None of us are immune to climate change, or the effects it will have on the earth and our environment.


There will be an 'epic contest between a destructive and dying outmoded paradigm and a life enhancing emergent paradigm that will be the most significant aspect of Rio+20

In June 2012, movements and leaders will meet in Rio for Rio+20, two decades after the Earth Summit was organised in 1992 to address urgent ecological challenges such as species extinction, biodiversity erosion and climate change. The Earth Summit gave us two very significant international environmental laws: the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change. It also gave us the Rio principles, including the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle.

The world has changed radically since 1992, and sadly, not for the better. Ecological sustainability has been systematically sacrificed for a particular model of the economy, which is itself in crisis. 1995 created a tectonic shift in what values guide our decisions, and who makes the decisions. Rio was based on values of ecological sustainability, social justice and economic equity - across countries and within countries. It was shaped by ecological movements, ecological science and sovereign governments. The establishment of WTO, and the paradigm of global corporate rule, inaccurately called "free trade" (more accurately described as corporate globalisation) changed the values and the structures of governance and decision making.

Conservation of the Earth's resources, and equitable sharing was replaced by greed and the grabbing and privatisation of resources. Sustainable economies and societies were replaced by non-sustainable production systems, and a relentless drive to spread the virus of consumerism. Decision making moved into the hands of global corporations, both directly and indirectly. It is therefore not surprising that when we meet at Rio+ 20, the ecological crisis is deeper than what it was at the time of the Earth Summit, and the will and capacity of governments is weaker.

While the corporations wrote the rules of WTO and global free trade, they have also subverted the environmental rules which were supposed to regulate their commercial activities to ensure sustainability. They have mutated environmental laws which are supposed to regulate commerce into laws for commercialising and commodifying the earth's resources and ecological functions.

Profiting from pollution

They have subverted the Climate Treaty and the Biodiversity Convention. Instead of polluters paying and being regulated at the national and international level to stop pollution, the biggest atmospheric polluters who have contributed most to climate change are now laying the rules on how to deal with climate change. The biotechnology industry which has caused genetic pollution by releasing genetically engineered organisms into the environment is making the rules on how to manage biodiversity and how to govern Biosafety. The attempt to introduce BRAI, the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India, is one example.

The original objective of the Climate Treaty was to put in place legally binding emission reduction targets for the historic polluters, who in the pre-globalisation period were concentrated in the rich industrial North. The treaty was destroyed at the Climate summit in Copenhagen, by an attempt to replace it with a non binding Copenhagen Accord. The Kyoto Protocol introduced emissions trading, which in effect meant the polluter got paid, not punished. The big industrial polluters were first paid by allowing them to get private rights to our atmospheric commons. They then got paid by profiting from carbon trading.

Profits increased and emissions increased. Climate chaos is worse today than it was in 1992. And the polluters look for new avenues to make money and grab resources. Now they want to commodify the ecological functions and services that nature provides. This will be the big Climate debate in Rio+20.

The original objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity was the conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable and equitable use. This objective has been subverted and is being increasingly replaced by objectives of trade in genetic resources, profits and privatisation. The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing restricts access only to global players, ignoring the access of local communities. It treats as utilisation only utilisation for research and commerce - ignoring the survival needs of local communities. It is in fact legalised Biopiracy, because it enables the transfer of genetic wealth from local communities to global corporations, it undermines the biodiversity economies and cultures which have conserved biodiversity, and are necessary for conserving it for the future.

'We know we can change it'

In both the Climate Treaty and the Biodiversity convention, trade and commerce is replacing conservation and the commons. Rights of Corporations is replacing the Rights of Nature and People.

And this change in values, from conserving and sharing to exploiting and privatising, is justified in the name of economic progress and economic growth. Yet the economic paradigm for which the Earth and Society are being pillaged and destroyed, is itself in deep crisis. Look at the farmers suicides and hunger and malnutrition crisis in India. Look at the protests in Greece, Spain or the Occupy movement of the 99% in the US.

As the Spanish indignados said:

We fail to understand why we should have to pay the costs of the crisis, while its instigators continue to post record profits. We're sick and tired of one injustice after another. We want human dignity back again.
This isn't the kind of world we want to live in, and it's we who have to decide what world we do want. We know we can change it, and we're having a great time going about it.

