首页 >> 推荐阅读 >> 正文

译:Climate crisis on our plates

来源: 时间:2011-4-7 9:59:00 点击:
While speaking up for policy reform, individuals can help provide market demand for climate-friendly foods by following the principles of a climate-friendly diet, writes Anna Lappé.

New Forest Farm is nestled in the Kickapoo Valley 130 kilometers west of Madison, Wisconsin. In the summer of 2008, the state—and much of the US Midwest—was deluged with unseasonal downpours, and large tracts of farmland were flooded. The heavy rains and flooding caused $15 billion in damages and left 24 people dead across the Midwest. Wisconsin declared a state of emergency. Yet on a visit just weeks after the rainstorms had swept the region, Mark Shepard of New Forest Farm does not seem beaten down at all.
Shepard is lounging on the porch of his newly constructed cider mill, powered by solar panels and a soon-to-be built windmill. His farm is bursting with life: undulating fields of bush cherries, Siberian peas, apricots, cherries, kiwis, autumn olives, mulberries, blueberries, rosehips and asparagus, hickory nuts and oak, apples and chestnuts, and more. He escaped devastation from the deluge, he says, not by luck but by savvy farming.
It is a kind of farming that created these resilient fields and that puts Shepard at the heart of a movement scattered from the verdant valleys of the US Midwest to South Korea, from the foothills of the Himalaya to the plains of southern Brazil. It goes by many names, but it is fundamentally about following agro-ecological principles. Shepard and like-minded farmers around the world are proving that a sustainable and abundant food system need not rely on fossil fuels. They are also showing how these climate-friendlier farms can help the world adapt to the climate crisis at the same time. Extreme weather events like the floods that swamped Wisconsin are only going to be more common as the climate destabilises because of ever-greater greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, including those from the food and agriculture sector.
The climate crisis and its main drivers generally conjure up images of dirty coal-fired power plants or fuel-guzzling sports utility vehicles. Yet the food industry and agribusiness are among the biggest contributors to climate change. In many developing countries without significant heavy industry, agriculture is in fact the most important source of greenhouse-gas emissions, largely because of its role in deforestation.
Farming, especially industrial-scale production of livestock on factory farms, is among the biggest drivers of deforestation. As forests are cleared, the trees release enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere along with other greenhouse gases, including methane and nitrous oxide. The loss of forests contributes more than 17% of human-made emissions of carbon dioxideGreenhouse-gas emissions from food occur at every step in the food chain: farming, processing, packaging, transportation, wholesale/retail, food service, household consumption and waste. Account for all the direct and indirect emissions—including land-use changes, the production of farm chemicals and synthetic fertiliser, and fossil fuel energy use throughout the supply chain—and the food system is responsible for as much as one-third of global GHG emissions. These emissions can largely be traced back to a radical remaking of agriculture and food systems in the twentieth century, first in the industrial world and then in developing countries.
But it does not have to be this way. Innovative farmers like Mark Shepard are showing the potential of sustainable farms to feed the world while not depleting its finite resources like fossil fuels and not exacerbating the climate crisis. Sustainable farmers use a variety of techniques and innovations to protect against weeds and pests and to boost soil fertility without relying on fossil fuels or synthetic pesticides. Some of these techniques include using cover crops, crop rotations and beneficial insects. Farmers like Shepard are also beginning to generate their own energy—in his case, through wind turbines and solar panels. Small-scale methane digesters can also convert animal waste into usable energy.
Sustainable farming techniques build healthy soil, which benefits plant health and climate stability. In side-by-side field trials over 30 years, the US-based Rodale Institute found that corn and soybeans raised with organic techniques stored more carbon in the soil year after year. In a review of these field trials, Cornell University professor David Pimentel found that the organic farming methods produced the same yields of corn and soybeans as did industrial farming, but they used 30% less energy, less water and no synthetic pesticides. Based on these lessons, former Rodale Institute chief executive officer Timothy LaSalle estimates that if 434 million acres [nearly 176 million hectares] of cropland in the United States shifted to organic production, nearly 1.6 billion tons [1.45 billion tonnes] of carbon dioxide could be sequestered annually, “mitigating close to one quarter of the country’s total fossil-fuel emissions.”. Globally, livestock production accounts for 18% of global emissions, according to the United Nations. New Zealand’s ruminant livestock animals produce 85% of that country’s emissions of methane—a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide.
These findings, and similar results from research around the world, are remarkable, for they point to the potential of agriculture to help mitigate climate change. Furthermore, research shows that sustainable farms are also better able to withstand the climate instability triggered by the greenhouse effect. At Rodale, researchers found that the organic test fields did better during dry years, “thanks to improved water-holding capacity of the extra soil organic matter,” says LaSalle.
