MLT NEWSLETTER
Fall 2009
MLT Board of Directors:
Rita Bober
Norm Bober
Ken Dahlberg, Chairperson
Maynard Kaufman
Ron Klein
Suzanne Klein
Michael Kruk
Jim Laatsch
Lisa Phillips, Treasurer
Michael Phillips
Thom Phillips, Managing Director
Jan Ryan, Secretary
Jon Towne, Newsletter Editor
Dennis Wilcox
Don't forget to check out:
www.michiganlandtrust.org and the “Events” page frequently for a
schedule of MLT events including the ongoing “Potluck and Speaker
Series”. Another link on the MLT page is: “Documentaries” which
includes pictures from the October 18 Garlic Planting. Also be
reminded that all the past issues of the MLT Newsletter are online. We
welcome input regarding this newsletter (including articles!), our
website, topics for the “Potluck and Speaker Series”, and about our
organization in general(we are hard to pin down!). Donations and
memberships can be done by using the form at the end of this
newsletter. Email: tomar@i2k.com or ken.dahlberg@wmich.edu
The first two articles by Maynard and
Ron are similar to their presentations at the 1st “Potluck Speaker
Series” event in Lawrence on November 12. Anticipating the Transition
gives an overview of the growing transition movement that looks forward
positively to a sustainable future generated at the local
community level. Next, Ron debunks the technological optimism
that delays the transition from peak oil. A needed “tea break” is
courtesy of Rita. Ron and Maynard continue with pieces that
further dissect our current vulnerabilities concerning 2 “important”
topics, food and money, and how we can navigate our way out of these
predicaments.
ANTICIPATING THE TRANSITION:
BUILDING COMMUNITY RESILIENCE
WHEN THE CHEAP OIL IS GONE
Maynard Kaufman
The Transition Initiative encourages people to face up to the
predicaments that confront us: peak oil, climate change, and the
resulting economic recession. We feel that ordinary people, once
they understand how these issues are inter-related, have the ingenuity
and resourcefulness to cope with the end of cheap oil. The fact
is that each of us must, in our towns and communities, make the
transition to using less oil when it gets too expensive. We will
make this transition more easily, and even joyfully, if we are part of
a community that plans for it in advance – together. So we
can anticipate the transition if we clearly understand what we are up
against.
First, peak oil. This image refers to the bell-shaped curve of
oil production. As it flows from the well the flow increases
rapidly to its maximum, or peak, and then begins to decline. This
image of a peak is now applied on a global level, and there is evidence
that conventional oil production has already peaked. But the rate
of production is holding steady at around 86 million barrels a day as
conventional oil is supplemented with ethanol made from corn, and oil
from tar sands in Alberta. This supply is barely keeping up with
demand, partly because demand has been declining in the current
recession. When demand increases faster than supply, prices will
rise dramatically even though there may still be a lot of oil in the
ground.
Now, how does peak oil relate to global warming or climate
change? This is largely caused by the burning of fossil
fuels: oil, natural gas, and especially coal. Some people
mistakenly think that shortages of oil will reduce carbon emissions and
save us from climate change. But the opposite seems to be
true. Supplements to oil like ethanol and tar sands not only
yield very little, if any, net energy over the energy invested to
produce them, they generate more carbon emissions than any other
energy source. These fuels are really scraped from the bottom of
the barrel! Also, people want to drive electric cars to save on
gasoline, but more and more coal is burned to generate electricity, and
this again adds to carbon emissions. So substitutes for oil are
increasing carbon emissions and thus making climate change more
likely. Such efforts to prop up the existing system (in this case
private automobiles) are making the problems worse.
And how does peak oil relate to the recession?
You may have noticed that between 2002 and 2008 oil prices rose
500%. The cheap oil early in this decade made easy money
available, and many people bought homes. Then, oil prices rose up
to an all-time high of $147 per barrel in July of 2008, and this raised
prices of nearly everything. Because oil is used to make
and ship so much stuff, everything cost more and people
could not make their mortgage payments. You heard a lot about
sub-prime mortgages as a cause of the recession, and they were a
cause. But we hear very little about peak oil, because the
powers that be seem to worry it might undermine confidence in economic
growth. So this topic is taboo! We do know,
however, that a rise in the price of energy usually causes a recession.
Two other factors will make us in this country especially vulnerable to
peak oil. First, we in the United States, about 5% of the people
in the world, use about 25% of its oil. We are the people most
dependent on oil. Second, we are probably the most
commodity-intensive society in the world and the most dependent on
money. Since money ultimately buys personal independence
and destroys community, Americans will be bereft unless they
rediscover a sense of community after cheap oil and easy money are
gone.
In other words, we who live in industrial societies face the most
severe challenge since industrial society began. We quite
literally face the end of industrial civilization. It can not
continue because (1) the cheap oil on which it is dependent is limited
and (2) we no longer have the money to import expensive oil. And
(3) if we could afford to burn more oil and other fossil fuels to
maintain our industrial production system, we will wreck the planet
with greenhouse gases and lose our only human habitation. These
things have already begun to happen and are likely to get worse during
the next few years. It is almost impossible to imagine what
things will be like in twenty years, after peak oil, climate change,
and Hard Times have become manifest. We do face a crisis
situation that will require us to quit burning so much fossil fuel.
But a
crisis also opens new opportunities. The shift away from fossil
fuel energy also opens the possibility of saving the earth from the
pollution caused by fossil fuels. This is where the Transition
Initiative comes in. The sub-title of The Transition Handbook, by
Rob Hopkins, is “From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience.” Rob
Hopkins taught permaculture courses before he started the Transition
movement. Thus the word “resilience” is used here in its
ecological sense to indicate elasticity, or the ability of a system to
survive disruptive impacts from the external environment.
Individuals who are dependent on commodities will be in serious trouble
if the things they depend on are no longer available or if they lack
money to buy them. They will lack resiliency. But a
community of people, working together to learn some basic skills of
self-reliance, can develop resilience. They can thus cope with
the end of cheap oil.
When I first learned about the Transition Initiative it appealed to me
because it reminded me of how I responded to the energy crisis during
the 1970s. I was teaching at Western and got a half-time leave of
absence from classroom teaching to develop the School of
Homesteading. I bought a farm near Bangor as a place with enough
land and buildings on it to help young people in residence with us (a
new class each growing season) learn the arts and skills of household
food production and preservation, care of livestock, and operation of
tools useful for these activities. In a couple of years
Michigan Land Trustees was organized and we sponsored many workshops to
help people in the local community learn these things. Now, the
Transition groups in Ann Arbor and Chelsea are sponsoring similar
“reskilling” workshops. Our local transition group, which
is called Transition Van Buren-Allegan, is planning to sponsor
reskilling workshops by next spring and summer. We will need help
from all of you who have so many skills to share.
I want to say a bit more about the larger Transition movement, which
includes around 300 Transition Towns. It is a pragmatic
grassroots response to the problems we face. It looks at what the
burning of oil is doing for us in terms of food, housing, and
transportation and tries to work out alternatives. It is
not political, not ideological, and not a utopian blueprint. It
could be seen as retrogressive as it very explicitly rejects the notion
of economic growth or progress as defined by the industrial
society. It affirms some aspects of an agrarian society,
but it is surely going to be a mixture of agrarian and post-industrial
elements. We can expect to use computers for some time, but the
electric grid will be less and less dependable. Transition groups are
already trying to work out labor-intensive alternatives to the
energy-intensive industrial food system in both rural and urban
contexts. These efforts will be reinforced by the momentum
of the existing local food movement, along with other leftover
enthusiasms of the 1970s such as voluntary simplicity, appropriate
technology and renewable energy.
