I am re-recycling RecycleBank’s 10 romantic ways to green your Valentine’s Day:
1. Set your morning in motion by sharing a pot of fairly traded and organically grown coffee. After all, you will want to keep the night young.
2. Since Valentine’s Day lands on Saturday, skip the power shower and enjoy a soak for two”¦ and save water that way.
[Hmm. That never resulted in less water use in my younger days....]
3. Get enlightened this year with his and hers, or hers and hers, or his and his (well you get the point) CFL’s [or LEDs]. While saving tons of energy, they last up to 8 times longer than traditional incandescent bulbs.
4. A rose is a rose is a rose “¦ but is it fairly traded-and how far did it travel to get to your door? There is an abundance of organic, veriflora certified and fairly traded floral options, all perfect gifts.
5. Sweets for your sweetie? Organic and fairly traded cocoa options are sure to send that extra message of sincerity.
6. On this holiday, over one billion cards are sent worldwide. Translation: Save the Trees! Create your own card from recycled goods in your home. After all, it’s not the card, but the sentiment that counts.
7. Enjoy the outdoors. Make a snow-person together. Walk on the beach. Take a hike. Picnic in front of a gorgeous sunset. Or just lie on your backs and count the stars. It’s totally carbon free, healthy and romantic.
8. Make a candlelit homemade dinner for two. There is nothing greener than going local, so stop at your local farmers’ market and buy fresh and organic goodies.
9. Forget red or white; go for a bottle of “green” wine. There’s organic wine for whatever kind of mood you’re in “¦ from Shiraz to chardonnay.
See “So you want a low-carbon holiday wine.”
10. To end the night, choose organic cotton, bamboo and linen sheets, towels, duvets and comforters.
RecycleBank bills itself as “a rewards program that motivates people to recycle by quickly and easily measuring the amount of material each home recycles and then converting that activity into RecycleBank Points that can be used at hundreds of local and national rewards partners.”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Joe,
I notice that “organic” cropped up three times as a synonym for “green”. Is that actually true? I looked into it a little bit and it looked like organic crops always require more land (so cutting down more trees and more oil to plant & harvest) and often take more irrigation (especially on a per-unit yield). The Organic movement has good PR but it looks like a huge con and is ironically less sustainable and less green than conventional agriculture.
What are your thoughts? Is this something you’d be interested in doing a post on?
Tyro, the benefit comes from less usage of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that are carbon intensive to make and that pollute rivers. It is green, not really greenhouse gas wise, but for more local environmental issues of pollution and product safety.
I’m no expert but transporting goods (both pesticides and foods) from one side of the Earth to another will surely use more CO2 than producing and harvesting organic goods locally?
@Ziyu – organic farms also use pesticides but organic pesticides are generally less effective than synthetic ones and so have to be used in larger quantities. Organic is also opposed (without evidence or reason, I might add) to GMOs which can reduce the need for pesticides (or water or fertilizer – also things we should be promoting instead of stifling). If this is the goal of the organic movement then it has failed and we need another approach.
@Crushtopher – it’s a myth that organic means local, in fact many of the organic farms are now intensive mega-businesses just like other farms. All else being equal, you’re right that local is better but what does the “organic” label bring to the party? Nothing good as far as I can tell.
Tyro, educate yourself on things like peak phosphorus, the devastating effects of phosphorus run off and solutions like the sustainable yet admittedly labor intensive practice of French rotation before you start saying that conventional farming is the only solution and that all organic farming is a scam.
Ultimately, many of the problems are rooted in agribusiness: massive fields of monoculture reducing local biodiversity and encouraging the evolution of niche super-pests (insects, molds, fungi, bacteria and viruses) thus requiring stronger and stronger prophylactic applications of pesticide; soil degradation from over farming and over irrigation requiring increased fertilization requiring more petroleum and phosphorus based fertilizers; subsequent and continuous runoff of all these chemicals devastating ALL downstream ecologies starting with streams and rivers, then delta wetlands and finally resulting in GROWING hypoxic dead zones near our already vulnerable coastal ecosystems. Though already over fished, those coastal ecosystems still provide a significant portion of the bulk seafood to the world. These deadzones reduce spawning habitats for many marine species, thus kneecapping efforts to feed the all the people you profess to be so concerned about.
