Official Bernie 2020 Campaign Video

Will County Progressives
Terrence Daniels

February 19, 2019

Official Bernie 2020 Campaign Video


Official Bernie 2020 Campaign Video#Bernie2020

Posted by Terrence Daniels on Tuesday, February 19, 2019

As Awareness Grows About Food’s Role In Climate Change, What Solutions Exist?

Civil Eats – 10 Years

As Awareness Grows About Food’s Role In Climate Change, What Solutions Exist?

After a decade of work to connect food and climate, four experts say the link is being made, but much work remains to be done.


Over the past 10 years, we have seen a tidal shift in awareness about the dangers that climate change poses, and the fact that it’s only going to get much worse if we don’t quickly take dramatic action. In fact, data released just last week found that alarm over climate change in the U.S. has doubled in just the last five years.

Despite the growth in coverage, dialogue, and action to address climate change, food and agriculture remain far from the conversation. And yet we know that food and agriculture play a major role in the production of global greenhouse gas emissions—as much as 24 percent by some estimates. Take the recent interactive report from the New York Times highlighting the ways in which countries can dramatically reduce emissions; it gave less than one full sentence to food and agriculture.

Jon Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, a nonprofit organization focused on dramatic reductions of carbon in the atmosphere, has witness first-hand the momentum building. But he laments the wasted decades spent debating the existence of climate change.

“I wish we were having these conversations back in 1970 instead of 2018,” Foley said. “We’ve lost so much time.”

According to data from the Global Carbon Project highlighted by David Wallace-Wells in a recent op-ed, had the world begun reducing emissions in 2000, it would have only required a 2 percent per year reduction in emissions, rather than the 5 percent per year we face if we commit to acting today.

As part of Civil Eats’ 10th anniversary, we’re hosting a series of roundtables this year to look at the past, present, and future of the issues critical to the U.S. food system. Given the urgent need to act, and the strong swell of momentum behind policy solutions such as the Green New Deal, we begin this year with a focus on climate change.

The participants in this roundtable are: Renata Brillinger, Executive Director, California Climate and Agriculture Network (CalCAN); Rosie Burroughs, farmer and rancher, Burroughs Family FarmsJon Foley, Executive Director, Project Drawdown; and Anna Lappé, author of Diet for a Hot Planet and director of the Food & Democracy program at the Panta Rhea Foundation. Civil Eats’ editor-in-chief, Naomi Starkman, and managing editor Matthew Wheeland facilitated the wide-ranging discussion. The conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Looking back over the last decade of the food movement and the climate movement, has the divide gotten smaller? What would need to happen to bring these movements together? And can these two movements even coexist?

Anna Lappé.

Anna Lappé.

Anna Lappé: When I look back to 2006, when the United Nations published “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” it was a wake-up call that got many of us thinking about the intersection between food and climate. At that time, there was a very strong climate movement that had been engaging people around the country and the world. And there was not much integration within the climate movement, or even much of a conversation around food or agriculture and agribusiness.

My sense of that was really confirmed when colleagues at Johns Hopkins did a study of climate coverage in the 16 biggest newspapers in the U.S., and only a tiny fraction—about 2.5 percent—even mentioned food and agriculture as a part of the problem or the solution, and a much smaller percentage talked about it as a substantial focus area.

I think it was a blind spot, not just for the climate movement, but for policymakers and for folks all across the spectrum. Many of the biggest environmental groups were campaigning around climate already, but certainly very few had integrated campaigns around agribusiness or food systems’ impact. Now, I feel like that story has totally changed. So many of the biggest climate organizations are really understanding that farmers and ranchers are on the frontlines of [climate] impact, but also the frontlines of the solutions.

Renata Brillinger: CalCAN formed 10 years ago, and I agree with Anna that [since then] the conversation has really widened from agriculture being mostly identified as the problem to it also being a solution. There’s also a more widespread appreciation of the very specific and unique contributions that properly managed farmland and ranch land can make to reduce emissions and store carbon.

Renata Brillinger.

Renata Brillinger.

I think, though, that talking about the food system or food movement is tricky. There’s quite a distance between consumers and urban dwellers and producers. Even if we were to bifurcate the so-called movement into those two categories, [consumers] and agriculturalists, it’s hard to generalize.