As we move toward the future envisioned by the Transition, we can
expect that the form of work will change, gradually shifting from
reliance on jobs to more self-provisioning activities as people move
toward local or community self-reliance. More of us will be doing
what had been regarded as “women’s work,” producing food for household
use. In a post-feminist world this will, or should, be shared by
both sexes, as should child care. In addition to food, Transition
groups are also trying to revise housing, medicine and health,
education, and transportation. We may want to reverse some
recent trends that converted unused inter-urban rail lines to bicycle
paths. There are at least two of these in Van Buren county which
could serve for light rail transit.
Needless to say, the Transition movement will not have a solution to
all problems. It is a movement of ordinary people taking the
initiative for community survival, and when the people lead, we hope
the leaders will follow. So far our government has tried to prop
up the existing economic and industrial system, and we can expect they
will continue to waste enormous resources in the process.
The American empire is tottering, spending money it does not have, with
over 57% of its budget devoted to the military. Will there
be money to help the poor, or to redress the inequities created by the
corporate system? As inflation erodes the value of the federal
dollar it will be necessary for towns to develop their own community
currency system. People can create their own money as they trade
goods and services with each other. These systems are already
part of the Transition Initiative in many places. Michigan Land
Trustees sponsored a Local Exchange and Trading System in the 1990s.
One of the glaring omissions in the Transition Initiative is the
neglect of churches or of any religious dimension. This is a reflection
of its British origin; the movement did start in England where people
are much more secular than people in the United States. But I
expect that local churches, “faith-based communities,” could play major
roles in the transition in our country. On the other hand, some
religious groups who already expect the end of the world will see the
disintegration of industrial society as a sign that the Second Coming
of Christ will be soon. They may do what they can to make it happen
even sooner. Religion is always a mixed bag, and
unpredictable. But where it is possible in this country,
Transition groups might be strengthened by working with local churches.
The main social value of the Transition movement may be in how
it can provide a positive vision of what can otherwise be seen as a
dismal future. Those who devote their time and energy to it feel
really good to know that they can contribute to the regeneration of
community as they help to save the earth in the process.
Farm Tour at Maynard and Barbara's on July 26
Star Trek Meets Road Runner: Dilithium Crystals, Technological Optimism, and the Transition Imperative.
I. What about
Biofuels?
Ron Klein, Esq, PhD., JD
Captain's Log, Stardate 54343.4 Mister Scott informs me that our
dilithium crystals are deteriorating at an alarming rate. He has
jury-rigged a system that will prevent decay for a time, but it is
imperative that we find new crystals soon. (http://www.st-minutiae.com/humor/roadrunner.html)
Star Trek-a cultural icon. When I was in high
school, and even college, we’d sit transfixed watching the voyages of
the Star Ship Enterprise. No matter the crisis, no matter the
odds against the Captain and crew, they always prevailed. The
wisdom and logic of Mr. Spock, the plucky skills of Engineer Scott, and
the undaunted optimism and courage of Kirk won the day. No mater
the crisis, scientific gadgets and damned good luck blessed the ship
and the crew. All summarized later in the wonderful spoof of the
“antics” and improbabilities of Star Trek, Galaxy Quest, the
mantra “Never Retreat-Never Surrender” said it all, optimism, and
faith that we always will prevail.
Another haunting icon of those years was the photo
of the planet earth, beautiful blue and white, hanging alone against
the black star studded background of space. Alone. Empty
space. Life existing in the narrowest band of statistical
probabilities. Alone. Self contained. Spaceship earth-alone.
Of course, there are no dilithium crystals. And as the
life-support systems of this planet continue to deteriorate, our
unsustainable, massively consumptive habits continue, another cultural
icon comes to mind. That icon represents the vested interests of
governments, corporations and institutions that march relentlessly
forward into the future. “Never retreat. Never surrender.”
Suddenly, in a cloud of dust and with his iconic warning call,
“MBEEB--BEEB”, Road Runner again defeats Wiley E. Coyote.
Road Runner: the new icon.
This presentation will only place an exclamation
point behind the work of Dr. Kaufman regarding the imperative for us to
transition from our obsessive consumer culture to a simpler way.
I only want to frame the issues and provide a framework for you to
think about the issues regarding alternative energy, and concerns about
our ever expanding consumptive economy. The challenge to
“concerns” about the end of our fossil fuel based economy comes
from many sources. For example, corporate agricultural
lobbying groups based in Washington oppose limits on carbon emissions
found in legislation addressing climate change, unless the loss of
energy producing those emissions can be “substituted.” (Michigan Farm
News, October 15, 2009 p.3.) Investments in the “savior” technologies
that will permit us to continue as we have for the past century and a
half are touted. They don't realize that the oil economy is
merely a blip in the timeline of our cultural history.
Not to worry, we’ll have biofuels, solar energy, the hydrogen economy,
vast reserves of coal, and nuclear power. “MBEEB--BEEB .” No problem.
“MBEEB--BEEB .” Not to worry.
There are no dilithium crystals.
To understand why alternative energies cannot, (yes I said cannot),
simply substitute for oil and allow us to maintain our status quo, it
is imperative that we have a clear perspective for understanding the
fundamental issues. That is, we need to be able to assess-and
think deeply, about what the data really means. We need to resist being
seduced by propaganda, advertising, and our own Star Trekian optimism,
and the “MBEEP--BEEP” of political, industrial and religious leaders.
Bio Fuels from Biomass
First off we need to appreciate the fact that oil is an amazing,
unique, non renewable and miraculous source of energy. It is
concentrated solar power from millions and millions of years of
sun-driven algae growth condensed into a form readily modified and
used. The use of oil and its impact catalyzed the incredible
expansion of our species across the planet. The Time of Oil will
represent a tiny percent of our cultural history and an even smaller
percent of the evolution of our species. Once it is gone, well,
it is gone. That is what nonrenewable means.
I am always amazed at the complex simplicities I see on our farm.
The whole progression from sun to grass to microbes to milk and finally
cheese is amazing. The microbes are in the rumen of our goats and cow.
The rumen is a fermentation chamber where a complex microbial flora
works away, digesting the tough cellulose of grass, producing energy,
nutrients and waste. Industrial biomass conversion is essentially
the same: sun, plants, microbes or chemical extraction, to produce
fuel. For fermentation, microbes are contained in a fermentation
chamber and produce nutrients, energy and waste.
So we’ll be fine right? It is quite simple. There is lots
of sun, lots of plants and by simple reasoning there can be lots of
fuel. “MBEEB--BEEB .”
Biomass is defined as any renewable, biological material, primarily
from plants and plant materials. The biological material is
divided into two fundamental classes. Edible biomass includes
mostly sugars from sap, sugar cane or sugar beets, starches from
grains, oils from seed crops, and other nutrients from specialty crops.
Inedible biomass includes parts of plants we cannot derive nutrients
from. These are indigestible, at least by us, “cellulosic”
and “lignocellulosic” biomass. Cellulosic biomass includes
cellulose, the primary structural component of plant cell walls,
consisting of complex “sugar” subunits. Lignocellulosic
biomass consists of lignin the tough fibrous structural component of
plants. Both are generally lumped together and called
cellulosic biomass and are the most abundant biological material on our
planet.
