Laudato Sí — the papal encyclical

It’s high time I wrote about Pope Francis’ eloquent encyclical Laudato Si. When I read it I was both appreciative at the depth of research, and astonished to read sentiments I have rarely seen expressed elsewhere but which accord so closely with my own thoughts. It’s felt a little daunting to take this on, just because there is so very much to talk about — but I will try to organize my thoughts, and at least quote a few passages I found exemplary...
*(note: the reference numbers refer to the numbered paragraphs, not page numbers)

What I found most exceptional, because it is so rare in most discussions, is the way Pope Francis speaks of non-human creatures and the natural world. When even environmentalists talk about the importance of preserving biodiversity, it is often couched in terms of the value to humans (“just imagine if some rainforest plant which may have held the cure for cancer was wiped out before we ever discovered it”). This anthropocentric view, presupposing that all other living beings are here just for their value to humans, is offensive to me — this human hubris is a huge part of how we arrived at this crisis to begin with. But this human-centric view is close to impossible to escape, as it seems nearly everyone thinks that way. So I was delighted to find Pope Francis stating that “the ultimate purpose of other creatures is not to be found in us.” (p. 83)

The encyclical goes so far beyond most environmental writers regarding our relation to non-human animals and the rest of the natural world... In the very opening, he invokes the canticle of Saint Francis of Assisi to remind us that “our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us.” (p. 1) He goes on to say that Saint Francis’ calling fellow creatures by the name of brother and sister “cannot be written off as naive romanticism, for it affects the choices which determine our behaviour. If we approach nature and the environment without this openness to awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their immediate needs. By contrast, if we feel intimately united with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously. The poverty and austerity of Saint Francis were no mere veneer of asceticism, but something much more radical: a refusal to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled.” (p. 11) Even more striking: “It is not enough... to think of different species merely as potential ‘resources’ to be exploited, while overlooking the fact that they have value in themselves. Each year sees the disappearance of thousands of plant and animal species which we will never know, which our children will never see, because they have been lost for ever. The great majority become extinct for reasons related to human activity. Because of us, thousands of species will no longer give glory to God by their very existence, nor convey their message to us. We have no such right.” (my emphasis) (p. 33) This reminds me of a statement from Daniel Wildcat (himself quoting Oren Lyons), “it makes a crucial difference whether humankind thinks of the natural world as consisting of resources or relatives.” (Red Alert) Unfortunately humankind has so lost our relation to the natural world that, in Francis’ words, “the harmony between the Creator, humanity and creation as a whole was disrupted by our presuming to take the place of God and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations.” (p. 66)

This human arrogance can be called anthropocentrism — a word I have rarely heard spoken except by animal rights activists, yet Pope Francis mentions it twice, when he states that “modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which... continues to stand in the way of shared understanding” (p. 116); and then that “a misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided lifestyle... when human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative.” (p. 122) In connection with this anthropocentrism, the Pope speaks of the implications of how we treat non-human animals: “our indifference or cruelty towards fellow creatures of this world sooner or later affects the treatment we mete out to other human beings. We have only one heart, and the same wretchedness which leads us to mistreat an animal will not be long in showing itself in our relationships with other people. Every act of cruelty towards any creature is contrary to human dignity.” (p. 92)

This leads me to another exceptional aspect of Pope Francis’ writings, his recognition of “the intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of the planet, the conviction that everything in the world is connected.” (p. 16)  There often seems to be a disconnect between the violence we do to the planet and the violence we do to our fellow humans — in fact, it is often assumed that if one cares about animals or the environment then one must care insufficiently about other people (the old trope that someone “cares more about animals than people”). The Pope puts the lie to this notion as he connects the environment and poverty in his 12-paragraph section on global inequality. He says that “the same mindset which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty“ (p. 175); and that “a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor..” (p. 49) He speaks of how the global South is exploited to create wealth for the capitalists in the global North: “developing countries, where the most important reserves of the biosphere are found, continue to fuel the development of richer countries at the cost of their own present and future” (p. 52); and he links this exploitation to the mindless greed of the rich: “some are mired in desperate and degrading poverty, with no way out, while others have not the faintest idea of what to do with their possessions, vainly showing off their supposed superiority and leaving behind them so much waste which, if it were the case everywhere, would destroy the planet.” (p. 90)

