Survey

Week 10 Materials

Page

of 38

ZOOM

c h a p t e r f o u r Soil Not OilSecuring Our Food in Times of Climate Crisis Industrialized agriculture and globalized food systems have been put forth as sources of cheap and abundant food. However, food is no longer cheap. The era of cheap food and cheap oil is over. The food crisis, mainly triggered by rising prices, that emerged in 2007 and 2008 has led to food riots in many countries. From 2007 to 2008 the price of wheat increased by 130 percent.1 The price of rice doubled during the first three months of 2008.2 Biofuels, spec- ulation, destruction of local food economies, and climate change have all contributed to the rise in food prices. Climate change is aggravated by industrialized, globalized agriculture based on fossil fuels, and the resulting climate crisis in turn impacts food security in numerous ways, including intensified floods such as those Iowa experienced in 2008 and intensified and extended droughts like the one Australia witnessed in 2007. Globalization has also led to the destruction of local food economies and increased control by corporations like Monsanto and Cargill over our food systems. Global integration of agriculture in effect means global control over the world’s food supply. In India, the World Bank–imposed structural adjustment pro- gram of 1991 and the WTO rules that came into force in 1995 have jointly worked to dismantle the public framework for food sovereignty and food security and to force the integration of India’s food and agriculture systems with those of rich countries. This has resulted in a deep agrarian crisis and an emerging food crisis, with farmers’ incomes crashing as food prices go through the roof. The food and agriculture crises are a direct result of policies of cor- Soil Not Oil.indb 95 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 96 porate globalization. Yet globalization is what the government is offering as a cure for globalization’s ills. Food prices started to rise as a result of connecting India’s domestic market to global markets, especially the edible oil and wheat import markets. At first, in the early days of globalization, the agribusinesses that dominate trade lowered prices to grab markets. The dumping of soy in the 1990s is a prime example. Now that global corporations like Cargill have created import dependency, they are increasing prices. Additionally, specula- tion through futures trading is driving prices upwards. Climate change and the diversion of foods to biofuels are also adding an upward pressure on international prices. The increase in interna- tional prices highlights the need to focus on food sovereignty. It makes both political and economic sense to focus on self-reliance in food and agriculture. While millions go hungry, corporate profits have increased. Cargill saw profits increase by 30 percent in 2007; Monsanto’s profits increased by 44 percent.3 These profits will increase as cor- porate monopolies deepen. Monsanto increased the price of corn seed by $100 per bag to $300 per bag. For a 1,000-acre farm in the US, this means an increased cost of $40,000.4 The solution to the food crisis is to reclaim food sovereignty and rebuild local food economies based on ecological farming. This path also frees agriculture from its dependence on fossil fuels while increasing mitigation and adaptation to climate change. A shift from oil to soil addresses the triple crisis of climate, energy, and food. e a t i n g o i l Industrialized, globalized agriculture is a recipe for eating oil. Oil is used for the chemical fertilizers that go to pollute the soil and water. Oil is used to displace small farmers with giant tractors and combine harvesters. Oil is used to industrially process food. Oil is used for the plastic in packaging. And finally, more and more oil is used to transport food farther and farther away from where it is produced. Fossil fuels are the heart of industrial agriculture. Fossil fuels are used to run the tractors and heavy machinery and to pump Soil Not Oil.indb 96 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 97 the irrigation water necessary for industrial farming. Industrial sys- tems of food production use ten times more energy than ecological agriculture does, and ten times more energy than the energy in the food they produce.5 The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change has iden- tified the following sources of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change: g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s , b y s o u r c e 6 Power 24% Industry 14% Transport 14% Buildings 8% Land Use 18% Agriculture 14% Waste 3% Other 5% What the report does not mention is the particular kinds of agriculture, transport, and buildings that are responsible for the emissions. It fails to differentiate industrial, globalized ag- riculture, which is responsible for a large part of the 14 percent of emissions in agriculture, from non-industrial, biodiverse, ecological agriculture, which has much lower emissions and helps in carbon sequestration. It also does not break out the share of the 18 percent of emissions attributed to land use created when tropical forests are cut down to grow agricultural commodities, or the part of the 14 percent of transport emis- sions resulting from unnecessarily shipping and flying food around the world. Localized, biodiverse ecological agriculture