We’re lucky in California to have a context where we can talk about climate change—even in agricultural communities—without ears shutting. Nonetheless, farmers are not typically motivated to bring forward their climate solutions because of the benefits to the climate. That’s not the first thing on their list of priorities when they get up to go to work every day; they’re thinking about staying in business, the market pressures and price, input costs, natural resources, and weather. They’re not necessarily saying, “I’m going to go out and sequester some carbon this morning.” But the connections, all the co-benefits that we get by doing climate-friendly practices, those are what speak to farmers.

By way of a benchmark, California did its first Scoping Plan in 2008, which laid out the pathway to achieving the greenhouse gas emissions targets that the state had put into law (targets that have since been increased). At the time, only about half a page of that plan dealt with agriculture. Fast forward, and the 2014 update to the Scoping Plan included a much more substantial agriculture section, and a draft report was released in January 2019 focused solely on climate solutions on natural and working lands, including agriculture.

We just saw Governor Newsom propose the largest budget for the Healthy Soils Program, one of the state’s tools for reducing emissions in agriculture; and there are now more than $300 million worth of incentives for agriculture to deliver climate solutions [in the state], up from $0 four years ago.

Jon Foley

Jon Foley.

Jon Foley: I would say that the two communities still have some work to do to really get together. A lot of progress has been made, but I fear not enough. The food and agriculture system altogether is about 24 percent, we think, of our total emissions of greenhouse gases, which is tied basically with electricity as the two largest emitters.

Within the food system, the three big parts are still deforestation, methane emissions from cattle and rice fields globally, and nitrous oxide from overusing fertilizers. Those numbers haven’t budged—if anything they might be going up again, especially as Brazil’s new leader seems to be going after what was a suspension of deforestation across the Amazon.

While food is slowly being recognized as a contributor to climate change, and also a solution, it’s nowhere near the magnitude of discussion or investment as electricity gets. Every time you hear about climate change, we’re going to talk about coal and renewables—but only maybe one in 10 times do you hear about food. Right now, 80 percent of the press, funding, investment, and attention is going to about 20 percent of the climate problem.

On the positive side, we’ve had a lot of discussions about reducing the problems of the food system. To me, the biggest levers are still things like slowing and ceasing deforestation, because not only does it prevent the source of carbon dioxide, it helps preserve the sinks of carbon that forests naturally are, as well as their benefits to biodiversity in watersheds and to the livelihoods of Indigenous communities.

I think food waste has gotten a lot of attention, too, which is nice since we waste 30 to 40 percent of all the food we grow. There’s also an active discussion around the role of meat, especially beef—the grass-fed vs. feedlot debate—whether this can flip from being a problem to being a potential solution.

Rosie and Ward Burroughs.

Rosie and Ward Burroughs.

Rosie Burroughs: In terms of the farming connection, the encouraging part is that two years ago, I would have said that most of conventional farmers were not really concerned about climate change, nor were they interested in regenerative practices that sequester carbon. In the last two years, I’ve seen many younger farmers really embracing and trying new practices. For example, there’s a conventional farm next to ours—they’re young parents, and they’re looking at the future, but also the health for their children.

I’m encouraged that there are so many young farmers coming to our farm and saying, “I’m interested in doing some things better. I’d like to learn how to not use synthetic fertilizers.” Let’s get all farmers starting on regenerative practices, because once they learn the tools, they’re going to adopt them because they cost less.

What do you think it would take for the general public to start to understand that link between food and climate? Do you see signs that that it’s starting to happen?

Jon Foley: It’s not even just the broader public discussion, I think it’s [also] among policymakers and even so-called experts. Even people who have focused on climate change their entire lives tend to think only about CO2, forgetting methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases that we emit. We tend to think only about energy, and we often forget things other than electricity. Even at the governor’s conference on climate solutions [in 2018] and at the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] meetings, electricity gets much more discussion than it has impact on the atmosphere. Transportation probably gets the second biggest, and food usually doesn’t get a lot of attention until recently.

I find that there are a lot of myths; people often start talking about food miles. Well, it turns out if you run the numbers, food miles are really negligible when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

What I’m really excited about is highlighting solutions, like how we can protect forests and reduce food waste. How can we help shift to more sustainable kinds of diets that are also healthier for us? How can regenerative agriculture flip farms from being maybe a “problem” to being part of the solution? And especially the health of soils: Soil really does capture the imagination. It’s not hard for people to recognize healthy soil that’s teeming with life, versus soil that has been beat to hell with industrial farming for far too long. I think that might spur part of the conversation if we do it right.