Throw in the disturbing development that infertile GMO seeds basically turn the worlds agribusiness into essentially one giant “company town” forcing all farmers large or small to buy the entirety of their seed stock anew each year and give over LARGE portions of their operating budget to corporations like ADM and you’ve got problems up the wazoo with contemporary conventional farming.
Meanwhile, conventional contemporary capitalism dictates that ALL these off book accumulative environmental, social, and systemic economic costs of chemical farming be externalized. Agribusiness does a great job of just looking the other way and not using a cent of their profits to mitigate any of these growing problems. If you have been looking at large scale mega-farms and how they try to implement organic farming, you are correct. It is a losing proposition with many of the same problems–in part due to the large swaths of monoculture hands off machine driven farming.
A future of sustainable farming will mean many more boots on the ground. It will ultimately require labor reform as well as a full scale reformation of our farming practices. Growth based capitalism is not the universal engine we have heralded it to be. It is a powerful economic and social incentive that can be applied to marvelous effect when innovation is essential. But maintenance work–the stuff that just needs to be done year after year–to keep our societies functioning, healthy and robust does not benefit from such practices. The highly costly (though externalized! w00t profits!!) short term gains of the petrochemical green revolution of the mid 20th century coalescing into today’s agribusiness being one such example.
And before you dismiss this as being gospel of another converted organic eater, know that though I live in NYC, I am in direct contact with a number of organic farmers from the outlaying rural regions as well as young folks who have done seasonal labor on said farms. Yes it is hard work. Yes it requires more hands. Yes you have to get up at crazy early hours and often don’t come back in till late. But many of these people are quite happy living the life they do. Nobody makes a lot of money doing it but compared to the idle poor I see in my and other neighborhoods, I think these farming folk are much happier and healthier for it.
Note to JR: this is like the third comment like this in as many weeks that I’ve read here on CP. I know you are very good about keeping the climate confusionists and disinformers in check, but I’m wondering if organic food production is a new front in the anti-green, anti-science, pro-statusquo misinformation war. In short: I smell concern trolls.
[JR: Thanks.]
Addendum to my prior comment:
Yes there are exceptions. And yes there are problems with the USDA certification for organics.
For example, I know of one local dairy farm that is extremely humane to their cows and open pasture grazed means what we would think in lay terms as opposed to just meeting the minimum requirements to make such claims. But the farm forgoes Organic status because of the strict controls on antibiotic use, including in the case of injury and illness. Many industrial farms would use illness and injury as an excuse to continue doping cows were those measures not in place (antibiotics are an appetite stimulant in cattle for some reason and that is the main reason industrial farms use them as widely as they do). This farm only uses the drugs in true cases of medical need, isolating the cow during drugging and taking them out of the milking line. So at worst, only nominal amounts of the medicines and make it through into the milk we consume.
This is the farm we buy our dairy products from.
SO YES, Organic, as the label currently stands in the US (and likely in other countries) like all regulations can be manipulated by big business via lobbyists as a marketing device that hamstrings some small players. But the spirit of organic as a farming and food justice philosophy is as right on target as it has ever been as for a sustainable future.
@JR – Are you backing Organic as an environmental solution? I don’t understand why you were thanking DA – can you clarify?
@DA – that’s a lot of very heated rhetoric. I do understand the problems of soil erosion, runoff and other ills. Do you understand the huge false dichotomy you’re trying to peddle here, that pointing out current problems with farming somehow makes organic farms better? There are many, many other solutions and by going organic you are needlessly cutting out a lot of options. Organic farming started as a religious movement and has somehow succeeded in convincing people that it is a means of promoting sustainability (it isn’t), eliminating pesticides (it can increase pesticide use), reducing water use (it doesn’t), reducing greenhouse gases (like water, it is less efficient and so can easily use more), increasing healthfullness (there are no demonstrable benefits).
Organic crops require more land for an equivalent yield which means more oil to raise & sow, more forests to knock over, and increased prices. In a world where we’re facing food shortages and there are riots over food availability, it’s unconscionable to dismiss technologies which can provide more food, cheaper.
Looking at your claims:
* monocultures are bad in general – agreed, but organic isn’t an answer or even the answer. There are cases where monocultures can be very good – the Cavendish banana, seedless watermelons, and navel oranges aren’t merely monocultures but genetically identical and yet they can all be organic so this label buys us nothing here.
* over-irrigation, over-fertilization – yes, these can be problems but what is “organic” buying us here? There are GMO crops which are designed to use less water or to fix nitrogen but “organic” means no GMO so again, this religion is working against the goals of its defenders. If we want to do something about these problems, what on earth does banning GMOs or synthetic pesticides have to do with anything?
