Population Growth and Climate Change

Addressing Population Growth - Through Freedom, Not Control - Is Crucial to Confronting Climate Disruption

Sunday, 22 February 2015 00:00By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report

• font size   

                                                                                    Comments due by Mar. 8, 2015

"We have 225,000 people at the dinner table tonight who weren't there last night," William Ryerson, the president of thePopulation Institute told Truthout. "Population is the multiplier of everything else."

Every year, the world population's net growth is equivalent to adding a new Egypt.

Very often, arguments about overpopulation are used in defense of racist, sexist, classist and even genocidal policies, including killings, forced sterilization and the mass denial of reproductive freedom. And often, those arguments target black and brown people, particularly people in "developing" countries, centering the problem on "women having too many kids," rather than looking at what is actually having a significant effect on the planet, and how we can confront it humanely and in the service of real social and environmental freedoms.

However, looking beyond the myths and dictates, the realities of population point to the contrary: Population-related problems, like anthropogenic climate disruption, stem from resource use in the West. If you live in North America and Western Europe and comprise 12 percent of the world's population, you account for 60 percent of the world's private consumptive spending, while the one-third of the global population that lives in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 3.2 percent.

The United States, which comprises less than 5 percent of the global population, uses a quarter of the planet's total fossil fuel resources.

In order to have a conversation on this topic, we must first of all definitively end the equation of "overpopulation" with the birthrates of black or brown people living in so-called developing countries. Instead, we must focus on the fact that the United States, which comprises less than 5 percent of the global population, uses a quarter of the planet's total fossil fuel resources. The carbon emissions impact of the US population far surpasses that of those living in the "developing" world.

Even within the West, the disparity increases even further when we consider the fact that it is the richest who are using the majority of those resources. According to the World Bank, in 2011, US per capita energy use was 7,032 kilograms of oil equivalent, whereas in Bangladesh it was 205.

In another example, 320 million Americans consume more petroleum than do 1.3 billion Chinese, and thus emit far larger amounts of greenhouse gas, per capita.

As the populations of "developed" countries grow, their impacts are even greater than in less developed countries.

Ryerson believes anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) cannot adequately be confronted until the rapid increase in global population begins to be addressed.

And he's not alone.

The wisest ways to address global overpopulation would be geared toward greater freedoms like wide-scale availability of free contraception, and abortion, sex and ACD education.

"Overpopulation means that we are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than we should, just because more people are doing it and this is related to overconsumption by people in general, especially in the 'developed' world," said Dr. Allan Drew, a forest ecologist, who believes overpopulation is a worse environmental problem than ACD.

As Drew pointed out, clearly overpopulation in "developed" countries, where consumption per person is so much more prevalent, is key.

A report published in Science Daily in 2009 cited a poll of environmental experts who all believed that overpopulation was the single most pressing issue facing the planet.

In fact, even Scientific American has said that addressing global overpopulation is "the most overlooked and essential strategy for achieving long-term balance with the environment."

What does such a "strategy" look like? In this discussion, it is essential to make a connection between population and reproductive justice, rather than reproductive control: The wisest ways to address global overpopulation would be geared toward greater freedoms like wide-scale availability of free contraception, and abortion, sex and ACD education. Meanwhile, the reality of overpopulation and its carbon dioxide emission implications continue to grow.

"A Nice Utopia"

There are currently more than 7.2 billion people on the planet, another human is born every eight seconds and the United States is already the third most populous country in the world.

Future projections of population growth, according to the United Nations, show that the world will attain 8.92 billion people by 2050, with a peak of 9.22 billion in 2075.

"The additional 2 billion [onto our current 7.2 billion] is the climate equivalent to adding two USA's to the planet," said Ryerson, whose organization works to educate policy makers and the public about population and the need to achieve a world population that is in balance with a healthy global environment and resource base.

Additionally, rising populations also strain already vastly overstretched water resources.

"So to maintain our current population, we're already over-pumping underground aquifers," Ryerson said.

Greenhouse gas emissions have increased by record amounts each of the last several years to the highest carbon output in history, and each year is seeing another record.

This means that the aim of holding global temperatures to safe levels is now all but out of reach. The goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius, which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change," is now most likely just "a nice utopia," according to Fatih Birol, a chief economist at the International Energy Agency.

Making Life on Earth "That Much More Difficult"

The current number of people on the planet, along with our "per capita behavior," is unsustainable, according to Ryerson.