Farms have a special place in Americans’ hearts—they’re part of our culture, our heritage, our ethos as a nation. This is a very positive opportunity for us to highlight the problems, look at the solutions to mitigate those problems, and also the opportunities for new farming. The time is now.

Anna Lappé: I really agree with what Jon is saying, but we have so much more progress to make. I have seen this real shift in how much people are talking about the food and climate connection. And yet we know from last year’s really alarming IPCC report that we have 12 years to radically shift systems worldwide; what is clear is that food and agriculture absolutely have to be part of that conversation. If you look at projections moving forward 10-20 years, unless we’re making some radical shifts, the impact on the food sector is going to really balloon.

I’m alarmed that we aren’t making more progress. We have to be looking squarely at corporate power, corporate influence on politics, and the fact that the immensely powerful fossil fuel companies really thwart a lot of progress. What we can see is that some of those very same companies are deeply involved with the food system. And unless we bring that conversation about challenging corporate power to the solutions we’re putting forth around food, I don’t think we’re going to see the progress we need. For instance, there’s been incredible campaigning around energy companies and we’re seeing some of those players move into fertilizer production. Koch Industries just put several billion dollars into fertilizer production plants in the South, for instance.

Rosie Burroughs: [We need to be talking] not only about food coming into the conversation, but nutrient-dense food—so food that’s healthy, food that’s medicine, food that’s going to keep the humans and all the animals on this planet thriving.

Where are you seeing traction on a policy level? Are there policies helping to shape and bring these two seemingly disparate movements together?

Renata Brillinger: It’s challenging to talk about the food system as a whole when it comes to policy because it’s an apples and oranges comparison. CalCAN only focuses on the farm production piece, and the estimates are that it’s roughly 8 percent of California’s emissions. That obviously doesn’t count all of the energy that goes into the inputs, especially nitrogen fertilizer, and it doesn’t count packaging, transportation, processing, and all that.

There are other efforts going on, for example to put some cap and trade funding into building compost facilities to deal with food waste, and the methane emissions that are associated with landfills. There are efforts to improve food processing facility energy efficiency, etc.

Separating organic waste in a commercial kitchen. (Photo CC-licensed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency)

Separating organic waste in a commercial kitchen. (Photo CC-licensed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency)

There are now four programs that all have what we would call natural solutions or biologically based solutions to reducing emissions on farms. One of them incentivizes farmers to reduce their energy and water use. Another incentivizes methane reduction in dairies, which is, as Jon said, a big source of potent greenhouse gas emissions. There’s a program to preserve farmland in perpetuity so that we can limit urban sprawl. Our transportation sector is our biggest problem in California; addressing it contributes to reducing future emissions from urban growth and sprawl. And the fourth program is the Healthy Soils Program.

California is unfortunately one of the only places in the world—maybe the only place in the world—where there’s a comprehensive suite of such programs. There are some other examples, but none that are quite so robust. It’s great that we’re blazing that trail, but it’s also obviously, completely insufficient if we need to get to bending our carbon emissions curve within 12 years. So, we’re both a beacon and obviously inadequate.

There are some other states that are moving forward with trying to put carbon-pricing mechanisms in place. Oregon, Washington keeps trying, New York—these are some places where then we can hopefully derive some revenue to direct toward [climate-smart] agriculture. And there are a number of other places where that’s impossible politically, but there are some organizations trying to figure out how to incentivize practices that deliver climate benefits on farms by calling it something other than climate protection—calling it “water-quality improvements” or “regulatory streamlining” or “erosion control.” “Healthy soil” is a becoming a proxy for a whole bunch of promising improvements in agriculture in various pockets around the country.

Anna Lappé: Outside our country there is actually a lot of movement to really scale up regenerative farming systems. I just had the opportunity to connect with a leader in an effort in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. It’s an inspiring, farmer-led movement to improve the livelihoods of farmers using practices that are also good for the climate. The kind of soil health efforts that build up carbon that also produce nutrient-dense food.

The project is called Zero Budget Natural Farming, and it’s about using on-farm nutrients to grow crops without relying on chemical fertilizers or pesticides, which is not good for the climate and not good for farmers—it pushes farmers into debt. They piloted it with about 100,000 farmers. And the government is planning to invest a huge amount of money across 6 million farmers over the next five years or more. When you have government investing, stepping up, and saying, “We want to have programs that benefit farmers at scale,” you can see incredible impact.

