Still, as Ezra and others often do, he irritates with his myopic global-warming perspective, with the implication that carbon dioxide emissions are the long and short of environmental harm:
The average American would do less for the planet by switching to a totally local diet than by going vegetarian one day a week.Well yeah, if what you're doing for the planet is reduced only to the carbon emissions for which you're responsible. But what about the soil quality and erosion problems caused by large-scale monocropping and mitigated by diversified, smaller-scale farming? What about the effect of monocropping and national/international distribution on biodiversity? What about the local economies--the people, who last I checked were a significant part of the planet--that are devastated by agribusiness but supported by eaters who give a preferential option to local, family-owned farms?
And more so here:
It would be a whole lot better for the planet if everyone eliminated one meat meal a week than if a small core of die-hards developed perfectly virtuous diets.Sure. I might or might not be one of those die-hards--my diet certainly is not perfectly virtuous, but the fact that today I ate almost nothing that Nadia didn't grow herself on a small farm right outside Chicago indicates that I might be part of the group this shot is aimed at.
But here's the thing: for me, and most of the food-movement folks I know, this has never been about tabulating our own environmental impact, carbon-emission-focused or otherwise. It's about movement-building--showing others that their options aren't as limited as they may have assumed they are. Every time we have someone over for dinner and serve them a locally grown tomato, there's a potential convert--someone else to support a local farmer, eat tastier and more healthful food, and invite other friends over to taste the tomatoes. Focusing on each individual's literal impact is silly when you're dealing with a growing movement--the idea is to get it to snowball and to build the collective impact over time.
Unless, of course, Ezra knows of a way to simply get everyone in the country to eliminate one meat meal each week. That certainly would be more effective than the slow work of building the food movement. But it seems to me that the way to get a large group of people to make a small change is for a small group of people to demonstrate how easy, even enjoyable, it can be to make a larger change.
Speaking of Ezra Klein, did you read that link he posted to a few days ago with the terse description "this conservative farmer's rant..."? What you and said farmer write are really compelling side-by-side reads because you're advocating not that he immediately change his ways so much as that folks change their purchasing habits, which ultimately makes it profitable -- and therefore compelling -- for him to change his ways. Good stuff; makes me eager to change some of my own poor habits.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I was irritated by that piece--true, that guys knows a lot more about farming than I do, maybe even more than Michael Pollan does... But there are plenty of food-movement thought leaders who are working farmers. Tom Philpott, Joel Salatin, Wendell Berry, others. They've taken a longer view, as you say,; they've farmed profitably; and they disagree with the ranting conservative farmer.
ReplyDeleteYes -- thanks for clarifying my point, which was not intended to be a defense of the conservative farmer, or that the profit motive is the sine qua non of sound food policy, or that only conservative farmers are profitable, or care about the land or their stock, etc.
ReplyDeleteMy point was simply -- even conservative farmers have to respond to market pressure; ordinary people can make extraordinary changes in the market; therefore, even without (badly-needed) regulatory reform, ordinary people can do enough small things to cause ordinary farmers to farm differently.
Or your point. Whatever. Dang it, you know what I mean. Thanks for this post.
ReplyDelete