* forcing farmers to buy new seeds – apart from a big anti-capitalist rant, what’s your point here? Farmers have a free choice and if these GMOs provide value for money (which they clearly do) then who the hell are you to tell them that this is wrong? It’s just silly to complain about being forced to buy seeds again each year when farmers do the cost-benefit analysis and make this decision on their own. What a ridiculous, not to say paternalistic, complaint.
* agribusiness are a problem – maybe, maybe not. “Organic” farms are just as much an agribusiness so again, this label doesn’t get us anything but it does banboozle many people into believing (falsely) that they’re supporting a local mom & pop farm when they’re almost certainly not.
* organic farmers are happy farmers – lame. If a farmer decides to go organic and is happy, more power to them. If they decide to not go organic, are you saying they can’t be happy? Absurd.
* organic farming is the spirit & future of sustainability – exactly how? You point to reducing antibiotics and sure, I think they’re overused. Hell, I don’t even buy milk because I don’t like how it’s produced. But does this make it more sustainable and environmental? I don’t think you’ve shown this. (I do think that industrial milk production is inhumane however, and I don’t buy milk because of this.)
Let’s look at what you didn’t say.
1. You didn’t say that organic will help the climate. That’s because organic farms HARM the climate by requiring more oil & water
2. You didn’t say that organic food will feed people. That’s because we can’t possibly feed our current population using organic methods, let alone feed a growing population.
3. You didn’t say that organic crops will handle a changing environment. That’s because GMOs and other technologies are leading the way in providing drought-resistance (or flood-resistance), more efficient use of nutrients, faster growth, added nutrients and other *life saving* innovations.
You’ve talked a lot about sustainability, erosion, and health. Those are all noble goals and I support them all. How does “organic” achieve any of them? Organic labels are all about promoting some Naturalistic Fallacy, banning GMOs, banning artificial pesticides (without any concern for their relative safety or efficacy), banning artificial fertilizer (again, without any concern for competing values). At no point do any of the regulations for “organic” ever try to accomplish any of the goals you’ve stated, they never try to achieve any sort of balance. If organic crops ever happen to achieve these ends it’s only by accident and non-organic farming is better able to achieve these goals because it hasn’t artificially (ha!) eliminated potentially vital tools.
And finally, how dare you label me a troll because I don’t agree with you! I’ve backed my arguments and I’ll happily provide citations and will go to the science. Beyond your bluster, what have you got? The studies comparing organic farming to non-organic almost always finds organic is hot air at best and actively harmful at worst. So stop with this juvenile name-calling and pony up with some evidence.
I guess if DA gets an addendum, it won’t look so odd coming from me :-)
One of the big problems I have with “organic” is that it is based entirely around superstition and anti-science. Not everyone knows what I’m talking about and thinks that this is trolling but it is not, this is a fact.
What makes something “organic” is if it is “natural”, according to their convoluted definition. (GMOs = unnatural and so bad, intensive bombardment with X-rays to induce random mutations = natural and so good!).
* pesticides? They’re allowed if they are “natural” but not if they are “synthetic”. How does this help the environment or health? It doesn’t, that isn’t even a consideration. If it’s “natural”, it’s organic, no further thought needed.
* fertilizers? Again, fertilizer is allowed as long as it’s “natural”, no other criteria is checked. Health or environment isn’t important, in fact the overuse of animal waste as fertilizer has resulted in illness as people consume E coli and fecal bacteria. These natural fertilizers continue to harm far more people than synthetics
* distortion of evidence, false-claims and anti-science – the baseless attacks against GMOs (combined with the hypocrisy of using radiation and other wild techniques to generate mutations) are just one example. Most of the claims that DA listed rely on ignoring basic science or even in attacking it outright. The foundation of organic is that anything natural must be better than anything synthetic, a deeply anti-scientific notion
* dogma – if you see the goals that organic supporters (and, let’s be honest, essentially all citizens including myself) hold up like sustainability, health and environmentalism, it takes some huge blinders to see that not a single one of the rules for organic certification attempt to achieve these goals. All of the criteria are instead focused around promoting some version of Naturalism at all costs.
There’s a disconnect between the claims and the method that must be obvious to anyone that has looked. If we’re supposed to care about the environment and science, why are you averse to looking?