the words “President Trump,” and yet it looks like we, as a nation, just made that happen. Never mind that more votes were actually cast for Clinton, which is a reminder that the Electoral College really needs to go away.

I had a fair bit invested in this election, and it feels like my team just lost. Not that I really love Hillary that much. The divides are striking, men vs. women, urban vs. rural, college educated vs. not.

My childhood county of Renville, usually a fairly even partisan split, elected Trump with a 2/3 majority. These are good people. People who cared for my dad during his last days. People who sang and played instruments and studied and competed alongside me in high school and who now have little ones of their own. People who employ illegal immigrants and work alongside them in the fields, who teach English to little Mexican kids.

These good people, and millions like them across the nation, just elected a man who promises to build a wall on the border, to deport all illegal immigrants. A man who is on film talking about grabbing a woman “by the pussy” and who promises to imprison his opponent. A man who says little about love and compassion and caring for one another and much about anger and fear and divisiveness.

There are parts of Trump’s philosophy that I can agree with. If he is to be believed, he will lead us away from our budding brinkmanship with Russia and perhaps free the Syrian conflict from a US-Russian proxy war which is threatening to extend it indefinitely. He will push back against free trade agreements and perhaps lead us away from our current situation where nearly everything we buy is made in China, toward a revitalization of US manufacturing. He might – just might – do something about the ever-rising income inequality that is fomenting economic insecurity and frustration among a majority of Americans. He might begin to tip the balance of power away from multinational corporations and back toward workers and communities.

Unfortunately, I don’t really believe any of these things will happen. Trump is, after all, an extremely wealthy CEO of a multinational corporation. He benefits directly from globalization and the very policies that have gradually immiserated his constituency. He is clever, extroverted, with a knack for saying the right words honed over years of business dealings and reality television. Exactly why underemployed, struggling working class families believe that a wealthy, manipulative CEO is “their man” confuses me to no end, though it is a testament to his power of persuasion.

We need change in this country. We need to bring down the cost of healthcare and education – there is no justifiable reason short of greed and profits why these expenses are rising at double or triple the rate of wage growth. We need to continue building a renewable energy grid that will survive the depletion of oil, natural gas, and eventually coal. We need to recognize that climate change is real (almost every summer is among the hottest on record at this point) and take real steps to address it. We need to overcome our fear of each other and our polarization and recognize that we all want the same things – fair pay for a day’s work, love of friends and family, acceptance within our community and society, enough cash on hand to cover emergencies and retire some day. We need to work together – by whatever means we choose – to ensure that these simple things are within reach of everyone and not denied to those of a particular race, economic class, religion, immigration status, or even to those who have experienced personal hardship or mental health challenges beyond their control.

So…here we are, with a President Trump. He is an outsider, new to politics, riding on a wave of frustration with the gridlocked status quo. He is, I believe, quite malleable. He has a history of changing political parties, changing positions on issues, and saying whatever brings him popularity. As much as I dislike him personally, I think that he will act upon the will of the people if it brings him success and a place in history books. I ask of you, good people of Renville County and everywhere in rural America: now that you have elected this man, let us set aside our anger and divisiveness and remember our love for family, for community, for society. Let us work together to force President Trump to deliver on his better promises and to set aside his anger, his racism, his willingness to use stereotypes to divide us. Let us begin…

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Thoughts on a worrisome election

Tombstone Pass hike

This past Saturday we tried a new trail – setting off from Tombstone Pass on Highway 20.  Between the weather and the wildflowers, we had quite a show…

 

 

Final ascent to Iron Mountain summit (5430 ft), in wind and hail at ~40 degrees.

Sunbreak at the top.  It felt like we were on a floating island in the clouds.

 

Rock layers from the heart of an old volcano.

A midwest-esque stormcloud on our way back to Corvallis.  We missed several thunderstorms on our day away.

Elizabeth’s amazing honey cheesecake, served at our birthday potluck/bonfire after our hike.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

I do not wish to live on Coruscant

Or, why I am not excited about fusion power…

 

I should preface by saying that I remain unconvinced that controlled fusion energy is possible or, if it proves so, economical.  The last time I read about all of the investment money going into fusion research, however, I found myself wondering whether success would actually be a good thing.

 

We live in a time when the human race is about to become reacquainted with limits.  Limits to energy, to phosphorus, to water availability, to arable land.  Energy is, above all, the driving factor.  With unlimited energy, we could extract phosphorus from seawater, desalinate billions of gallons and pump it to the deserts, even produce food in giant vats filled with synthetic nutrients.  We could industrialize the shit out of this planet.  We could, in just a few centuries, find ourselves living on Coruscant, the city-planet at the center of the Star Wars universe.  And would we?  You bet.

It would begin with fanfare.  Fusion power would be announced as a grand breakthrough, a gateway to a limitless future.  In desert regions facing water and food shortages, we would install desalination plants and synthetic food factories.  Success!  Millions of lives saved, thanks to fusion.  Within one generation, we would pass a point of no return.  From that point on we would be incapable of sustaining human civilization with energy from the Sun or fossil fuels.  As synthetic food became cheaper and more refined, it would be accepted and farming would become quaint and old-fashioned – an inefficient waste of land and topsoil.  Millions of acres would be restored to prairie and forest, and wildlife would flourish.  For perhaps 100 years the human race would live in an age of abundance.  The human population would boom, doubling to 15 billion, 30 billion, 60 billion over that time.