Going back to Jon’s earlier point about deforestation and agribusiness pressures on forests, I feel like this is where there could be some policy solutions, but we should also look at how can we put pressure on the finance sector not to underwrite the destruction of those vital forests. How can we put pressure on the insurance sector not to underwrite the agribusiness companies moving into those vital areas of the planet? And how can we also put pressure on the consumer-facing brands to make sure that nothing in their supply chains traces back to those vital forests? So yes, there’s a lot of really great policy solutions, but I also think we really need a whole host of strategies.

Jon Foley: We have four big tools to change the world: policy is one, but it’s also the flow of capital—where the money goes—and helping to highlight the risk of certain kinds of agriculture and the performance of other kinds. Where people invest and where they don’t is a really powerful thing. Also, changing the rules in technology and how people farm, showing that regenerative agriculture, organic, and other kinds of systems can actually be better—not just good for the environment, but just better overall for everybody. And of course the larger, behavioral side of things, like what we buy, our diets, our waste. So policy is not the only lever, and I worry that we’ve waited far too long for policymakers to get off the dime and they haven’t.

We’ve wasted 30 years waiting for the U.N. to save us—and it hasn’t done anything except produce a bunch of reports. It’s time to look elsewhere, which is why I get interested in cities and states. California’s doing some great work. Other places are, too. We’re seeing interesting intersections of business, civil society, NGOs, and even scientific organizations. The early success in Brazil in limiting deforestation, with activist groups going after big agribusiness and then agribusiness trying to reform and certify soybeans and beef from deforested regions—that was actually a pretty big success story. Hopefully it’s not being undermined now.

Ward Burroughs inspects compost on Burroughs Family Farms. (Photo courtesy of CalCAN)

Ward Burroughs inspects compost on Burroughs Family Farms. (Photo courtesy of CalCAN)

On the global scale, there are some big leverage points: On deforestation—about half of historic deforestation in the last 20 years occurred in only two countries, Brazil and Indonesia. That’s where we ought to focus a lot of attention: on those two countries, and the soybean, beef, palm oil, and timber supply chains. That’s really where a lot of action is happening and only a handful of companies are involved in those, so it’s a good place to focus.

On fertilizer use, China, India, and the U.S. together represent about two-thirds of all the fertilizer use on the planet for three major commodities—rice, corn, and soybeans. And then if you look at methane emissions, again it’s China, India, and the U.S., mainly rice [paddies] and cattle. While it’s nice to grow organic arugula in our backyard, we have to look at these big systems, too, How do we reform them, how do we change them with that policy lever, with the changing-how-we-farm lever, and the how-markets-and-consumers-look-at-these-systems levers? We need to focus more on the big levers, because the planet doesn’t have time to wait. We have to significantly cut emissions and improve solutions in food—in a decade, basically. And there’s a lot of momentum, but we really need to look at getting big wins and where the possibilities are. That’s why I get excited about California as a leader.

Rosie, from your perspective, are some of these policies or incentive programs better at encouraging farmers to adopt regenerative and more sustainable practices than others?

Rosie Burroughs: Yes, but we still have a long way to go. Cover crops seems to be one thing that most farmers can just adapt to and implement. And there are some programs where farmers can get seed for free or at a reduced cost to start trying some of the cover crops, and of course they’re mostly highlighting the benefits to monarchs, bees and other pollinators.

Cover crops planted at Hundley Whaley Research Center as part of a multi-year study looking at how different tillage systems and seeding systems effect yields of soybeans and corn. (Photo by Bruce Burdick for CAFNR)

Cover crops planted at Hundley Whaley Research Center as part of a multi-year study looking at how different tillage systems and seeding systems effect yields of soybeans and corn. (Photo by Bruce Burdick for CAFNR)

[It can be difficult to plant cover crops on a no-till farm], but cover crops is one of the first places that we can try to get more farmers to adapt, because it reduces the use of synthetic pesticides on the land and it improve soil biology. And once you start seeing and experiencing more life in your soil, you can see it above-ground, too; you’ll see more birds and beneficials.We [at Burroughs Family Farm] are an organic, seasonal, grass-based dairy using regenerative practices, and as Jon pointed out, there’s only a few big companies that are controlling all the buying power and distribution power, and we have had a terrible time trying to market our own product—everything from stores not wanting to have to add the paperwork for an independent distributor who sells farmer-direct to the store to the politics that are on the shelf. I knew of one farmer who wanted to get a new product on the shelf, and they were told it would cost $50,000 to buy a space. So the small farmer does not have a chance.

