Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Buying into ‘organic,’ ‘natural,’ ‘local’
Aline Sullivan, International Herald Tribune
Farmers’ markets are springing up under bridges in cities that are at least a day’s drive from the nearest farm. Restaurants and retailers are showcasing regional products. Supermarkets from Orange County, California, to Cambridge, England, affix stickers showing how far that apple traveled to get to the produce shelf.
It’s an interesting time for foodies – and for investors searching for growth among local, organic and natural goods.
Price growth, certainly, is easy to come by. Interpretations vary widely, but products meriting the label “organic” or “natural” are generally free from pesticides, animal hormones and by-products, and genetically modified organisms; and such products take more time, effort and care. Local natural and organic goods can be more expensive because small-scale producers concentrate on quality and authenticity at the expense of economies of scale.
But rapidly rising prices for conventional foods and related goods and services are narrowing the cost differential and highlighting the appeal of companies that are focused in their geography, mission and quality, according to analysts.
Consumers have already proved that they are willing to pay.
(15 August 2008)
Slow Food Nation celebrates the good, clean and fair
Molly Birnbaum, Point Reyes Light
Slow Food is a tomato, plucked from the garden. It is a wedge of Red Hawk cheese from Cowgirl Creamery and beef short ribs from Marin Sun Farms. It is Peter Worsley and Warren Weber. It is a discussion and a debate, a concept and a crowd. Slow Food, exalted by some and disparaged by others, is a movement that has seen a worldwide explosion in the last two decades. Its mission: to create a food system that is “good, clean, and fair.”
That mission is gaining momentum in the national media: Slow Food Nation, a gargantuan festival in San Francisco set for Labor Day Weekend, will be the first-ever American gathering to unify the sustainable food movement. It is no surprise that West Marin is playing an active role in the event—the mission fits comfortably in the county’s vibrant community of organic farmers and conscientious local eaters.
… Slow Food Nation has been advertised as the Woodstock for gastronomes. Fifteen pavilions designed by volunteer architects in the Bay Area will be filled with things like cheese, beer, and pickles; there will be discussions and panels on subjects ranging from climate change to education. There will be rock concerts, hikes, and art exhibits. A large “Victory Garden” has already been planted in front of San Francisco’s City Hall. The festival aims to promote a way of life filled with food that is delicious, environmentally friendly, and socially just.
Its organizer, Slow Food USA, was founded in 1998, 12 years after the movement began in Italy. Its goal is to incite radical change in the way America eats—“away from the destructive effects of an industrial food system and fast life,” reads their website manifesto. The international organization boasts 122 countries and more than 83,000 members, and has 16,000 members in America.
In 1986, Italian writer and editor Carlo Petrini started Slow Food in the Piedmont region’s town of Bra in protest of a McDonald’s set to open in Rome. He wanted to preserve a way of life: agricultural biodiversity and a tradition of local foods. “I always say a gastronome who isn’t an environmentalist is just stupid, and I say an environmentalist who isn’t a gastronome is just sad,” he told the New York Times last year.
West Marin, with its long history of organic and local agricultural growth and production, epitomizes much of what Slow Food hopes to accomplish.
(14 August 2008)
Homer-Dixon: Everything is not peachy
Thomas Homer-Dixon and Sarah Wolfe, Globe and Mail
From households to nations, we need to get serious about food self-sufficiency
—
… Self-sufficiency isn’t a sexy idea. At best, people who say they’re interested in being self-sufficient are stereotyped as dour, old-fashioned rural types. At worst, they’re seen as fanatical survivalists planning for an apocalypse. Economists also tell us that self-sufficiency is an anachronism. Instead, it is specialization that produces wealth, and economies – including the world economy – produce the most wealth when everyone, including countries, specializes in what they do best and then trades their products for the other things they need. The more specialization, the more connectivity among specialists, and the more trade along those connections, the better.
Dependent on others
But there are problems with this model. As we specialize, we become more dependent on other people, industries and regions in the global economy. That may be fine for non-essential goods such as children’s toys and kitchen appliances, but should we depend on others for life’s essentials such as food? Also, specialization at the global level tends to reduce the diversity of producers and products – a small number of large, highly efficient producers often comes to dominate the market for specific goods. In complex systems from economies to ecologies, however, lower diversity usually means lower ability to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. And, finally, all that connectivity among specialized producers around the world makes everyone more vulnerable to cascading system failures: a shock or failure in one part of the global system can propagate through the rest of the system in the blink of an eye, like a row of falling dominoes.
Taken to an extreme, the dominant economic model of specialization, connectivity and trade reduces the resilience of our communities and societies – our ability to take care of ourselves in volatile times.
Thomas Homer-Dixon holds the CIGI Chair in Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Ont. Sarah Wolfe is an assistant professor in the Department of Environment and Resource Studies at the University of Waterloo.
(18 August 2008)
What if we all got money-smart?
Liz Pulliam Weston, MSN Finance
Imagine if everyone controlled spending, paid down debts and saved for retirement. The immediate effects would be ugly, but eventually the new habits could pay off.
—
We personal-finance types constantly nag readers about spending too much and saving too little.
But what would happen if everybody suddenly took our advice? What if every household:
- Paid off credit cards in full every month and carried no high-rate debt?
- Had an emergency fund equal to at least three months’ worth of expenses?
- Saved at least 10 per cent of earnings for retirement?
- Paid off cars before trading them in?
- Bought only as much house as it could afford?
Surely we’d be better off?
Well, no, at least not at first. If consumers mended their profligate ways overnight, the economists I consulted agreed the immediate result would be nasty.
“That kind of sharp reduction in consumer spending undoubtedly puts us in a recession,” said economist Scott Hoyt, senior director of consumer economics for Moody’s Economy.com. “It would be very ugly.”
… But eventually, some good things could happen. Among them:
- As the savings rate crept up, America wouldn’t be so dependent on foreign investors.
- The typical retirement age would probably drop, increasing demand for workers and perhaps boosting wages.
- Homes, on average, would stay more affordable.
- The bankruptcy rate would probably drop.
- The economy might be less prone to financial crises — although that, interestingly enough, might depend on consumers’ willingness to bend some of the rules above.
(15 August 2008)
