Organic food is bad for the earth

Organic shoppers think they are doing the earth a favor with their organic purchases. The Organic Trade Association even says: “Organic agricultural production benefits the environment by using earth-friendly agricultural methods and practices” followed by a litany of environmental plusses like less greenhouse gas, nicer to animals, etc. (source)

However, a lengthy UK study found that organic methods can hugely increase land usage, energy consumption, and environmental impact. For example, organic tomatoes use 642% more land, organic milk produces almost 100% more soil and water pollutants, and organic chickens cause 341% more resource depletion.

Like I mentioned in an earlier article, organic methods would be cheaper if they were really more “earth-friendly.” This isn’t a stretch; major inputs to food prices are energy, labor, and land. If you use more, you have to charge more. Organic products are 10% to 40% more expensive simply because they use that much more energy, land, and resources than conventionally-farmed materials.

Want to do the earth a favor? Stop buying resource-intensive versions of conventionally-produced products.

(Props to the Dallas Observer blog article that clued me in to the subject!)

Close-minded liberals won’t win Bush Library debate

George W. Bush

Southern Methodist University is almost assured the George W. Bush Presidential Library. This is a fantastic opportunity for the university. However, the close-mindedness of radical liberals, including some in the university and in the United Methodist church, is agitating to scuttle the project.

This is significant, but not because it’s a liberal vs. Bush issue. Cats and dogs will fight. What’s significant is the liberals’ reaction yet again proves the weakness of the American left wing’s supposed openmindness. Liberals are and have always been intolerant beings. Too often, they do not accept, and often seek to restrict or ban, forms of thought that challenge their fundamental beliefs.

To be fair to liberals involved in the library debate, most haven’t engaged in third grade ad hominem attacks. Most of the informed argument is about a think tank, part of the proposed library package. Indeed, the anti-library petition, started by Andrew Weaver and George Crawford, states: “the operation of the think tank will not be accountable to SMU or the United Methodist Church that owns the University.” (source) Read between the lines: “we radical liberals don’t like dissenting thought if we can’t control it.”

United Methodist Cross and FlameThe irony with Andrew Weaver is particularly rich. In a 2005 review of a book about the religious right, he slammed institutions where “debate and dissent are discouraged,” and he whined about tactics of “political hardball and takeover bid.” What else is he trying to do with this 11th hour anti-library campaign but squelch even the possibility of a dissenting viewpoint? What else is this campaign besides “political hardball and [a] takeover bid” to hijack the will of SMU’s Board of Trustees? So Andrew whines about others, then does what they do wrong with even greater fervor? According to an account of hardball tactics bordering on harassment, this isn’t Andrew’s first time at this.

Fortunately, the overall picture is looking good:

  • SMU sealPeople are not taking the anti-library petition seriously, and it isn’t commanding respect. Even a silly “impeach Bush” petition has far more signatures! “‘To reach the conclusion that this petition represents an overwhelming expression of concern would not be accurate,’ said Patti LaSalle, associate vice president for public affairs at SMU. ‘We’ve also received many letters from United Methodist members and leaders expressing favor for the presidential library.'” (source)
  • Student support appears to be strong. No organized, student-based opposition has taken off, and the Student Senate fully endorsed the entire package.
  • There is no sign of any Trustee dissent. To wit, Rev. Mark Craig, an SMU trustee and Senior Pastor of Highland Park United Methodist Church, said that the library opponents are “a fringe group, a marginal group without any standing other than the fact they happen to be one of 8 million United Methodists[.]” (source)
  • Faculty opposition is going nowhere, does not appear to represent anywhere near a majority of the faculty, and is even being viewed by some as an untimely, 11th hour revolt. The only credible movement within the Faculty Senate is to oppose an executive order established early in the Bush presidency. Indeed, the entire SMU History Department, which includes library supporters, is concerned about this order.
  • There is no credible movement to separate the think tank from the rest of the package. SMU President Gerald Turner has made it clear that “the library complex is an all or nothing venture.” (source)
  • Many faculty members have clearly stated their support of the library:
  • There is introspection on prior opportunities SMU frittered away, including losing what eventually became University of Texas at Dallas because of prior objections to conservative views.
  • The last recalcitrant, lawsuit-happy tenants of the University Gardens complex, where the library might be built, has been evicted. While his case is technically on appeal, it is unlikely to go anywhere now because SMU’s ownership of the property is clear.

As a lifelong, active United Methodist and an alumnus of SMU three times over, I am thrilled that SMU has been selected to receive the Bush library. I strongly support this, and I am glad that the opposition has had little effect on the debate.