There is a crisis, particularly in the organic dairy business and there are several reasons for it, but people should know that Danone gave a one-year notice to many of their farmers across the nation. All but the majority of them have one year to find another home. Well, there isn’t another home to go to. There are just so few companies in that business so we have farmers going out of business left and right, and once we lose the farmers off the land, we’ve lost the resource of organic to be part of the [climate] solution. In my neighborhood, we’ve lost two organic dairies in 2018.

Given the state of the crisis, is there one thing that makes each of you hopeful in this moment?

Renata Brillinger: There is an explosion of science and willing practitioners like Rosie, who are way ahead of the curve. Rosie and her husband Ward joined us as advisers 10 years ago, but now they’ve got lots of amazing company in the farming community—people who are really curious. I’m blown away by the fact that young farmers are trying to get into this very hard business and are motivated in large part because they see it as having ecological benefits. That’s really hopeful.

There’s also been a big shift in the university world; not just science, but technical assistance providers, extensions, the Resource Conservation Districts, non-profit organizations, and there’s just an increasingly large coalition of those who are seeing this as an exciting growth area with lots of opportunity, co-benefits, and exciting, intellectual work to do. It’s like no other challenge we’ve faced as humans, and it’s bringing out the best in a lot of really smart people. It’s really popping, and it’s really hard, but I see a lot of curiosity and innovation.

Jon Foley: I think this discussion highlights some of the great momentum that’s building. The academic community, the NGO community—in food as well as in environment and climate change—are all beginning to recognize the opportunity here. And to me, the top-line issues—protecting rainforests, reducing food waste, and shifting diets—are beginning to get some traction.

I love what’s going on with different kinds of grazing techniques and stuff to maybe flip beef [production] from being a problem to a solution. On the whole, the planet’s beef and dairy systems are hugely responsible for a lot of our climate change problem because so much of it is not done well.

Cattle grazing in a silvopasture forest in Georgia. (Photo CC-licensed by the USDA National Agroforestry Center)

Cattle grazing in a silvopasture forest in Georgia. (Photo CC-licensed by the USDA National Agroforestry Center)

We do have to look simultaneously at shifting to better kinds of systems, but also just reducing demand for beef overall and making sure we don’t waste what we do grow. There are a lot of levers we can pull all at the same time: Less beef, no waste, and better [farming practices]. We’ve lost so much time because powerful people don’t want this change. And whether it’s the fossil fuel business or big agribusiness, that at the end of the day the impediments are gigantic and we have to just acknowledge that elephant in the room and find a way to move that as well.

Anna Lappé: My source of hope is always the energy I get from activism around the planet, from people really standing up to those powerful interests that Jon just named. I think if we are going to make the progress we need to make, that kind of speaking truth to power and standing up to really powerful corporate interests is going to be critical. What we’re seeing in the food industry is shape shifting—where you see a lot of the biggest, most powerful corporations that are really driving deforestation, non-regenerative practices in the beef industry, and fertilizer use—using a lot of public relations spin to try to make them look like they’re there on our side, so to speak.

For example, we just saw the merging of two of the biggest chemical corporations in the world, Dow and DuPont. They’ve now spun off their agricultural chemicals sector and rebranding themselves as Corteva, a name that comes from the combination of “heart” and “land,” and they’re trying to kind of present themselves as a benign force. We know the chemical industry is an essential part of a system that’s not sustainable for many reasons; it is not good for health and certainly not good for the climate. I get hope from the sense of the energy we’re seeing, energy around the Green New Deal, for instance, which will include areas of work around food and agriculture.

Rosie Burroughs: What gives me hope is believing that regenerative ag practices give us purpose and make us feel that what we’re doing is right. We wouldn’t farm any other way. It’s like what my husband says: “If we ever had to go back to conventional farming, we wouldn’t farm—because that’s a death sentence in terms of the soil, the animals, and food for humans.”

Scientists accidentally found a potential solution to the plastic problem.

Vice News posted an episode of Vice News Tonight. 