can reduce green- house gas emissions by a significant amount while improving our natural capital of biodiversity, soil, and water; strengthening nature’s economy; improving the security of farmers’ livelihoods; improving the quality and nutrition of our food; and deepening freedom and democracy. Instead of focusing on achievable solu- tions, the Stern report promotes the pseudo-solution of carbon trading, which translates into business as usual for the agrochemi- Soil Not Oil.indb 97 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 98 cal and agribusiness corporations profiting from globalized, indus- trialized agriculture. An analysis of energy in the US food chain found that on average, it takes 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food. This is a net negative energy production system.7 A shift to eco- logical, non-industrial agriculture from industrial agriculture leads to a two- to seven-fold energy savings and a 5 to 15 percent global fossil fuel emissions offset through the sequestration of carbon in organically managed soil.8 Up to four tons of CO2 per hectare can be sequestered in organic soils each year.9 From field to table, the industrial, globalized food system is moving toward an increased dependence on fossil fuels. There have been dramatic changes in how food is produced, processed, and distributed over the last 50 years. The most significant changes include the following: • The mechanization of agriculture and increased reliance on external inputs such as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, feed, plastics, and energy. • A major shift to highly processed and packaged food. • The globalization of the food industry, characterized by an increase in food imports and exports. Of particular note is the rise in imports of fresh fruits and vegetables, with more produce sourced from farther afield. • Supermarkets emerging as sales leaders, accompanied by the loss of small shops, markets, and wholesalers. Parallel to this trend is the concentration of supply into the hands of fewer, larger suppliers, partly to meet supermarkets’ preferences for bulk, year-round supplies of uniform produce. • Major changes in delivery patterns, with most goods now routed through supermarkets’ regional distribution centers, and a trend toward the use of large heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and just-in-time delivery, sometimes referred to as “warehouse on wheels.” • A switch from frequent food shopping on foot at small local shops to shopping by car at large out-of-town supermarkets.10 David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro have focused on the relationship between endosomatic and exosomatic energy. “Endo- Soil Not Oil.indb 98 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 99 somatic energy is generated through the metabolic transformation of food energy into muscle energy in the human body. Exosomatic energy is generated by transforming energy outside of the human body by mechanical means, such as by burning oil in a tractor.”11 Pimentel and Giampietro found that it takes 10 kilocalories of exosomatic energy to produce every 1 kilocalorie of food in the US. The remaining 9 kilocalories go to create waste and pollution, and increase entropy.12 Part of this wasted energy is going into the atmosphere to contribute to climate change. Industrial agriculture in the US uses 380 times more energy per hectare to produce rice than a traditional farm in the Phil- ippines. And energy use per kilo of rice is 80 times more in the US than in the Philippines. Energy use for corn production in the US is 176 times more per hectare than on a traditional farm in Mexico and 33 times more per kilo.13 One cow maintained and marketed in the industrial system requires six barrels of oil.14 A 450-gram box of breakfast cereal provides only 1,100 kilocalories of food energy but uses 7,000 kilocalories of energy for processing.15 Chemical industrial agriculture is based on the idea that soil fertility is manufactured in fertilizer factories. This was the idea that drove the Green Revolution, introduced in India in 1965 and 1966. In 1967, at a meeting in New Delhi, Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Prize–winning “father of the Green Revo- lution,” was emphatic about the role of fertilizers in the new revolution. “If I were a member of your parliament,” he told the politicians and diplomats in the audience, “I would leap from my seat every fifteen minutes and yell at the top of my voice, ‘Fertilizers! . . . Give the farmers more fertilizers.’ There is no more vital message in India than this. Fertilizers will give India more food.”16 Today, the Green Revolution has faded in Punjab. Yields are declining. The soil is depleted of nutrients. The water is polluted with nitrates and pesticides. The fertilizer industry has now found Africa. The Rockefeller and Gates foundations have set up AGRA, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. However, AGRA will not be the site of a Taj Mahal for Africa’s agriculture. The new Green Revolution for Africa is in fact the old Green Revolution for Asia. And as the Punjab experience shows, the Green Revolution Soil Not Oil.indb 99 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 100 was neither green in terms of ecological sustainability and conser- vation of natural capital of soil-water-biodiversity nor revolution- ary in terms