“A farm includes the passion of the farmer’s heart, the interest of the farm’s customers, the biological activity in the soil, the pleasantness of the air about the farm — it’s everything touching, emanating from, and supplying that piece of landscape. A farm is virtually a living organism.” — Joel Salatin

The deepest experience and impression of nature only arises on an individual level. There are many different stages of awakening awareness in nature, the most basic being the food we eat on a daily basis. Consider the packaged, wrapped, dehydrated, heavily processed food people commonly purchase. From the very beginning, people eating a majority of food of this sort are likely to be detached from nature, not to mention unhealthy. Modern industrial farms have concentrated themselves into a centralized business model relying on packing animals into small cages, spraying fields and crops with chemical pesticides, all of which is propped up through bureaucratic regulations that destroy local farms. My belief is that the nature experience, on a most basic and individual level, begins with local farms. People will have a much greater respect and understanding of nature when they regularly eat and observe whole, natural foods that come from a local source.

“Part of our responsibility as stewards of the earth is to respect the design of creation… That’s something you can devote your life for.” — Joel Salatin

Operating the Polyface Farm on 550 acres of land in the Shenandoah Valley, Joel Salatin is defying just about everyone when it comes to producing organic food. Salatin describes himself as a “Christian-libertarian-environmentalist-capitalist farmer,” and has focused his career on sustainable, environmentally-friendly, animal-friendly organic farming. One of the many unique aspects of Salatin’s approach is that he only sells food to individuals, restaurants, and other outlets within a four-hour-drive radius of his farm, in an effort to encourage people to purchase their food from local farms in their area.

“We think there is strength in decentralization and spreading out rather than in being concentrated and centralized.” — Joel Salatin

Salatin’s “secret” is feeding livestock a rich and diverse mixture of grass, which is supported with no pesticides or chemicals whatsoever. The cattle freely roam among the fields, restrained only by a portable electrified fence that can be easily moved in less than an hour with one or two people. The farm’s chickens are housed in portable coops that are transported with tractors. Salatin maintains a rotation of sorts by first letting cattle graze a portion of the field, and then letting the chickens roam that same area the following day. This simple process provides an easily maintained and renewable source of daily fresh grass for the cattle, gives the animals freedom to move around without much restraint, and it leads to incredibly tasty meat and eggs.

“I appreciate the fact that you obviously love life and the living.” — Polyface Farm customer

“You, as a food buyer, have the distinct privilege of proactively participating in shaping the world your children will inherit.” — Joel Salatin

This is a breath of fresh air compared to the industrial meat facilities today. In these facilities cattle are heavily restrained, the farmers hardly interact with the animals, and a huge portion of the cattle is fed corn (which is often grown with questionable techniques using pesticides and GMOs). Salatin has a tremendous respect of and connection with his animals; a connection that cannot come through the detached and horrific slaughtering processes in industrial meat facilities today. Clearly there is an importance in the environment animals are raised in and its impact on the taste and vibration of the food. Salatin sees and treats animals as free creatures, not soulless drones waiting to be eaten.

“I am a caretaker of creation. I don’t own it, and what I’m supposed to do is leave it in better shape for the next generation than I found it.” — Joel Salatin

The greatest gift Joel Salatin is giving to the world, however, is not his food. He is showing people that there is an alternative. What kind of impact would Salatin have if he simply held signs and protested to a corporate or government building? What effect would he have if he simply lobbied government to mandate his farming beliefs? Probably none at all, and no one would remember him for it. Salatin is taking action. He is not waiting around for someone else to implement his vision; he is taking initiative and proving that low-tech, sustainable, organic, animal and environmentally-friendly farming is not a lost cause. He is a living example that it is actually a tremendous success.

“I see myself today as Sitting Bull trying to bring a voice of Easternism, holism, community-based thinking to a very Western culture. If we fail to appreciate the soul that Easternism gives us, then what we have is a disconnected, Greco-Roman, Western, egocentric, compartmentalized, reductionist, fragmented, linear thought process that counts on cleverness. Now, how’s that for a mouthful?” — Joel Salatin

Joel Salatin’s relentless pursuit of self-sufficiency has given us a remarkable example of how to happily and prosperously live in tune with the environment. All the buildings on his farm are constructed with lumber from the forest resting on his land. His animals are fed natural grass. The land is irrigated by its own ponds. He prospers through a local customer base who jump at the opportunity to support such a venture. Salatin’s achievements are laying the groundwork for the future of localism: respecting and appreciating the beauty and freedom of nature, working sustainably with animals on a very personal level, supporting both inner happiness and the local community, all through operating a profitable business. With individual initiative and creativity, nothing is impossible. Such is the story of Joel Salatin.