Upon reading the encyclical I was immediately impressed with the depth of research and knowledge brought to it — knowledge of the urgency of the crisis we are in, and the need for radical change in the way we live. Pope Francis speaks repeatedly of the dire emergency to which we have brought ourselves: “doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth” (p. 161); and “it is not enough to balance, in the medium term, the protection of nature with financial gain, or the preservation of the environment with progress. Halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster. Put simply, it is a matter of redefining our notion of progress.” (p. 194)

Perhaps because of his focus on poverty and inequality, the Pope far surpasses most writers in his elucidation of the only true solution to the crisis. I hear over and over, from “green” groups and environmental leaders, assurances that we already have the technology for “sustainable energy” and “green growth”... No one, it seems, wants to be the grown-up and tell us that we can’t have our cake and eat it too — that is, we can’t keep our profligate lifestyle and keep a habitable planet, no matter how many windmills and solar panels we put up. Almost no one, that is — Pope Francis is unafraid to talk about the folly of “sustainable growth”: “talk of sustainable growth usually becomes a way of distracting attention and offering excuses” (p. 194); and to go beyond into speaking of de-growth, especially in the first world: “we need to grow in the conviction that a decrease in the pace of production and consumption can at times give rise to another form of progress and development.” (p. 191) He relates our obsession with growth to our disconnect from the natural world, and forthrightly calls our notions of sustainable growth a lie: “human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth’s goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. “ (p. 106) And he urges us to relinquish our fixation with growth to heal our value systems as well as the planet: “nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur.” (p. 114)

I also appreciate the Pope’s attention to personal responsibilities in this crisis. So much of the discourse among activists devolves into simply blaming corporate villains. Of course the fossil fuel corporations bear much responsibility, but this blaming ignores the fact that we are the ones keeping them in business by buying their products — and every step we take to decrease our dependence on their products both lessens their bottom lines and saves us from hypocrisy. Pope Francis urges us to look to our habits of consumerism, beginning with our “throwaway culture which affects the excluded just as it quickly reduces things to rubbish.” (p. 22) He maintains that this culture persists even while we profess environmental awareness: “people may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more.” (p. 55) He ties this lifestyle to the inequalities in our economic systems: “obsession with a consumerist lifestyle, above all when few people are capable of maintaining it, can only lead to violence and mutual destruction.” (p. 204) He exposes the hollow core at the heart of the growth economy: “since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending... people believe that they are free as long as they have the supposed freedom to consume.” (p. 203)

Contrary to many who argue that “my personal consumption won’t make a difference,” the pope calls out the importance of our own individual actions: “only by cultivating sound virtues will people be able to make a selfless ecological commitment... We must not think that these efforts are not going to change the world. They benefit society, often unbeknown to us, for they call forth a goodness which, albeit unseen, inevitably tends to spread.” (p. 211-212) He exhorts us to “take up an ancient lesson, found in different religious traditions and also in the Bible. It is the conviction that “less is more... It is a return to that simplicity which allows us to stop and appreciate the small things, to be grateful for the opportunities which life affords us, to be spiritually detached from what we possess, and not to succumb to sadness for what we lack.” (p. 222) And he eloquently challenges the notion that a simple life free of materialism and consumerism is deprivation: “such sobriety, when lived freely and consciously, is liberating. It is not a lesser life or one lived with less intensity. On the contrary, it is a way of living life to the full...  Happiness means knowing how to limit some needs which only diminish us, and being open to the many different possibilities which life can offer." (p. 223)

This leads me to the value of such a revered and powerful religious figure speaking out so strongly — only someone with the moral authority of the Pope or the Dalai Lama could speak so authoritatively of this as the moral issue it is. Pope Francis rejects the solipsism so prevalent today: “disinterested concern for others, and the rejection of every form of self-centeredness and self-absorption, are essential if we truly wish to care for our brothers and sisters and for the natural environment” (p. 208);  and “We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it.” (p. 229) Invoking Mary, he mourns the ruins of the world that our profligate culture has brought: “Just as her pierced heart mourned the death of Jesus, so now she grieves for the sufferings of the crucified poor and for the creatures of this world laid waste by human power.” (p. 241) And he condemns the myriad evils our misguided culture has wrought, as he denounces the futility of political solutions within such a culture: “In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of endangered species?... This same 'use and throw away' logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided.’ (p. 123)

