Possible Changes at the Societal and Professional Levels
Abstract
Global warming is no doubt the the greatest and most far reaching societal and professional long term threat to every end of human livelihood. Agriculture is quickly growing into one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases. And therefore, global warming. The recent development of industrial farming has exasperated the amount of methane and nitrous oxide gases being released into the atmosphere. This has been done under the pressure of many different stimuli, including government lobbyists and stimuli, and companies like Monsanto. Indifference and lack of public education has ensured that this remains a problem for the immediate future, until it is perhaps too late. There are several potential solutions, including using less industrial fertilizer, a return To free range and organic farming, and making smarter choices in what we eat. We need to make it clear to the government that we know how much damage the current state of farming is causing, and demand greater oversight. This paper will highlight the problems and solutions in a lot of depth.
Key words: Global warming, industrial farming, agriculture, government, MonsantoGlobal Warming Through Agriculture
Possible Changes at the Societal and Professional Levels
The Professional or Societal Issue
Global warming is acting on our planet faster than projected. Water resources are drying up, especially in the Himilayan Basin, where ice caps are melting at alarming levels. Billions of people are dependent on this source for clean water, and it is flowing uncontrollably down to the Indian Ocean, causing flooding and water that cannot be used. The ocean temperatures are rising, causing coral reef and multiple species to become at risk for extinction. The causes of global warming are not only having effects on the planet along planet and animal species, it is impacting the health of humans. Gas emissions are causing breathing problems throughout the world, and the wild weather patterns being observed more and more are taking lives and leaving billions of dollars in damage while putting people at high risk for infectious disease.
A cause of global warming that is tremendous, industrial agriculture, is also one that is left out of the conversation. When most people think of global warming, they think of oil, natural gas, coal burning power plants and cars. People are not wrong in making those associations. Carbon in the atmosphere is very dangerous to our environment in many ways, especially when we have less plants than ever to absorb these molecules. Industrial agriculture, which can be defined in many ways, is estimated to be responsible for up to 33 percent of all the toxic gas emissions into the atmosphere.
Industrial agriculture is best known for when animals are over-congregated into a small amount of land, if any land at all, and bred for the sole purpose of providing meat and dairy for consumption. All of these animals defecate, releasing high amounts of methane gas into the environment. Industrial agriculture (IA) also results in deforestation and desertification of land all over the world, particularly in central Asia and South America. As stated before, less plants means less photosynthesis, which means less transfer of carbon into oxygen molecules. Excessive carbon gases in the atmosphere is the leading cause of greenhouse gases (GHGs), which depletes ozone and speeds ice melt. Finally, modern fertilizers have taken the place of manure on crop farms, which leads to Nitrogen gases to be released into the atmosphere (Rodriguez, 2004). Nitrous oxide and other gases in the Nitrogen family are the second most detrimental to the environment.
This issue should be of concern to everybody who is currently living or planning on having a family. We will see dramatic changes in our lifetimes. In fact, these changes are already being felt, and can be oppressive to humanity in general within the next ten years. Protecting our way of life, of humanity and the planet in general is in the best interest of really every professional service, as well as every human being. We are at the cusp of being too late to take any sort of reversing measures, and are coming to the brink of only maintaining current levels of toxicity to our planet. A complete new way of thinking about how animals are raised, as well as how we eat, should be looked at. In the meantime, the government can do a bit as well to help mitigate this cause of global catastrophe.
The Needed Change
The specific change that needs to occur is how agriculture is taken care of on multiple levels. The world is already suffering from so many other causes of harm to its environment, changing the way natural commodities are harvested could really help put a dent in the crisis. With a complete change, we could reduce GHGs by up to 33 percent, but even slight changes could decrease the total damage to our environment by 8 percent. This is a sizable and very realistic change that could be easily maintained as a society and from multiple professional standpoints.