Cellulosic biomass can be broken down into component sugars by
microorganisms that possess specialized enzymes. The
released sugars provide energy and basic materials for nutrient
production for basic metabolism. Metabolic waste products include
various gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and also water, as well
as combustible waste such as methanol and ethanol. This is what
happens in the rumen of a goat: Indigestible biomass enters a
complex microbial community, the rumen microflora, such as fungi, break
down the cellulose producing complex sugars that are further processed
by yeasts and protozoa to yield simple sugars, proteins, vitamins and
gas. The nutrients travel to the stomach and intestines where
they are absorbed and indigestible solids exit as fecal mass.
Biofuels are various liquids, solids or gases from biological and
renewable sources. Biofuels can be burned directly to produce
light and heat, or converted into more easily transported and utilized
energy sources including ethanol, biodiesel, methanol, and
methane. Having had some experience with bioconversion of biomass
into methanol, methane and fuel grade ethanol, I’ll use ethanol as an
example of how we need to think about whether biofuels will be able to
substitute for oil derived energy sources in order to maintain our
world-wide ever expanding, highly consumptive consumer culture.
Ethanol from Biomass: Delusion of the Marketplace
I’ll focus our analysis only on dry plant matter
using information from the US Department of Energy. Focusing on
dry plant matter in a “best case” analysis, avoids becoming bogged down
in arguing the trivial differences between various feedstock’s (plants)
used to make ethanol. Our analysis will ONLY focus on
energy usage of the United States. The constantly running
background is the increasing demands worldwide for oil and the desire
of developing nations to achieve our standard of living.
Let's start with the best data available from the US
Department of Energy, coming from 2006. Here we go, with first a
few facts.
In 2006 average US gasoline consumption per day was 400 million gallons, or
146,000 million gallons per year.
Ethanol is less than 70% as efficient energy source as
gasoline, in other words it takes 1.5 to 1.7 gallons of ethanol
to replace one gallon of gasoline. Given current technologies,
we’ll let 1.7 gallons of ethanol equal one gallon of gasoline.
How many gallons of ethanol will be needed to replace the amount of gasoline used in one day?
(1.7 gallons ethanol per gallon of gasoline) X (400 million gallons gas used per day) =
570 million gallons of ethanol needed per day
How many gallons of ethanol will be needed in a single year?
(365 days per year) X (570 million gallons of ethanol needed per day)=
208,050 million gallons of ethanol needed per year
How is ethanol produced? Ethanol is produced by microorganisms
“fermenting” various sources of biomass. Sometimes different
organisms are mixed, or fermentations are conducted in a step wise
fashion. Specific organisms have specific sets of enzymes that
attack specific chemical bonds. For example, fungi have enzymes
that break the tough bonds in cellulose releasing sugars that can then
be efficiently utilized by yeasts to produce ethanol. There are a
number of fungi used in industry that break down cellulose (I’ve worked
with one), and a wide variety of industrial yeasts that produce
alcohols from the resulting sugars (I’ve worked with three different
species). Many of these organisms have been bred or modified
through genetic engineering (I’ve done both) for high ethanol
production. Also, there are two classes of ethanol. Potable
ethanol for human consumption is derived from single step distillation
and is produced at a maximum of 100 proof or 50% purity. Fuel
grade ethanol is from redistillation of potable ethanol to achieve
close to 95% purity or nearly 200 proof.
Where does biomass used in fermentations come from? We know the
answer to that question. Biomass includes grain crops, harvest
and processing wastes, dried hay, potatoes, sunchokes, wood pulp, sugar
cane etc.. As mentioned above we will just assume maximum edible
and inedible biomass together under one category, dry biomass,
permitting an easier comparison of productive capacities, and a “best
case” analysis.
Under ideal growth conditions one acre of farmland will yield 5
tons of dry biomass. Using the most advanced technologies,
67 gallons of fuel grade ethanol can be obtained from one ton of dried
biomass.
Thus:
(5 tons of dried biomass produced per acre) x (67 gallons of ethanol produced per ton of biomass)=
335 gallons of fuel grade ethanol produced per acre
How much acreage would be needed to meet our energy demands?
Looking at the statistics from 2006 and the numbers we came to earlier
allows us to do the math:
(570 million gallons ethanol needed per day) ÷ (335 gallons ethanol per acre) =
1.76 million acres
That means it would take 1.76 million acres of
farmland to produce sufficient dry biomass for one day’s worth of
gasoline. A year’s worth would be 365 days more. Do the
math and you get :
612 million acres
That means it would take 612 million acres of farm land to produce sufficient biomass for one year’s worth of gasoline.
What does this mean? According to the USDA data base, in 2007,
309.6 million acres were used for harvested crops in the US. That
included increased pasture land and set-asides that were brought under
tillage to produce corn for ethanol production. This number
represents close to the maximum tillable or productive cropping acreage
available in the US.
How many acres of tillable land will it take to produce biomass for
ethanol production and what would be left for human and animal feed?
309.6 millions tillable acres available (MINUS) 612 million acres required =
Negative 302 million tillable acres.
Negative means minus, less than zero and in practical terms - less than
nonexisting -“ It ain’t there and it ain’t never gonna be.” We would
need to double the total number of tillable acres in the US to produce
one year’s worth of biomass to convert into ethanol.
“MBEEB--BEEB .” Nothing left for human or animal feed.
Hey, BUT what about continuing advances being
made in technology and genetic engineering? That is correct. We
have made many amazing advances in biomass conversion, and even greater
advances have been “just around the corner,” for decades.
However, efficiencies and increased yields have been modest in
comparison to need, despite advances in plant genetics, genetic
engineering, improvements in distillation and industrial
processing. Optimism exceeds reality.
The US Department of Energy has even noted that:
IF (my emphasis) yields of 10 to 15 dry tons per acre and ethanol
yields of 80 to 100 gallons per ton of biomass could (my emphasis) be
achieved, an acre of beanery crops could (my emphasis) generate 800 to
1500 gallons of ethanol.. (http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/biofuels/transportation.shtml, visited 11/2/2009)
Taking the US Department of Energy’s maximum
theoretical yield of 1500 gallons of ethanol from one acre of cropland
we can calculate what we would need to satisfy US gasoline usage.
Again using the numbers we derived earlier.
(570 million gallons ethanol needed per day) ÷ (1500 gallon produced per acre) =
0.38 million tillable acres needed per day
OR
136.8 million tillable acres needed per year
Since harvest crops were produced on 309.6 million
acres, we would have 172 million acres remaining for human and animal
feed, and export. That is 56% of the total cultivated acreage in
the US. Assuming “IF” we could achieve yields of 15 tons of
dried biomass per acre and “IF” we could convert that biomass to 1500
gallons of fuel grade ethanol.
What is the current level of ethanol production in
the US? Reality is sobering. 4 billion or 4,000
million gallons of fuel grade ethanol were produced in the US in 2005
utilizing 13% of the US corn crop. This ethanol was primarily
used as a fuel additive. 4 billion is a huge number, but do
the math using the numbers presented earlier. Assuming that we
use ethanol as a substitute for gasoline at the 2005 level of
production. How many days could we substitute ethanol for
gasoline?
(4,000 million gallons ethanol produced) ÷ (570 million gal ethanol needed per day) =
7 days of biofuel (ethanol)
IF ethanol production were increased by a factor of
8, thus using all of the US corn crop we would have enough
replacement ethanol to last 56 days. Or, 15% of yearly US
gasoline needs; of course there would be no corn for human or animal
feed.
