McKibben: "Fascinating and Hopeful"

[Seth Itzkan]

Dear Friends,

I'm happy to see that Bill McKibben has tweeted about the Soil4Climate-authored article "Agriculture of Hope: Climate Farmers in North America" that in appears in Permaculture Magazine North America. He referred to it as "fascinating and hopeful." Thanks again to Hannah Apricot Eckberg​ and Cassie Langstraat​ for their great editorial and layout skills and to fellow authors Karl Thidemann​ and Steven Keleti. 

The article:

https://permaculturemag.org/2017/09/agriculture-of-hope/

Bill's tweet about it:

https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/915381460588253184

--

Seth J. Itzkan

soil4climate.org
facebook.com/groups/soil4climate
twitter.com/soil4climate
instagram.com/soil4climate/

[Janet Clark]

Hi People who understand the soil community,

What do you think about the new research reporting computer models projecting worse that anticipated carbon impacts from animal farming?  http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian?ocid=fbert

Did they forget to include soil benefits of farming with graziers?  Did they catch soil degradation costs for petrol based fertilizers and treatments?

Janet Clark

stock farmer,

Steady Lane Farm

[Denise Ward]

god what rock has he been under?  He doesn't even consider promoting hemp or kenaf to replace fossil fuels? I say he's a fraudster. Like all of them in the public eye. They never say anything that actually needs to be done. Just more doom and gloom. That's all that gets the corporate media attention. Have you noticed? 

--
Also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Soil4Climate/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soil-age" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to soil-age+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to soil...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/soil-age.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/835aa1c3-2ca7-48db-aaa8-e0d18b1bc10d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Please every person who receives my email, take the time to watch this video (you will thank me I promise you) and spread it around to help others: 

InPower Movement:

https://www.youtube.com/user/ThePowerFilm

[Karl Thidemann]

Hi Janet,

Thank you for your question. My apology for the delayed reply.

The views expressed in pieces such as the BBC story you cited, fail to reflect research that does not support the author’s thesis, namely, that “meat is bad for human health and the environment.”

This position, of course, is a complete misreading of nutritional and ecological history. The fact is, meat - 100% grassfed meat, free of pesticides and antibiotics, and bursting with nutrition - evolved over eons to be a perfect food. I have yet to see research suggesting 100% grassfed meat, in any quantity, is harmful to human health.

Furthermore, well-managed grazing is the most powerful tool at our disposal for swiftly healing highly degraded rangelands worldwide. Rather than fewer ruminants, we need hundreds of millions more ruminants - cows, sheep, and goats - properly-grazed, to heal billions of acres of land globally to reverse the extinction crisis, produce high quality protein to feed a growing population, and draw down hundreds of billions of tons of atmospheric carbon into soil quickly enough to avert the collapse of civilization.

The scientists quoted in this article should consider the experience of Lewis and Clark’s expedition of discovery across North America. After reading an article like this, one might reasonably imagine that Lewis and Clark - traversing the Great Plains, land regularly frequented by as many as 65 million bison - must have encountered an ecological nightmare. Instead, they found an Eden-like prairie, filled with a seemingly infinite number of animals, where every river and stream flowed with pristine water.

Given a time machine, would anyone return to the early 1800s and try to insist there were too many bison? Of course not! Then why do so many insist on making this same specious claim today?

As my friend Rick Conser says, “It’s the how, not the cow.” 

Everyone, from academics to herders, has “known” for thousands of years that “cows are bad” - consistently failing to recognize that no animal is inherently harmful to the environment. Any problem associated with an animal, is the fault not of that animal but its mismanagement by a human. As Seth has noted, “Overgrazing is a human invention.”

Fundamentally, we are in the midst of arguably the most important paradigm shift since the domestication of fire. Thanks to the brilliant insights of Allan Savory, a man to whom all of us and future generations owe a debt of gratitude, humans now know how to restore fertility and fecundity to the most highly degraded land on the planet. 

This means: We can phase out the use of highly destructive synthetic, fossil fuel-based fertilizer. We can eliminate ocean dead zones now plaguing over 300 estuaries worldwide. We can watch the populations of lions, and tigers, and bears (Oh my!), as well as of zebras, giraffes, antelopes, hippopotami and countless other species, rebound.

This is the gift we’ve been given, although many cannot yet see it.

In light of the severity of the climate crisis, this knowledge could not have arrived at a more propitious time. Regrettably, many academics - who perhaps don’t spend enough time on farms or in nature - have been slow to recognize this sea change even as farmers are rushing to embrace it.