A paradigm shift is desperately needed. And it will not come those who have created the crisis, and who are looking for new ways to extend the life of the Greed economy by commodifying and privatising all life on earth. They will come to Rio+20 to paint the Greed Economy Green, and call it the Green Economy. And they will have powerful governments on their side.

Movements for ecological sustainability, social justice and deep democracy will come to Rio+20 with another paradigm, one centred on the Rights of Mother Earth, the rights of future generations, of women, indigenous communities and farmers.

It is this epic contest between a destructive and dying outmoded paradigm and a life enhancing emergent paradigm that will be the most significant aspect of Rio+20. The outcome of this contest will determine the future of humanity. It will not enter the negotiations, which can only be the lowest common denominator in the current context of corporate influence. But it will provide the energy for the People's Summit, and many government initiatives at Rio Centro. This contest will continue beyond Rio, in every country, in every village and town, every farm and workplace, every home and street.

None of us are immune to the crisis, or the response to it. None of us are bystanders. We are all immersed in processes that are either threatening the planet and our own future, or finding creative ways to shape a sustainable and just future. Every day is an earth summit in our lives. And each of us is negotiating our collective fate on the earth.

Dr Vandana Shiva is a physicist, ecofeminist, philosopher, activist, and author of more than 20 books and 500 papers. She is the founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and has campaigned for biodiversity, conservation and farmers' rights - winning the Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel Prize) in 1993.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

full article, with hyperlinks i was too lazy to include:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012525124410713933.html

shennong posted:

vandana shiva thinks the annapolis valley is an epicenter of sustainable farming lmao

lol, it's barely an epicenter of any kind of farming except mink, where the horrible low-grade manure gets stockpiled because they have no idea what to do with it

littlegreenpills posted:

locally produced food possibly burns a shit ton more fuel per weight of foodstuff than industrial agriculture

how do you figure

He notes that while industrial farming may produce more corn per hectare than a small farm, the latter grows corn ‘as part of a polyculture that also includes beans, squash, potato, and “weeds” that serve as fodder.’135 Under the care of a knowledgeable farmer, who understands the land and the network of relationships that exist therein, the polycrop produces much more food. This holds true ‘whether you measure in tonnes, calories, or dollars.’136 This final point was supported by the 2002 United States Agricultural Census, which noted that the smallest category of farm ‘produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per acre.’137 The largest farms, ‘averaging 15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare.’138 Consistent findings have been observed in every farm-size category. Halweil concludes that:

The inverse relationship between farm size and output can be attributed to the more efficient use of land, water, and other agricultural resources that small operations afford, including the efficiencies of intercropping various plants in the same field, planting multiple times during the year, targeting irrigation, and integrating crops and livestock. So in terms of converting inputs into outputs, society would be better off with small-scale farmers. And as population continues to grow in many nations, and the amount of farmland and water available to each person continues to shrink, a small farm structure may become central to feeding the planet.139

if you did factor in soil depletion and environmental costs etc the margin would be much larger

littlegreenpills posted:

I was thinking of decentralized production requiring more short haul journeys in small vehicles; just look at all those volvos and SUVs and pickups parked outside the average farmers market. also polyculture is great but aren't most really-existing smallholders atm just using scaled down versions of agribusiness techniques?

i don't have any data on what techniques are employed in what prevalence by size category, unfortunately, but those numbers i gave above don't discriminate by technique used, just by farm size, so even if it's the case that most smallholders use agribusiness techniques, they're making anywhere from 5 to 50 times as much money per acre under cultivation and producing at least 4-5x calories/acre. for the most part i dont think smallholders use those techniques for the reason that they don't scale down well and aren't very productive anyway

as far as transportation fuel use, i haven't seen any good figures on that, but people drive to the grocery store as much as they do to a farmers market. i'm not convinced that local ag burns any more fuel on a per calorie basis and i'm willing to bet that when you factor in lower production inputs the net fuel use is significantly less

shennong posted:

i'm not convinced that local ag burns any more fuel on a per calorie basis and i'm willing to bet that when you factor in lower production inputs the net fuel use is significantly less

(citation needed)