But what about biodiesel? Statistics
from the US Department of Energy show that ~40 billion (40,000 million)
gallons of diesel are used per year for on-road transportation.
On road transportation does not include diesel used in agriculture,
construction, shipping, railroad transport or generating
electricity. The efficiency of producing, in this case, an
extraction (not fermentation) process, biodiesel from dry biomass is
less efficient than ethanol. Regardless, more tillable acreage would be
required, more 10’s of millions to be added to what we have already
calculated for ethanol.
Considering the basics of producing dry biomass,
just to fulfill the current consumption needs for gasoline, and
add in biodiesel, we exceed the available farmland in the US several
times over.
Hey, but consumption IS changing, hybrid vehicles
are making inroads, driving habits are changing? Yes it is.
However, look our numbers, even if the level of gas consumption
dropped by half, based on the 2006 data, we would need all
tillable crop land in the US to meet the fuel demand just for
ethanol, and that does not include biodiesel.
What about energy inputs? We have only looked
at the final product of biomass conversion. Our goal was to
simply place into perspective the staggering amounts of energy we
consume, only possible by an easily accessed highly concentrated energy
source, oil. But let’s now consider what goes into converting
biomass to fuel grade ethanol (or biodiesel for that matter).
To produce and convert biomass under current
industrial agricultural practices we use energy to cultivate, plant,
make fertilizers (yes most fertilizer is made from fossil fuel), apply
fertilizers, harvest, dry, transport, and process. There is an
average energy loss of 65% in producing ethanol from biomass. (In
other words, it takes 1.54 units of fossil fuel energy to produce 1
unit of ethanol based energy. Other calculations indicate that
corn, for example, takes 29% more fossil fuel to produce an equivalent
amount of energy.) Think about your budget. What happens
when you spend $1.54 for every dollar you make? Very quickly your
cash reserves, if you have any, will be depleted. The same holds
true for energy reserves.
Other examples of energy inputs for producing biofuels:
Switch grass (the miracle “grassoline”) requires 45% more fossil fuel energy than the energy produced.
Wood waste requires 57% more fossil fuel energy than the energy produced.
Soy beans (for biodiesel) require 27% more fossil fuel energy than the energy produced.
The fundamental analysis, the basic approach, to understanding the
issues with biomass conversion to any fuel substitute for our current
AND anticipated use is the same. You must appreciate the problems
of scale-up. You must appreciate the massive amounts of land that
must be used. You must understand the energy inputs. These
are energy consuming processes, which require an input of more
energy than they produce under current agricultural
practices. They cannot come close to meeting the energy demands,
the energy status quo, of our highly consumptive consumer
culture. This is the fundamental issue since the status quo is
based upon cheap energy.
What about the hydrogen economy or nuclear energy? That will be discussed in a future newsletter.
Reflections on the influence of lobbying groups fabricating and
exploiting our technological optimism and fears of losing our current
life style:
It is interesting how convoluted the logic is of
organizations that are trying to maintain the status quo. For
example, lobbying groups for corporate agriculture, such as the Corn
Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, label those
questioning the push for ethanol and biofuels, “. . .activist
groups, and . . . academics with an ideological axe to grind against
production agriculture and contemporary biofuels.” ( Michigan Farm
News, September 30, 2009 p.19.)
The lobbying groups have a lot of clout and are
effective in obscuring any rational assessment of the integrated
issues, such as how we can best utilize cultivated land. In the same
issue of Michigan Farm News referenced above, there was a brief
article entitled: “Food Will Become Scarcer Without
Productivity Gains.” The article discussed reports on
how “. . . advances in agricultural productivity allowed growth
in the world to keep up with growth in the population.”
However, “.. . .the pace of productivity growth slowed
generally,” since 1990. Concluding, “. . . part of that decline
must be blamed on reduced rates of growth in research and development
spending.” (Michigan Farm News, September 30,2009 p.2.)
Advancing this argument places emphasis on
“technological optimism,” in that more research and more development
will find the solution to our problems. It ignores the obvious,
we can’t use limited land for increasing biomass and food production at
the same time, nor can we maintain our highly consumptive economy based
on cheap fuel. And yet arguments are being made and policies
considered to expand production as a goal. The same publication
noted in an article entitled, “World Will Need 70 Percent More
Food by 2050”:
Producing 70 percent more food for an additional 2.3 billion people by
2050, while at the same time combating poverty and hunger, using scarce
natural resources more efficiently and adapting to climate change are
the main challenges world agriculture will face. . . . Annual
cereal production will have to grow almost 1 billion metric tons from
2.1 billion metric tons today. Meat production must increase by
200 million metric tons to reach a total of 470 million metric tons in
2050.
(Michigan Farm News, October 15, 2009, p.2.)
To produce biomass for renewable biofuels demands
the cultivation of huge amounts of land to produce fuels that
require more energy to produce than the energy obtained.
Increasing populations will demand cultivation of more land to produce
70% more food than is being produced today, requiring more energy to
produce that food. Modern industrial agriculture is based on access to
cheap high energy fuel-oil. The increased efficiencies are based
on oil derived fuels, resources that are diminishing at a rate of 5%
per year. Claiming that the decline in production is due to
a slacking off of spending on research and development is similar to
the US Department of Energy projecting the “IF” hypothesis of
producing 1500 gallons of ethanol per acre of biomass. Even when
you run the numbers it is evident that the land cannot produce
sufficient biomass for biofuel, let alone food at the same time, to
satisfy even a fraction of current or anticipated US and global
consumption.
In Conclusion:
We need to understand that our consumer, highly consumptive and
wasteful culture cannot continue. We will need biofuels and
renewable energy to permit us to live (as Trainer says) a Simpler Way,
a less wasteful and more Earth-friendly way. The development of
renewables should be driven by these considerations and not greed nor
investment to maintain the status quo. Short term returns on
investment will equal long term waste and will push back the time when
the end of our consumer culture becomes painfully obvious.
With our current wasteful consumer habits:
Biofuels cannot supply our energy needs.
Renewable energy cannot supply our energy needs.
There is not enough land to provide biomass and food.
There is not enough land to supply our biomass needs for manufacturing biofuels.
When confronted (hammered?) with self-serving information that
champions an optimistic salvation to our energy needs, remember that
there are no renewable energy solutions that can maintain the status
quo. And just remember- “MBEEB--BEEB,” there are no dilithium
crystals, do the math, think “community” and plant a garden. The
Transition Imperative is to begin living a Simpler Way, and not waiting
and relying on Mister Scott to save this dying Star Ship Earth, there
are no dilithium crystals.
Food for thought (references not necessarily included in the text):
For an analysis of why renewables are insufficient, a discussion of our
consumer society, and the paradigm of living a Simpler Way, see the
works of Ted Trainer: http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/
For a general discussion of renewable energy see Robert Bryce:
“Let’s Get Real about Renewable Energy” Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621221496034823.htm
“So Much for Energy Independence.” Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124693284425203789.html
US Department of Energy has a wealth of information on energy:
Energy Information Administration: In general see: http://www.eia.doe.gov
Annual Energy Out Look-2006-With Projections to 2030 (February 2006):
http://www.scag.ca.gov/rcp/pdf/publications/1_2006AnnualEnergyOutlook.pdf
Annual Energy Out Look-2009, updated April 2009: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html
For an analysis of research and advances in genomics, energy and biofuels:
Genomic Science Program and systems biology for energy and environment:
http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/
Plant Feedstock Genomics for Bioenergy: http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/research/DOEUSDA/
For a summary of all programs involving genomics and energy: http://genomics.energy.gov/
For USDA Statistics on land use, see in general:
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navid=DATA_STATISTICS
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/majorlanduses/references.htm
For basic analysis and papers assessing popular perceptions of energy resources:
http://www.postcarbon.org/
For a discussion of the encounter of the Star Ship Enterprise and Road Runner, see:
http://www.st-minutiae.com/humor/roadrunner.html
Tea for Free
By Rita Bober
Now that the colder weather has crept into October,
I have been thinking of snuggling down next to the warm woodstove and
drinking a hot cup of tea. There are many herbal and wild plants
we can find in our gardens and yards that make excellent teas.