It is this spiritual poverty of our solipsistic culture which is the deep taproot of our current crisis, as we acquire more and more "things" — consumer goods, travel — to fill empty lives devoid of beauty: “the emptier a person’s heart is, the more he or she needs things to buy, own and consume.” (p. 204) The Pope expresses anger at the ruin that we have wrought: “the degree of human intervention... is actually making our earth less rich and beautiful, ever more limited and grey... We seem to think that we can substitute an irreplaceable and irretrievable beauty with something which we have created ourselves.” (p. 34); and “if someone has not learned to stop and admire something beautiful, we should not be surprised if he or she treats everything as an object to be used and abused without scruple.” (p. 215) It is through recognizing and appreciating the beauty of the world that the Pope urges us to find “a new way of thinking about human beings, life, society and our relationship with nature.” (p. 215)

Which brings us back to where we began, with the Franciscan values that Pope Francis espouses. He tells us that “in union with all creatures, we journey through this land seeking God” (p. 244), and invokes the prayer of Saint Francis:

Most high, all powerful, all good Lord! All praise is Yours, all glory, all honor, and all blessing. To You, alone, Most High, do they belong. No mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your name. 

Praised be you, my Lord, with all your creatures, especially Sir Brother Sun, who is the day and through whom you give us light. And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour; and bears a likeness of you, Most High. 

Praised be you, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars, in heaven you formed them clear and precious and beautiful. 

Praised be you, my Lord, through Brother Wind, and through the air, cloudy and serene, and every kind of weather through whom you give sustenance to your creatures. 

Praised be you, my Lord, through Sister Water, who is very useful and humble and precious and chaste. 

Praised be you, my Lord, through Brother Fire, through whom you light the night, and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong. 

Praised be you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs. 

Praised be you, my Lord, through those who forgive for love of You; through those who endure sickness and trial. 

Happy those who endure in peace, for by You, Most High, they will be crowned. 

Praised be you, my Lord, through our sister Bodily Death, from whose embrace no living person can escape. Woe to those who die in mortal sin! Happy those she finds doing Your most holy will. The second death can do no harm to them. 

Praise and bless my Lord, and give thanks, and serve Him with great humility.

a "World War II-scale mobilization" in context

Yesterday, on the occasion of the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, I heard an interview with an author writing about the Manhattan Project. At one point, he mentioned the major problems besetting the world today, and that we could use another mobilization on the scale of the Manhattan Project to combat climate change (or words to that effect).

It struck me that this is another manifestation of our denialism regarding the climate emergency. While there is a World War II analogy for this emergency, it is emphatically not the Manhattan Project — rather, it is the entire idea of shared sacrifice that was so prevalent in the war years. Here in Richmond, at the Rosie the Riveter museum, you can see war-era posters exhorting citizens to "use it up, wear it out, make it do" and ration cards for meat, butter and sugar.

If we were to take on this ethic of shared sacrifice, it could at least start us on the road toward conquering the overconsumption which is at the root of the crisis (yes, we would have to re-organize our economy to deal with no-growth — something that will have to be done to live on a finite planet)... But instead, we've been told so often that we have the know-how to fix this without having to give up anything, the first WWII image that comes to mind for so many people is the Manhattan Project and a quick technological fix. Unfortunately, any techno-fixes out there are either pipe-dreams, or simply defy the laws of thermodynamics (or both). We keep waiting for that mobilization around the "green economy" because no one wants to be the grown-up and declare that we can't have our cake and eat it, too — that is, we can't keep our lifestyles and a habitable planet.

growth vs. steady-state — a few quotes

I haven't yet seriously delved into the issue of the growth economy — that is, my third precept, "don't buy any new stuff you don't absolutely need"... This is a tough nut to crack because our society is so totally dependent upon consumerism it seems nearly insurmountable to imagine a way out. Good and well-meaning friends, who do profess to care about the environment and climate change, have reminded me that their jobs, or their loved ones' jobs, depend on people continuing to buy nice things; and that if everyone thought the way I do (and acted on it) the economy would collapse and complete chaos would result.