On a global scale, the shift away from petrochemicals in the food supply need not threaten food productivity. In one meta-study of yields from organic and industrial farms around the world, researchers from the University of Michigan found that introducing agro-ecological approaches in developing countries led to two to four times greater yields. Estimating the impact on global food supply if all production shifted to organic farming, the authors found an average yield increase for every single food category they investigated.
In one of the largest studies of how agro-ecological practices affect productivity in the developing world, researchers at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom reviewed 286 projects in 57 countries, mostly in Africa. Of the 12.6 million farmers who were transitioning to sustainable agriculture, the researchers found an average yield increase of 79% on farms. A 2008 UN Conference on Trade and Development and UN Environment Programme report concluded that “organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and ... is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.”
In the most comprehensive analysis of world agriculture to date, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) found that “reliance on resource-extractive industrial agriculture is risky and unsustainable, particularly in the face of worsening climate, energy and water crises,” according to Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, a lead author of the report.
The IAASTD study, the University of Essex findings, the Rodale Institute’s conclusions and Mark Shepard’s abundant fields all point in one direction: If we are to continue to feed the planet — and feed it well — in the face of global climate chaos, we should be radically rethinking the industrial food system. We can start with what is on our plates.
We can make food choices in line with a climate-friendly diet. We can choose to eat foods from sustainable farms, reduce consumption of highly processed foods, and cut back — or cut out — meat and dairy that comes from factory farms. We can also reach for local and regionally grown foods. (Even though transportation-related emissions are a relatively small segment of the overall impact of most food items, choosing to support regional farmers is an important part of building a resilient, biodiverse food system.)
But it is important not to stop there. At least for now, climate-friendly choices are unavailable in most communities, largely because agricultural policies in the United States and elsewhere have been providing incentives for industrial production for decades -- at the cost of sustainable producers. US industrial livestock producers receive billions of dollars in direct payments etched into the Farm Bill, the multi-billion-dollar policy that governs food and farming. From 1995 to 2006, the Farm Bill legislation paid nearly $3 billion in direct subsidies to large-scale livestock producers.
Livestock producers benefit from the US Farm Bill in indirect ways, too. Between 2003 and 2005, corn producers received $17.6 billion in subsidies, and soybean producers another $2 billion. Because feed costs usually account for 60% or more of the total cost of production for most factory farm operators, policies that enable grain and soy prices to fall below the cost of production are a boon to processors and retailers. And since 67% of US corn and nearly all of the soybean meal are used for domestic or overseas livestock or fish feed, these commodity subsidies could also be seen as livestock industry subsidies.
In total, these federal subsidies saved the factory livestock sector an estimated $35 billion between 1997 and 2005, according to researchers at Tufts University. Livestock industry lobbyists also succeeded in getting payments from the Farm Bill’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) for concentrated animal feeding operations, even though the programme was designed to help small-scale farmers reduce pollution. By 2007, factory farms were receiving as much as $125 million a year from this programme alone.
These are just some of the “perverse” farm policies that are providing incentives to further a food system that is contributing to the climate crisis. But the Farm Bill could instead encourage a shift away from fossil-fuel-dependent agriculture and toward an agricultural system that is part of mitigating the climate crisis. It could, for instance, provide:
• farmer education to facilitate the transition from chemical agriculture to organic farming;
• broader incentives for farmers who make the transition and financial support to subsidize the costs of organic certification (in 2009, the EQIP Organic Initiative set aside more than $35 million in assistance for certified and transitioning organic farmers);
• incentives and support for all farmers to build healthier, carbon-rich soil matter and to reduce the use of synthetic fertiliser;
• greater enforcement of environmental regulations for emissions-intensive factory farming and commodity crop production; and
• research dollars to explore how to reduce on-farm greenhouse-gas emissions (currently only 2.6% of the US Department of Agriculture’s research budget goes toward organic approaches).
The Farm Bill could also expand its programs that encourage consumption of fruits and vegetables and local foods instead of highly processed products. The WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program, for example, operates in 45 states and provides up to $30 a year in vouchers to low-income children and to pregnant and post-partum women for redemption at farmers’ markets. Reaching 2.2 million people, this programme could be significantly expanded, fueling greater consumption of climate-friendly foods and fueling regional food systems.
These are just a few of the policy changes that could help shift the food system. While speaking up for policy reform, individuals can help provide market demand for climate-friendly foods by following the principles of a climate-friendly diet.
Yes, we cannot change the world just by buying organically grown apples from the neighborhood farmers’ market, but it’s a start.
 