Also many folks grow specific herbal plants to use for medicine as well
as to enjoy as teas. Herbal teas are often called “tisane”.
They are not only enjoyable but good for your health as well.
Native Americans didn’t just sit around the fire at night drinking
water. They usually had warm or hot herbal tea to share. We
can do the same.
For most teas, it is best to collect the leaves,
flowers, twigs, and/or roots when they are at their best – when they
are at the peak of their blooming. Most plants need to be
collected before the flowers appear though other plants need to include
the flowers for the tea to be effective. These must then be dried
either by setting out on a screen in a shady location with lots of
airflow. It usually takes a week or two to dry. Leaves and
flowers can also be dried in a dehydrator. So hopefully, you have
collected some plants/herbs during the summer and are ready to enjoy
wonderfully prepared tea. Or you can prepare yourself to look for
these herbal or wild plants beginning next spring. I recently
found a few plants (cut earlier and with a regrowth of leaves) that I
collected this week between the bouts of rain. Below are several
varieties of tea that you may find enjoyable and helpful for some
medical problems. Once growing in your garden, they will be free
for the taking.
Some wild plants:
Wild Raspberry: everyone is
familiar with the wild red or black raspberry plants that grow
everywhere. Many also know that raspberry leaf tea is taken by
women to prepare for childbirth (an uterine stimulant). But did
you know it is also useful for diarrhea and in some areas used as a
tonic for the prostate gland. It can also be gargled for mouth
ulcers and sore throats. Do not drink tea during early pregnancy
as it can stimulate the uterus. The leaves need to be harvested
before the fruit ripens.
White Pine: many of us
have White Pine trees in our yard. White Pines are cone-bearing,
evergreen trees with clusters of 5 needles bound at the base into
bundles on the twigs. The fresh needles make an aromatic tea and
are rich in vitamins A and C. Light green needles from spring
shoots make the best tea, but older needles can also be used anytime of
the year. Steep needles in hot water for 3-5 minutes, then
remove. The tea has a light, piney taste.
Wild Bergamot and other Peppermints:
Wild Bergamot is a native prairie plant. It is a large mint with
showy light purple flowerheads, opposite leaves and square stems.
The leaves have a strong minty smell. Both the dried leaves and
flowers can be used in tea, but because of its strong flavor, I
recommend steeping for only 3-5 minutes. There are many other
mints all with square stems we can grow including peppermint and
spearmint, but be aware, they can take over your herbal garden if you
are not careful.
Sweet Goldenrod: there are a number of goldenrods that grow in
our area. To distinguish sweet goldenrod, look for leaves that
are toothless, smooth and show transparent dots, blossoms found in rays
of 3-5. The leaves when crushed, have a sweet, anise-like
odor. Steep dried leaves in hot water for 10 minutes. May
want to add honey to this tea to enhance the flavor.
Sassafras: a medium-sized
tree, Sassafras can grow wild in an area if not controlled. There
are three different leaves usually all found on the same tree:
toothless, ovate, also 2-or 3-lobed, leaves 3-9 inches long.
Sassafras is sometimes called the “mitten” tree because the 2-lobed
leaf looks like a mitten. The twigs are green often branched; the
mature bark is red-brown, and furrowed. Tea can be made with the
root as well as the leaves. The root makes a much stronger tea
but the leaves are equally refreshing. To make tea, add the
ground roots to boiling water and cover for about 5 minutes. This
tea helps to thin out the blood in spring. Or crush dried leaves
and steep for 10 minutes. The leaves make a mild, sweet
tea. In London, chimney sweeps would drink a warm sassafras tea
to sooth, cleanse and protect the inflamed or irritated mucous
membranes of the throat from further abuse.
Grow your own:
Catnip: catnip is not a native
plant but grows wild everywhere. Once you have catnip in your
yard, you will have it forever. The leaves are jagged,
arrowhead-shaped, and gray-green. There are many stems that end
with dense clusters of pale violet or white flowers with purple
spots. The leaves have a minty but strong odor. Pick before
the flowers appear. The dried leaves make a pleasant tea that is
good for soothing stomachache’s especially good for children.
Chamomile: chamomile can be found wild or seeded into your herb
garden. It has small daisylike flowers and sparse, feathery
leaves. The leaves and stems are apple-green. Pick the top
parts of the plants including the flowers and dry. The tea
is good for helping one fall asleep. Do not drink if you are
going to drive a car or other vehicle.
New Jersey Tea: is a native of
this area, however, you rarely see it anywhere unless you have planted
it yourself. New Jersey Tea was one of the teas used at the
Boston Tea Party (the other two were Oswego/Bee Balm and Labrador
Tea). New Jersey Tea is a low bushy shrub. It has
finely-toothed leaves with 3 prominent veins curving to the pointed
tip. The oval clusters of tiny 5-petaled flowers in the upper
leaf axils are beautiful to behold. Add the dried leaves to a cup
of boiling water and steep for 10 minutes. It has a very mild
taste.
Lemon Balm: is also in the mint
family (square stem). Harvest the leaves before the flowers
appear. Lemon balm has a strong lemon flavor and should be used
fresh for tea. The tea is good for depression, nervous
exhaustion, indigestion, nausea, and the early stages of colds and
flu. Steep a tablespoon of the leaves in a cup of hot
water. Lemon balm can become quite invasive once it starts
growing in your garden.
Sage: use your culinary sage
leaves to make a tea. Leaves can be harvested throughout
the summer. Sage is traditionally associated with longevity and
for restoring failing memory in the elderly. The leaves make a
good gargle or mouthwash as well. Use a weak tea (steeped for 3-5
minutes) for sore throats, tonsillitis, mouth ulcers, or gum
disease. Caution: sage contains thujone, which can trigger fits
in epileptics who should avoid the herb. Fresh leaves to make tea
will help improve digestive function and circulation.
I could go on and on to include many more plants
such as mullein, strawberry, wintergreen, yarrow, fennel, thyme,
hyssop, alfalfa, rose hips, and hops. But I think trying the 10
above will be a good start. After you have dried your plants and
kept them in small glass jars tightly lidded in a dark location, you
are ready to start. Crush up enough of the herb to make a
teaspoon. After you have heated some water to boiling, begin by
rinsing your cup with hot water before adding a heaping teaspoonful of
the dried herb to the cup. Add boiling water to the cup and cover
the cup with the saucer for 5-7 minutes or as directed above.
Having the cover on top helps preserve the oils found in some
herbs. Stir and strain (remove the herbs from the water).
There are various holders to place the crushed herbs in that make it
easier to remove them from the cup. Some people keep the herb
right in the cup while they drink their tea. There are a
variety of choices here. Lemon or honey can be added as
desired. Now sit back and enjoy your “free cup of tea.”