And yet I can only return to the fact that infinite growth is simply not possible on a finite planet, and any "fix" that allows us to keep growing indefinitely without harming the environment is as imaginary as a perpetual motion machine or a free lunch. As far as I can see, we can choose to follow the made-up dictates of our own made-up system (the economy), or we can follow the rules of the real world... or, as Herman Daly put it, "when faced with the unhappy dilemma of choosing between a physical or political impossibility, it is better to attempt the politically 'impossible.'"

Right now I do not have a concrete solution — as I say, our society is so bound up in this there seems to be no way out of it; I only know there must be alternatives. I'm sure there are traditional cultures who have inhabited the same territory since time immemorial without ruining the land, and perhaps we need to learn from them... I have been reading a bit of Herman Daly — Ecological Economics — on the principles of a steady-state economy. I can't speak with any kind of authority on how to get there from here; but until I have more solid ideas, here are a few quotes from my reading:

"As this is written, there are news reports of a group of economics students in French and British universities who are rebelling against what they are being taught. They have formed a Society for Post-Autistic Economics. Their implicit diagnosis is apt, since autism, like conventional economics, is characterized by 'abnormal subjectivity; and acceptance of fantasy rather than reality.' ... Current 'canonical assumptions' of insatiable wants and infinite resources, leading to growth forever, are simply not grounded in reality." - p. xxi

"We define growth as an increase in throughput, which is the flow of natural resources from the environment, through the economy, and back to the environment as waste. This kind of growth, of course, cannot continue indefinitely, as the Earth and its resources are not infinite. While growth must end, this in no way implies an end to development, which we define as qualitative change, realization of potential, evolution toward an improved, but larger, structure or system — an increase in the quality of goods and services (where quality is measured by the ability to increase human well-being)."  - p.6

"Unfortunately, our ability to increase consumption while depleting our resource base has led people to believe that humans and the economy that sustains us have transcended nature. "  - p. 10

"Does the system generate wastes? Does the system require new inputs of matter and energy? If not, then the system is a perpetual motion machine, a contradiction of the Second Law of Thermodynamics... Since there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, the economic system cannot be the whole. It must be a subsystem of a larger system, the Earth-ecosystem."  - p.29

"The circular low vision [of standard economic models] is analogous to a biologist describing an animal only in terms of its circulatory system, without ever mentioning its digestive tract. Surely the circulatory system is important, but unless the animal also has a digestive tract that connects it to its environment at both ends, it will soon die either of starvation or constipation."  - p. 29

I do have a few quibbles with Daly: in common with most conventional economists, in thinking natural ecosystems strictly in terms of resources for humans and measuring quality by the ability to increase human well-being, he falls into the common trap of thinking the entire world was created for our use — which is exactly the thinking that got us to this point. (I always keep in mind the quote from indigenous rights activist Oren Lyons, "it makes a crucial difference whether humankind thinks of the natural world as consisting of resources or relatives"). But it is useful to get some solid economic thinking on the issue. I will post further as I get further along...

Cowspiracy

We recently watched an absolutely vital film called "Cowspiracy: the Sustainability Secret" — about how most big "green" organizations won't touch the connections between animal agriculture and environmental destruction. It details the connections between beef and climate change, water, and deforestation, and also addresses fisheries and the destruction of ocean life... all done in a gonzo documentary style reminiscent of Michael Moore (although somehow I can't imagine Moore touching this issue either). There's a scene with the California Department of Water Resources in which the filmmaker asks why they don't put out the word about how much water is wasted to raise beef cattle... and they reply with something like "we're a government agency, we deal with water management, and what you're talking about is changing behavior" — as if pushing everyone to take shorter showers and turn off the water while brushing your teeth isn't about changing behavior! The website for the film also has a very helpful graphic with lots of statistics — here are a few tidbits:

Animal agriculture is responsible for 91% of Amazon destruction
110 animal and insect species are lost every day from rainforest destruction
Livestock cover 45% of earth's total land mass
The meat and dairy industry use 1/3 of the earth's fresh water
5% of US water use is domestic; 55% is animal agriculture
A plant-based diet cuts your carbon footprint by 50%

I would definitely class this as one of those movies everyone should see. As it happens, the filmmakers have a campaign for Earth Day this year: anyone can watch Cowspiracy online for just a dollar, starting on the real Earth Day (Wednesday, April 22nd, not whatever weekend day organizations tend to pick for events)... Highly recommended!