Three Manageable Goals
There are many manageable goals, all of which can fall into a few different categories. The first is sustainable land use, followed by sustainable farming, recycling waste/byproducts such as manure (Sequi, 1999). These are all professional goals that have been proven to be done easily. There are regulatory goals as well, in terms of how much gas is allowed to be let back into the atmosphere, and how much of these chemicals need to be absorbed into the dirt and plants (United States Geological Society, 2007). There are many ways to go about doing this involving agencies, lobbyists and lawyers. Finally, on a societal level, we can learn to look for foods that have been harvested and grown in a sustainable way.
Sustainable land use is not a new idea. In fact, it is one of the oldest farming methods that is still used by many markets. One example of this is quadrant farming. Each farmer’s plot of land is broken into four plains, only one being used for planting food per year, and the one that was used for plants the preceding year used as pasture for food source animals, the two other plains are being re-propagated and enriched naturally by manure and other natural means (epa, 2015).
Sustainable farming goes further than land use, however. When cattle, hogs, and chicken are put into a very small area, they oversaturate the soil with too much methane, and their feet ruin any chance of plants growing successfully on that piece of land again for a very long time. The animals need to be spread apart, not even just for ethical reasons, but very much for environmental reasons. Also, in addition, the byproducts of the waste, as mentioned before, can be used safely to fertilize the soil. When farmers use fertilizers dense in nitrates, they may feel justified in doing so, but they often use too much in the soil. Bacteria in the soil is not very savvy on integrating foreign chemicals into the soil, which means that these nitrates stay near the top, rather than sinking in when it rains. The result is a gas that is released in the air. The nice fresh soil smell that emits from many greenhouses is great evidence that these oxides are released as gases, lest anybody be doubtful (Horrigan, et al. 2002).
Often times, farmers use these practices to meet demands, and to do it with a budget in mind so that they can turn over a high profit margin. Many of these farmers already receive subsidies, so it really does not take much for them to earn a profit (Lichtenberg, 2000). Perhaps more enforcement of government regulations needs to take place. The EPA needs more teeth. Right now, it is notoriously well known how much farms and packing plants can get away with when it comes to the EPA and the FDA. This is because these government bureaucracies are not funded well enough to have any real effect much of the time.
The general public, society as a whole, needs to start looking at the way they eat more. It might not be fun to do, especially if you are fortunate to live in a region where food is always available. It is so easy to ignore that there is any problem at all. Meanwhile, the rest of the world sees the implications of bad farming practices on a daily basis, whether it is through the loss of valuable drinking water, or the lack of any food at all. This is more of a social change, whereas the first two groups are leadership changes.
Primarily, the goal needs to be for advocacy and even activism. People need to start getting upset that we are allowing ourselves to lose control of how much we hurt our planet on such fundamental levels. Our goal as advocates should be to force farms and government to practice and enforce differently based on the choices we make when we purchase food at the grocery stores or when we go out to restaurants (Whitman, 2000). Money talks, we can use it to our planet’s advantage.
Analysis
When it comes to the environment and global warming, there are a lot of forces at work, which is a surprising sentence to even type out. It should not be a controversial issue. Global warming is something that has been addressed at the level of grade schools since the 1940’s. Yet, here we are today, with many members of the government and farming communities arguing whether or not climate change even exists. This is despite a multitude of empirical evidence accepted by over 97 percent of the scientific community. This force-field analysis is so congested, that for the sake of coherence in this paper, we will look at a few positive forces and a few negative forces involved. Overall, afterwards it should be clear to see why this issue is taking so long to resolve, especially when it comes to agriculture, where virtually nothing has been accomplished.
The positive forces are plentiful and equally important. The scientists who do not bend to pressure from companies like Monsanto, and continue to report the dangers of global warming as a whole, with the emphasis on the environment. Monsanto will be mentioned shortly. Scientists also have to face political pressure, demands by the schools or other fellowships that provide them with funding, all while trying to conduct the best studies possible and develop better technologies (Dutznik, et al., 2011). The farmers who practice sustainable, organic and free-range farming are also very positive forces. They go the extra mile, and spend the extra dollar to make sure they are raising the best quality food, at the same time making the environment another priority of theirs. The consumers of these organic foods are positive forces, even if they consume these foods for entirely different reasons. Advocates and whistleblowers are the people at the very front of the battle. It is because of their hard work that change actually starts to take place.