References:
A Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants, Eastern and
central North America. Lee Allen Peterson and Roger Tory
Peterson. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, N.Y., 1977.
Eat The Weeds. Ben Charles Harris, Crown Publishers, Inc., New
York, N.Y., 1975. Fascinating recipes with special details on the
collecting and preparation of common field plants.
The Complete Medicinal Herbal: A practical
guide to the healing properties of herbs, with more than 250 remedies
for common ailments. Penelope Ody, Dorling Kindersley, Inc. New
York, N.Y., 1993.
Sustainable Agriculture in an Unsustainable World:
How Deeply Do We Need to Look?
By Ron
Klein
YIKES!!!!!!!!!
“9 billion people to feed. A changing climate.” NOW WHAT?
“Providing abundant and accessible
food means putting the latest science-based tools in farmer’s hands,
including advanced hybrid and biotech seeds. Monsanto’s advanced
seeds not only significantly increase crop yields, they use fewer key
resources-like land and fuel- to do it. That’s a win-win for
people, and the earth itself.
Providing more. Conserving
more. Improving farmers lives. That’s sustainable
agriculture. That is what Monsanto is all about.”1
Monsanto Technologies, LLC
And so it is said in the many ads from the
agrochemical industrial complex that by the year 2050 farmer’s will
need to double food production to meet the growing demands of our
global population estimated to be at 9 billion. Of course the question
of a rising global population itself being a problem that should be
addressed is not raised. And after 2050, then what? Will farmers need
to double production by 2075 to feed the 12 billion? The doubling
of production focuses primarily on enhanced crop production through
advanced technologies involving seed placement, climate assessment,
irrigation, newer fertilizers, genetically superior grain and vegetable
strains, and cropping as well as processing with enhanced technologies
- all just around the corner as we march forth into a glorious
future. Is everybody happy? And does the “win-win for
people” actually include the millions upon millions at or near
starvation today, or the tens to hundreds of millions near starvation
tomorrow? So many questions are assumed and not addressed in the
propaganda and the ideology being put out by Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont
and Dow AgroSciences.
Before we go further we need to make a simple
distinction between industrial farming and diversified, essentially,
organic farming practices. In the industrial model the soil is
considered a substrate into which a plant is rooted and growth is
fostered by various inputs from extraneous sources. In the
organic model, the soil is the growth medium containing the necessary
elements for plant growth with amendments that foster the soil as a
living organism. Can organic farming be scaled up to produce at a
level considered industrial?
David Fischoff, Vice president of Technology
Strategy and Development for Monsanto describes their strategy for
ultimately achieving a production goal to feed the world in 2050.
We made a
commitment at Monsanto to work toward doubling the yields of the major
crops that we work on. . . by 2030. And we see that result
coming from three different types of effort. One is . . .
biotechnology in the sense of new gene insertion and new traits.
The second is biotechnology in support of breeding . . . And then the
there is this whole area of agronomic practices, which includes
precision agriculture based on remote sensing and global
positioning. That is, planting the right seed in the right place
depending on the field conditions or having application of pesticides,
nitrogen fertilizer or other inputs. It takes advantage of new
equipment for irrigation and new planting technology, for example that
would allow putting more plants per acre while getting high yields.”2
Anyone who has grown a garden will understand that
higher yielding plants will require an appropriate increase in
nutrients or “inputs.” Inputs for industrial agronomic practices
include nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, water, and perhaps
micronutrients which are little understood. (Humus is never mentioned.)
Anyone who has grown a garden will understand that what goes on under
the surface of the soil is more important that what can be seen above
the soil. Close cropping of more plants per square foot means
root overlap; plants compete for water and soluble nutrients.
Thus even for non-high yielding plants, the level of “inputs” must be
magnified accordingly to achieve the desired yield. Dense plantings
require significantly more “inputs”, and if you’ve gardened you will
know that dense plantings, even with significant additions of compost,
fertilizer and nutrients, do not yield as much per square foot of
garden space as those given the room to thrive.3 One of the major
issues is root competition for nutrients.
Anyone who has grown a garden with dense plantings
also knows that drought tolerance is severely compromised due to root
competition for water. And it would be easy to imagine vast
fields of high performance crops withering on the vine due to water
stress, caused by any type of shortage. Shortages include things
like fresh water, energy to “cost effectively” run pumps to feed
efficient irrigation systems, and petroleum products to produce the
pipes and hoses for those efficient systems. The most critical of
all of these is fresh water, that we have not fouled by our own wastes
or salinated by excess irrigation.
For purposes of discussion we’ll ignore projected
shortages of energy, petrochemicals for fertilizer production, supplies
of potable water, and other things like salination of arable lands and
climate change. We will ask a simple question, “What are
the issues with other “inputs” that are underappreciated resources?”
Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P)and potassium (K) are
the three most critical elements for industrial agriculture. You see
N-P-K on every bag of commercial fertilizer. The ready
availability of N, P, and K has permitted the incredible advances we
have seen in agricultural productivity. Nitrogen is obtained from
the atmosphere by energy dependent processes; potassium is most
abundant of the three and is found all over the planet. However,
phosphorus is another story, available phosphorus reserves are
anticipated to run out at our current level of use by the end of this
century.
Phosphorus Wars?
Many of you are probably aware of the armed conflicts between European
nations over the guano laden islands off the western coast of South
America during the 1800s. Even then the “developed” nations,
especially the US, were importing this priceless fertilizer.
Imagine the strategic importance of phosphorus in 20 to 30 years.
No phosphorus - no plants, no plants - no food, meaning well...
no food.
The US is the second largest producer of phosphorus in the
world. China is the primary producer with the US following at 19%
of world production. 65 percent of US production comes from a single
mine in Florida. The Florida sources are anticipated to be
exhausted in about 20 years. The US exports much of
domestic production in the form of finished value added fertilizers,
and has to import much of its agricultural supply in the form of
phosphate rock, as does the rest of the world, from Morocco.
China, with its high quality reserves does not export or import.
The Saudi Arabia of phosphorus reserves is Morocco
with 40% of all global reserves. The political implications of
needing to control this source can be left to the imagination.
The International Geological Correlation Program
estimated in 1987 that there was enough phosphorus (sufficient
reserves) to last over 1,000 years. A closer look at the basis of
the estimate yields a different conclusion. The estimate includes
reserves that are not accessible due to composition or depth and
reserves included that are in highly sensitive environmental
locations. The estimates also include reserves that contain
highly toxic levels of heavy metals or radioisotopes unsuitable for
recovery and processing. When these reserves were subtracted from
the total, sufficient reserves for approximately 90 years remain at the
current level of consumption. However, the level of consumption
will grow as the population grows and developing countries demand
higher standards of living. Not that these calculations do not
take into consideration levels of phosphorus already in the soil, more
on that later.
So what does all of this have to do with “sustainable agriculture”?
Phosphorus is cycled. Our ecosystems reuse phosphorus
dozens of times before it is makes its way to the oceans and is used
again through hundreds of cycles by marine organisms before being
deposited in ocean sediments. Where it returns, after eons, with
rising land masses to begin the cycle again through erosion producing
soil, and then through microbial modification to a form available to
plants.