Then the problems would begin.  Land that was once farmland, then restored, would become subdivisions.  Cities would expand and merge.  As the functioning of the biosphere sputtered and failed, we would replace natural functions with synthetic ones.  Imagine huge machines the size of small towns consuming terawatts of electricity, filtering carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and splitting it into oxygen and carbon, returning the oxygen to the air and feeding pure carbon into synthetic food factories.  Remaining natural areas would be overrun with tourists, and wilderness would become a concept of the past.  As energy use grew exponentially, the sheer heat output would warm the planet even with no greenhouse effect, and we would be forced to dim the sun, spewing reflective smoke into the high atmosphere, to keep the planet cool.  As land grew scarce, cities would expand upward, leading to a world in which our great-great-grandchildren lived and died under artificial light, eating artificial food, and breathing artificial air.

It is easy to imagine a world in which we replace dirty oil and coal with clean fusion, in which energy is abundant and everyone can live in a five-bedroom house with digital controls and flat-screen TVs in every room.  Unlimited energy could get us there.  It is also true, however, that with current levels of available energy we could provide the same level of abundance – if only we had one billion humans rather than 7 billion.  We, as a species, have not shown an ability to match our population with our resources to maintain abundance.  Instead, we reproduce to the point of scarcity, then depend on technology to push the limits higher, restore abundance, and keep growing.

My generation is already facing scarcity.  Oil production has peaked, and we are living in a time when available energy per capita is decreasing.  Wind and solar are growing exponentially, but it seems likely that this will not keep pace with fossil fuel depletion in a world with a growing population.  Wallets will grow lighter and bellies will be empty.  Like most, I would love to see fusion arrive on the scene and evaporate these limits.  But when I project this forward, I can only see a world that I would not wish to live in.

Homo sapiens is not yet ready for fusion power.  Before we harness the power of the stars, we need to build a collective wisdom:  establish a desired human population size and devise incentives to maintain it, abandon our winner-take-all mentality in favor of “gross national happiness” and equitable resource distribution, and accept our responsibilities to the biosphere that has existed for billions of years prior to our arrival and has every right to continue for another billion years or more.  Unless and until that happens, I can only hope that unlimited fusion energy remains a dream for the future, and that my generation continues the tumultuous journey from an age of abundance to an age of limits.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Midwinter musings

I haven’t posted for too long, thought I might add this message I sent to a friend in Sweden.

——————————–

Greetings from deep in the woods, on a quiet rainy evening, home alone and watching the fire in our wood stove.  Sipping blackberry mead just bottled, one of eleven batches this year made with some of our 350 lbs of honey from nine beehives.  Six now, after a bear found our apiary in October.  Room to expand again in the spring…

Life continues apace.  Our landlord is reclaiming his house in the woods at the end of March, and Elizabeth and I are buying a home on the edge of town.  I will miss the solitude, but not the driving and car-dependency.  I am still working for Wild Garden Seed, a small organic vegetable seed company.  I do many things, but I most enjoy the engineering aspects – I’m currently working on building an improved seed cleaning machine.  My current plan is to move toward more consulting work in agricultural/renewable energy engineering.

Beyond these woods, much is afoot.  A group of armed men has taken over a bird refuge in eastern Oregon, claiming that the government has no right to own and manage public lands.  A true demagogue is leading in the presidential polls, gaining popularity by proclaiming hatred.  Anxiety and cognitive dissonance grow thick, as our populace tries ever harder to see things as they believe them to be rather than as they are.  The real patterns – the ever-renewing cycles of the seasons, of the moon, of our mother planet, have been too long ignored.

Our supposedly-great nation is beginning to come apart.  We are too young to be united by culture, too reliant on the concept of progress as our aspiration, our highest goal to be pursued with religious zeal.  From the days of manifest destiny, of plowing under the vast prairies, we have built a nation on progress.  Oxen to tractors.  Steam trains to airplanes.  Telephones to television to the internet.  Progress has been the rule, and so progress is ever expected.  The economy must grow, stock prices must rise.  We as a nation do not, and seemingly can not, grasp that progress must be temporary.  Over cycles of deep time we humans must find meaning in the cycles of nature, in our families and communities, in our own personal growth.  On a planet that is finite, any linear or exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely.

Our world is filling up.  Population growth is slowing.  Fossil fuels are dwindling, and renewable energy while expanding cannot support the level of wasteful consumption to which we have grown accustomed.  The economy has nearly stopped growing, but those at the top have found ways to maintain high rates of return at the expense of everyone below them.  The federal deficit has grown beyond possibility of ever being paid off.  Health care costs increase each year, but without any detectable improvement in health.  We averaged around one mass shooting per day in 2015, suicide rates are increasing, 36% of Americans are obese, and we are increasingly overmedicated – legally and illegally – with stimulants, narcotics, antidepressants, and painkillers.  Such are the symptoms of our existential crisis as a nation founded on progress awakens to the reality than all progress must be temporary, and this particular round of progress is coming to an end.