“How much evil throughout history could have been avoided had people exercised their moral acuity with convictional courage and said to the powers that be, ‘No, I will not. This is wrong, and I don’t care if you fire me, shoot me, pass me over for promotion, or call my mother, I will not participate in this unsavory activity.’ Wouldn’t world history be rewritten if just a few people had actually acted like individual free agents rather than mindless lemmings?” — Joel Salatin

It is an absolute myth that government is somehow more efficient in its operation with the environment. I’m reminded of the Onion video a couple years back, “Bush Tries to Make Iraq War More Green” or something along those lines. Efficiency and sustainability does not come through government intervention and growth, it comes from market competition directed by a free people.

—————————————

Statist journalist and staunch defender of Bill- and Hill-ism, Joe Conason asserted Monday that “[Norway's oil company] Statoil operates the most environmentally friendly offshore oil rigs in the world – because it’s state-owned.”

He advocates that Americans accept this fact, especially in light of the ongoing BP gusher 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. If only the state owned our off-shore drilling, it would be so much more environmentally friendly.

Conason explains, with a Halliburton counterpoint:

What makes Norway so different from the United States – and much more likely to install the most protective energy technology – is that the Norwegian state can impose public values on oil producers without fighting off lobbyists and crooked politicians, because it owns and controls the resources. Rather than Halliburton-style corporate management controlling the government and blocking environmental improvement, Norway’s system works the other way around. It isn’t perfect, as any Nordic environmentalist will ardently explain, but the results are considerably better than ours.

Let me break this down. First, Norwegian Statoil is currently 67% owned by the Norwegian government. Eight of the remaining top 20 shareholders are U.S. banks, including multiple sectors of Bank of New York Mellon and State Street Banks, both of which incidentally partook of hefty TARP funding, meaning that Statoil is also partially owned by the US government. Sounds like our own government contract-dependent Halliburton.

One wonders why Statoil, founded in 1972 as a 100% government-owned oil company, was partially privatized with an initial public offering (IPO) in 2001. Presumably, the company was losing market share, facing declining performance and internal waste, and generally becoming less competitive. That’s why most government-run businesses attempt to partially privatize – like any vampire, it occasionally needs to refresh itself with fresh human blood.

…

Conason suggests that Norway, but he means specifically Statoil, is more likely to install the most protective energy technology because he believes the government is like a follower of Jesus, desirous of good works and of pure heart. “Good” works, of course, for Conason and his compadres, are not productivity and efficiency, but fat pensions, low carbon dioxide emissions, and quick “state” response to accidents and disasters.

Well, let’s look at Statoil’s record on leaks and spills. They’ve had them, including a major gas leak that shut down a refinery for several days just a few months ago. Drilling is a dirty and dangerous business. BP of course has been in the news, taking the heat on spills along the Alaskan Pipeline and in Prudhoe Bay, and now with Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico. But BP’s activities in Alaska, and those of other non-state owned oil and gas companies in similar cases have been heavily taxpayer-funded and could, in an honest world, might be considered public-private partnerships.

Maybe Norway is different, and Norwegian state-owned oil companies are a model to be emulated somewhere. Before suggesting that a state-owned model would be good for the U.S., Conason might be interested in reading up on state corporatism, because like a bad case of leprosy, we already have that disease.

If state-owned means an improved safety record, better business morality, and a high level of respect for the environment, we should look no further for proof than the safety, morality and environmental record of the U.S. military around the world, and within our own borders.

Whether it is open pit burning, oil fires in one of our many wars in the Middle East, oil spills as a result of our acts of war, depleted uranium in the soil and water of Iraq and Afghanistan, contaminated military bases abroad and at home, and even noise pollution – the culprit is a wholly government-owned entity, led by public servants.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski249.html

True environmentalism is rooted in the individual; it is a movement based on education, connection with nature, and working to show people the sentimental side of nature that only comes through direct experience (not from Al Gore, a president, or some political rally). It is a movement based on individual liberty, responsibility, and localism. In fact, the principles of true environmentalism are nearly identical with libertarianism. However, common mainstream environmentalism does not focus on the education and knowledge of nature nearly as much as it uses the environment as an excuse to push forward a political ideology.

