There used to be a "small is beautiful" type of environmentalism that grew out of the back-to-the-land movement, that advocated self-reliance at the local level, and gave birth to such things as permaculture. The literature was not overly political, but focussed upon practical things the ordinary person could do, even in urban areas to get food security. Nations too, should move beyond globalism. That form of environmentalism was not so bad, even if it had the shadow of Leftism behind it.
But, it was quickly overtaken in the early 1980s by the globalist communist forms of environmentalism which really gained momentum with the climate change alarmist revolution, that came into force in the late 1980s, and early 1990s. And today, environmentalism is just that, Leftist propaganda. The fact that globalist organisations such as the UN with its Agenda 2030 and the World Economic Forum have taken the environmentalist agenda on, should give the game away.
Hence, when we hear that people who are growing their own food, even in pot plants in the city are destroying the planet, we should be more than suspicious. Academics have come out and said that local grown produce has a higher carbon foot print than, well moving food across the planet! As detailed below, the academics did not dare examine the carbon emissions of free trade, getting produce from half-way across the world, and transporting it to supermarkets. The focus was on methane released from composting not done properly. Fine, home gardeners can get proper composting bins. And the waste used in composting usually goes to landfill dumps where it emits the demon gasses anyway.
It seems that here is an industry where academics seek ever-new sources of carbon to freak out over. The end result, if their paranoia is taken seriously, will be the death of millions from salvation. I suggest they go first, just to get us used to the idea!
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/10/14/greens-declare-war-on-growing-greens/
"Grow your own fruit and veg – and destroy the planet. Allotment produce, much prized by proud food-growing citizens the world over, has six times the 'carbon' footprint of conventional agriculture, according to a recent paper published by Nature. "Steps must be taken to ensure that urban agriculture supports, and does not undermine, urban decarbonisation efforts," demand the authors. What have these people been smoking? Surely not some of the puff circulating at the recent Psychedelic Climate Week in New York. Highlights included a discussion on funding ketamine-assisted therapy and a panel on 'Balancing Investing and Impact with Climate and Psychedelic Capital'.
The lead authors of the Nature paper are academics working out of the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan. They suggest using urban farms as sites for "education, leisure and community building". Perhaps the locals could sit cross-legged and listen to early Pink Floyd music. Maybe clap the setting sun to some Atom Heart Mother. Excuse your correspondent if he cannot take this paper seriously. It is a classic example of greens picking on a human activity – almost any will do – and complaining that it causes the devil-gas carbon dioxide to be released. At the recent New York climate happening, according to the Guardian, revellers were told that using hallucinogens can spark "consciousness shifts" to inspire climate-friendly behaviour. What climate friendly behaviour, one might ask, given that almost anything humans do to improve their lot of Earth is demonised by an increasingly weird millenarian green cult.
The authors of the Nature paper seem to have a particular down on home composting. Poorly-managed composting is said to exacerbate the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs). "The carbon footprint of compost grows tenfold when methane-generated anaerobic conditions persist in compost piles," it says. This is particularly common during small-scale composting, apparently. With a seeming complete ignorance of how small allotments farming functions, the authors suggest that "cities can offset this risk by centralising compost operations for professional management".
Wherever these cultists look, there are gases being released that are contributing to their invented existential climate crisis. The high application rates of compost in urban agriculture can also lead to nitrous oxide, we're told. Needless to say, "strategic management of application scheduling and fertiliser combinations may be required to minimise emissions".
For allotment holders, few pleasures in life compare with a break from arduous work and a hot cup of tea in the shed. Surrounded by the tools of the trade, it is the labourer's equivalent of passing around a few liveners at National Climate Week, with the added attraction that it doesn't turn you into a self-important dope. But such pleasure will come to an end if the climate cops have their way. Infrastructure, we're told, is the largest driver of carbon emissions at what are termed "low-tech" urban agricultural sites. As well as sheds, this includes beds (for vegetables, not a crash pad for ketamine heads) and compost facilities. A raised bed built and used for five years will have approximately four times the environmental impact as one used for 20. Other infrastructure supplies are said to include fertiliser, gasoline and weed block textile.
Plants need water, but only the right sort of water can help save the planet. In their site samples, the researchers found that most allotment-holders use potable municipal water sources or groundwater wells. Big no, no, of course, since such irrigation emits GHGs from pumping, water treatment and distribution. "Cities should support low-carbon (and drought-conscious) irrigation for urban agriculture via subsidies for rainwater catchment infrastructure, or through established guidelines for greywater use," it is suggested. Presumably, the subsidies will come from the magic bread tree and the infrastructure will be of the special type that does not produce GHGs.
This crackpot climate paper is just the latest sign that the green movement is riven with disagreements as its climate crisis grift starts to fall apart in the face of reality. There are no realistic back-ups for intermittent wind and solar, while carbon capture is a colossal and potentially dangerous waste of money. Without hydrocarbon use, humankind is doomed. Billions will die and society will be returned to the dark ages. Hydrocarbons are ubiquitous in modern society, and so almost everything that humans do to survive and thrive on a dangerous planet can be demonised. Eventually, you end up with Sir David Attenborough making the appalling observation that it was "barmy" for the United Nations to send bags of flour to famine-stricken Ethiopia. Or to read earlier this year the tweet from the United Nations contributing author and UCL professor Bill McGuire that the only "realistic way" to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown was to cull the human population with a high fatality pandemic.
Many green extremists seem to take the view that anything humans do, including growing their own veg, is causing existential harm to the planet. What they really hate, some may conclude, are humans themselves. Treble bongs all round."