As if on cue, a demagogue has arisen to revive the American Dream, to “Make America Great Again.”  A charismatic personality, overflowing with emotional rhetoric and light on practical solutions, eager to blame any and all problems on minority groups.  A bully, leading those who would feel valuable at the expense of others, who would identify with a mythical American ideal as so many so-called Aryans did once before, before most living memory.  History threatens to repeat itself…

At the same time, there is an awakening underway.  More small farms and smiling faces at the riverfront market each year.  Every year a new crop of gardeners and beekeepers, eager to get their hands dirty and brave the inevitable stings.  Bright eyes of newborn babies, arriving into the lives of loved ones.  Every year more solar panels, more focus on local food systems, on resilience, on building trust and relationships in community.  More people experiencing nature, rediscovering a sense of meaning in cycles and plant and animal consciousness.  My heart is joyful to be a part of this awakening, and I hope to find a larger niche in this unfolding moving forward.  I fear for our country, and were it not for our family here we might be trying to join you in Sweden.  For now, though, I am well, and I aim to focus on the local-scale developments while steering clear of our expanding national craziness.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Midwinter musings

Why I’m not voting for Measure 2-89

For readers not from Benton County, Oregon, the hot debate around here at the moment is focused on Ballot Measure 2-89, which would effectively ban all genetically modified organisms within the county.

I know some of the people who wrote the measure and have been campaigning hard for it.  As an organic farmer myself, I want to support them and would have voted for it (despite some misgivings) had they kept the language of an earlier draft limiting the ban to genetically modified food crops.  The measure was intended to strike a blow against corporate agriculture, but as written it would put a stopper on all kinds of unrelated research at Oregon State University and local startup companies.  Furthermore, in my view genetic modification is not really the main problem with industrial agriculture.

I understand genetic engineering better than most, having done it myself for five years as a graduate student.  My goal was to create blue-green algae that could convert sunlight to hydrogen, ultimately allowing us to obtain more of our energy needs from renewable sources.  After a few successes and more than a few disappointments, I came to understand what genetic engineering could and could not do, and I also let go of the mostly-irrational fear of genetic engineering that is so prevalent on the left side of the political spectrum these days.

Genetic engineering is any intentional change to a DNA sequence – insertion, deletion, or modification.  In practice it usually entails inserting a gene from another organism or inactivating a gene already present.  It is a technology and a tool, and like all technologies it can be used to enact positive change or to profit at the expense of natural systems and those less fortunate.  The risks of genetic engineering have everything to do with the genes being changed and nothing to do with the simple act of moving DNA.  A harmless protein in potatoes will not become harmful if it is expressed in corn.  Deleting the gene that causes apples to turn brown (as in the soon-to-be-released Arctic Apples) will not in any way make those apples toxic or less nutritious.  Adding genes that allow rice to produce vitamin A (as in Golden Rice) will not make that rice dangerous, unless so much vitamin A is produced that it becomes toxic.    On the other hand, it is entirely possible to deliberately engineer a more deadly, more virulent flu virus, or to move the genes that produce botulism toxin from bacteria to any desired food crop.  The real risks of genetic engineering arise not from the remote possibility of unexpected negative effects, but rather from its potential exploitation by malicious minds.

Over the course of three billion years, evolution has explored nearly every possible combination of DNA.  Bacteria take up DNA sequences from the environment and try them out, adding them to their own if they prove useful.  Genes and whole genomes duplicate and diversify, taking on new roles.  The idea that we, in our comparatively miniscule tinkerings, could upset the entire system by accident is unfounded.  Genetic engineering is useful for doing things that evolution has had no reason to do, such as designing bacteria that make human insulin, making plants resistant to a synthetic chemical, or creating apples that don’t brown when cut.  When we try to use genetic engineering to improve upon something that evolution has been optimizing for eons, like the efficiency of photosynthesis, we inevitably meet with very limited success and discover that the evolved system is very close to hard physical limits.

One of the first applications of genetic engineering, dating back to 1978, was to produce insulin for diabetics.  The human insulin gene was spliced into none other than E. coli, and after some trial and error the bacteria managed to produce this biomolecule on an industrial scale.  Prior to this time, insulin was tediously extracted from the pancreas of cattle and sheep, and the bacterial route greatly decreased the cost.  Only when genetic engineering was applied to food crops did the concept enter the public eye, and for a certain subset of the population genetic engineering has since come to symbolize all that is wrong with agriculture.

In my view, the major problems with modern industrial agriculture are:

  • Widespread use of toxic chemicals, resulting in loss of pollinator habitats, damage to soil ecosystems, and chronic health problems in humans likely associated with damage to gut microbiota
  • Loss of diversity, both within varieties and in terms of numbers of varieties
  • Failure to close nutrient loops, resulting in runoff (eutrophication, ocean dead zones) and depletion of mined minerals
  • Fossil-fuel dependence on the order of 7 calories input to produce each calorie of food energy, and
  • Corporate control of seeds through utility patents and other means

The problem with banning GMOs as an attack on industrial agriculture is that doing so does nothing to address any of the five factors above and, conversely, it would be entirely possible to practice sustainable agriculture using open-source genetically modified crops.  Genetic engineering to increase nutrition (as in Golden Rice) is one such possibility, as is using genetic modification to overcome a devastating plant disease, as has already occurred with papaya in Hawaii.

The reason that Monsanto and other big-ag companies rolled out GM crops first is simply that they had the most money to invest in an emerging, initially-very-expensive technology.  Not surprisingly, they made genetic changes that improved their profit margins, namely by creating crops resistant to the herbicides they sell.  I don’t like that.  Not one bit.  But that historical fact does not alone make all GMOs bad, nor does it mean that banning GMOs in Benton County will do much to change the way that industrial agriculture works here.