Chris Hedges on the case for going vegan

Chris Hedges has gone vegan as a response to climate change, saying that "becoming vegan is the most important and direct change we can immediately make to save the planet and its species." In his column explaining his decision (Saving the Planet, One Meal at a Time) he lays out a treasure trove of statistics. Here are just a few (I've left out the sources, but they are easily found in his footnotes):

• A person who is vegan will save 1,100 gallons of water, 20 pounds CO2 equivalent, 30 square feet of forested land, 45 pounds of grain and one sentient animal’s life every day.
• Crops grown for livestock feed consume 56 percent of the water used in the United States.
• In the United States 70 percent of the grain we grow goes to feed livestock raised for consumption.
• Land devoted exclusively to raising livestock now represents 45 percent of the earth’s land mass.

If you have yet to be convinced, please read the full article!

the climate march and "green energy" wishful thinking

Well, it's been way too long since I've posted here, for a few reasons… For one, I've been pretty preoccupied advocating for, then starting, a new high school dance program (another story for another blog); for another, I've been meaning to take up and expand on that third precept (not buying any new stuff you don't absolutely need) but felt I needed to do a lot more research first to be able to put my thoughts in any authoritative order — and got stuck with that same time crunch (but I have been reading some Herman Daly and will post some tidbits soon).

But — it would feel negligent not to take some notice of the big, highly-touted climate demonstrations over the weekend… Unfortunately, my main impression is disappointment over the rhetoric I've heard leading up to the rally. Every time I hear some activist interviewed, I invariably hear plenty of happy talk about how "we already have the technology" to run the economy "sustainably"… It seems that no one, from Bill McKibben on down, is ready to be the grownup and tell us the real truth — that we can't hope to save a habitable planet without radically changing the way we live. We are so obsessed with finding a magic techno-fix for the climate crisis — one that will let us continue to self-identify as "consumers" — that even our environmental leaders can't bring themselves to talk about just plain using less (a lot less). Yes, renewables are important — but only when coupled with a serious program of energy austerity; otherwise, all those renewables only make it possible for everything to keep growing even more.

I keep hearing mention of Germany as an example of scaling up solar power — how on some days, Germany gets as much as 75% of its electricity from solar! What is not mentioned so much is that Germany's GHG emissions have kept right on increasing over the past few years, even while it was adding all that solar capacity. Others have pointed to Spain as a leader in wind power — while glossing over the fact that Spain's GHG emissions keep rising as well, right along with all those wind turbines. Not long ago, the San Francisco Chronicle printed an article about the giant Ivanpah solar plant in the Mojave desert: not only does the facility incinerate every bird, butterfly, or other flying creature who strays into the path of its beams; but a UC Riverside study found that the emissions savings from the plant are minimal at best, and may even be negative because of the lost carbon sinks in the pristine desert habitat that was destroyed to make room for all those mirrors. Yet we keep building (and subsidizing) these monstrosities because we just can't face the fact that we cannot keep growing indefinitely on a finite planet. A "green" energy source that will allow us to keep using all the energy we want (rather than what we actually need) without harming the environment is as fictional as a free lunch or a perpetual motion machine.