Karl

Soil4Climate

--

[Nan Hildreth]

It's in our genes to love fat.   It was a good gene 10,000 years ago when we walked all day and meat was lean and hard to come by.  But times change, meat is fatty now and we can eat it six times a day.  So we get fat.   Bad for our health. 

The American Cancer Society says "Eat five fruits and veggies a day", but most of us don't.  

Maybe graziers on prairies are perfect for our environment, but here in the piney woods of East Texas, they clear land for cattle and pile up the waste wood to burn off.   The result is a thin soil and lots of greenhouse gas emissions from the burn piles. 

"A Plant-Rich Diet" is listed as a very important trend in climate protection by Drawdown:  The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming.    http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/plant-rich-diet

Nan in Houston

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soil-age" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to soil-age+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to soil...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/soil-age.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/ABBFBE5A-6BBF-42EF-B342-D4503561B40B%40gmail.com.

[Denise Ward]

Yes it is truly wonderful the knowledge Allan Savory has contributed. Alas the reason nothing is changing substantially is that same old

bugbear - money. We really have to get off it, and get off fossil fuels. And we can do this ourselves, each individually. Some ideas:

1. Stop flying for crying out loud!  Do you know the emissions that causes!

2. Don't buy new things but least of all new cars and least of the least of all - big cars, pickup trucks or SUV's. I can't believe environmentalists still do this!

3. Don't use paper products when you can use materials (eg for wiping hands, etc)

4. Don't use disposable plastic bags or bottles

5. Don't buy over-packaged items

These are simple things but I don't see environmentalists living like this. Instead of waiting for Congress to make policy - spread the word

about following some of the above ideas or more ideas if you can think of them. We have to stop the stream of waste, emissions, materials or resources.

Why are we having to try to convince anyone over and over about the Savory method? There is always only one reason - money. So

remember every time money is spent, you are feeding the beast. And virtually continuing the dire situations we find ourselves in. 

Because deferring to money means investing in the system and thinking it's going to continue and so not even the thought of alternatives will be

considered. The thought that we have to devise a new system, at least for those of us who cannot countenance the destruction of our environment any longer.

We won't stop it (because we can't) but we can put a huge dent in it and get the ball rolling and that's by keeping our own footprint as low

as can be. This we also owe to the people in third-world countries when we ask them to keep their footprint low too (or it'll take us over the 

edge) And the best part - we can start devising a system that will reward people who have these values and we can trade with each other. 

Who wants to get involved in this ugliness of everything "official" these days. Let's devise our own systems.

I don't know about you but expecting anything out of that lunatic asylum in Washington is dubious indeed. We absolutely have to do it ourselves. No

need for fanfare or policies, just keep a low footprint each and every one of us and open the discussion about our actions and spread it around

you know...be the change....

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soil-age" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to soil-age+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to soil...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/soil-age.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/ABBFBE5A-6BBF-42EF-B342-D4503561B40B%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Virginia Richter]

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soil-age" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to soil-age+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Seth Itzkan]

Hi Denise,

Bill McKibben has been extremely supportive of the soil message and I have been able to development a good report with him. In fact, just last night, he gave me a shoutout at his appearance at the Brattle Theater in Cambridge. This report developed because I showed my respect and support for him and his organization 350.org and have had numerous cordial conversations with him over the years.

Let's not beat up on ol' Bill. He's been fighting the largest and meanest and most powerful forces on the earth (literally) for over three decades. We need him to be that warrior and I don't blame him for being a bit jaded. But he does believe soil gives us hope. He said as much last night to a packed audience.

- s

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/CADCsQZaK5Skve0w0KUEZ5HM82eskouJAw0gG%3D7R_H3Ca%2BOEt-w%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Seth J. Itzkan

Join the global movement of scientists, practitioners, and engaged citizens working to make soil a climate solution
soil4climate.org
facebook.com/groups/soil4climate
twitter.com/soil4climate
instagram.com/soil4climate/

[Denise Ward]

Bill McKibben has immense power.  He never speaks about using alternatives to fossil fuels - he never reminds us that we are still subsidizing the industry, we still haven't seen a major university divest. Just those two things alone have not budged. He doesn't want to talk about hemp (this I know from experience). There is another plant that can do as much as hemp as far as industrial applications are concerned, not so much in the food applications but paper could be made from it

as well as hundreds of other products. Why is this not even mentioned or known? The plant is kenaf. It doesn't have any of the legislative cumbersomeness of hemp but like hemp,can be used to replace petrochemicals. Why is this not known? I think because environmentalists are not serious enough about solutions.