I should note that I’m all for labeling genetically engineered foods – not just as GM but as exactly what they were modified for, e.g. “this product contains corn genetically modified for glyphosate herbicide resistance,” “this product contains wheat genetically modified for drought tolerance,” or “this product contains rice genetically modified to produce vitamin A.”  Such a scheme would help consumers discriminate between beneficial and harmful applications of genetic engineering, while a simple GMO labeling scheme would tend to reinforce vague fears.

I would also stand behind local legislation to reduce pesticide spraying on food crops, to reduce fossil fuel use in agriculture, to increase the proportion of land devoted to food crops (vs. grass seed and Christmas trees), or to generally tip the balance of economics and power away from industrial agriculture and toward small farmers with sustainable practices.  As for Measure 2-89, I can’t vote for it.  I won’t vote against it either, as doing so would be a statement against my values.  To the authors, I say:  I stand with your vision of a local food system.  I stand with your ideals of a world where natural systems have rights.  I wish to work with you going forward to create a more sustainable world, but I can’t support the letter of this law as you wrote it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Why I’m not voting for Measure 2-89

A walk in the valley

It’s been too long since I posted here.  My “sustainable religion” post – the last in the sustainability series – is almost ready, but I found myself trying to work in too many different concepts so I will need to work on it a bit.

As a brief update, the weather has gone from record warm-and-dry to unusually cool and wet, setting back farmers and gardeners though bringing much-needed rain.  I turned three strong hives and two nucs into five strong hives, bringing the hive count to eight, plus two more nucs.  Tomorrow with some sunshine and warmth I will open them up, seeing if they are wanting to swarm.

Ed suggested that I write about my experience of walking in the valley near his house, my childhood home.  I don’t always follow his writing suggestions, but this time I felt inspired, and I started to trace a route in my mind, seeing each space and writing the memories and emotions that each space evoked.

______________________________________________________________________

Out the back door

Past the garden

Down past the newly-cut elms

Up the valley

Squeezing past the oak branches where the spirit of Quercus macrocarpa has twice tried to close the trail, the first attempt surrendering to our saw, giving heat in a now-forgotten winter.

Next through the meadow with prickly ash

Do the bottle gentian still live, waiting patiently for their time to grow and blossom?

I remember finding them in the time when spider webs cross the path, when I once watched one so carefully and deliberately build a web, thereafter trying to avoid them lest I undo hours of work.

The bottle gentian patch, a last remnant of a dying patch of prairie, in bloom on the last warm days when it seems warmth is dying too, giving way to the soft scent of fallen oak leaves and finally the crisp scent-free air of winter’s cold.

The old trail went up the valley, past the huge surviving elms guarding the shortcut to Sunset Tree.  But the horses came through once, made a channel, and the meandering, marshy Bluff Creek became a straight, ugly channel.

Off to the left then, into red oak and ironwood.

This forest is old.  Ironwood only sprouts in the shade.

Old red oak are dying, and I see no young ones.  What was it like here when they were born?  What has changed?  So many have fallen now.  I give thanks for the ones who have warmed our home through the years and give a hug to the oldest that still stands, a century and a half perhaps, wishing him long life and beauty in experience.

A straight gray trunk ahead stands out from the basswood all around.  Ulmus rubra, red elm, once abundant and now, after half a century of disease, only a few remain.  This one looks healthy still.  Perhaps it is a survivor, resistant to the imported fungus that has made the once-dominant elms a short-lived tree.  Perhaps its seeds will give life to a new generation of resistant elms, reclaiming their place in this forest when I am gone from this life.

A curve to the right, curling around a pale skeleton of a tree.  Ulmus americana, American elm, succumbed to the same plight.  This tree was a mystery when it was alive, its bark not a clear reflection of its species.  I stopped here often, when I was learning winter trees, wondering exactly what it was.  In death it has blessed us twice with bountiful harvests of oyster mushrooms, bringing the deep woods to our kitchen table in stir fries and sauces.

Ahead across the pond, only filled during snowmelt or after heavy rains.  I snuck up on a spotted sandpiper and a wood duck here once, marveling at these denizens of open water deep in the woods, inhaling the rich scents of springtime after the winter’s dearth.

Up to the guardian tree in the pass, where I once hid a clue on a long scavenger hunt for my dad.

Then up a rock step and through some prickly ash to the pair of potholes, perfect cylinders carved into solid rock over hundreds of years by the once-mighty glacial river that made this valley, digging deep into glacial silt and sand to uncover the ancient bedrock – rocks formed deep within the then-young Earth beneath a mountain range long since weathered into plains.

Over the saddle to Strawberry Rock, a place of many memories.  Solstice fires in deep cold or enveloping mist.  Solo visits, gazing out across the river to Vulture Hawk Rock.  Memories of late-afternoon fame flowers.  Checking the time capsule, perhaps writing a new reflection or reading over earlier entries.  This place is open now, cleared of trees and visited more often by those who look but do not truly see.  A place of magic, of mystery must be experienced and acknowledged as such by those who visit or it will lose its identity, become just another rock, forest, or patch of prairie.  Such may be the fate of Strawberry Rock, though it may again be forgotten to grow a new covering of cedars, to inspire a new generation of those seeking solitude and quiet reverence.

Climbing down the cliff, through the giant tree-nursery pothole and around the west side.

An unbroken wall of moss, formed on rock cliffs in the shade.  This was the first green to return, awakened by March snowmelt.  I used to come here on the first warm days, to a verdant dripping wonderland, each tiny leaf of moss a path for water released from ice above, rejoining the hydrologic cycle.  I would bury my face deep into the moss, inhaling the beautiful scent of chlorophyll, of Earth, of life reawakening from winter.