Current agricultural practices remove phosphorus
from the soil and sever the cycle. Our ancestors fed back to the
soil nutrients by the application of crop, animal AND human
waste. The levels of phosphorus were replenished at roughly the
same rate as they were removed. In our flush and forget culture
production and consumption of agricultural food and fiber products are
separated. Phosphorus, and other nutrients, are used once and
flushed. Often waste products wind up in landfills. Ask
your county or city what it does with bio-solids from the sanitation
and waste treatment plants? It is very unusual to find a
community in the US that finds it cost effective enough to return these
materials to the soil.
Modern monoculture practices have accelerated
erosion by water and wind, resulting in run off and loss of soil and
precious nutrients. Agricultural run off, human and animal wastes
result in massive algae blooms creating the dead zones so prominent in
the Gulf of Mexico and other areas of the world.
In most soils there is 10-30 times as much
phosphorus as the amount in forms accessible to plants. This
“unavailable” phosphorus is slowly converted by soil microbes
(phosphobacteria) into usable forms for plants. The widespread
use of various common chemical based fertilizers actually inhibit
several of the enzymes (phosphatases) used by the phosphobacteria to
convert phosphorus into forms that can be taken up by plants. The
population of phosphobacteria is severely diminished by changes to the
microenvironment of soil, mostly by compaction caused by heavy tillage
equipment, and also by added mineral laden fertilizers.
Compacting soil by heavy equipment changes the structure, aeration and
water distribution, and destroys the soil flora. Continual
mineralization to promote maximal crop yields, changes the general
bacterial composition of soils resulting in less diverse microbial
populations actually diminishing the numbers of various
phosphobacteria. Soil is not just dirt.
It is true that under a variety of conditions, applications of
phosphorus fertilizers and rock phosphate in particular can be
beneficial and cost effective. But from a sustainable agriculture
perspective, more attention should be paid to managing the soil biota
along with crops so as to get the most benefit from the latter. 4
Back to “sustainable agriculture.” Plant
biotechnology producing new traits and agronomic practices for improved
irrigation, cultivation and more dense plantings are not going to
address the diminishing reserves of critical elements essential for
life. Continuing cultivation practices, even “no till” based on
Roundup Ready soy beans, will not diminish the need for critical
“inputs” essential to the industrial agricultural ideology. We do
see a diminishing of erosion, but we need to look closer at the soil
and further into the future. Just considering one of the lesser
known elements, phosphorus, illustrates the critical need for
appreciating and nurturing interactive and self-sustaining practices
from farm to consumer and back to farm again.
Emphasis on novel technologies, “just around the corner”, projected
needed to feed the anticipated 9 billion people inhabiting this earth
in 2050, blinds us to the obvious and distracts us from the wise use of
diminishing resources.
Biotechnology cannot create phosphorus. Heavy machine cultivation
and dense plantings of highly productive crops cannot create
phosphorus. Federal and state regulations, which do not permit
recycling of wastes and block coupling the cycle of production and
consumption, accelerate phosphorus depletion.
Lacking a single key element can bring industrial agriculture
productivity to its knees and is why the agrochemical and reductionist
approach to food can never be sustainable. The industrial agricultural
system will always be at risk as will the population that is forced to
depend upon it.
The Monsanto chant: “Providing more.
Conserving more. Improving farmer’s lives. That’s
sustainable agriculture,”.... is wrong.
The touted practices further break the cycle
of production and consumption, squander and waste nonrenewable
essential resources, and condemn the world to a dark future. And
phosphorus, just one of many essential elements, cannot be created by
the magic of our technology. Industrial agriculture is based on
an ideology that in practice is not sustainable, is exploitive,
promotes greed, and is depriving us of hope, and our children of a
future.
When you read that the agrochemical cartels are promoting “sustainable” agriculture, just think…..phosphorus…..
Footnotes
1.Monsanto Technology LLC advertisement, Scientific American, June 2009. also available at www.producemoreconservemore.com
2. Biotech’s Plans to Sustain Agriculture, Scientific American, October 2009, 86-92.
3.Solomon, Steve, “Gardening When It Counts”, New Society Publishers, 2005 (and references).
4. Uphoff, Norman, “Soil Welfare,” Scientific American, letters, 11-12, October 2009.
Ron Klein a life long organic
gardener, earned his BA in humanities and MA in International
Studies (Economic Development) from Western Michigan University, Ph.D.
in Molecular Biology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and JD
from the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. He did postdoctoral
research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was a Scientist
in the Biotechnology Division of Phillips Petroleum Company in
Bartlesville OK and La Jolla CA, was a Senior Research Scientist for
the Upjohn/Pharmacia Corporation in Molecular Biology and Drug Discover
in Animal Health, he retired as Senior Strategic Research
Assessment Scientist and Manager of Intellectual Property and
Emerging Technology in 2001. He worked in the Prosecutor’s Offices in
VanBuren and Kalamazoo Counties during and after law school., He
has written scientific papers, book chapters and reviews dealing with
industrial yeasts and applied recombinant DNA, and holds a number of
patents. He is a member of the American Association of Small
Ruminant Practitioners, Wisconsin Dairy Goat Society, American
Dairy Goat Association, , Weston A. Price Foundation, Michigan Bar
Association, Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund and is a Board member
of Michigan Land Trustees. He and his wife Suzanne operate
Dancing Turtle Farm, raise bees and make artisan cheeses. They
will be moving to their new farm, Sunshadow, near Bangor in 2010.
COMMUNITY CURRENCIES
Maynard Kaufman
Community currencies are local money systems organized for use in a
limited geographical area. They are sometimes called
complementary currencies because they are usually designed to
work alongside of the official money system, but not replace it.
Although official money, when borrowed from a bank, requires the
payment of interest to the bank, community currencies usually make
money available without charging interest. Also, because official
money is assumed to gain its value in proportion to its scarcity, and
is therefore deliberately made scarce, community currencies can
stimulate economic activity by making money available to provide goods
and services in a community. Thus community currencies are
sometimes also called “work-enabling” and they are extremely useful
during times of high unemployment. For this reason, and others,
community currencies are often organized during Hard Times.
But it is important to recognize that while community currencies are
strongly advocated by some critics of the official money system as a
useful alternative, they are opposed by other critics who urge
fundamental reform of the money system. Thomas Greco has been a
strong proponent of community currencies since the 1980s, and he
self-published his books until 2001. Bernard Lietaer is another
strong proponent of community currencies, and in his book The Future of
Money he reviewed a wide range of currencies around the world and
explained their advantages. He used the yin-yang image to
illustrate the value of complementary currencies: the yang is the
financial capital which is kept scarce and promotes competition and a
stable money system, while the yin, as social capital, is complementary
and promotes cooperation, human well-being, and a sufficient supply of
money (pp. 271-277).
Other critics of the official money system either ignore community
currencies, as Ellen Brown did, or overtly oppose them, as Michael
Rowbotham and Stephen Zarlenga did. Their argument is that
because community currencies solve some problems created by the
official money system they can be seen as a palliative which relieves
the symptoms of a bad economy without solving the underlying
problems. Thus they may erode the incentive for deeper reform of
the money system. The organization and maintenance of community
currency can take time and effort away from the political task of
reform. In his recent book of 2009, The End of Money,
Thomas Greco describes these strategies as “reform or transform” (p.
110) and raises serious questions about putting the government instead
of banks in charge of the money system. He urges a transformation
through community currencies.
At this particular time, when the economy is in a weak condition
because of the problems in the conventional money system, it may seem
that our efforts should not be dissipated on alternatives, but
should go toward reform. But Wall Street and the banking
system are still very strong and have so far prevailed on the
Administration to prop them up rather than let them fail. Since
an interest-free money system would require political initiative, we
would be foolish to expect that it is possible. But alternative
community currency systems that help the people during Hard Times can
be organized on a local level without any political initiative, and
this is a good time to begin.