The negative forces are disappointing. A few scientists have been bought out by the monopolous Monsanto, a company that is bent on trademarking almost all corn, soy, rice, and many types of meat so that they are the sole proprietors of these commodities (Bartlett and Steele, 2008). They do this without any regard to the environment whatsoever, often advertising their pesticides and fertilizers, all of which pollute the dirt, and therefore plants, animals and air (Polaris Institute, 2004). Politicians, particularly of states where farming is the main economical benchmark, do and say practically everything they can to convince others that global warming somehow does not exist. Though most of their counterparts on the hill see through how blatantly ridiculous some of these ploys are, many people, particularly from the states that these polticians represent, have bought into their arguments against climate change. Farmers and people who refuse to change their practices even while knowing tyhe damage they are causing are the worst negative forces. This is a ground game, very literally, and they are the ones working the ground.
Three Objectives for Meeting Goals
The objectives can once again be categorized by the type of goal: farming, government, and the general public.
In terms of farming, science can play a huge role in how farmers plan their land use, and with help, can make their land even more profitable, while being sustainable and reducing the effects of global warming at the level of agriculture. This can be done by reducing the amount of fertilizer used. There are people that can be hired to come test the dirt independently of any business interest, and can tell the farmer the exact amount of nitrogen needs to be in the soil for plants to be successful. Manure should also be used in fertilizer, as it was for thousands of years. This reduces the amount of stagnant methane being sent to lagoons to eventually make their way into the air or into underground water sources. This will also help reduce the need for foreign fertilizer that rhizobacteria doesn’t like to digest. This bacteria is vital to many plants producing the vegetables and fruits that we consume. There is also knew technology to trap methane gas and convert it into fossil fuel if it is concentrated in a very strategic area.
The government needs to be stronger in implementing and enforcing environmental standards when it comes to agriculture. It makes little sense that they have managed to enforce controls on how much gas is emitted form cars, industrial and power plants. It is unclear in what is holding the government back from doing the same with farming. The special interests involved need to be systematically called out and shut down. Monopolies are illegal in the United States. Monsanto needs to change its practices, both to allow for more competition, and to invent less dangerous products to the farming ecosystem. The government needs to do its job, and stop being controlled by entities such as this company.
People need to think about food differently. Drastic changes do not need to be made. It is not much more expensive for stores to carry food that has been grown in a sustainable way, and it is not much more expensive to consume these products. As these foods are consumed more, the demand for them will increase, which could help drive prices down if more farms switch their practices. This is not a call for vegetarianism by any means, though being vegetarianism is also helpful in controlling just how much damage farming can do to the environment.
Action Plan
Town halls need to be called in the hamlets and villages that these farms surround, where everybody can have a chance to sound off on the issue, both farmers and advocates. Farmers may be feeling some understandable stress, but if they are knowledgable about their options, and what the future of their farms could look like if they don’t go back to a more traditional way of farming (Whitman, 2000). Farmers can meet in the usual ways, coffee, breakfast, church, and talk about the viable options they have if they know that they exist, and do not feel as though they have to succumb to a company that has so much control in the business (Econexus, 2013).
The government needs to start treating this like the serious issue that it is. They give the EPA nowhere near enough resources to reign in agricultural mismanagement. This is despite report after report stating the growing issue that agriculture is becoming in the global warming arena. What used to account for only a very small amount of GHGs now comprises a third of it (European Environmental Agency, 2015). Are we really going to let our growing, business, and eating preferences dictate how comfortable of a life we live in the not very distant future? The activists need to call out the government, especially those in government who buy sell out to lobbyists in trade for their ideals and for the common good of society.
The everyday person plays a role in this as well. It starts with the way people are educated in school, from kindergarten all the way through high school and beyond. They need to be aware that it is because of our poor decision making that they face whatever it is they face, because we did not do enough to make the changes necessary to improve our environment. They need to know that they, this next generation, are really the last hope this planet has before mass extinction events start to occur. Today, it is not quite too late. Whatever small contributions we can make, in the food we select to eat, farmers we choose to buy from, matters. Contacting governors, congresspeople, and other points of leadership counts for something.