February 18, 2019

If it keeps piling up, plastics in the ocean could outweigh fish by 2050. These scientists accidentally found a potential solution to the plastic problem.

This Plastic-Eating Enzyme Could Revolutionize Recycling

If it keeps piling up, plastics in the ocean could outweigh fish by 2050. These scientists accidentally found a potential solution to the plastic problem.

Posted by VICE News on Thursday, February 14, 2019

We Have Real Energy Choices!

Clowns Against Child Poverty

February 18, 2019

The reason we’re so solidly locked into fossil fuel dependency isn’t the absence of alternatives but the fact that oil is the MOST LUCRATIVE COMMODITY capitalism has ever found, and the world’s capitalists aren’t finished profiting from it yet.

No photo description available.

By Reconnecting With Soil, We Heal the Planet and Ourselves

Civil Eats

By Reconnecting With Soil, We Heal the Planet and Ourselves

Leah Penniman writes that Black people in the U.S have had a sacred relationship with soil that far surpasses enslavement and sharecropping.

Participants of Soul Fire Farm’s training program transplant pepper seedlings. Photo by Neshima Vitale-Penniman.


Dijour Carter refused to get out of the van parked in the gravel driveway at Soul Fire Farm in Grafton, New York. The other teens in his program emerged skeptical, but Dijour lingered in the van with his hood up, headphones on, eyes averted.

There was no way he was going to get mud on his new Jordans and no way he would soil his hands with the dirty work of farming.

I didn’t blame him. Almost without exception, when I ask Black visitors to the farm what they first think of when they see the soil, they respond “slavery” or “plantation.” Our families fled the red clays of Georgia for good reason—the memories of chattel slavery, sharecropping, convict leasing, and lynching were bound up with our relationship to the earth. For many of our ancestors, freedom from terror and separation from the soil were synonymous.

While the adult mentors in Dijour’s summer program were fired up about this field trip to a Black-led farm focused on food justice, Dijour was not on board. I tried to convince him that although the land was the “scene of the crime,” as Chris Bolden Newsome put it, she was never the criminal.

But Dijour was unconvinced. It was only when he saw the group departing on a tour that his fear of being left alone in a forest full of bears overcame his fear of dirt. He joined us, removing his Jordans to protect them from the damp earth and allowing, at last, the soil to make direct contact with the soles of his bare feet.

Dijour, typically stoic and reserved, broke into tears during the closing circle at the end of that day. He explained that when he was very young, his grandmother had shown him how to garden and how gently to hold a handful of soil teeming with insects. She died years ago, and he had forgotten these lessons. When he removed his shoes on the tour and let the mud reach his feet, the memory of her and of the land literally traveled from the earth, through his soles, and to his heart. He said that it felt like he was “finally home.”

The truth is that for thousands of years Black people have had a sacred relationship with soil that far surpasses our 246 years of enslavement and 75 years of sharecropping in the United States.

For many, this period of land-based terror has devastated that connection. We have confused the subjugation our ancestors experienced on land with the land herself, naming her the oppressor and running toward paved streets without looking back. We do not stoop, sweat, harvest, or even get dirty because we imagine that would revert us to bondage.

Part of the work of healing our relationship with soil is unearthing and relearning the lessons of soil reverence from the past.

Teen participants take their shoes off to experience the mud on their feet. Photo by Neshima Vitale-Penniman.Teen participants take their shoes off to experience the mud on their feet. Photo by Neshima Vitale-Penniman.

We can trace Black people’s sacred relationship with soil back at least to the reign of Cleopatra in Egypt beginning in 51 BCE. Recognizing the earthworm’s contributions to the fertility of Egyptian soil, Cleopatra declared the animal sacred and decreed that no one, not even a farmer, was allowed to harm or remove an earthworm for fear of offending the deity of fertility. According to studies referenced by Jerry Minnich in The Earthworm Book in 1977, worms of the Nile River Valley were largely responsible for the extraordinary fertility of Egyptian soils.

In West Africa, the depth of highly fertile anthropogenic soils serves as a “meter stick” for the age of communities. Over the past 700-plus years, women in Ghana and Liberia have combined several types of waste—including ash and char from cooking, bones from meal preparation, by-­products from processing handmade soaps, and harvest chaff—to create African Dark Earths.