The one activist I have recently heard mention the necessity of austerity is Naomi Klein: in her recent book, she writes about how much time (and, just by the way, how much GHG emissions) it would take to scale up to replace our fossil fuel-based economy with one based on renewables. And she says that the only thing that "doesn't require a technological and infrastructure revolution is to consume less, right away." Yet so many seem so reluctant to think about that part of the equation… Making the fossil fuel companies the only villain in this lets us all off the hook.

readings on the change needed and the Anthropocene

I’m afraid I have been writing rather sporadically here… but this was originally intended to be a place to expand on the ideas in my original long missive more than a daily or weekly diary… so there it is. I have written more about my first two precepts – that is, not eating meat and not flying on airplanes; I hope to write more about that last one – not buying stuff you don’t need – as soon as I can, but I feel I need to spend a little more time studying the idea of a steady-state economy before I can write with any assurance. I will say that I have had friends respond to my first letter by saying that if we stopped buying, the economy would collapse; my response at this point would be to paraphrase Herman Daly: we can choose to follow the dictates of the imaginary system that we ourselves created (the economy), or we can follow the dictates of the very real systems that we live in and depend upon (physics and the environment).

In the meantime, there are a couple of articles that I read recently that I would like to share:

The first is The Change Within by the always-dependable and always-interesting Naomi Klein. In this one, she lays out some interesting sociological reasons as to why responding to climate change in any sort of adequate fashion is so difficult, if not nearly impossible (hint: it’s not just because of the rapacious oil barons) – a big one being, of course, consumerism: “The problem is not ‘human nature,’ as we’re often told. We weren’t born having to shop this much…”

The second is The Anthropocene: It’s Not All About Us by Richard Heinberg (who is less well-known than Naomi Klein, but no less interesting). The title essentially says it – we have increasingly cut ourselves off from wild nature, and “as is usually the case in discussions about humans-and-wild-nature, the conversation is all about us.” He somewhat disagrees with Klein’s point about “human nature” and not being born having to shop this much – as Heinberg states, “every species maximizes population size and energy consumption within nature’s limits” – which is one of the major problems in any attempts to voluntarily limit our consumption (before we reach nature’s limits in the form of a massive and catastrophic ecosystem collapse). He also focuses on how we have always re-engineered the world and taken over ecosystems: “paleoanthropologists can date the arrival of humans to Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific islands, and the Americas by noting the timing of the extinctions of large prey species.” But the main point of the essay is our anthropocentrism our alienation from nature which is leading to environmental disaster – “when individual human self-absorption becomes blatantly destructive we call it narcissism… Our planetary-scale narcissism is just the latest method for justifying our actions as we bulldoze, deforest, overfish, and deplete our way to world domination.” For someone like me, who fully believes in Daniel Wildcat’s axiom that we began to lose our way when we stopped thinking of other species as relatives and began thinking of them as resources, hearing this idea from another writer is powerful indeed.

meat-eating and the drought

Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle included a front-page, above-the-fold story titled "Farmers forced to change ways during drought." It profiled one Central Valley farmer who is going to abandon growing alfalfa, among other things, because of the loss of water deliveries from the Central Valley Project. The part that jumped out at me was far down in the article — it quotes "environmentalists" accusing farmers of exporting water in the form of crops such as alfalfa and almonds, and mentioned that alfalfa's water use far exceeds that of other crops in the state… Then in nearly the next paragraph, it cites the farmer saying that his alfalfa "isn't some thirsty boutique crop — it's vital to San Joaquin ranchers and dairies that put meat and milk in the refrigerators of millions of Californians" — so matter-of-factly, as if there isn't even the slightest question that meat and milk are absolutely necessary to have in our refrigerators!

So — yes, it is true that all that water going to all that alfalfa is used overwhelmingly to produce meat, milk, and cheese... and if lots more of us were vegetarians we probably would have plenty of water in California (even this year!). Of course, as a local columnist pointed out, any attempt by the government to promote vegetarianism would be met with fierce resistance (not that that is in any way possible, given that our current political system is completely beholden to corporate agriculture).

But official promotion is beside the point, all that is needed is to stop the subsidies and water deliveries — if all the corn, soy, and alfalfa farmers had to pay anything like the true cost of all that water, then meat would be so expensive as to become a rare luxury rather than the mainstay of the typical fast-food diet (much as, if carbon were priced at anything like its cost to the environment, flying would be a big deal again instead of a convenient commute option). If that were to happen, we would see a lot more vegetarians and near-vegetarians — with attendant improvements to general health and well-being, as well as the savings in water and carbon...