What a milk carton can tell us

On the package of organic milk from Coop (Sweden) I can read the plastic cap is made out of oil. For some reason they can’t use biodegradeable plastic made from renewable sources. Instead they “support the production of the same quantity of renewable plastic somewhere else”. In addition they claim that they through this can reduce the use of fossil raw materials. This is supposed to make me feel good.  

In this way, the package of milk illuminates two common phenomena in how modern businesses handle, or not, environmental challenges. The first is the notion of “compensation”, i.e. that we can compensate an ill by doing something good somewhere else. The prime example is of course climate compensation or carbon offset, which it often is called. But there are other examples such as habitat banking whereby you pay someone to provide ecosystems or species which you have destroyed. And now plastic compensation. There are many things to say about the notion that you can compensate for destruction. It leads to financialization and privatization of nature (read this excellent article by Sian Sullivan) and it often means that poor peoples’ environment will be used to compensate rich peoples lifestyle (e.g.. when you compensate your flight with tree planting in developing countries).

Instead, let me instead probe the other message of the milk package: That you can “save” or “reduce use” of fossil fuels using renewable plastics. In the case of my organic milk this is greenwashing in its purest shape. Before Coop introduced the plastic cap, the package had no cap, but the carton could easily be opened and closed. By introducing a cap of made out of oil Coop clearly increases the use of fossil fuels.  But they look at the situation differently. They see that they use a fossil cap and by supporting the production of renewable plastic for something else, say the plastic grocery bags, they reduce the use of fossil fuels.

As a matter of fact this way of reasoning is widespread. The US department of energy tells us that buying an electric car will reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. But will it? I will not take up the discussion of how big the carbon footprint of an electric car is. There are things to say, but overall the carbon footprint of driving an electric car is in most cases considerably lower than from a gasoline or diesel car. But even so, can one really claim that you will reduce pollution and climate impact by buying a Tesla or a Nissan Leaf? Well, if you had no car earlier you will undoubtedly increase emission and pollution by buying and driving an electric car. If you have a combustion engine car and sell it to someone else that will drive it, total emissions will also go up compared to the situation before, unless that person already had a car before, which will be scrapped. It is only if your old car is demolished or replace another car that is scrapped that one could, possibly (it also depends on how old your car is and how much you drive), claim that emissions are reduced by you buying an electric car. There is thus a difference between that you will reduce your emissions and that you will reduce emissions.

In addition, the use pattern of an electric car is not the same as a combustion engine car. The marginal cost of driving an electric car will in most countries be considerably lower than driving a combustion engine car. In the case of Sweden the operational cost for driving a combustion engine car is more than five times higher. A person with an electric car is therefore likely to drive a lot more. It also means that the electric car will replace long train rides for families as it is much cheaper. More car traffic means more roads, more garages, more tires and more of everything linked to car travel. It also means less bicycles, less busses and trains, all transport means with much lower emissions than electric cars.

Even on a very basic level, the concept of “saving” or conserving resources is transient or illusive.  Some years ago I visited pastoralists in Northern Uganda where I could observe the construction and use of wood saving stoves. I asked a woman if she through the use of the stove could spend less time collecting firewood every morning. She responded, “Oh, I collect the same amount of wood as before, I just sell the wood I don’t need”. This was ironic as the reason for the introduction of wood-saving stoves was to save trees, not generating income.

If we look at land use for agriculture we can see that arable land per capita went from 0.45 ha to 0.21 hectare from 1961 to 2016. Still food consumption per capita increased from just above 2000 kcal to just below 3000 kcal in the same period. Isn’t this a prime example of how increased efficiency results in considerable savings of a resource, in this case land? At first sight perhaps, but when looking at it more closely it is apparent that the more efficient use of land is coupled to a tremendous increase in the use of energy, fertilizer and water as well as the loss of biodiversity, carbon in soils and environmental, social and economic resilience.