of increasing equality and promoting justice for small and marginal peasants. This not-so-green revolution is now being proposed as a solution for hunger and poverty in Africa. AGRA has a $150 million Program for Africa’s Seeds Systems (PASS) that seeks to transform farming in Africa. The strategy is based on promoting private seed companies and commercializing the seed supply, which it assumes are necessary for improving Af- rica’s farm productivity. It is also based on increasing the sale of chemical fertilizer. Gary Toenniessen of the Rockefeller Founda- tion writes in Securing the Harvest, “No matter what efficiencies genetic enhancement is able to build into crop plants, they will always draw their nutrition from external sources,” and “No alter- natives to the use of inorganic nitrogen currently exist for densely populated developing countries.”17 This ignores the successes in Asia, Africa, and Latin America of doubling and tripling farm pro- ductivity through biodiverse organic farming based on the farmers’ breeding, biodiversity conservation, and agro-ecology. Not only are chemical fertilizers not necessary for farming, synthetic fertilizers actually harm the living processes in the soil that are responsible for soil fertility, plant growth, and production of healthy food. Fertilizer advocates also ignore how the rising cost of oil af- fects fertilizer prices. Imported fertilizer costs from Rs 55,000 to Rs 60,000 per ton and is sold at Rs 9,350 per ton. Rs 45,000 per ton is paid through taxes collected to cover the subsidies. In India the shift to chemical agriculture has created the need for 4 to 4.8 million tons of synthetic Diammonium phosphate (DAP). As only around 2 million tons are produced in India, the rest must be imported. Fertilizer protests are taking place in Karnataka, where a farmer was killed when police opened fire on hundreds of farmers wait- ing for fertilizers. This was an entirely unnecessary tragedy. Similar incidents have occurred in Amrati, Vidarbha, Latur, Marathwada, and Maharashtra. First the Green Revolution made Indian farmers addicted to chemical fertilizer. Now globalization is making them dependent on imports. While the soil and farmers die, agribusiness corporations like Cargill are making a killing. Cargill’s fertilizer profits doubled from Soil Not Oil.indb 100 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 101 2006 to 2007, with India paying 130 percent more for fertilizers and China 227 percent more for fertilizers during that period.18 Baron Justin von Liebig, a German chemist, carried out re- search in the latter part of the 19th century on the elements and chemicals required by plants for growth. He determined that the principal ingredients for soil fertility were nitrogen (N), phospho- rus (P), and potassium (K). This is how the NPK mentality was born. In 1909, Fritz Haber invented ammonium sulfate, a nitro- gen fertilizer made by using coal or natural gas to heat nitrogen and hydrogen. The manufacture of synthetic fertilizers is highly energy-intensive. One kilogram of nitrogen fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of 2 liters of diesel. One kilogram of phosphate fertilizer requires half a liter of diesel. Energy consumed during fertilizer manufacture was equivalent to 191 billion liters of diesel in 2000 and is projected to rise to 277 billion in 2030.19 Plants, however, need more than NPK. And when only NPK is applied as synthetic fertilizers, soils and plants, and consequently humans, develop deficiencies of trace elements and micronutri- ents. A pioneer of organic agriculture, Sir Albert Howard defined fertile soil as: a soil teeming with healthy life in the shape of abundant micro- flora and microfauna, will bear healthy plants, and these, when consumed by animals and man, will confer health on animals and man. But an infertile soil, that is, one lacking sufficient microbial, fungous, and other life, will pass on some form of deficiency to the plant, and such plant, in turn, will pass on some form of deficiency to animals and man.20 The millions of organisms found in soil are the source of its fertility. The greatest biomass in soil consists of microorganisms, fungi in particular. Soil microorganisms maintain soil structure, contribute to the biodegradation of dead plants and animals, and fix nitrogen. They are the key to soil fertility. Their destruction by chemicals threatens our survival and our food security. A Danish study analyzed a cubic meter of soil and found 50,000 small earth- worms, 50,000 insects and mites, and 12 million roundworms. A gram of the soil contained 30,000 protozoa, 50,000 algae, 400,000 fungi, and billions of individual bacteria. It is this amazing biodi- versity that maintains and rejuvenates soil fertility. To feed human- Soil Not Oil.indb 101 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 102 ity we need to feed the soil and its millions of workers, including the earthworm.21 When I carried out research on the Green Revolution in Punjab, I found that after a few years of bumper harvests, crop failures at a large number of sites were reported despite liberal applications of NPK fertilizers. The failure came from micronu- trient deficiencies caused by the rapid and continuous removal of micronutrients by “high-yielding varieties.” Plants quite evi- dently need more than NPK, and the voracious high-yielding varieties drew out