"This is obvious in what has happened to the climate already," he said. "There are severe consequences already. And the cost of solving this problem of overpopulation is small compared to the cost of solving climate change as it progresses."

In particular, Ryerson sees a bleak future for water-starved countries like Saudi Arabia.

"Saudi Arabia has announced that the water they've been depending on, their underground aquifer for crops and drinking, will be gone by 2020," he explained. "They are dependent on imports, and can pay for it now, but in the future when oil declines, that country faces a serious issue of sustainability."

John Beddington, England's chief scientific adviser, has warned that these trends of a rising population and diminishing global resources may well constitute a "perfect storm."

In a major speech to environmental groups and politicians in 2009, he said, "It is predicted that by 2030 the world will need to produce around 50 percent more food and energy, together with 30 percent more fresh water, whilst mitigating and adapting to climate change. This threatens to create a 'perfect storm' of global events."

Large populations in richer countries have far greater consequences for the environment than growing populations in less "developed" countries.

Statistics underscore Beddington's point. At our current planetary trajectory, global population is likely to reach more than 8 billion by 2030, at which point demand for food will have increased by 40 percent with supplies not keeping apace. Global demand for water will have increased by 30 percent, and nearly 4 billion people will be living in areas of "high water stress."

Ryerson is also concerned about increasing biodiversity loss.

"The key issue is the large populations of plants and animals that make the planet inhabitable," Ryerson explained. "We need oxygen to breathe and water to drink. A 3 billion year evolution of plants and animals has made the planet habitable, and we are systematically destroying this biodiversity by plowing, cutting and burning areas."

Having more people on the planet naturally means greater demand for products, which leads to more and more wilderness areas being clear-cut, burned or harvested in order to provide for the demand increases of food and consumer goods.

Ryerson believes ongoing demand for products and the resulting encroachment on wilderness areas "will make life on the planet much more difficult. All of this together means the future of humanity, even with assumed innovation, has some very serious concerns. None of these problems are made easier by adding more people. The only way to achieve sustainability is to hold population growth, and have it decline."

As critical as the issue of overpopulation is, the topic gets attacked from both the political left and right.

"The right thinks endless growth is possible and is a good idea, and that the planet's resources are unlimited and will make it possible," Ryerson said. "The left thinks those who talk about overpopulation are only focused on the poorest of the poor and are also racially motivated."

In reality, large populations in richer countries have far greater consequences for the environment than growing populations in less "developed" countries.

However, instead of reframing these controversial topics, even scientists who recognize that population growth is a major factor in ACD often opt to avoid mentioning it.

But several paths forward are clear.

Broader education in "developed" countries about how far along we are regarding ACD - and the significance of population in that equation - is a necessity.

Also, statistics show that the more we pursue reproductive justice and freedom, the more birth rates fall. Full access to and education around contraception and abortion is crucial, ensuring that women have the freedom to make choices.

This is not to say that making these shifts will "solve" population growth. Even imposing massive, intrusive controls on population wouldn't "solve" it: Another study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, titled Human Population Reduction is not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems, shows that fertility reduction in the global population, even on the scale of implementing a one-child policy globally alongside non-human induced catastrophic mortality events, "would still likely result in 5-10 billion people by 2100. Because of this demographic momentum, there are no easy ways to change the broad trends of human population size this century."

Perhaps the best solution can be found in our attitude toward the growth of the human population on the planet.

In an excellent article published by Truthout several years ago, one aspect of this was addressed eloquently: "If we want to meet our goals for the development of human culture and the increase of well-being, the first prerequisite is that we change our attitude about the growth of human population," wrote Kelpie Wilson. "We do need to think about a social and economic system that will move us to that point as quickly as possible, and that system involves complete reproductive freedom and comprehensive health care for all women. We must trust women to make the reproductive decisions that are best for them and the planet."

Those steps must happen immediately, as the human population continues to rise, along with our fossil fuel emissions and the increasing ACD impacts that result from them.(Truthout by D. Jamail)

What Happens to Solar once TaxCredit Expires?

                                                              Comments due by Mar. 1, 2015

The Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is set to expire at the end of 2016 — and if it does, residential solar may be in trouble. “The ITC is the swing factor for homeowners — the plunge from 30 percent to zero will dramatically slow down sales for customer-owned systems,” opined Barry Cinnamon, CEO of Cinnamon Solar.