In addition, the increased productivity of labor led to lower prices and increased consumption of crops. Not only humans consume more crops, but more crops are used for animal feed and biofuels. And consumers now buy much more food than they need, resulting in increasing waistlines as well as mountains of food waste. In the end, despite the enormous productivity gain per hectare, more crop land is used today than 1961. This is caused by the double growth: the economic growth and the growth of the global population.  

My milk package, the electric cars, agriculture land use and the wood saving stoves are all examples showing why overall reduction in resources use or emissions (absolute decoupling) through substitution and efficiency is a pipe dream in a growth economy. Those are all real world examples, but one can also ascertain that from a purely theoretical standpoint that total resource use is bound to increase in a growth economy. I have explained this earlier but will have another try in a coming post.

P.s. I have posted little lately on this blog. I do spend a lot more time interacting in the Swedish food and agriculture debate and it simply leaves less time and energy for the global arena. In addition, my partner, Ann-Helen, and I recently launched a book, Kornas planet, and we have been quite busy with the launch of that book (I hope that it will be published in English in the future). Thanks for reading me.

Do we need farmfree food?

Because of how badly we humans have treated soils and animals and how we destroyed bio-diversity, it is understandable that people are looking for other ways of producing food.  The food tech sector hosts legions of entrepreneurs (mostly with background in the IT sector) seeking venture capital and researchers looking for grants to “disrupt” a sector which they claim is archaic. Most of them are based on the view that farming in general, and livestock farming in particular, is inefficient and wasteful. The environmental journalist George Monbiot writes in an article in the Guardian titled Lab-grown food will soon destroy farming – and save the planet.

“Eating is now a moral minefield, as almost everything we put in our mouths – from beef to avocados, cheese to chocolate, almonds to tortilla chips, salmon to peanut butter – has an insupportable environmental cost. But just as hope appeared to be evaporating, the new technologies I call farmfree food create astonishing possibilities to save both people and planet. Farmfree food will allow us to hand back vast areas of land and sea to nature, permitting rewilding and carbon drawdown on a massive scale.“

One of the promising initiatives mentioned in the article is the Finnish company, Solar foods. It claims that it has found a way to commercially produce hydrogen oxidized bacterial protein from electricity. The technology is actually known since the 1960s and has not taken off because of the prohibitive costs. In a research article, co-written by the founders of Solar Foods as late as 2019, it is concluded, that only the cost of energy required to produce microbial protein is higher than the price of soybeans, even if capital and other operational costs are not taken into account. The production of 1 kg of microbial biomass would require 10 kWh of electricity. On an energy basis it will require five times as much energy to produce the bacterial biomass than is contained in the product. The electricity needed to feed the world with this kind of product would be more than the total electricity production in the world according to my calculations. 

An indoor farm in Mongolia, photo: Gunnar Rundgren

Another modern technology promising to feed the world with low environmental impact is indoor vertical hydroponic farms in urban areas. It is possible to produce lettuce in high towers with automated systems. But the fact that it is possible doesn’t mean it is viable on a larger scale, and even less that it will take place in the cities. It can be an interesting architectural and engineering challenge to construct green high rises. It can increase the commercial value of the property to have an indoor farm in the basement and it can of course be a marketing gimmick for a supermarket to grow its own lettuce in a green dome inside the shop. But it has little relevance for feeding the population. This  is also demonstrated by that the commercial application are all about growing lettuce, basil, pak choy or herbs, crops which provide almost no food energy or proteins. The real pioneer of indoor farming was clandestine marihuana growing. Where marihuana is legalized, the production moves into the natural light instead.  

The claims of environmental benefits of bacterial protein and indoor farms are not backed by facts. The main reason is the energy, water and land nexus. In-door production of lettuce requires in the range of 2000 kWh per square meter growing area (more is required for the production of tomatoes or potatoes). Only 1.5 square meter per capita of such production would consume the total global production of electricity, which in itself shows how absurd the idea is that it could “feed the world”. While water and land are possibly “saved” at the site of production, the land and water footprint of energy production is huge. Exactly how big varies considerably between the various forms of energy and how you calculate.

