The debate over the effectiveness of organic farming at mitigating climate change is currently being argued. Some argue that conventional or more mechanized methods of agriculture are easier on the planet while others urge that the expansion of organic farming is needed to mitigate impacts of warming. I believe that more organic farming is needed. However, the definition of organic farming whether applied to small or large-scale organic farms needs to be heavy on methods that promote efficiency and sustainability.

Permaculture is a farming methodology (or way of living really) that promotes efficiency by maximizing the use of all available resources in a sustainable manner. The goal is to produce as much as possible without relying on input or very little input into the overall system.

Furthermore, organic farming is a skill. Organic farming methods that were once used centuries before were largely forgotten in mainstream culture once industrial farming took over. Essentially, to be efficient, Americans must relearn farming and not rely on Wal-Mart or Home Depot to purchase bagged soil, chemical fertilizers, or pesticides.

I believe the organic argument (especially how it is presented by the media) parallels the biofuel debate. Many folks believe that biofuels are bad for the planet because of the press. In the beginning the press demonized biofuels in its headlines.

However, not all biofuels are bad for the planet in terms of contributing to climate change or rise in food prices. Essentially biofuels that are made from sugars and starches or the foodstuff can be inefficient. However, cellulosic biofuels utilize the nonfood parts of the plant to produce biofuels so the starches and sugars are not used to produce ethanol. Essentially this is a much more efficient use of the land especially when methods of selective harvesting or applying elements of permaculture. Of course, this excludes cutting down rainforests for palm oil productions. Such land use is reckless because the method does not maximize carbon sequestering, destroys biodiversity and if the land becomes unproductive, it will possibly loose any ability to sequester carbon.

Certainly, large-scale organic farming must be scrutinized. For example, purchasing Michigan apples produced by mechanized agriculture is arguably superior to organic apples purchased in a Michigan supermarket that were grown in New Zealand. However, small-scale organic farming or even large-scale methods that employ elements of permaculture could actually provide more work than conventional agriculture. Furthermore organic farming should not rely on chemical fertilizers that are petroleum based, antibiotics, and hormones (or very limitedly) thereby reducing the impact these substances have on the environment and our own health.

Furthermore, soil associated with organic farming is also healthier and can produce more than conventional agriculture that weakens the soil structure therefore making conventional farming susceptible to droughts and erosion. The press can sometimes lack a holistic analysis of situations involving environmental degradation.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse me or my work and their image is protected under an attribution license.

On the Net: Rodale’s LaSalle urges expansion of organic farming to mitigate impacts of warming
On the Net: Surprise! Conventional Agriculture Can Be Easier on the Planet