[Greenbuilding] Global Warming and California Since you want to go way off topic!

[YankeePerm at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/31/06 1:15:03 PM, LLile at projsolco.com writes:


> As usual.  California has brought more new ideas, good and bad, than
> almost any other state.  Interesting point about the water - all of us
> eat from the Central Valley, and if it had no water, that would not be
> good. 
> 
> --Lawrence LIle
> 

While the topic interests me personally, I keep waiting to the other shoe to 
fall and waiting for the other shoe to fall, and learn what this is doing on 
the greenbuilding list.   While an enegy saving house is going to address the 
issue in an exceedingly general way, where you put the house (relative to where 
you work) is going to be more important in affecting global warming than how 
you build it...unless you live in northern Alaska and ski back and forth to 
work.

But mainly I want to take exception to the statement that we all depend on 
California vegetables.   First, I grow most of my own as do many people.   
Second, what I don't grow and still want (it being a matter of preference, not 
need), I can get locally grown here in Florida.   Moreover, mostly we run short of 
what we prefer in summer, when vegetables grown north of us, far closer than 
California, are plentiful.   We read the little tags on fruit and vegetables 
and avoid those grown a great distance, when we do buy.   

California population has been steadily gainining on its food production for 
decades.   (Read the old Rodale Cornucopia Reports for example, from the early 
70s.)   It therefore has gone to more intensive agriculture, the exact kind 
that is most extremely sensitive to climate shift.   Moreover, large scale 
corporate agriculture has become the norm, a system of food production that 
benefits the investors from economy of scale, but that has depressingly poor 
resource efficiency, to the point of regarding land as a depreciable resource.   When 
the land is used up, buy some more or invest in something else!   Mom and pop 
agriculture would be far more productive in the face of a dwindling resource 
base, and home gardeners outproduce all forms of agriculture on a yield per 
unit area basis.   

Much of the "greenhouse effect" is on a runaway basis, now, a positive 
feedback that we aren't going to stop, though I agree we should do all that we can 
to try.   Letting go of a system of food production that requires giant 
machines, huge energy subsidies, and profligate applications of scarce water   would 
be a start.   If you want to reduce energy useage to retard global warming, 
buy food produced as closely to home as possible.   The average food in the USA 
travels between 1500 to 2000 miles, and this is not by mule train, folks.   
And even so, aside from cooking, the largest energy input in the whole process 
is driving the family car to the store and back for groceries.   So home 
gardening, if it is really sufficient to reduce the need for such trips, will do 
more than anything to reduce the CO2 cost of our food.   And you will get better 
food at less financial cost, be closer to natural cycles, and if you are smart 
have little or no lawn to mow as well (another idiotic contribution to 
greenhouse gas except for the rare person with a push reel mower.)

Dan Hemenway



---------------------------------------------------------
Barking Frogs Permaculture Center
www.barkingfrogspermaculture.org

Our 11th Annual Permaculture Design Course Online begins Nov. 5, 2006. The 
protocol for our Annual Permaculture Design Course Online is at 
http://www.barkingfrogspermaculture.org/Protocol7_05_06.pdf


A list by topic of all Yankee Permaculture titles also may be found at

http://www.barkingfrogspermaculture.org/YPCpublicationsbycategory.pdf