If an indoor farm would be powered by solar energy, at least an area ten times larger than each layer of cultivation would be needed for the solar panels. And this is only for the light. In addition to light one needs energy for ventilation, cooling, water pumping and purification etc. The land use for other energy forms can be bigger or smaller than for solar panels, but in any case the land use is substantial.

The claims of saving water are dubious to say the least. Indoor vertical farms use municipal water which is very clean and very resource demanding. One can’t compare that water to rain falling on a field which proponents of indoor farming do when they talk about how much water is saved. Energy production also requires a lot of water, varying depending on energy source and system boundaries. If one include cooling water for nuclear power and the water in dams for hydroelectricity they use very high amounts of water, otherwise little. With an average water footprint of 20 litre per kWh, the use of water for one single pot of 40 gram of basil grown in an indoor farm in Sweden increases from 2.5 litre to 30 litres.

For lab meat, there is no commercial production and there are only theoretical comparisons with real meat. Still, the environmental impact of fake meat might be in a range close to that of real meat.  

The messages of the techno-optimists are both deceptive and dangerous as it makes people believe that most problems can be solved by technological innovation which in turn draws attention and resources away from other solutions. While technological development can be useful, by and large we already have the technologies needed to feed the world’s population with healthy food in a sustainable way. The challenges are mainly social, economic and political. For example, a fair distribution of food would eradicate hunger and eating of local, unprocessed organic foods would considerably reduce obesity and malnutrition.

The notion that we best protect the wild by letting it be is mistaken. For sure, there are places which could benefit from the total exclusion of humans but by and large, nature conservation is much more successful when it is managed by local people. In a capitalist economy, it is also naïve  to believe that land that is “saved” by migrating food production into factories in some magical way would be restored to pristine nature. The arable land that has been abandoned as a result of productivity gains in my native Sweden has mostly been converted into monoculture forest plantations. Ninety percent of our semi-natural grasslands have to a large extent been converted from very rich biodiverse areas to monoculture forests. Also this development was caused by productivity gains in arable farming making it more economic to feed cattle and sheep with crops than letting them graze.

In a panel recently (Youtube video), in which I also participated, George Monbiot had adjusted his arguments around farm free foods as being mainly a kind of insurance against an anticipated collapse of food production in the light of the climate crisis. While I totally agree that humanity need to do whatever it can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I don’t think that the “looming food crisis narrative” serve us. It was exactly that narrative that initiated the Green Revolution with all its negative side effects. It is also that narrative which is used by proponents of GMOs, the pesticide industry and all others promoting “more of the same”. I believe the perspectives of Julia Lernoud, Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim and myself with an emphasis on local food landscapes, food sovereignty, consumer-producer direct cooperation, and ecological adaptation are more relevant. The corona crisis also demonstrates that such systems are resilient alternatives to a global food system. A diverse localized food production system will also be much better suited to adapt to climate change.

Farm free foods and food tech can also be seen as an expression of a desire to decouple human development from nature. Even if we could fulfill the food tech dream to free us from the limits of nature, it would leave us empty, free from meaning. Instead of de-coupling human civilization from nature, we need to live in and by nature. We are fooling ourselves and betray the rest of the living by pretending we are a species that don't need the rest of the living – after all we are nature.

Build a future outside of the Market

Animal factory farming, endless monocultures, a carpet of chemicals, dramatic loss of biodiversity, obesity, malnutrition, food waste, appalling working conditions for migrant laborers and undermined livelihoods of small farmers and pastoralist. The list of failures of the modern food system is long. Are they caused by evil multinationals, by ignorant farmers and food industries or by consumers shopping for the cheapest? Is the root cause lack of technology? Is there even a root cause?