On top of this, many local solar rebates are declining or sunsetting altogether, leaving the ITC as one of the last remaining solar incentives. Net energy metering (NEM) — another kind of incentive — is also under fire in many utility jurisdictions as witnessed in a number of high-profile battles since 2011. (See Vote Solar’s website Our Solar Rights for more on NEM battles nationwide.)

In some ways the industry went through this loop in the solarcoaster back in in 2008, before President Bush signed into law the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 — effectively kicking the ITC expiration can down the road until 2016. However, this time is different. With fiscal conservatives controlling both Washington and many statehouses, clean energy incentives are facing intense scrutiny.

This environment has created great uncertainty for the industry and its investor community. Industry professionals have argued for a variety of strategies, including supporting the extension of the ITC, planning appropriately for its expiration, or supporting its expiration. So what should you do?

What Can You Do? Hedge Your Bets While Supporting the Extension

At the beginning of February, President Obama unveiled a $3.99 trillion budget for 2016 that includes provisions for a permanent extension of the ITC. While unlikely to pass in the deeply divided House and Senate, the scale of this proposal suggests that the administration will support preserving the ITC. 

At the very least, SEIA is calling on congress to include “Commence Construction” language for the ITC in the tax extenders package. This language allows projects to qualify for the ITC if construction begins prior to its expiration at the end of 2016. SEIA estimates that this legislation would drive 4,000 MW of solar capacity and create tens of thousands of new domestic jobs.

Solar installers across any segment — utility, industrial, commercial, or residential — should support efforts that help extend the ITC. Sign the petition today, which includes a form letter you can fill out and send to your local legislator. 

As an industry, we should also hedge our bets and work to streamline our operations, fill our pipelines, and leverage as much automation as possible (via software, business model innovation, and process design) in order to lower our cost structures and place more focus on customer experience and flawless project delivery. If the ITC is extended, we can consider these steps a soft cost reduction bonus. If it's not extended, we will be closer to the cost structures necessary to sustain business at a lower volume.

Shayle Kann, Senior VP of GTM Research referred to the expiration of the Investment Tax Credit as "the cliff," which he believes will force the solar industry to essentially revert to its 2014 market levels. But even with the potential ITC “cliff” in the near future, GTM Research analysts are predicting continued growth in the residential solar sector up through boom time again in 2020.

The smallest residential installers are the ones most vulnerable to the expiration of the ITC. According to comments by Jigar Shah on Kann’s analysis, “the top 10 percent of providers will be at 3-5X the volume in 2016-17 and the other 90 percent of players will go out of business in 2017 because they are simply not able to use software and tools to become more efficient.”

Perhaps a dire prediction by Shah, but smaller installers should take heed of the spirit of his comments. Small installers need to capture best practices and lessons learned from the successful growth of the top industry players, and from mature overseas markets like Australia and Germany. Most success amongst these constituents has centered around continued focus on creating customer value through innovative financing strategies, developing lower cost customer acquisition strategies, and operations streamlining, all of which result in valuable and (hopefully) sustainable soft cost reductions.

If it’s not extended, the residential ITC (Section 25 of the tax code) goes to zero at the end of 2016. Residential solar installers need to plan their path to sustainable soft cost reductions before then so they won’t be caught surprised — pleasantly or otherwise.

Environmental Impact of Fishing

                                              Comments due by Feb 22, 2015

In the process of producing food, economic resources, employment, livelihood and recreation, fisheries have to potential to modify ecosystems because fishing may alter or affect: the target resource (especially if there is overfishing of the target resource); species associated with or dependent on the targeted resource (such as predators or prey); trophic relationships within the ecosystem in which the fishery operates; and habitats in which fishing occurs. The impacts may be easily reversible, difficult to reverse, or irreversible. Under the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the fishing sector is expected to reduce its impacts to the minimum possible in ways that are also compatible with its own sustained existence.

Some of the more well-documented fishing activities that can have potentially negative impacts on the environment include:

Overfishing and excessive fishing can reduce the spawning biomass of a fishery below desired levels such as maximum sustainable or economic yields. In the process of producing food, economic resources, employment, livelihood and recreation, fisheries have to potential to modify ecosystems because fishing may alter or affect: the target resource (especially if there is overfishing of the target resource); species associated with or dependent on the targeted resource (such as predators or prey); trophic relationships within the ecosystem in which the fishery operates; and habitats in which fishing occurs. The impacts may be easily reversible, difficult to reverse, or irreversible. Under the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the fishing sector is expected to reduce its impacts to the minimum possible in ways that are also compatible with its own sustained existence. 