(译文如有出入请联系本会,来源于chinadialogue)

译   文:

餐盘中的气候危机

在呼吁政策改革的同时,我们每个人还可以通过遵循气候友好的饮食结构来创造对于气候友好食品的市场需求。安娜•拉佩撰文。

 


 

新林农场坐落于威斯康星州麦迪逊郡以西130公里处的基卡普河谷。2008年夏季,威斯康星州及美国中西部的大部分地区都遭受了非季节性暴雨的袭击。大片农田被洪水淹没。暴雨和洪水给中西部地区造成了150亿美元的损失,此外还导致24人死亡。威斯康星州宣布进入紧急状态。然而,就在暴雨席卷这一地区仅仅数周后,当我来到这里时却发现,新林农场的马克•谢巴德却似乎并没有表现出一蹶不振的样子。

谢巴德悠闲地坐在他新建的苹果榨汁厂的门前。这台苹果压榨机由太阳能驱动,很快他还会建一座风力压榨机。他的农场生机盎然:欧李、西伯利亚豆、杏子、樱桃、奇异果、秋橄榄、桑果、蓝莓、玫瑰果、芦笋、胡桃和橡树、苹果和栗子等农作物高低错落、此起彼伏。据他说,他能够在经受洪水的打击后没有倒下靠的并不是运气,而是理智的耕作方式。

