this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
7 points (88.9% liked)

Individual Climate Action

262 readers
3 users here now

Discuss actions that we can directly take as individuals to reduce environmental harm.

related communities (decentralized only)

somewhat closely related to individual action:

less closely related to individual action:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
activistPnk@slrpnk.net
7
The Rise of a New Grain Alliance – Germany’s Free Bakers Sow the Seeds of Change (www.resilience.org)
submitted 2 days ago by stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net to c/climate_action_individual@slrpnk.net
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

New Grain Alliance? Sounds like a cartel out of a dystopian nightmare if ever there was one.

In all seriousness, what's very concerning is that people seem to think that making minor reforms to a grass-based food system will somehow solve any of the problems. The planting of grass has been destroying forests for thousands of years, concentrating wealth in the hands of landowners for thousands of years, enabling slavery and serfdom for thousands of years, depleting the topsoil and drying the climate for thousands of years... and switching to locally-grown or hand-harvested or heirloom versions of those annual grasses isn't going to fix the fundamental problems with grass-based agriculture.

Even if the population could be fed by old-fashioned cereal farms without big machines and diesel fuel, grass seeds lack vitamin C, have a horrible calcium-phosphorus ratio, and even lead to arthritis and intestinal issues in some people, not to mention the opioids that make them addictive and probably alter brain chemistry in ways that we don't even understand. Cereal crops are not suitable as a staple food for a healthy population, let alone sustainable at the scale that Europe would need.

In order to solve the problems in the modern industrial food system, people need to be willing to let go of their grass fetish and begin reforesting and eating what the forest produces. Every ecosystem given suitable conditions eventually matures to forest; humans have the ability to shape that forest into one that's highly productive and meets their material needs. Unlike industrial-scale grass-based agriculture, a tree-based agriculture doesn't lend itself well to centralisation; no big ploughing or harvesting machines, no synthetic fertilisers, and economical at just about any scale. Diverse food forest systems can be planted anywhere trees will grow, from city parks to remote villages. Incorporating native vegetation ensures ecological resilience and separates the cooperative forest model from the colonising orchard model. Food security? Climate action? Wildlife habitat? Water conservation? It's all there.

(Legumes are cool and all, but peas and lentils do not make a forest.)

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

Unlike industrial-scale grass-based agriculture, a tree-based agriculture doesn't lend itself well to centralisation; no big ploughing or harvesting machines, no synthetic fertilisers, and economical at just about any scale.

And there's the problem.

The problem isn't "big corporations exploiting people and land", though that certainly is a problem.

The problem is, because of centralized agriculture, only a handful of people in the West today know how to, or want to, grow their own food.

In Colonial America, for instance, 90% of people worked directly in agriculture. In 21st century America, less than 1% do.

And even in developing countries, where significant fractions of the population still engage in subsistence farming, farming is seen as hard, dirty, insecure, poorly paid work - because it is - and most people try to find jobs outside agriculture if at all possible.

And this is a problem because forest-based permaculture, without big machinery and economies of scale, requires a lot more human labor to maintain. Not only that, but it requires expert human labor - people who know what needs to be planted when, how to recognize invasive weeds and protect desirable seedlings, when and how to harvest, how to process and store that harvest, and all the other details of keeping a food forest functional.

And, because industrial agriculture has these huge economies of scale, expert human labor costs a lot more in wages than the food a food forest produces.

I mean, look. It takes three hours of labor to produce 100 bushels of wheat - 6,000 lbs, nine million calories, enough to feed 12 people for a year, produced with three hours of human labor and a ton of fossil fuels and chemicals.

How many hours of labor does it take to produce nine million calories from a food forest?

How much training does it take to reliably manage a food forest?

Who's going to do that labor?

Who's going to train people to do that labor?

And what countries are going to accept the decrease in standard of living that comes with relocating so many labor hours to food production and away from everything else?

I don't think "but the food is healthier" is going to cut it.