In the process of producing food, economic resources, employment, livelihood and recreation, fisheries have to potential to modify ecosystems because fishing may alter or affect: the target resource (especially if there is overfishing of the target resource); species associated with or dependent on the targeted resource (such as predators or prey); trophic relationships within the ecosystem in which the fishery operates; and habitats in which fishing occurs. The impacts may be easily reversible, difficult to reverse, or irreversible. Under the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the fishing sector is expected to reduce its impacts to the minimum possible in ways that are also compatible with its own sustained existence.

Some of the more well-documented fishing activities that can have potentially negative impacts on the environment include:

• Overfishing and excessive fishing can reduce the spawning biomass of a fishery below desired levels such as maximum sustainable or economic yields.
• When there is sustained overfishing, changes in species composition and biodiversity can occur with progressive reduction of large, long-lived, and high value predator species and the increase in small, short-lived, and lower value pelagic and demersal prey species, a process described as 'fishing down the food chain'. Important macroscopic changes have been observed in many ecosystems such as the North Sea, Yellow Sea, North Atlantic (e.g. George's Bank and Barents Sea), Gulf of Thailand, and southeastern Australia. Intensive fishing can also reduce genetic diversity of wild populations (e.g. rapidly depressing the proportion of fast growing and late spawning individuals) and changes in species composition or dominance can also be provoked through competition for food between fisheries and marine apical predators.
• Non-selective fishing gear that is not modified to exclude or otherwise deter the entanglement of fish, turtles, or seabirds, and as a result, may take a significant bycatch of juvenile fish, benthic animals, marine mammals, marine birds, vulnerable or endangered species, etc. that are often discarded dead. While bycatch and discard problems are usually measured in the potential loss of human food, the increased risk of depletion for particularly vulnerable or endangered species (e.g. small cetaceans, turtles) can be significant. In the North Sea, for example, the impact of discarded fish on the food chain and species composition is consequential because the discards can represent up to 30% of what some birds' would otherwise consume.
• Ghost fishing can occur when certain gear such as pots or gillnets have either been lost or abandoned at sea and, although untended, continue to catch and kill fish until the gear falls apart.
• Impacts on the bottom can result from the intense use of trawls and other mobile bottom gear (e.g. dredges) can change bottom structure, microhabitats, and benthic fauna. The effect is particularly obvious when these gears are used in sensitive environments where there are sea grass and algal beds, coral reefs, sponges, and tube worms. Where fishers work the same area year after year much like a farmer's fields, the long-term impacts of such repeated activities are less obvious on soft bottoms, although the scraping or ploughing the bottom to depths of as much as 30 cm can seriously disturb the substratum habitat and productivity.
• Fishing entailing the use of dynamite and poisons can have severe and broad-reaching impacts, particularly on coral reefs.

There are also other less conspicuous or debated environmental impacts of fisheries-related activities. Some relate to the direct dumping of debris (gear, twine, food containers, plastic bands, etc.) or the unintentional dumping and accidental introduction of unwanted organisms, pathogens, and non-indigenous/foreign/alien species by fishing vessels. Other impacts include the organic pollution from at-sea processing and the pollution caused by unregulated wastes and effluents from coastal processing plants. Finally, fishing vessels and processing plants also have the potential to contribute to global warming through exhaust fumes and refrigerant gases.

Even fish processing can contribute to pollution at sea

Courtesy of NOAA/NMFS/William B. Folsom

Possible solutions

Solving the problem of overfishing - and, thus, the impacts of overfishing on the environment -- is a longstanding regulatory challenge that requires fishers to have clear ethical and financial reasons to not overharvest in their efforts to fish. Additional data and research on the environmental impacts of fishing on the ecosystem can help managers and fishers, alike, to make more informed decisions regarding the impacts of fishing and, in particular, on species composition and the environment. 

When coupled with measures to avoid overharvesting, technologies to increase harvesting selectivity can similarly help to reduce bycatch and subsequent discarding. The problem of ghost fishing can be decreased through greater awareness raising, the prohibition and control of dumping of damaged gear at sea, and with active at-sea programmes for the retrieval of lost gear. Gear technology (e.g. biodegradable material, collapsible traps, etc.) can also diminish the ability of lost gear to continue catching fish. Improved gear technologies can be used to reduce the impacts of fishing on various habitats and on the bottom. Finally, the adoption and enforcement of measures to prohibit destructive fishing practices can also help to reduce the impacts of fishing on the environment.