According to a 2016 study in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, this black gold has high concentrations of calcium and phosphorus, as well as 200 to 300 percent more organic carbon than soils typical to the region. Today, community elders measure the age of their towns by the depth of the black soil, since every farmer in every generation participated in its creation.

When the colonial governments in northern Namibia and southern Angola attempted to force Ovambo farmers off their land, they offered what they said were equivalent plots with better-quality soil. According to Emmanuel Kreike in Environmental Infrastructure in African History, the farmers refused to be displaced, countering that they had invested substantially in building their soils and doubted that the new areas would ever equal their existing farms in fertility. The Ovambo people knew that soil fertility was not an inherent quality but something that is nurtured over generations through mounding, ridging, and the application of manure, ashes, termite earth, cattle urine, and muck from wetlands.

This reverent connection between Black people and soil traveled with Black land stewards to the United States.

In the early 1900’s, George Washington Carver was a pioneer in regenerative farming and one of the first agricultural scientists in the United States to advocate for the use of leguminous cover crops, nutrient-rich mulching, and diversified horticulture. He wrote in The American Monthly Review of Reviews that the soil’s “deficiency in nitrogen can be met almost wholly by the proper rotation of crops, keeping the legumes, or pod-bearing plants, growing upon the soil as much as possible.”

He advised farmers to dedicate every spare moment to raking leaves, gathering rich earth from the woods, piling up muck from swamps, and hauling it to the land. Carver believed that “unkindness to anything means an injustice done to that thing,” a conviction that extended to both people and soil.

One of the projects of colonization, capitalism, and White supremacy has been to make us forget this sacred connection to soil. Only when that happened could we rationalize exploiting it for profit.

As European settlers displaced Indigenous people across North America in the 1800’s, they exposed vast expanses of land to the plow for the first time. It took only a few decades of intense tillage to drive around 50 percent of the original organic matter from the soil into the sky as carbon dioxide. The agricultural productivity of the Great Plains decreased 71 percent during the 28 years following that first European tillage. The initial rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels was due to the oxidation of soil organic matter through plowing.

The planet’s soils continue to be in trouble.

Each year we lose around 25 million acres of cropland to soil erosion. The loss is 10 to 40 times faster than the rate of soil formation, putting global food security at risk. Soil degradation alone is projected to decrease food production by 30 percent over the next 50 years. Further, when soils are laden with fertilizers and pesticides, the nutritional quality of the food they produce is lower than crops grown using methods that enrich the soil with compost, cover crops, and mulches.

Dance moves teach the process of weeding. Photo by Neshima Vitale-Penniman.Dance moves teach the process of weeding. Photo by Neshima Vitale-Penniman.

When the soil suffers, it’s not just our food supply that is at risk. The further the population gets from its connection to earth, the more likely we are to ignore and exploit those who work the soil. As Wendell Berry wrote in The Hidden Wound in 1970:

The white man, preoccupied with the abstractions of the economic exploitation and ownership of the land, necessarily has lived on the country as a destructive force, an ecological catastrophe, because he assigned the hand labor, and in that the possibility of intimate knowledge of the land, to a people he considered racially inferior; in thus debasing labor, he destroyed the possibility of meaningful contact with the earth. He was literally blinded by his presuppositions and prejudices. Because he did not know the land, it was inevitable that he would squander its natural bounty, deplete its richness, corrupt and pollute it, or destroy it altogether. The history of the white man’s use of the earth in America is a scandal.

In the United States today, nearly 85 percent of the people who work the land are Hispanic or Latino and do not enjoy the same labor protections under the law as other American workers in other sectors. Pesticide exposure, wage theft, uncompensated overtime, child labor, lack of collective bargaining, and sexual abuse are all too common experiences of farmworkers today.

Even in urban areas, our disconnect from soil has grave consequences.

As a toddler, my daughter, Neshima, loved to make mud pies in the playground and drop bean seeds into the furrows of community garden plots in ­Worcester, Massachusetts. I didn’t know that exposure to these urban soils would put my child at risk for permanent neurological damage.

At her 18-month pediatric visit, I learned that she was one of approximately 500,000 children with elevated blood lead levels in this country. She inhaled and ingested soil that had been contaminated with lead from old paint and gasoline emissions. I quickly became a safe-soils activist and tested hundreds of residential and public spaces across the city, encountering lead levels as high as 11,000 parts per million, well above the Environmental Protection Agency’s safe limit of 400 parts per million.