micronutrients from soil at a very rapid rate, creating deficiencies of such micronutrients as zinc, iron, copper, manganese, magnesium, molybdenum, and boron. With organic manure these deficiencies do not occur, because organic matter contains these trace elements, whereas chemical NPK does not. Zinc deficiency is the most widespread of all micronutrient de- ficiencies in Punjab. Over half of the 8,706 soil samples from Punjab exhibited zinc deficiency, which has reduced yields of rice, wheat, and corn by up to 3.9 tons, 1.98 tons, and 3.4 tons per hectare, respectively. Consumption of zinc sulfate in Punjab rose from zero in 1969–70 to nearly 15,000 tons in 1984–85 to make up for the artificially created zinc deficiency. Manganese is another micronutrient that has become deficient in Punjab soils. Sulfur deficiency, which was earlier noticed only in oilseed and pulse crops, has now been noticed in cereals like wheat. The Green Revolution has also resulted in soil toxicity by in- troducing excess quantities of trace elements into the ecosystem. Fluorine toxicity from irrigation has developed in various regions of India. Twenty-six million hectares of India’s lands are affected by aluminum toxicity. In the Hoshiarpur district of Punjab, boron, iron, molybdenum, and selenium toxicity has built up through Green Revolution practices and is posing a threat to crop produc- tion as well as animal health. As a result of soil diseases and deficiencies, the increase in NPK application has not shown a corresponding increase in output in rice and wheat. Wheat and rice yields have been fluctuating and even declining in most districts in Punjab, in spite of increasing levels of fertilizer use. Experiments at the Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) are now beginning to show that chemical fertilizers cannot be substi- Soil Not Oil.indb 102 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 103 tutes for the organic fertility of the soil, and organic fertility can be maintained only by returning to the soil part of the organic matter that it produces. In the early 1950s, before the entry of the advisers of the Ford Foundation, when K. M. Munshi, India’s Agriculture Minister at the time, referred to repairing the nutri- ent cycle, he was anticipating what agricultural scientists are today recommending for the diseased and dying fields of Punjab. And Howard’s prediction, that “In the years to come, chemical manures will be considered as one of the greatest follies of the industrial epoch,” is beginning to come true.22 Fertilizers block the soil capillaries, which supply nutrients and water to plants. Infiltration of rain is stopped, runoff increases, and soil faces droughts, requiring ever more irrigation and ever more fossil fuels for pumping groundwater. Excess nitrogen in the root zone also denies nutrients to the plant. The negatively charged ions in the nitrates, the anions, take the cations, the positively charged ions of other elements, away from the root zone, thereby robbing the trees and plants of positive cations such as magnesium and calcium ions. Plants deficient in micronutrients create micronutri- ent deficiency in food and the human diet. And micronutrient deficiency leads to metabolic disorders. Chemical fertilizers do not just destroy the soil and hu- man health. They are also a major contributor to climate change because of pollution both from their production and from their use. Long-distance globalized food systems, like the industrial food-production system they service, are contributing in a major way to greenhouse gas emissions. A study by the Danish Minis- try of the Environment showed that 1 kilogram of food moving around the world generated 10 kilograms of CO2. “Food-miles,” which measure the distance food travels from where it is produced to where it is consumed, have increased dramatically as a result of globalization. As reported by environmental journalist Dale Allen Pfeiffer, In 1981, food journeying across the US to the Chicago market traveled an average of 1,245 miles; by 1998, this had increased 22 percent, to 1,518 miles. In 1965, 787,000 combination trucks were registered in the United States, and these vehicles consumed 6,658 billion gallons of fuel. In 1997, there were Soil Not Oil.indb 103 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 104 1,790,000 combination trucks that used 20.294 billion gallons of fuel. In 1979, David and Marcia Pimentel estimated that 60 percent of all food and related products in the US traveled by truck and the other 40 percent by rail. By 1996, almost 93 percent of fresh produce was moved by truck.23 A study in Canada has calculated that in 2003 food in Toronto traveled an average of 3,333 miles.24 In the UK, the distance trav- eled by food increased 50 percent between 1978 and 1999.25 A Swedish study found that the food-miles of a typical breakfast would cover the circumference of the Earth.26 The increase in food-miles is related to fossil fuel and food subsidies, which allow food transported long distances to be cheaper than food produced locally. Thus, India imported 5.5 million tons of wheat in 2006, based on the argument that it was cheaper to import wheat from Australia and the US than to transport it from Punjab in the north to Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the south. We should be reducing food-miles by eating biodiverse, local, and fresh