Action taken

Countries have been tackling the problem of overfishing - and, thus, the impacts that overfishing can have on the environment - for a long time (although with limited success in many instances). However, under the International Plan of Action (IPOA) for the Management of Fishing Capacity (IPOA-Capacity) that was adopted at FAO in 1999, countries are currently working to address overcapacity and its many associated problems, including overfishing. In addition, under the 2001 FAO IPOA on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA - IUU), there are many efforts currently underway around the globe to address illegal, unreported, and otherwise unregulated fishing activities and, thus, also helping to counteract overfishing.

NGOs have become very active at uncovering and illustrating the problems of the environmental and ecosystem impacts of fishing activities, exerting considerable pressure on governments and fishery organizations from very local to very global levels. Consumers are also starting to exert pressure on fisheries management, and the progressive use of environmental ecolabels based on sustainable fishing activities is also providing additional incentives to consider and mitigate the environmental impacts of fishing. To limit international trade in endangered fish species, CITES is adding fish species that are subject to large-scale exploitation to its annexes. Some countries have regulated discarding, imposing severe discard limits or banning it altogether and forcing the landing of all unwanted bycatch (e.g. in Norway, Canada, Iceland, and the Faeroe Islands).

The fishing industry as a whole is working to address the operational side-effects of fisheries on the environment. The use of innovative gear modifications, including selective grids, panels and square meshes in several trawl fisheries is facilitating the escape of unwanted species or small-sized individuals. Special devices are currently used in tuna fisheries to successfully reduce dolphin catches. Longlines are being modified to reduce bycatch of birds, and an IPOA for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries was adopted by FAO in 1999. In some countries (e.g. Norway), programmes exist to retrieve lost gillnets lying on the bottom.

Zoning strategies, including Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) has been used to keep trawlers away from vulnerable habitats, although with little success in areas where there is ineffective enforcement and/or fleet overcapacity. Programmes for the development of integrated and more sustainable livelihoodsare being implemented (e.g. by FAO in Western and Central Africa). Some countries (USA, Ireland) require the elaboration of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and/or environmental impact statement (EIS) for their fisheries, whilst in other countries such as Australia, the fishing industry is voluntarily adopting and implementing environmental management systems.

Outlook

Awareness of the environmental impacts of fishing activities has been greatly increasing since UNCED (1992) both in the fisheries sector and among the public. The current pressure for ecosystem-based fisheries management is pushing managers and fishers to more specifically address the environmental impacts of fishing activities. The fishing sector progressively adopting economical technologies and approaches to environmentally acceptable fishing practices. Progress made in fishing and processing technology is significant and the fisheries sector is increasingly recognizing the benefits of ecolabelling. As a consequence, while much remains to be accomplished, the prospects for improvement are good. 

Amish Farmers are reinventing Organic Agriculture.

                                                       Comments due byFeb. 13, 2015

“In the Second World War,” Samuel Zook began, “my ancestors were conscientious objectors because we don’t believe in combat.” The Amish farmer paused a moment to inspect a mottled leaf on one of his tomato plants before continuing. “If you really stop and think about it, though, when we go out spraying our crops with pesticides, that’s really what we’re doing. It’s chemical warfare, bottom line.”

Eight years ago, it was a war that Zook appeared to be losing. The crops on his 66-acre farm were riddled with funguses and pests that chemical treatments did little to reduce. The now-39-year-old talked haltingly about the despair he felt at the prospect of losing a homestead passed down through five generations of his family. Disillusioned by standard agriculture methods, Zook searched fervently for an alternative. He found what he was looking for in the writings of an 18-year-old Amish farmer from Ohio, a man named John Kempf.