The simple fact is that government cannot sustainably change the way people approach the environment. If you see a logger cutting down a tree on his own property, is it morally defensible to hold a gun to his head preventing him from going any further? Is it acceptable morally if a collective group like government holds the gun to his head? When you approach nature from the standpoint that only the government can protect it, you are essentially giving in to the ridiculous idea that only through coercive collective force can nature be preserved.

“Nature will not be admired by proxy.” — Winston Churchill

This is not to say that all people in the environmental movement want to coerce people into their vision of the planet. However, the movement has become one only rooted in a political movement. And yet, they somehow seem surprised that not many people subscribe to the belief that you must expand government force to keep people in line with the environment. The thinking goes that without preventive collective force, “capitalists” (somehow people exercising their freedom as individuals are separate from everyone else) supposedly would ravage the environment and build as many hotels, stores, and resource-consuming projects as possible on the nation’s most beautiful land.

One of the most frustrating things for me to see, especially with teens and young adults, is the firm belief that government legislation is the ultimate way to bring about environmental change. We had a very kind lady come to my small private high school this past fall to talk about issues like climate change and the usual rhetoric from today’s environmental organizations. At the end of her presentation, this lady tried to get kids excited by announcing the “Declaration of Energy Independence” (a list of energy policies and subsidies for the federal government to undertake) that was to be signed by Barack Obama. This lady’s group and the mainstream environmental movement has it stubbornly implanted in their heads that our environmental fate lies with the government or a president.

I told her clearly that even though I did not believe the science or reasoning behind her presentation, I would certainly work to reduce waste and increase efficiency in my area. No person is going to argue, “Darn it all, I want my waste and inefficiency if it’s the last thing I do!” There is tremendous value in efficiency, and efficiency comes about naturally and most effectively in a free, non-coerced society. Incentives for efficiency do not come from government force, they come from natural free market competition and the God-forsaken profit motive common in a laissez faire society built on liberty.

Unlike a business in a free market, government does not convince you of the value of its product, it coerces you into taking and subsidizing the product whether you desire it or not. It is absurd that people have their heart set on the belief that the market recklessly destroys nature, and they just as easily fall into the trap that noble political servants know the ideal method to provide value and conservation to the environment. The detached and costly process of government intervention is the last thing we need to encourage responsibility, efficiency, and sustainability. We need individuals utilizing the power they carry as human beings! This is a key principle that probably all libertarians agree upon, and it is a principle that true environmentalists should take to heart.

No one can argue against a cleaner planet. The environmental movement would gain ongoing support from individuals of every background if it disregarded political motives and instead focused its resources on bringing education and direct nature experiences to people, as well as using resources (as many organizations have done past and present) to purchase land with the intent of preservation. Consider how much longer lasting an environmental group’s efforts would be in actually purchasing some beautiful land and opening it up to tourists, educational visits, and explaining the importance and benefits of conservation. Given the amount of people who support environmental projects, simple creative solutions like this are hardly implausible. Instead, the environmental movement has fallen into the uncreative trap that is government and politically motivated change through coercion.

The current environmental classes in public schools are so dry and lacking of substance that kids come out with very little experience in nature. My school introduced a new class this year based on the games put together by environmentalist and Sharing Nature founder Joseph Cornell. We are trained to lead small groups in nature activities that bring kids into nature itself to learn to feel, smell, and observe nature for themselves. You encourage connection with nature, rather than viewing it as a foreign object that only disgruntled hippies can find enjoyable. Do you think kids (and adults) will appreciate nature more when they get to have fun in nature or when their teacher recites a lecture of political talking points that the kids will probably forget anyway? Rather than using fear as a motivator for people to sign off on increased government intrusion in the name of the environment, consider the impact environmentalists could have if they worked on bringing this basic understanding and realization of nature to kids and adults alike. It has nothing whatsoever to do with politics and government, it simply awakens the joy of nature on a level that we as individuals can appreciate and value. In short, it would be far more effective than lobbying Obama or other government officials to throw more laws on the backs of the American people.