这种耕作方式使这些土地具有了自愈性。同样也正是这种耕作方式让谢巴德站在了潮流的中心。从美国中西部地区的葱郁河谷到韩国,从喜马拉雅山麓到巴西南部的平原,这股潮流遍布各地。尽管人们对它的叫法各不相同,但是,从根本上而言,就是以生态农业为准则。谢巴德以及全世界志同道合的农民们正在用行动证明,一个可持续的、充足的粮食体系并不需要依赖于化石燃料。与此同时,他们还证明了,这些更具气候友好性的农场是如何帮助世界应对气候危机的。随着温室气体(GHG)排放的不断增加,这其中还包括粮食及农业领域所释放的温室气体,气候的稳定性不断减弱,因此,像席卷威斯康星州的洪水这样的极端气候事件也会愈加频发。
一说到气候危机及其主要驱动因素,人们的脑海中不禁会浮现出这样的画面,脏兮兮的燃煤发电站,或者是油耗很高的运动型多用途汽车等。然而,粮食及农业综合型产业却是气候变化背后最大的推手之一。在许多没有大型重工行业的发展中国家里,农业实际上是温室气体排放最主要的因素,而其中大部分原因还要归咎于森林采伐。
农业生产,尤其是工厂化农场中所采用的工业化畜牧生产的模式,是森林砍伐的最大诱因之一。当森林被砍伐一空之后,树木便会向大气中释放大量的碳,同时释放的还有包括甲烷和一氧化二氮等在内的其它温室气体。而人为造成的二氧化碳排放中有超过17%的部分是由于森林覆盖面积减少所致。联合国的数据显示,从全球范围而言,畜牧生产的排放占全球排放总量的18%。新西兰的反刍家畜业所释放的甲烷占该国甲烷释放总量的85%。而甲烷是一种比二氧化碳危害还高的温室气体。
耕作、加工、包装、运输、批发/零售、餐饮、家庭消费、以及废料等,食物链的每一个环节都会释放出温室气体。包括土地利用的变化、农药及合成化肥的生产、整个供应链的化石燃料能源的使用等在内,粮食体系的所有直接和间接排放相当于全球温室气体排放的三分之一。这些排放中有相当大的部分可以追溯到二十世纪农业及粮食体系所发生的翻天覆地的变化。这一变化始于工业化国家,而后又蔓延到了发展中国家。
然而,这并非是唯一的出路。像马克•谢巴德这样具有创新精神的农民让我们看到,在无需耗尽化石燃料等有限资源,并且不使气候危机恶化的情况下,可持续农场是具有满足全世界粮食需求的潜力的。采用可持续耕作方式的农民在不依赖化石燃料或合成杀虫剂的条件下,利用各种技术和创新手段来对付杂草和害虫,提高土壤肥力。这些技术中包括利用覆盖作物、作物轮作、以及益虫等。谢巴德这样的农户还开始自己发电,像他就是通过利用风力涡轮机和太阳能板发电。小型沼气池还可以将动物粪便转化为可以利用的能源。
可持续的农业技术使土壤变得更加健康,这对植物的健康和气候的稳定都是有益的。美国罗代尔研究所在长达30年的时间里进行了一系列的并行田间试验,结果发现,采用有机技术种植的玉米和大豆可以年复一年地将越来越多的碳储藏在土壤中。而康奈尔大学的大卫•皮门特尔教授在考察了这些田间试验的结果后发现,采用有机耕作法种植的玉米和大豆的产量与采用工业化种植方式的产量是一样的。然而,其消耗的能源却比工业化种植方式低30%,耗水量也较少,并且还无需使用合成杀虫剂。基于这些研究,罗代尔研究所前首席执行官蒂莫西•拉萨尔估计,美国的4.34亿英亩(约合1.76亿公顷)耕地如果都转而采用有机耕作方式的话, 那么每年就可以封存大约16亿美吨(14.5亿公吨)的二氧化碳,“接近我们国家化石燃料排放的四分之一”。
这些发现,以及世界各地的研究所得出的类似结论都值得关注,因为这些结论都表明,农业有可能会有助于减缓气候变化。此外,研究还表明,可持续农场还能更好地抵御由温室效应所导致的气候不稳定。罗代尔研究所的研究人员发现,有机实验田在干旱的年份里的表现更为出色,“而这都要归功于土壤中额外的有机物质所带来的锁水能力的改善,” 拉萨尔说道。
从世界范围的角度而言,从粮食供给中剔除石油化工产品的使用并不一定会对粮食生产造成威胁。密歇根大学的研究人员在对世界各地的有机农场和工业化农场的产量进行了元研究后发现,在发展中国家中采用生态农业手段可以使产量提高2到4倍。在评估对全球粮食供应的影响时,作者们发现,如果所有生产全部转为有机生产的话,他们所研究的每种粮食的平均产出都有所增加。
农业生态实践对发展中国家的产出会产生怎样的影响。针对这一课题进行过许多大型研究。在其中的一项研究中,英国艾塞克斯大学的研究人员对57个国家的286个项目进行了考察,这些国家绝大多数都是非洲国家。研究人员发现,在1260万转而从事可持续农业的农民中,农场的产量平均增加了79%。2008年联合国贸易与发展会议和联合国环境规划署报告也总结认为,“有机农业要比大多数传统生产体系更加有益于非洲的粮食安全,并且……也更加有可能保持长期的可持续性。”
