Us or Them: Spinning Environmental Cuts

(frogworld.net)

In an April 15th New York Times article on proposed cuts to environmental regulation in Maine and Florida, the governor of Maine is quoted as saying, "Maine's working families and small businesses are endangered. It is time to we start defending the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine with the same vigor that we defend tree frogs and Canadian lynx." His words made me really angry, and I also worried that his message would be persuasive. It's clear that he spent some time crafting his misleading message to suggest that we have to choose: animals or people. He is not only equating jobless people to endangered species, but he is suggesting that protecting animals has a direct negative impact on humans.

There are so many ways in which the statement is illogical, I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with pointing out that the proposed cuts would be to opening up parts of the North Woods to development and suspending a law meant to monitor toxic chemicals found in children's products (according to the NY Times). So when he says protect tree frogs, he means tree frogs, trees, many other animals, and children from toxic chemicals, to name a few. Does he mean that we should protect the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine above children's health and exposure to toxic chemicals? Also, he seems to be implying that we protect tree frogs and lynx with a lot of vigor, and that we never protect the interest of businesses or investment. Right. I think its also ironic that he states that working families and businesses are endangered. Actually, he's right- just not in the way he means. All of our jobs and businesses that depend on finite natural resources absolutely are endangered. And as scary as it is to think, we as a species are endangered. Even if his statement were true, and we were only choosing between tree frogs and jobs, I wonder if I would even agree with it then? Should we protect jobs with the same vigor as protecting the lives of other animals? Do we have to have jobs that destroy other creatures? I would protect a human life with much more vigor than a tree frog's life, but I don't know that I think we have a right to destroy the homes of other creatures for our work. Even if one considered jobs to be more important than tree frogs, there's a slight problem with that logic: tree frogs do not exist in a vacuum and never do we. We are unavoidably linked to the other creatures in our world and we cannot destroy them without consequences to our own health and prosperity. So even if you doesn't value the lives of other animals, surely you value your own life, and the lives of children that are hopelessly bound to everything else in our environment.

I think it will be interesting to see whether this "jobs are an endangered species" logic is one we will see more of to justify cuts to environmental protection. So much of the struggle to get support for protecting the environmental seems to be about the way we conceptualize these problems and a lot of that has to do with how we talk about them.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

A CSA is a network of consumers who support a local farm by buying a "share" of their produce. This usually means that they pay up front directly to the farmers to receive a regularly-occurring share of food. The type of share can range from just fruits and vegetables to include meat, dairy, and other food. The shares are sometimes delivered, and other times you pick up your share from a pick-up location.

A good source for more information on CSAs is local harvest (http://www.localharvest.org/csa/). On their website you can search for CSAs available in your area. This summer will be my first time trying out a CSA; we are getting a half-share, which means pick-up is biweekly, and it will be just fruits and vegetables.

From an environmental perspective, buying local has been emphasized as a way to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Most food travels quite a distance to arrive at your grocery store (I think I've heard the average is 1500 miles). Even though I have very limited experience with them, so far I think joining a CSA seems like a good idea. However, I think a focus on local food should be combined with reducing the impact of an even bigger polluter in food consumption: meat. I've heard that reducing meat consumption can actually have a bigger impact and may be easier in some cases. For example, reducing meat may take less work on the part of the consumer; it may be easier to just avoid meat here and there rather than take the time to make sure all produce is local or enroll in a CSA. I do still think buying local is a good idea and still beneficial. The best case scenario would be to try to buy local AND cut down on meat consumption. In the case of joining a CSA, these may go hand in hand because one is likely to need a steady supply of vegetables for all those new vegetarian dishes! This is why I like the concept so much- its like committing up front to eating a lot of vegetables or else you waste your money. I should also mention that there are other benefits to a CSA such as supporting local farmers, rather than industrial agriculture, supporting farming that might be more likely to use organic, sustainable practice, and being better connected to where your food comes from and how it is produced. Plus you buy direct and get to meet the people that actually grow the food!

*Updated with pictures of actual CSA produce. These are little turnips. I love seeing all the irregularities of vegetables that haven't been mass-produced.