Futurist Farming

Last month, the New York Times paid front-page tribute to a growing number of young urbanites who have ditched the rat race to raise chickens and turkeys, grow their own produce and make their own tempeh. These budding farmers have a lofty goal: they want to help save the world. But their goal has a practical side, too: they provide the residents of New York City with local produce, which helps reduce the city’s negative environmental impact.

The Manhattanite who proudly shops at farmers’ markets and Whole Foods, and the farmer who delivers his produce to that Manhattanite, exemplify a choice that all Americans make: urban, suburban or rural? It may seem harder to lead a green lifestyle in an urban setting. But on a case-by-case basis, it’s not entirely clear that farm existence yields a smaller carbon footprint—or a higher quality of life.

Toby Hemenway certainly disputes the idea of country life as Utopia. Hemenway is a conscientious Oregonian whose fears about impending resource peaks led him to retreat to a rural community some miles outside of Eugene, with less-than-desirable consequences. Writing in the publication Energy Bulletin in 2004, Hemenway recollects this change in lifestyle at great length; he analyzes then-emerging theories about sustainability and asks, is rural life really better for us and for the planet?

Perhaps some urbanites and suburbanites just aren’t culturally or socially prepared for rural life; a post from the blog In the Wake, written by Aric McBay, suggests that Hemenway’s disillusionment with rural living had a great deal to do with the social situation; others might have quite a different experience with the people they encounter. McBay also points out a big obstacle on the path to sustainability for both farmers and urbanites: very few of our products—clothing and appliances, for example—are made in the United States. We may increasingly be able to grow our own food, but that’s only one piece of the sustainability puzzle.

In another recent Times article, “If It’s Fresh and Local, Is It Always Greener?” Andrew Martin discusses the idea of the carbon footprint, which is especially complex when applied to produce. Driving a small amount of produce to a farmer’s market, or transporting a large amount of organic produce a long distance: which one is better for the environment?

The growth of urban communities in the world is clearly stressing the environment. Groups like the Urban Sustainability Initiative focus on burgeoning cities and large towns. USI is creating “living laboratories” in select cities, with a focus on Asia, Africa and Latin America. These urban labs experiment with new sustainability methods and existing practices, in the hopes of developing sound long-term practices for city dwellers. (USI doesn’t particularly emphasize food; rather, it targets transportation, housing and commercial design, air and water quality, and other taken-for-granted features of urban life.)

All this research is making one point glaringly obvious: sustainability is directly at odds with traditional human civilization. How can humans create sustainable means of living when the very practice of farming is “eating up the world’s wildernesses”? How can trade be changed so that it helps, rather than hurts, individual economies, cultivating equal relationships, rather than debts and dependence?

A few years ago, the European Union began subsidizing farmers “based … on how they manage the environment,” as this article in NPR put it. One “insulted” French farmer now sees himself as the European Union’s “gardener.” But doesn’t this strategy have promise? For example, British farmers can “earn points for doing things that create a healthier, cleaner or just prettier landscape.” The result: farming, a human necessity, no longer “destroys wildernesses” at quite the same rate, as many of the point-earning actions benefit local wildlife.

A similar program has existed Stateside since 1985. The Conservation Reserve Program, spearheaded by the USDA, essentially “pays farmers not to farm,” transforming cropland into wildlife habitat. But as in Europe, this program is not always popular. NPR says, “Businesses that sell farm products don't like it, because taking land out of production reduces demand for fertilizer, pesticides, tractors and fuel. Farmers often confess to feeling odd about a program that pays them not to practice their profession. And environmentalists say the program falls far short of its potential.”

For more discussion on the plight of produce, offline reading may be the best bet. Michael Pollan, an avid farmer himself and the bestselling author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and “In Defense of Food,” provides two very compelling surveys of human influence on the environment, with food history and trends the focus of both books. In his second book, currently ranking high on bestseller lists, Pollan goes where many Americans, urban and rural, have been shifting of late: to a diet heavy in plants.

For ways to get involved with sustainability outside your house, Master Gardener programs exist in thousands of counties around the U.S., providing ways for citizens to volunteer in projects involving gardening, water conservation, wildlife, and more. Visit the American Horticultural Society to find a program near you.