国际农业知识与科技促进发展评估(IAASTD)在迄今为止全世界最全面的一项分析研究中发现,“依赖以汲取自然为特征的工业化农业非常危险,并且不具备可持续性,尤其是当面对气候恶化、能源和水资源危机的时候,”该研究报告的主要作者玛西亚•石井-埃特曼如是说。
IAASTD的研究、艾塞克斯大学的发现、罗代尔研究所得出的结论、以及马克谢巴德丰饶的土地都向我们指明了一点:如果想要让地球在全球气候混乱的时候能够继续吃饱肚子—并且得到善待的话,我们就应该从根本上对工业化粮食体系进行反思。我们可以从我们的盘中餐开始。
我们可以使我们的食物选择符合气候友好的准则。我们可以选择食用可持续农场生产的食物,减少深加工食品的消费,并且消减—甚至是完全断绝对工厂化农场生产的肉类及奶类的消费。我们还可以选择当地或者本地区生产的食物。(尽管运输产生的相关排放只占大多数粮食产品所造成的总体影响的一小部分,但是对于构建一个具有自愈性及生物多样性特点的粮食体系而言,选择支持本地区的农民却是其中重要的一环。)
然而,重要的是不要止步于此。至少目前为止,在大多数社区里,选择气候友好的产品还是一件遥不可及的事情。而这主要是因为数十年来,美国及其它地区的农业产业政策一直在鼓励工业化的生产模式。而这些都是以可持续生产者为代价的。根据针对粮食及农业产业的数十亿美元的专项法案——《农业法案》,美国的工业化家畜生产商们可以直接接受数十亿美元的资金。1995年到2006年期间,依照《农业法案》的规定,共向大型家畜生产商提供了近30亿美元的直接补贴。
家畜生产商们还可以通过美国的《农业法案》间接获利。2003年到2005年间,玉米生产者共接受了176亿美元的补贴,而大豆生产者则接受了20亿美元的 补贴。由于对于大多数工厂化农场经营者而言,饲料成本往往占生产总成本的60%,甚至更高。因此,使谷物和大豆价格降到低于生产成本的政策对加工商和零售商而言都是利好。由于美国67%的玉米以及几乎全部的豆粕都供应给国内外的牲畜生产商,或者是用作鱼饲料。因此,这些商品补贴还可以看作是对牲畜产业的补贴。
据塔夫斯大学的研究人员估计,1997年到2005年期间,这些联邦政府补贴为工厂化牲畜产业共节约350亿美元。牲畜工业的说客们还成功地通过《农业法案》中的环境质量激励项目(EQIP)为动物集中饲养的管理方式争取到了资金支持,尽管该项目最初的宗旨是为了帮助小型农户降低污染。2007年,工厂式农场单从该项目便接受了多达1.25亿美元的资金。 
而这些不过是那些“违背常理的”农业产业政策中的某一部分而已。这些政策为那些造成气候危机的粮食体系提供了进一步发展的动力。然而,《农业法案》本可以促使农业从依赖化石燃料的模式转型,使其成为一个气候危机减缓体系的一部分。例如,它可以:
• 为农民提供培训,促进化学农业向有机农业的转型。
• 为转型农民提供范围更广的激励措施和资金支持,以补贴其进行有机认证的成本(2009年,EQIP有机认证鼓励措施划拨了3500多万美元以资助有机认证农户及正在转型的农户)。
• 为所有农户提供鼓励措施和支持,从而建立一个更加健康、碳含量丰富的土壤机制,并减少合成化肥的使用。
• 加强排放密集型工厂化农场及商品作物生产的环境治理。
• 为研究如何降低农田土壤温室气体排放的问题提供经费(目前,美国农业部的研究预算中仅有2.6%的资金用于有机措施的研究推广)。
《农业法案》也可以扩展其项目,鼓励水果、蔬菜以及当地食品的消费,减少对深加工产品的依赖。例如, 《妇女、婴儿、儿童农贸市场营养计划》就在45个州得到实施。该计划每年为低收入儿童和怀孕及产后妇女提供30美元的农贸市场抵用券。这个惠及了220万人的项目可以进一步推广,从而极大地推动气候友好食品的消费,并推动区域粮食体系的发展。
这些只是能够有助于粮食体系转型的政策变化中的几个而已。在呼吁政策改革的同时,个人消费者也能通过遵循气候友好的饮食规律为气候友好的食品创造出市场需求。
是的,从周围的农贸市场购买有机苹果也许并不能改变世界,但是却是一个开始。

浙江正泰公益基金会 浙ICP备11034570号 2000-2011 THE COMMONWEAL FOUNDATION OF CHINA
浙江省杭州市下城区中山北路598号西子花园柳莺苑11B 热线电话:0571—89710110 89710106 邮编310014 电子邮箱:dtxd@ztgy.org