I'm simply saying what I see. The same strategy the only strategy is government mandate. And the results of that strategy have been woeful!

Bill McKibben needs to be advising his many followers to keep a low carbon footprint. At least we can make a mark that way (on

emissions) and act as examples for others to follow. But I don't see environmentalists doing anything different than climate deniers. This is not good!

We could discuss - what needs to be set out for individuals to do, so that we can all make a crack at turning things around?

Soils, I'm all for soils. A huge believer in soil restoration. But behavior has to change. It has to, there is no way around it. 

Yes support McKibben but also hold his feet to the fire - he has a responsibility being a spokesperson for the climate, 

as we all do because we know. Why don't you ask him about hemp or kenaf and see what he says. Obviously government policy is just not cutting it. 

They're not going to do anything and the longer we think they are the more damage and less time we've got.

Knowledge comes with responsibility.  If you want this situation to continue until the earth is further ravaged, 

then sure, just deal with the peripherals. We've seen where that has gotten us. We need to get to the root of the problem - money. Pure and simple.

Speaking to the choir has led to a worsening situation. I write this to you and to all on the list because I thought we are passionate about fixing the situation.

Environmentalists need to be standing on the tabletops and sounding the alarm. That may sound too dramatic but the earth is at stake, extinction looms. 

If the stewards are looking and acting like everything is peachy, the people around us will not realize we're in crash mode. 

I think people will move if they saw some sign from the crew. Bill McKibben and other spokespeople need to have a strategy that individuals

can follow. If you really believe government will solve the problem then do what you think but try something else too because it is too risky to leave

it to the whores in Washington. I am sorry if this offends. However I am offended daily by the sheer lack of strategy and vision when my world is being

destroyed.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/CAPcP%2BaKROYVpNttAxeX2sf8AVRr7OjX6B88rV7R3ARaPbdPKbA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Glenn Gall]

Seth --

Someone please explain why he presents one message to a soils audience, but another message to the rest of the world.

While Bill may be extremely supportive of the soil message in person, or when you are in the audience, or when he tweets, but his organization, the one whose name, 350.org, is based on a report from 2008 that says that atmospheric CO2 levels must be below 350 ppm -- considered the safe concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, his organization presents almost nothing besides things like clean energy alternatives and protesting against fossil fuel production, things that guarantee a warmer world. "To solve the climate crisis we need to organize for a Fossil Free world." That may well be necessary, but it's a far cry from sufficient.

"The basic facts of climate change are grim: 80% of fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground for us to stay below 2°C of warming.... We know exactly what we have to do — keep fossil fuels in the ground and quickly transition to 100% renewable energy." Statements like this on the 350 site are not exactly true, and they state a particular goal, <2C, which people adopt, probably mostly blindly, and so tend to be numb to or blinded from the fact that there might be a goal that is less damaging, less deadly, and more stable, maybe one like limiting CO2 concentration to somewhere below 350. Imagine that!

While I appreciate the hard work and dedication that Bill shows, the disconnect between his views and those of 350, and between the basis of the organization and a goal like 2C is remarkable. How can 350 say "The Science of 350:Find out what 350ppm means and why we need a global movement to get the planet on a path back to below 350," (also see attached image -- which even says "We have to get below 350 ppm") but when you click on it, there is zero mention of 350. Astounding! 350? Not really.

I have emailed the organization, and discussed this with 350 staffers at tables -- no responses from 350. I have asked him twice when speaking, and got an evasive answer the first time, and to a second, more directly worded question his answer was "We have to stop emissions first." So Bill may believe land use is helpful, but we will have to wait a while to work on that approach? I watched Al Gore's latest film the other night, and discussed land use with someone there who said essentially the same thing - "But we have to focus on fossil fuels." That's how millions of Gore and 350 followers feel. Where does that leave us? Are they sucking the bandwidth out of any possibility of a 0C or below 350 target at any significant scale?

They each have a huge microphone and millions of followers. How can Bill at least be persuaded to include a broader perspective and pallet of actions in his organization? Such a change would indeed be "fascinating and hopeful." 

I know we are all trying our darnedest to turn things around, but wouldn't it be great to add our awareness to a few more million people? Please, Bill, do the world another favor.

Glenn

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/CADCsQZb1g8R8ijdJ%2BTkPaO-iUuyUPP2Mn9tSoV82vKM-z8xXWg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Glenn Gall

Plum Creek/Black River/Lake Erie Watershed

Oberlin, Ohio

[Barry Carter]

Different messages work best for different people.