Kempf is the unlikely founder of Advancing Eco Agriculture, a consulting firm established in 2006 to promote science-intensive organic agriculture. The entrepreneur’s story is almost identical to Zook’s. A series of crop failures on his own farm drove the 8th grade-educated Kempf to school himself in the sciences. For two years, he pored over research in biology, chemistry, and agronomy in pursuit of a way to save his fields. The breakthrough came from the study of plant immune systems which, in healthy plants, produce an array of compounds that are toxic to intruders. “The immune response in plants is dependent on well-balanced nutrition,” Kempf concluded, “in much the same way as our own immune system.” Modern agriculture uses fertilizer specifically to increase yields, he added, with little awareness of the nutritional needs of other organic functions. Through plant sap analysis, Kempf has been able to discover deficiencies in important trace minerals which he can then introduce into the soil. With plants able to defend themselves, pesticides can be avoided, allowing the natural predators of pests to flourish.

According to Kempf, the methods he developed through experimentation on his Ohio farm are now being used across North and South America, Hawaii, Europe, and Africa. The entrepreneur promises clients higher-quality crops, bigger yields, better taste, and produce that carries a lucrative “organic” label. Kempf, however, considers his process as an important improvement upon standard organic farming methods. “Organic certification is a negative-process certification,” he explained, “You can do nothing to your field and become certified. In contrast, we focus on actively restoring the balance found in natural systems.”

I recently sought out Samuel Zook, one of Kempf’s earliest converts, at his farm in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to see Advancing Eco Agriculture’s practices in action. After trailing a leisurely horse and carriage in my car for several miles, I was greeted at the farm by a bounding dog and Zook’s young barefoot son. The boy stared silently with his arms wrapped around a watermelon almost as big as himself. In a straw hat and suspenders, he looked like a miniature version of his father. The elder Zook smiled demurely through a neatly trimmed beard and extended his hand before inviting me on a tour of his fields. A hushed gaggle of children tripped along behind us as we walked among the bales of hay and rows of tomatoes, onions, melons, and squash.

---

Roc Morin: Can you describe the differences between how you used to farm and how you farm now?

Samuel Zook: The inputs changed drastically. Instead of trying to grow crops that are healthy with fungicides and pesticides, I started to grow crops that are healthy with nutrition.

Morin: What was the hardest part about making the change?

Zook: Well, there was a big psychological block that I had to get through. I’d see a couple bugs out there and feel like I immediately had to do something about it. But, I learned that if I sit back, things will often take care of themselves. That first summer for instance, we saw a lot of horn worms. Before that, I would have sprayed them right away, but this time I waited and a bunch of wasps came along and killed them. Once I saw that, I started getting really excited.

Morin: So, when you use a pesticide you’re killing the predators too, right?

Zook: Right. You’re killing the entire ecosystem.

Morin: Have all of your problems disappeared?

Zook: I wish I could say that, but not entirely. We’re not living in the Garden of Eden yet. The issues I had before have disappeared, but we still have some other issues that we’re working on. One of the main things that has improved is how it feels to farm. Before, if I applied fungicide on my tomatoes, I had to wait three to seven days before I could reenter the area. Now, it’s so nice to just walk in my field any day of the week and not worry a bit. That in itself is huge. The other thing is, when I used to mix these skull-and-cross-bones chemicals to put in my sprayer, I’d have to be suited up. The children would be around and I’d say, “Now, get in the house. It’s not safe.” Now though, if the children want to help, it’s fine. If I want to mix the solutions better, I’ll just put my hand in a stir it around.

Morin: What are some of the problems that you’re dealing with now?

Zook: One of my major issues in the greenhouse is spider mites—little insects that just love a warm, dry environment. It’s very hard to control them, even conventionally. We usually get them under control, but we often lose some yield.

Morin: How do you get them under control?

Zook: Mainly through applying specific trace minerals like iodine and a whole line of ultra-micronutrients. We analyzed the sap of the plants with the help of a lab and I think we’ve narrowed the problem down to excessive ammonium nitrates. If ammonia builds up in the plants, it’s bug food, so we need to figure out a way to convert ammonia fast. I just spent two days with John [Kempf], and he came up with an enzyme cofactor which we’ll use to stimulate that ammonia conversion. We figure things out ourselves now rather than call up the chemical rep.

Morin: What did your chemical rep say when you told him that you didn’t need his services anymore?

Zook: Well, that was an interesting summer. He used to come here every week telling me horror stories about all the diseases in the neighborhood. But, I had made up my made up my mind, “No mas.” He came back every week for eight weeks telling me what I needed to spray. I said, “I’m fine, thanks.” The last time he was here, we were out picking tomatoes and he walked over. He was looking around and talking about this and that, and he didn’t even mention pesticides. “Well,” he said, “your tomatoes look pretty good.” I thought, “Yes!”