Up then from the pass, following a trail I helped to build.  The Middle Ridge Trail, last of Ed’s passageways to be built, and first, perhaps, to be abandoned.  Ed seldom comes this way now, and I push my way through cedar branches reclaiming our passageways.

Squeezing through the crack, beneath the balanced boulder.  The Moon Boulders, we called this area, and it was once a distant mysterious place.  When I was small, the Lookout, Moon Rock, and Powder Rock were the center of my world.  Sunset Rock seemed farther, and Bluff Creek was the edge of the realm.  Everything beyond Bluff Creek was the outer reaches – places where we seldom ventured that seemed wilder, less safe, less familiar.  Such was my world once.  Then I grew and space began to shrink.  I explored the whole park, then the whole valley, then to Colorado, and Ecuador, and Oregon, but always I connected to places as I did around Valley House.

On to the top of Bluff Creek Falls, the elf-divide.  A rock pool where the smallest branch or tuft of moss can redirect the creek, sending it cascading through the birdbath and down through the tumbled boulders or else off to the east, flowing quietly through trees and glades before cascading in a torrent straight down a cliff.  I loved to build dams and diversions, but not here.  This was not my playground; other consciousness was at work.  Here I did not seek to change the world, but rather found joy in its ever-changing patterns.

Eastward then, on the Main Trail, the route that I can still walk in darkness, sensing the position of each landmark from years of memory.  Past Onion Rock, detouring northward to the Sunset Tree.  This came later, when I cast a new focus on familiar places, seeking the highest point.  My hands and feet find the branches by memory, emerging into the last rays of sunshine.

I have watched at least a hundred sunsets here, maybe two hundred.  Sunsets swaying in the biting northwest winds of winter.  Sunsets in the awakening of spring, with Great Horned Owls calling in the distance.  Sunsets in the peak of summer, when the clear trills of the Wood Thrush and the whistle of the Whip-poor-will mix with the mysterious night song of the Ovenbird, a joyful warble delivered high above the trees by a bird normally found near the forest floor.  Sunsets in September, when the valley turns yellow and orange, the woods fill with spiderwebs, and the air fills with the soft, rich, earthy scent of new-fallen leaves.  The tree itself has changed but little in fifteen years.  It is perhaps five feet taller, and I need to climb one branch higher for a clear view of the horizon.  I wonder if it will outlive me, if I might still be able to visit in my later years to watch the sun set over the ever-changing, ever-renewing valley.

Time to climb down, as the sky fills with every hue of red and pink.  Beneath the rotting boards of our sunset platform, where Ed would take me as a little boy, carrying our army-green backpack with a granola bar for each of us.

On through Jean’s elf-passage, where she felt the spirits of nature close at hand.  I sensed them too, but they have moved now, perhaps to the wilder rocks and woods north of the Sunset Tree.

Around Falling Down Rock, a place whose story I know only from retelling, not from memory.  Little Mark fell here once, or so the story goes.

Then the open expanse of Powder Rock.  I barely remember the rock-powder projects that spawned the name, but this was always my rock spot.  This or the top of Moon Rock next door.  I have felt true joy here – a sense of being connected to all that is, and feeling that I belong and have a place within it.  I have come here feeling confused or foggy or anxious and left feeling more restored, more connected, more at peace.  Here, I feel, in the ancient rock stretching unbroken to the center of the planet, the consciousness of the Earth Mother is close at hand, more available for communion, for emotional rebalancing, for self-discovery.

An S-curve through the woods and across Acorn Creek to Moon Rock.  The oaks here are old, much older than the cedars.  The cedars are overtopping them, shading out their babies.  Historically this ridge was open, scattered oaks mixed with prairie islands.  When the fires stopped, the cedars grew, changing the dynamic of the place.  The oaks remember a different time, perhaps wish for its return.  Ecologists, too, strive to remove the cedars.  I understand the desire, to preserve the prairie species, but I have always known this place as a cedar world.  Nature changes but slowly, and the feel stays the same.  Human change is abrupt, changing the feel of a place.  I would be sad to see the cedars go.

Moon Rock, where I discovered “snow wheelies” on a fresh-crusted snowpack, where I followed the possum trail, where I slid down on my butt in new powdery snow, where I lifted rocks in summer to find blue-tailed skinks.

Down Moon Rock, below the sky jump of Eddie’s Hole, walking and sliding down familiar passageways to the tennis rock and the back porch.  Back at Valley House once more.

 

Such is my experience of the world.  It is not unique to the valley, but the valley still holds a greater depth of memory and meaning from more years of observation.  I have seen floods and droughts, good strawberry and blackberry years and years with nothing at all.  There was a time when I was loath to leave the valley even for a few days lest I miss an interesting storm, a change in the weather, or some other happening.

I sense, as I am immersed in the natural world, a feeling of belonging.  This is the place, the world, the experience where I choose to be.  There is death and sickness and famine, yes, but life is ever-renewing and ever-beautiful.  All that we create from wood or cement or plastic begins to decay from the day it is made, breaking down and returning to wildness.  A forest or a prairie does not decay, as it is renewed each spring, or with each new generation of trees sprouting to replace the ones that fall.