Overall, this action plan needs to be organized at a very high level. We would need volunteers, fundraising, internet specialists, people who can work in Washington, people who can travel around the farming belt and form these town halls. Words are great, but this is, after all, an action plan. We can try our hardest to get new laws passed, new oversight committees to make sure that the EPA has the resources it needs to do its job, and determine whether other agencies need to step in and help. We need to create pamphlets, and ask different stores to place them in areas that are mutually beneficial.
Evaluation
Ethics and Diversity
This issue is overflowing with ethical implications. It is extremely unethical to know that what we are doing is detrimental to this globes environment, that because of our actions, people are starving or do not have drinking water. It is also unethical to force animals to live in inches deep of their own excrement; that is, in fact, not living at all. It’s unethical to remain silent, or to at least not make some diet changes in solidarity against global warming. It is, once again, all the more unethical if we are educated on the subject and choose to do nothing about it.
Diversity is not particularly an issue here. Hopefully any group who has everybody’s best interest in mind, will be inclusive of everybody who wishes to participate, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identification, sexual orientation, age, or disability. A voice is a voice, no matter what. We should all care, so hopefully this group would be a composite of what our community looks like as a nation.
Projected Results
There is a happy end to this story, or a very sad end of this story. Whatever the case may be, our plan will be successful. It is only a matter of how much time it will take, and how much damage is already done by the time our plan is successful. At some point, the countries of power and influence will begin to feel the pain that third world countries are already feeling because of global warming. This will most likely be because of mass migration. As Southeast Asia, for example, is completely depleted of resources, around 4 billion people will be displaced, and will go whereever they need to to find those resources. We can build walls, we arm guards, nothing short of a tremendous injustice of humanity would have to take place from this population shift. Meanwhile, food sources all over the world will be depleted, and eventually, someday in the not distant future, this planet will be uninhabitable.
The happy ending, the one that we should all hope for, is that stubborn politicians and for-profit companies will finally see the long term damage they are causing to Earth, and will stop before it gets any worse. People will continue to make the necessary changes in diet, and will help to spread knowledge of the potential dangers we face if global warming is allowed it continue, with only feeble attempts to stifle it internationally. Hopefully, farmers will practice sustainable farming, the government will make and enforce better rules to keep the agriculture business in check, and people will take on the role as advocates and activists.References
Barclay, E. (2014). Why Farmers Can Prevent Global Warming Just As Well As
Vegetarians. The Salt. retrieved from www.npr.org/sections/2014/02/24/282117840/.
Bartlett, D. and Steele, J. (2008). Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear. Vanity Fair
Retrieved from
www.vanityfair.com/news/2008105/monsanto200805.
Dutzik, et al. (2011).The Way Forward on Global Warming. Environment America
Research and Policy Center. Retrieved from environmentamerica.org
Econexus. (2013). Agropoly. Berne Decleration. retrieved from econexus.info/topic/climate-change-agriculture.
EPA. (2015). Sources of Greenhouse Gases Emissions. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency. retrieved from www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/
commercialresidential.
European Environmental Agency. (2015). Agriculture and Climate Change. EEA.
Retrieved
Horrigan, L. et al. (2002). How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address The Environmental and
Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives. 100(5).
retrieved from ehpnetl.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/110p445-456horrigan.
Lichtenberg, E. (2000). Agriculture and the Environment. The University of Maryland.
retrieved from umd.edu.
Polaris Institute (2004). Monsanto: The Gene Giant. Peddling Life Sciences or Death
Sciences. retrieved from navdanya.org.
Rodriguez, E. et al. (2004). Negative Effects of Agriculture on Our Environment. The
Traprock. 3(May). retrieved from tr_3_p7.pdf
Sequi, P. (1999). Feed Manufacturing in the Mediterranean Region: Recent Advances In
Research and Technology. Sustainable Farming 223-228 retrieved from chiheam.org
United States Geological States Geology Society. (2007). Investigating the Environmental
Effects of Agriculture Practices on Natural Resources. The USGS. retrieved from usgs.gov
Whitman, D. (2000). Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? Discovery Guidesretrieved from csa.com.