[Benoit Lambert]

I agree with your comment Glenn,

350.org has to review its position, based on flaw IPCC positioning. IPCC is influenced by politic to some degree. I am not sure a vote for the new 1.5 C target among IPCC scientists would pass. Coral reefs disappear at 1 C, and Arctic is almost ice free during summer. The message is clear: we have to go back to holocene, or pre-industrial, around 270 ppm. As carbon in soils will prove the best investment in human history, with quick results, there is no reasons not to retract from a first deficient target. 350.org crowd are intelligent people, they can understand. In fact there is more to it: this is an adjustment that would send a positive message for natural climates solutions/geotherapy/regenerative agriculture and development. We cannot afford not to send this message. Sticking to false numbers for too long is not good for sources' reductions, the partner of sinks in global warming healing for a livable climate. Best, 

Benoit

--
Also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Soil4Climate/
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soil-age" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to soil-age+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to soil...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/soil-age.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/E1eCqWJ-0001SZ-DQ%40elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net.

[Seth Itzkan]

To be clear,

Last night's address given by Bill McKibben at the Brattle Theater in Cambridge, MA, was a reading from his new book, Radio Free Vermont. This is a farcical tale of Vermont secession from the Union. It's not about science, or even climate, per se. It's really meant to be a comedy with a message. As McKibben stated, "It's the first time I've written fiction, intentionally."

https://www.amazon.com/Radio-Free-Vermont-Fable-Resistance/dp/0735219869

He mentioned soils (and me particularly) when someone from the audience asked what an "Eco-enlightenment Age" might look like. He acknowledged that he didn't know what the future could look like, but that the work on soils was hopeful (paraphrasing). I was as surprised as anyone to hear it.

It was the only such comment of the evening. Mostly he talked about his new book and about how to build coalitions of people.

I think he's encouraged that folks are working on drawdown (of any type) and occasionally gives a shoutout in that direction.  I don't think it's "his thing" and I don't think it ever will be and don't think we need to expect him to change.

He's already done more for the climate movement than most people alive. Now we just need to take it the next step. I'm up for that challenge.

- s

--
Also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Soil4Climate/
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soil-age" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to soil-age+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to soil...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/soil-age.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/E1eCqWJ-0001SZ-DQ%40elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Aria McLauchlan]

Hi all,

Bill McKibben also recorded a message for the Regenerative Earth Summit in Boulder this week, where I spoke on their policy panel. While I appreciated the sentiment and am grateful for his herculean efforts, I agree that it was lackluster. He seems unwilling to stray from a carefully crafted message, successful in penetrating awareness because of repetition over time.

I am glad that this group acknowledges the necessity of a pre-industrial level target: 270 or 280 ppm. 

We need to be careful about our "carbon exuberance" and avoid promising a silver bullet to climate change (we know at best that soils are only half the solution).

And we need to diversify our presence - talking to the folks who work with oceans, forests, water, clean energy, FOOD, impact investing... We need to form unlikely partnerships and attend their conferences, not just our own. 

Fortunately, healthy soil is great common ground. 

Best,

Aria

www.landcoreusa.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/CAPcP%2BaJcLarEedJTqKHODY3-3%3DLjQHXFidJmH%3DgEh3M8QKCKjg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

[David Yarrow]

hi aria,

thanks for your comment.

took a quick look at your trailer website.

very curious; i should investigate further.

i've been busting butt in the southern midwest trying to spread "carbon-smart biological" agriculture.

no one is paying much attention -- until this year.

my two young mentees in southeast MO are getting strong interest from farmers, 

but they are only in their first year of business as AgDynamic.

i drafted them the attached 1-page pre-proposal in july; 

response at the Soil Health conference in august was enthusiastic.

so, i expanded to a 12-page sketch of a 3-year plan.

but still, the idea farmers can cut fertilizers 50% immediately, 

and still maintain production yield while regenerating the soil biology 

-- this idea still gets too little attention or consideration.

we do have one strong poster boy for carbon-smart:

www.terra-char.com/wormhole

and so, the Gulf dead zone gets bigger every year.

it's possible the next 3 years will see a shift in the agriculture paradigm.

the situation is fertile, ready, almost ripe.

meanwhile, heaven has me in western WA lighting fires, nursing initiatives 

for community-centered agriculture based on carbon-smart "nutriculture" = "nutrient culture."

looking very positive to have at least 4 demonstration sites next year 

to put on a few public show 'n tell education events.

for a green & peaceful planet.

david yarrow

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/CAPOxYsutXzN9esF0x7k0LQtxXxadKm%3D2O6pjd9-4t8Noq9ZDmw%40mail.gmail.com.