One major defect of mainstream environmentalism is its focus on bringing about massive regulation on a national and even global scale. Basic economic history shows that expensive laws and penalties benefit larger corporations looking to encumber competition from smaller businesses (thus why Dow Chemical, General Electric, and other billion dollar corporations are among the primary groups lobbying for “cap and trade” and other climate legislation). As government expands, so do the beds corporations use to snuggle up with their favorite bureaucracies. Environmental legislation such as Cap and Trade merely provides another outlet for corporations to diminish smaller, localized competition. In other words, it destroys precisely the setting where individuals have the most influence over business practices and products. Legislation of this sort provides a de facto monopoly to the corporations who can afford to jump through the arbitrary legal hoops and regulations created by politicians and unelected bureaucrats. By nationalizing and globalizing governments to such impressive scales, environmentalists are at the same time destroying the power of individuals in their local communities.

Place the power where it belongs: in the hands of the people. People carry their power not through national and global bureaucracies, but in their families, communities, and local environments. Is it easier to influence a $50 billion corporation propped up through government legislation, or a small local business? Is it more sensible to attempt to influence a Congress of 535 individuals representing more than 300 million people, or become active in a local government representing several thousand people? There is no question that we as individuals carry our influential powers over business, government, and the environment, on a local scale. It is the only logical outlet for the environmental movement to focus its efforts of sustainability and preservation.

This power and responsibility of individuals can only be adequately and sustainably utilized on a local level. Sustainable environmental conservation and education must originate through individuals locally, not through unelected bureaucrats nationally and globally. Localism, through empowered individual property rights, gives measure to the effects of responsibility and decisions made by individuals relating to themselves and their property, their respective communities, as well as the environment. Its function can only operate in a society free of bureaucratized laws and central planning.

The true environmental movement begins with the direct experience of an individual and cannot be furthered by governmental law. True environmentalism and libertarianism originate in the same source: the individual. Both believe strongly in individual liberty and the responsibility that comes with that liberty. By providing individuals with the full power of responsibility over their own lives, the environment will take a greater step forward in the minds of people. People won’t feel detached and separated from nature, they will feel a direct connection and obligation in their local communities. Are people not more concerned and responsible about the land, air, and water they see and use on a daily basis?

Return the responsibility of duties to the individual, not unelected bureaucracies promising the wonders of central planning, and you immediately provide the incentive (through property rights) and ability to maintain clean property, engage in sustainable activities, and preserve environmental quality. Returning to the responsibility of the individual on a local level is the only reasonable and lasting method for true conservation and respect of natural beauty.

James Cameron’s Avatar has shaken the entertainment industry in the past couple months, raking in more than $2.3 billion so far in the box office worldwide. I first saw the film in January and was blown away by the incredible visuals, a detailed exploration of the Na’vi culture, and what I thought was a masterfully told story (as common or predictable as it may be to some). Unfortunately, some conservative and libertarian writers condemn the movie as a wackjob combination of pro-Green, anti-military, and anti-capitalist thinking wrapped into a movie. However, when I saw the movie I thought it strongly reinforced the importance of private property, individual rights, and protection against central force.

Consider the planet Pandora, where the “savage” Na’vi tribes have made their residence for generations. Their planet is their property. When a human corporation backed by hired mercenaries (hardly a constitutional military used for national defense) establishes itself on the planet to further the exploration and mining of a valuable mineral called Unobtanium, they face severe blowback from the tribes. One of the first scenes in the movie shows a massive vehicle returning to base with several arrows stuck in the tires. The tribes understandably felt threatened and saw the human tactics as an invasion of their property. Is this really an attack on the principles of peaceful exchange common in a free market?

The Omiticaya tribe that is prominent in the film does not need anything the humans offer in return for the mineral whether it be roads, education, medicine, etc. Is this really unreasonable? Does an owner of a product not have the right to negotiate the terms of a transaction? The Na’vi are not being selfish, the humans simply do not have a product or service that is more valuable than the land itself is already worth to the Na’vi. It is the same as if someone was offering $10 for a family heirloom that you will never give up. Just because you refuse their offer doesn’t mean they can take that item by force, as the mercenaries in Avatar did.  Once again, this reinforces peaceful and voluntary exchange in a free market.
(more…)