From the arsenic found at a school site in Maine to the heavy metals in the gardens of Portland, Oregon, and the brownfields at an affordable housing site in Minneapolis, our urban soils are showing the scars of our disconnection. Hailing from the Bronx, New York, a participant in one of our farm training programs shared, “The soil is toxic in my neighborhood. The only good thing I can say about it is that when there were drive-by shootings, I would get low to the ground and the smell of the earth meant I was safe.”

When soils suffer the most egregious abuse, they can no longer even provide stable ground beneath our feet.

In early 2018, wildfires tore through Santa Barbara County, California, burning up the soil organic matter and ravaging the vegetation that held the hillsides in place. Heavy rain followed the blaze, and the destabilized mud and boulders flowed downhill, leaving at least 21 dead and over 400 homes damaged or destroyed in their wake.

Both the wildfires and the erratic rainfall can be linked to anthropogenic climate change and our voracious appetite for fossil fuels. Coupled with that, the process of extracting those fossil fuels from the earth through coal mining and fracking further destabilizes the soil, resulting in sinkholes like the one in Chester County, Pennsylvania, connected to the Mariner East pipeline.

The soil stewards of generations past recognized that healthy soil is not only imperative for our food security—it is also foundational for our cultural and emotional well-being.

Western science is catching up, now understanding that exposure to the microbiome of a healthy soil offers benefits to mental health that rival antidepressants. After mice were treated with Mycobacterium vaccae, a friendly soil bacteria, their brains produced more of the mood-regulating hormone serotonin. Some scientists are now advocating that we play in the dirt to care for our psychological health.

We see the benefits of soil anecdotally on our farm with the youth and adult participants who come to learn Afro-Indigenous soil regeneration methods. While the curriculum focuses on such nerdy details as the correlation between earthworm count and soil organic matter, participants often reflect that the main thing they gain from their time with the dirt is “healing” and the strength to leave behind addictions, toxic relationships, poor diets, and demeaning work environments.

Our ancestors teach us that it’s not just soil bacteria that contribute to this healing process. Part of African cosmology is that the spirits of our ancestors persist in the earth and transmit messages of encouragement and guidance to us through contact with the soil.

Further, we believe the Earth herself is a living, conscious spirit imparting wisdom. When we regard a handful of woodland soil, rich in the mycelium that transmits sugars and messages between trees, we are made privy to the inner world of the forest super­-organism and its secrets of sharing and interdependence.

Like Dijour, we are welcomed home to a profound web of belonging that extends beyond the boundaries of self and species.

One student on our farm reflected, “I leave this experience feeling grounded like a tree in a land and country that I previously did not feel welcomed in. Connection with soil was the awakening of my sovereignty.”

This article originally appeared in Yes! Magazine, and is reprinted with permission.

What if we didn’t have to recycle?

February 17, 2019

Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to recycle?

We Can Solve This

What If We Didn't Have To Recycle?

Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to recycle?We Can Solve This

Posted by EcoWatch on Wednesday, February 13, 2019

This is the homeless community in Hawaii

Vice News

February 17, 2019

This is the homeless community in Hawaii.

Homeless in Hawaii: VICE News Tonight

This is the homeless community in Hawaii.

Posted by VICE News on Friday, February 15, 2019

Warmer waters in the Pacific Northwest are killing salmon


February 17, 2019

Warmer waters in the Pacific Northwest are killing salmon before they can reproduce.

This is particularly devastating to the Tulalip people, who trace their cultural heritage to salmon.

Here’s the written story:

See More

Climate Change Is Cooking Salmon in the Pacific Northwest

Warmer waters in the Pacific Northwest are killing salmon before they can reproduce. This is particulatly devastating to the Tulalip people, who trace their cultural heritage to salmon.Here's the written story: Media News

Posted by EcoWatch on Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Real “National Emergencies” in America; not ‘trump’ed-up ones.

Business Leaders for Medicare for All – shared a photo

February 17, 2019

Some ACTUAL national emergencies…

No photo description available.

Ro Khanna

February 14, 2019

Here are some national emergencies that the United States should be addressing immediately.

Protecting Our Coral Reefs


February 15, 2019

Here is why some places are banning sunscreen that is damaging coral reefs

Here is why some places are banning sunscreen that is damaging coral reefs

Posted by CNN on Friday, February 15, 2019