It is astonishing that so little of the food debate is enlightened by a proper understanding what the main driver of the food system is: Markets or even more precisely, capitalist markets (today, one can hardly find a market that is not capitalist). All the things I mention above are certainly driven by markets even though they are not necessarily uniquely caused by markets - after all, it is quite possible to become fat or destroy the environment also in a non-market economy. Nevertheless, in the world of today the market is defining the terms for both production and consumption. It is one of the mysteries of the modern world how we on the one hand praise ”the market” for all that is good and fail to allocate the blame for all that is not so good to the same market.

Most of the public attention is directed to which technologies are used or which food consumers chose or should chose. By and large these are diversions. Food waste provides an illuminating example: Consumers are told, with moral indignation, that they should stop wasting food. But why are consumers wasting food? Why do they buy more food than they need? 

People in the Sunnansjö pop-up shop

The market economy has made food into products to be bought and sold thereby erasing or reducing the cultural, social and sensual expressions of it. The role of the consumer in the food system is basically to buy. Through the pressure of competition and productivity increases, production and consumption will increase and prices decrease. Consumer spend a lower share of their income on food, they eat more supposedly luxury food and junk food at the same time and eat too much and waste too much. It is all quite simple and totally in line with the logic of the market.

On the production side the logic is similar; animals and plants have become commodities to be sold in competition with millions of other producers of the same thing. Economies of scale drive farmers into linear, industrial production systems whereby increasing quantities of inputs are bought. Specialization and mechanization go hand in hand with the competition and economies of scale and orient farmers into monocultures and commodity cropping. Within the global market framework it is incredibly hard to keep up a diversified production. Which is also the reason for why organic and regenerative farmers as well as proponents of agro-ecology and permaculture mostly try to find new ways of connecting production and consumption.

One can see this clearer if one contrasts the global food system with a system of self-sufficiency in food. A self-sufficient small farmer will have a lot of diversity in her system, she will have several kinds of animals and grow many kinds of crops to provide for a diverse diet for herself and her kin. Food waste doesn’t materialize as all the work to get food means that food is appreciated for its real value. Obesity and malnutrition are not likely to occur and agrochemicals are reluctantly used by anyone that grows her own food.

Being self-sufficient in foods have many merits, but also some shortcomings. While such a food system mostly can be biologically and culturally highly productive, the labor productivity is rather low. That means that a big share of all labor in a society where everybody grows their own food will be used for farming, food preparation and preservation, cooking and eating. Not such a bad life if there is no landlord or oppressive state that will squeeze any surplus out of the farmer. But the self-sufficient economy leaves little room for shopping malls, SUV:s, annual holiday trips to a beach thousand miles away. Perhaps not such a disaster? More difficult to accept for most would be that the surplus is not enough for hospitals with intensive care or legions of academics or musicians. Those who practice self-sufficiency can testify that they have problems to ends meet and will contribute little tax money for the government and may not attend concerts or other cultural performances very often. They will rarely afford to buy other people’s services. Total self-sufficiency is not possible or desirable, and cannot be the foundation of human civilization as cooperation is a defining characteristic of humans. But increasing the level of self-sufficiency in food and other essentials is a path away from even further division of labor. 

Most peoples’ minds are stuck in the market paradigm and blinded by a Cold War dichotomy of “free markets” versus Soviet style planned economy. In my view, it is utterly depressing to envision that there would be no other options. And certainly, there is no scientific basis whatsoever for such an idea. It is flabbergasting that those who state that human creativity, and not nature resources, is the source of all development and progress find it impossible to believe that we could have other systems than markets or planned economy. After all, throughout history, the way most people got their food was neither from the market nor from government bureaucracies.

To liberate or withdraw and increasing share of the food we eat from the chains of the market is, in my view, one of the major transformations needed. This can take many forms such as self-sufficiency, community supported agriculture, communal farming, food assemblies and urban farming. It will also lead to a localization of food and communal nature resource management as suggested by the landscape model. Once we enter that path in numbers we will find new ways. When many walk there, local and national governments will have to follow to be relevant. Thereby we can create virtuous cycles where government policies reinforce peoples’ actions and they in turn create both pressure and conditions for even more reformed policies.