In spirit, as I understand it, we create our experience of the world entirely.  We see trees where we wish them to be, we find friends  when and where we wish to find them.  There are few surprises.  In the physical, we coexist with all aspects of co-creating consciousness.  This can and does lead to disharmony, but it also creates an element of surprise, of mystery, of wonder.  No two days or sunsets are alike.  Every forest is different, and we can sense the stories extending far back into deep time that shaped the geology, the ecosystems, the species of each place.  We can feel these stories within us, threads weaving together always in the present, creating the grand tapestry of the world.  My greatest desire is to be fully present, to weave my own thread in harmoniously, experiencing each full moon, each turning of the seasons, each harvest time with the full essence of my being, not straying too far into the uncertain future or obsessing on how the weaving might have gone differently had I made a different choice in the past.

I wish to know love, to feel joy, and to be fully here.  I am saddened by those who wish to be not here, who choose to see the physical world as an illusion or merely a stepping stone on the path to heaven or afterlife.  I am equally saddened by those who would explain away the mystery, who would reduce the great weaving of the present moment to the chaotic, ultimately meaningless turning of a giant machine – a machine without spirit or consciousness.  Yet I understand that truth is relative, that that which feels most true to me may well not be the highest truth for another.  For those who would follow other paths, I only wish that they find what brings them greatest joy, and that they recognize our planet as the living system it is rather than a repository of resources to be exploited.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A walk in the valley

Sustainable Population

The sustainability of global human society depends on both the total number of people on Earth and the amount of resources each person uses.  Thus a sustainable society could either be composed of many people using few resources each or fewer people using many resources each.  If you asked a given human which of these worlds she would prefer, the obvious answer would be fewer people, more resources.  We want to be able to travel, to keep our homes at comfortable temperatures, and to have enough food and fresh water that we need never go hungry.  Beyond a relatively small population necessary for human culture and diversity to flourish, the addition of more people to the planet does not significantly benefit the people already here, and when we begin to reach resource limits a good case could be made that adding more people is harmful to those already here.

I do not want to be overly prescriptive.  I believe in allowing people to make their own decisions, and I certainly don’t want to suggest that anyone alive today ought to be dead.  I do, however, want to encourage my readers to weigh the added resource burden of children against the joy and connection to the next generation that children bring into our lives.  I offer my own story as a possible model.

For most of my childhood, I was effectively raised by four parents, two of whom had no children of their own.  This worked out well enough for me – I maintain a strong connection with all four of my “parents”, and all four have a connection to the next generation through me.  I liked this system well enough that I would like to carry it forward, participating in raising children as part of a community without necessarily having children of my own.  This type of community child-rearing offers both an opportunity to invest more in our children (through one-on-one time from multiple adult mentors), and a way to achieve negative population growth while addressing the human desire to procreate and raise children.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Sustainable Population

Sustainable Economy

Before I begin, I need to distinguish the real economy of goods and services – something that has existed for as long as human society – from the financial economy of debt, banks, investments, and stock markets.  Many aspects of the real economy are unsustainable at present, but it is the financial economy that will be my focus here.

The entire paradigm of modern economics is built on the assumption of economic growth.  Unfortunately, economic growth is fundamentally unsustainable.  The financial economy is tied to the real economy, in the sense that investments gain money when home values increase, when corporations expand, and when consumers purchase more goods and services.  Since our planet has a finite capacity in terms of human population, energy, and resources, it follows that the global real economy of goods and services has a finite maximum size, and furthermore that the same is true of the financial economy.  This is a simple, unavoidable fact, and it is independent of any choices we might make to embrace sustainable principles.

Globally, economies have been growing since about 1400 CE, in concert with the rise in global population and a corresponding rise in the amount of goods and services consumed by each person.  The field of economics has developed over a period of multiple centuries marked by steady economic growth, so it not surprising that growth is taken for granted.  There is, at present, a great deal of cognitive dissonance in economics, with scholars insisting that continued economic growth is essential while beginning to recognize that it is also impossible.  Such is the origin of terms like “sustainable growth” which means either buying more stuff as long as it’s “green” or continuing to grow the financial economy after the real economy stops growing.  Make no mistake, there is no such thing as sustainable economic growth.

Growth in the real economy is slowing to an inevitable standstill, which will be reached in the next 30-50 years.  This is occurring because we are reaching the Earth’s resource limits.  When a resource becomes limiting, its price rises.  Conventional economics says that this price rise will trigger a supply increase until the price drops.  That is only true if a supply increase is actually possible.  In the cases of oil, copper, phosphorus, fresh water, and agricultural land, to name a few, we are approaching physical limits.  When physical limits are reached, prices rise until demand drops to match the supply, with a corresponding drop in production that negates or reverses economic growth.

The main reason our society is attached to economic growth is that growth is required for money to make money.  In a growing economy, it is possible for the majority of loans to be paid off with interest, as there will be enough additional money available in the future to cover both the premium and the moneylender’s interest “fee.”  The lender thus makes a living without offering any real goods or services, and the receiver manages to buy a house or build a business, pay off the loan, and ultimately join the moneylending class.  In a stable economy, money will not make money, and investments will on average simply keep pace with inflation.  Less than half of loans will be successfully paid off with interest, as there will not, on the whole, be sufficient money available.

