Have you ever been invited to a wedding? A strange
wedding? Perhaps with customs imported from a foreign land or culture. You sit
stiffly and smile, aware that what you see has meanings you cannot fathom. One
or two of the hor’deurves looks good, and the rest look deadly. The music has a
strange twang, and you can feel cautious eyes on your back. Welcome to the
wedding!
Should there be a marriage of climate change and food production?
Actually, this analogy was made during an afternoon panel yesterday, when several
local farmers were explaining to a shocked moderator that climate change really
was not a consideration for them. How could this be? What rock have they just
crawled out from under? Embarrassed, one of the farmers made the point, “Coming
here is like going to a very strange wedding.”
I am like the farmers. Our family has pasture, sheep, and
an embryonic milking and creamery system. We make artisan cheese. When I tell
people we are pay as you go, they nod knowingly. One day soon we hope to sell
our cheese. But, from a distance, the climate change urgency seems to create
more smoke than light.
I found this gathering very interesting. It got off to a
rough start, with PowerPoint troubles. While the technicians fixed things, the
moderator asked people to state their backgrounds. Of over one hundred
participants, about ½ were agency staff or public planners, about ¼ were
students, and of the rest, I counted four farmers, including me. This would be
an interesting day.
One of my pet peeves is public policy changes hastily
implemented, based on scientific studies that have not been peer reviewed and
published. Often, the research had not been completed, and is legitimized with
anecdotal consensus. Similar to this is perversion of the peer review process, such
as the East Anglia IPCC “Climate-gate” debacle, where dissent over climate
change models was (and continues to be) forcibly avoided.
The day was a mixed bag of fuzzy precautionism and focused
reality. There were surprises, such as the story of tight consensus between the
Chehalis tribe and the dairy farm community in the Chehalis valley and their
proposal to build a large flood control dam on the upper river. When asked
about the quality of agency input into their process, Dairy Federation President
Jay Gordon gave a list of agency plan failures, from the early 1900’s right up
to the proposed levees after the huge 2007 flood. Only when farmers and tribes
began to drive the process together did trust build. Now, solid plans are being
presented for federal funding.
It was worth my time to listen to shellfish and deepwater
fish experts detail the marine biology problems they are seeing. But, as one
panel member noted, land based food production is easy to monitor compared to underwater,
marine food production. Full deep water marine monitoring takes very expensive
boats and equipment, not always available to clamorous citizen activist tidal
zone monitors. My question? Are the sea changes, the upwelling, the temperature
and current changes abnormal? Or actually part of larger, several hundred year
cycles we are just beginning to fathom. Lets not let social hyper-change agents
spin an adolescent science as mature.
Craig Welch of the Seattle Times had great pictures and a
chilling narrative if potential CO2 level lab trials are the norm. But—a big
but—those lab test conditions do not yet exist in Puget Sound. Marriage to the
precautionary principle skews reality and brings a gloomy dullness.
Most presenters were balanced. They qualified their
claims carefully and left space for further discovery. There were some slips.
When asked about the source of fecal coliform—human, farm animal or wildlife, longtime
shellfish biologist Paul Williams said, “It does not matter—the shell fish are
contaminated”. Well, it does matter—big time. If wildlife coliform is the
contaminant, why prioritize mitigation on farm animal sites. As moderator
Elizabeth Kilanowski followed up, “DNA coliform markers can point to the
coliform source, but—those tests are very expensive.” So, should the farmer be
penalized if the testing cannot be afforded by the monitoring or regulatory
agency? Sounds like a shotgun wedding.
Interestingly, a presentation by Kirsten Feifel on PSP
(Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) made a strong case that shellfish toxic blooms
are primarily influenced by water temperature and not by land based nutrients.
And, since Bellingham Bay is a relatively warm spot in the Puget Sound…?
The voices seem to echo in my ears—“…those farmers…
someone has to bear the shellfish problems. Maybe even, just skip the peer
reviews and publishing. Just mandate 100 foot agricultural buffers on all
streams and ditches—those rich farmers can afford to not farm some of their
land to “help the world”.” It seems that shellfish toxicity has become an
environmentalist sword just like eco-policy driven wetlands takings, that ongoing
conflict between agency short course experts and credentialed hydro geologists.
Four farmers in a large room full of agency personnel and
student observers. What is wrong with this picture?
Ever been to a stereotyped, fundamentalist, evangelical
wedding? (Full disclosure: I serve on a church board and believe in Biblical
inerrancy). Gospel notes in the wedding program remind the un-churched that
they need to make a “right choice.” Standing in the receiving line, the
question is popped, “Are you born again?” Eulogies to parents include swelling
sentiments of pious gratitude and patriarchal obeisance.
Yesterday, I attended a fundamentalist, environmental
wedding. Guests included scientists whose first love is discovery of the
mechanisms of life, health and food delivery. There were the technicians who
enable the research. There were the professors who unwrap the facts to the
world, and the fishermen and tribal advocates. There were also the agency
staffers who get paid to plan and manage, to write and enforce policy. It was a
thoughtful, well planned, useful meeting.
But, I think, it is the “true believers” who keep the
farmers away. The Carrie Nations types who pop up on the floor, crying, “Are
you born again? Do you believe in climate change? Why have you not met your
mother earth goddess yet? You should be ashamed of yourself. We’ll cast you
(nasty teabaggers) out, that’s what we’ll do.” Then they sweep away with final,
wild cries, “Population control! Urban growth areas and wildlands forever! Love
mother earth! Sue ‘em at the Growth Management Hearings Board for everything
they have!”
A double wedding. Two couples. Farmers and land climate
change. Seafood gatherers and oceanic climate change.
Climate change is real. But, whose climate change? As the
farmer panel declared, farmers deal with climate change every day. Hot and cold
years. Wet and dry. Old pests and new pests. Again, as Chad Kruger, director of the WSU Center for Sustaining Agriculture
and Natural Resources noted, research is showing that decreased “redundancy”
(as farms get bigger and fewer) is a more present threat to the food supply
than currently well managed, in his opinion, climate change induced stressors
(heat, moisture, pests…)
Maybe the climate change, shellfish focused, fighting
fundies should see and bridge the culture gap with farms and farmers like they do
so with the tribes. Then, the farmers might come to the wedding. -- JK
Thank you for going to this and reporting back. I was unable to attend. Hope to be there with you at the next "Wedding".
ReplyDelete