There are several types of community currency systems. The most
common and easiest to set up are systems of mutual credit, such as
LETS, Local Exchange and Trading System. In these systems people
in a community offer to each other, and buy from each other, goods and
services they need but cannot afford to buy with official money.
Although this is not technically a barter system, it could be
seen as a kind of multilateral barter system in which members report
their transactions to a record-keeper and try to keep their credits and
debits in balance. Whenever members trade the transaction is
reported to a record-keeper. A small fee is charged
to members when they sign up for LETS to cover the cost of a newsletter
listing items members want or offer to trade and other incidental
costs. All this can also be done through the internet. LETS
was started in the early 1980s by Michael Linton in British Columbia
and spread across Canada, England and Australia very
quickly. Fewer LET systems have been organized in the
United States, perhaps because people in this country trust large
corporations with their familiar brand names to provide what they
need and thus feel less interest in the development of a local
economy. (See Thomas Greco, Money, (2001), pp. 89-94).
Because traders in LETS often do not exchange a paper currency or scrip
for the goods and services they buy, but rather report the trades to a
record keeper, businesses have been reluctant to adopt or participate
in a LET system. Another type of community currency has
evolved to involve businesses in a community currency system, and it is
based on the issuance of a paper currency which is acceptable to local
businesses. An example of this type is Ithaca Hours. It was
initiated by Paul Glover who published a newspaper, “Ithaca Town,” and
later “Hour Town” and gave each advertiser a certain number of HOURS
currency to spend if they agreed to take them back as payment for what
they sold. In this way the alternative currency began to
circulate in the community. Eventually other and more complex
means of issuing currency were developed to get HOURS into
circulation. At this point in our story the plot thickens as we
encounter the important issue of how this kind of fiat (or created)
community currency is originally issued. Even Greco is a
bit puzzled by exactly how Ithaca HOURS are issued, or how they would
be redeemed ( Money, pp. 183-196). Who or what stands
behind this currency? What happens if there is a local
inflation as too much currency is issued? Does the currency lose
its value? In view of these questions Bernard Lietaer also
does not recommend Ithaca HOURS as a model. (See The Future
of Money, p. 194).
These questions point to the essential difference between LETS and
systems like Ithaca Hours: how is money issued? In LETS the
members literally create the money in the form of debits and credits as
they trade. This money can be represented as an account
balance by the record-keeper, or as a paper currency which many LETS
call a “green dollar.” In this case the member is issued paper
currency in the amount of credit he or she has earned, and it is
recorded as a debit (Greco, Money, p. 137). When this paper
currency is spent it does not have to be reported to the record-keeper
since it has already been reported. As members create money with
their goods and services there is no fiat currency as with Ithaca
Hours. And because LETS is a self-regulating system, the problem
of deciding how much currency to issue is avoided.
Time Dollars is a simple system developed by Edgar Cahn in 1986 that
has become very popular for at least a couple of reasons: it appeals to
people’s desire to volunteer to help those who need help, and it has
had governmental help in some places. In Michigan, the lieutenant
governor with Engler, Connie Binsfeld, had earlier introduced a
bill that promoted help for frail seniors in their homes. She
provided Time Dollars with administrative assistance. (See
Edgar Cahn and Jonathan Rowe, Time Dollars, pp. 151-152). Time
Dollars is a mutual credit system even though the book just mentioned
seems to muddy the waters with too many illustrations and
explanations. When one volunteers to help another person one
gains one Time Dollar of credit for each hour of help offered.
The volunteers have the option of trading in credits earned at any time
and can postpone this until they are in need of assistance. One
important advantage of the Time Dollar idea is that it facilitates
friendship and community. A disadvantage may be the fact that it
seems to need more administration and long-term record keeping than
comparable systems since volunteers can let their credits accumulate.
There are of course many other varieties of mutual credit systems, in
fact there are hundreds all over the world, and most of them
start small on the community level. But some systems grow much
larger, and one of the largest and oldest (since 1934) is a Swiss
organization called WIR, which has had over 80,000 members. Its
name is based on German words meaning something like Economic Mutual
Support Circle, but the initials also spell the pronoun “we” in
German. As Lietaer explains, “there are two ways by which a
member can obtain WIR: either by selling goods or services to someone
else in the circle, or by obtaining a WIR credit from the coordinating
centre” (The Future of Money, p. 169). Thus WIR is a hybrid of
mutual credit and fiat currency when members obtain credits as
loans. In comparison to regular banks, these loans carry a
very modest rate of interest. Greco reports that WIR had
been doing over 1.5 billion dollars worth of trading annually but that
over time more official Swiss francs have been deposited in the WIR
bank so that it has gradually taken on the functions of a regular
bank. He speculates that the success of WIR may have led to its
suppression as an alternative system (The End of Money, 154). Is
this a cautionary tale about the dangers of success? Should
mutual credit systems stay small?
The WIR system was of value to Greco as he sought to transform the
money system because it demonstrated the success of credit clearing for
mutual credit systems. When we write checks instead of using
cash, such as Federal Reserve Notes, to pay our bills, the checks are
eventually “cleared” by the banks so they can balance their accounts
among each other. Greco suggests an analogous process of credit
clearing for mutual credit systems and it would be a step beyond local
mutual credit systems. “I propose,” he says, “that groups and
organizations that seek to promote healthy, sustainable local economies
should make it a priority to organize regional mutual credit clearing
associations as the centerpiece of a comprehensive program” (The End of
Money, p. 173.) Greco goes on to explain that through this
process or network a business can also have an interest-free line of
credit so that it can acquire the capital it needs without the use of
cash. Gradually, as the credit clearing system expands, it
is able to make a greater variety of goods and services available
through the network to local systems (p. 176).
It should be obvious that the credit clearing network envisioned
by Greco would be developed after local mutual credit groups have been
functioning in a smooth manner. But Greco is pointing to a
possible future in which people have freed themselves from those who
would exploit them with money. For example, he explains how
a mortgage could be written in terms of shared equity rather than as a
conventional debt-based mortgage (The End of Money, pp.
220-225). This would not only save the borrower money, it
would be conducive to an amicable rather than an antagonistic
relationship.
Because of the economic recession we already have high rates of
unemployment. And since most economists fail to recognize that
one of the causes of the recession was the approach of peak oil and
rising prices, they fail to make a helpful diagnosis. They seek
to restore economic growth, but this may be impossible when oil is too
scarce and expensive. As we move into a future with reduced
dependence on fossil fuel energy there is likely to be even more
unemployment. “Jobs” is the form that work assumed during the
industrial era. When there are fewer jobs it will be necessary to
develop alternative forms of work, and some of this can occur in the
informal sector as people in a community create money, so to
speak, by trading goods and services with each other.
Community currencies will be very useful, and once such new/old forms
of work are accepted, people will not only recover a livelihood, but
also that which is most vital to their well-being, a sense of
community.
Sources Cited. (Each of
these books include helpful practical advice or even explicit
instructions on how to set up a community currency system.)
Edgar Cahn and Jonathan Rowe, Time Dollars. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, 1992.
Thomas Greco, Money. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Co., 2001.
Thomas Greco, The End of Money. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Co., 2009.
Bernard Lietaer, The Future of Money. London: Century, 2001.
Back to MLT Newsletter Page