When investments do not on average make money, Wall Street and other markets in effect become government-sanctioned casinos where some people win big and many lose a little.  As growth in the real economy slows to an inevitable standstill, the financial economy begins to generate bubbles.  That is to say, some portion of the real economy becomes overhyped and overvalued, causing investment money to pour in until it becomes clear that the paper value of assets far exceeds their actual worth, at which point a crash ensues.  The tech-stock bubble popped around the year 2000.  The housing bubble popped in 2008.  The shale-oil (“fracking”) bubble is just beginning to pop as I write this.  Some other aspects of the economy – higher education and health care come to mind – are showing signs of being bubbles, with cost increases far outpacing any increase in the value of service delivered.  The shrewdest investors manage to make money in bubbles, even betting on price drops as the crash begins, while many other investors lose millions.

In 2008, the US government averted a larger economic downturn by bailing out banks to the tune of over a trillion dollars, or $3000 per US citizen.  In essence, the government placed a bet on a return of economic growth, which would increase tax income and allow the debt to be repaid.  That hasn’t happened, and a new downturn appears to be on our doorstep.  At this point the economy is growing primarily by increasing public and private debt, which appears as assets on the balance sheet of those who are owed.  If that debt cannot be repaid, as is seeming increasingly likely, then those assets simply evaporate, resulting in a crash on the order of, or larger than, the crash of 1929.  In my view, such a crash is highly likely in the United States within the next 30 years or so, and I do not think it can be avoided at this point.

A crash has the effect, after a fair amount of turmoil, of bringing the financial economy back into step with the real economy.  Devaluation of money does not affect the ability of a doctor to diagnose, a farmer to plant seeds, or a carpenter to build.  Inevitably, governments at all levels find ways to ensure that goods and services continue to flow, and a money system is rebuilt to facilitate this.  This is a time when having skills is much more important than having assets, and the art of using money to make money becomes a liability.  It is my hope that, following such a crash, we will collectively come to the realization that the real economy is no longer growing and craft a financial economy that neither assumes nor depends upon growth.  Such a financial system could reasonably be called a sustainable economy, though we would still need to address unsustainable aspects of the underlying real economy (fragile infrastructure, open-loop resource flows, and fossil energy).

How then can we prepare for the end of economic growth?  I should note here that I am a farmer and an energy researcher, not an economist, so my advice here may not be rock-solid.  Nonetheless, these are my priorities:

  • Learn essential skills.  Make sure there is something you can do that others directly need and would trade goods or services for in the absence of money.
  • Invest in real value.  This includes stable foodstuffs, durable goods, productive land, housing, and utilities.  Be aware that in many areas real estate cost is largely speculative and far exceeds the productive or housing value of the land.  Traditional “secure” investments like precious metals have almost zero real value; no one needs gold to survive.
  • Avoid debt and pay off existing debt.
  • Do not count on traditional investments earning money or maintaining their value.  Develop skills that can be continued into retirement, and/or aim to produce something (book, invention, business) that will provide ongoing income with less labor investment over time.
  • Nurture community ties.  If larger-scale safety nets like social security dissolve, we will become reliant on our friends and neighbors for support.  This will be much easier if we have built a strong community ahead of time.  Plus, being part of a community is fun, enriching, and empowering.
  • Support alternative local currencies.  These will continue to facilitate exchange of goods and services when national currencies are in turmoil, and the stronger such currencies are at the time of a crash, the better.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Sustainable Economy

Sustainable Agriculture

Agriculture has been practiced by humankind for over 6000 years, and some of the ancient Sumerian fields are still growing grain.  We, as a species, are capable of farming sustainably.  Unfortunately, most of the ancient techniques have fallen by the wayside in favor of increased yield and increased profit, with the result that the majority of agriculture worldwide is now heavily chemical- and fossil fuel-dependent, requiring around seven units of fossil energy input for every unit of food energy produced.

In recent years, demand for healthy, local produce combined with a back-to-the-land ethic among young farmers has spurred a movement away from industrial agriculture and toward farmers’ markets, CSAs, and local food production.  Organic farms are springing up like weeds these days.  I take heart to be a part of this phenomenon, lending my mind and my labor to working the earth, planting the seeds, keeping the water flowing, and gathering the harvest.  We still have a long way to go, however.  “Sustainable” agriculture aims to sustain the health of the soil, the nutritional value and purity of the food, and the livelihoods of its workers.  These are all noble goals, but the question must be asked whether the three principles of sustainability, namely resilience, closed-loop flows, and energy from the sun, are adequately addressed.

Resilience

Agriculture must be able to withstand the vagaries of weather and the biosphere:  droughts, floods, cold snaps, heat waves, insects, and diseases.  These forces have shaped all life across evolutionary history, with genetic diversity allowing for adaptation.  For resilience in agriculture, this genetic diversity is critical.  Within a diverse population of, say, kale plants, some will be more frost tolerant.  Others will be less palatable to aphids or flea beetles.  Still others will stand strong against a new fungal disease.  The aim of the traditional art of plant breeding is to select for the most important traits (e.g. frost tolerance, tenderness, flavor) while preserving a diverse population ready to be selected in new ways in response to new challenges.

This approach has largely been abandoned in favor of hybrid vigor and uniformity.  Plants are selected for maximum yield, with inbred, genetically-uniform lineages maintained and crossed annually for hybrid seed.  The hybrid approach produces more food in the short term, but at the cost of adaptability.  Plants have been coevolving with insects and diseases for millions of years, with each side always making minor adaptations to gain the upper hand.  Hybrids essentially “freeze” plants in time, eliminating the genetic variability that allows for evolution.  Over time, these plants become more susceptible to insects, disease, and environmental stresses, at the same time becoming more dependent on chemicals, fertilizers, and irrigation.

Much of organic, “sustainable” agriculture still plants uniform hybrids, but there is a growing movement toward open-pollinated, locally-adapted varieties.  Heirlooms are all the rage, and new open-pollinated varieties are being developed and released.  One acre of seed can plant many thousands of acres of vegetable or grain, so I am heartened to see the value of diversity recognized and embraced among seed growers.

Closed Loops:  The Problem of Poo

Organic farms are proud of their compost.  They make it by the truckload and apply it by the ton, creating fertile soil without the anhydrous ammonia and inorganic minerals used  by conventional farmers.  Organic farms are good at composting all of their cover crops and on-farm waste, but these supply less than half of the demand with the remainder supplied by manure.  The typical nutrient flow of an organic farm thus starts in a field of hay (often with chemical fertilizers) and flows through cattle, manure, compost, soil, crops, food, and finally people before ending up in human pee and poo.  And there it stops, since none of that pee or poo ever finds its way back to the fields, ending up instead deep underground in septic tanks or released into rivers through sewage treatment plants.

Here is where organic and sustainable part ways, as organic standards do not allow for the use of “humanure” (composted human waste).  This is in part because of fears of pathogens like E. coli and in part because the only large-scale source of humanure – treated municipal sewage – also contains any chemicals, medicines, and heavy metals dumped down the drains.  This will be a hard nut to crack, but an essential one nonetheless.  Global supplies of phosphorus, an essential plant and human nutrient, are running low, as the supplies present in the soil and mined fertilizer get a one-way ticket to groundwater and the ocean where recovery is all but impossible.

Global human metabolism is 0.7TW, while global agricultural photosynthesis is around 7 TW.  This means that 1/10 of the energy in agricultural crops ends up cycling through human bodies.  As most living cells contain energy molecules (carbohydrates, lipids, proteins) and mineral nutrients in equal proportion, we can further infer that at least 1/10 of the phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, and magnesium taken up by the crops travels through human bodies and is effectively lost.  This is unsustainable on the scale of several years without external inputs and on the scale of decades to centuries with mined minerals.  We may have more time to solve the crisis of agricultural nutrient cycling than we have to transition to sustainable energy, but sooner or later if humans are going to survive on this planet we are going to need to return our pee and poo, and the minerals therein, to the soil where our crops are grown.

Sustainable Synthetic Nitrogen?

Nitrogen, as the nutrient most in demand by plants, deserves special mention.  Organic standards prohibit synthetic nitrogen application, so nitrogen is supplied by a combination of nitrogen-fixing legume crops and manure application.  Unlike phosphorus, nitrogen is abundant making up 78% of our atmosphere, and the limiting step is the energy-intensive conversion (by either biological or chemical methods) to the nitrate form that plants can use.  In the natural process, plants exude sugars through their roots to symbiotic bacteria.  These bacteria metabolize the sugars, feeding the resultant energy to a nitrogenase enzyme that converts atmospheric nitrogen gas to ammonia, which is then converted and supplied to the plant.  In the synthetic process, natural gas (representing 1-2% of global energy use) is converted to hydrogen, and the hydrogen is then reacted with atmospheric nitrogen in the presence of a catalyst to produce ammonia.  This reaction, named the Haber-Bosch process, is at the core of fertilizer production and may well be essential for the sustenance of human populations at current levels.

The only major energy input to this process is the creation of hydrogen, and it turns out that hydrogen is relatively easy to make from sustainable electricity.  Simply running electricity through water – with the right catalysts – will split water into its hydrogen and oxygen component gases.  As wind and solar power gain traction, this type of hydrogen production is emerging as a way to use surplus electricity when intermittent generation exceeds demand.  It is quite possible for hydrogen produced in this way to replace fossil hydrogen in the Haber-Bosch process, allowing this reaction to continue to provide soil fertility in a post-fossil-fuel, sustainable world.

Sustainable Energy on the Farm

It’s a dirty secret of small organic farms that they burn a lot of oil.  Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides account for around 30-40% of energy use on conventional farms, so this amount is gained.  However, some of this is lost as organic farming involves a lot of vehicle miles.  An industrial-scale corn farmer will visit a field four times a year to disc and plant, spray, harvest, and plow.  An organic market farmer still has those at least that many steps, with cultivation replacing spraying.  However, with crops planted in succession, a vehicle needs to return to the field every few days during harvest season, almost always carrying less than a full load.  Trucks drive to markets and deliveries at less than full capacity.  Trucks shuttle back and forth hauling manure from feedlots, and tractors and front-end loaders turn the compost piles several times.  Will small blocks to till, tractors spend proportionally more time driving around and less time working the soil.  When you add in the fact that lettuce and tomatoes yield a lot fewer calories per acre than corn, organic vegetable farms can actually use more fossil energy per calorie of food produced than a conventional Midwestern cornfield.

The problem here is that organic agriculture is in competition with industrial agriculture.  Consumers will pay more for organic, but only up to a point.  Conventional agriculture is effectively subsidized by cheap fossil energy, and so organic agriculture simply cannot compete on a cost basis without applying this same subsidy.

There are no easy solutions.  So long as our entire society is based on fossil energy, so too will be any project of that society.  There are options: farms designed on a hub and spoke model with walkable scale, solar panels or wind turbines charging electric tractors, biodigesters turning farm waste into fuel.  Farming seldom generates the kind of cash needed to make these changes, but in my view organic agriculture cannot call itself sustainable if it does not take steps to decrease or replace fossil energy use.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Sustainable Agriculture