foods, rather than increasing carbon pollution through the spread of corporate industrial farming, nonlocal food supplies, and processed and packaged food. We need to reduce CO2 emissions by moving toward economic lo- calization and satisfying our needs with the lowest carbon foot- print. Economic globalization, on the other hand, only serves to increase CO2 emissions. This total disconnect between ecology and economics is threatening to bring down our oikos, our home on this planet. Imports, which add unnecessary food-miles, are a direct re- sult of free-trade agreements. Transport accounts for one-eighth of oil consumption, and a large part of it goes for food. Take, for example, the wheat imports that resulted from the US-India Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture. India is the second-largest producer of wheat in the world. Today, because of manipulation by the US and Indian governments, it has suddenly emerged as a big importer of wheat. At the start of 2006 India’s domestic production of wheat was projected to exceed domestic demand; it had been six years since India had needed to import wheat. However, by opening its domestic market to private corporations, foreign companies were able to buy so much wheat that the government found itself Soil Not Oil.indb 104 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 105 announcing that it would need to import wheat. It initially pur- chasing 0.8 million tons from the Australian Wheat Board, the only company able to meet India’s import standards. The company had previously been implicated in the Volcker report for giving Saddam Hussein’s regime a $300 million kickback through Iraq’s Oil-for-Food program. As the year progressed and the Indian government continued to refuse a fair price for domestic wheat they found themselves, once again, forced to import wheat. This time they increased the price they were willing to pay and relaxed their import guidelines— allowing higher levels of toxins and pesticides. This meant that the big US agribusinesses, primarily Cargill and ADM, could sell their wheat to India. India imported another 2.2 million tons, corporate agriculture gained, and food security suffered.27 f r o m f o o d f i r s t t o e x p o r t f i r s t Until recently food has primarily been produced locally. Local food systems have evolved in accordance with local climates, and biodiversity, which in turn have shaped the rich cultural diversity of food. We need both the diversity and the decen- tralization of local food systems to mitigate as well as adapt to climate change. However, both the World Bank and the World Trade Organization are forcing countries to dismantle their lo- cal food economies, export what they produce and import what they need. The rise of “cash crop for export” policies are a result of World Bank structural adjustment policies. And the creation of import dependency is a result of World Bank conditionalities and WTO rules. Sustainable agriculture is based on the sustainable use of natu- ral resources—land, water, and agricultural biodiversity, including plants and animals. The sustainable use of these resources in turn requires that they are owned and controlled by decentralized ag- ricultural communities, to generate their livelihoods and provide food. These three dimensions—ecological security, livelihood se- curity, and food security—are essential elements of sustainable and equitable agriculture policy. The current process of globalization of agriculture threatens to undermine all three of these dimensions. It is undermining Soil Not Oil.indb 105 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 106 ecological security by removing all limits on concentration of ownership of natural resources—land, water, and biodiversity— and encouraging non-sustainable resource exploitation for short- term profits. Trade liberalization of agriculture is not guided by the need to provide livelihood security for the two-thirds of India’s people who are farmers or to provide food security for the poorer half of Indians and for India as a whole. Just the opposite: it severely threatens food security at the household, regional and national levels. The diversion of our natural resources from ecological main- tenance, protection of livelihoods, and basic-needs satisfaction to luxury exports and corporate profits has been made possible because of the past three decades of agriculture policy. In that time agriculture has been made a state monopoly and run on massive debts and subsidies, while all ecological imperatives of sustainability have been ignored. However, the new trade liberalization and globalization policies are not reducing the centralized control of agriculture; they are increasing it. Part of the reason people are not rec- ognizing this new concentration and are misconceiving trade liberalization as a new freedom for farmers is because of the power shift from the nation-state to transnational corporations (TNCs). People have learned to recognize the lack of freedom built into the rule of the nation-state. They have not yet learned to recognize the lack of freedom intrinsic to corporate rule. As the state withdraws from agriculture, it is not returning power to farming communities and autonomous producers. It is in- stead facilitating the transfer of control over natural resources, production systems, markets, and trade to global agribusiness, further disempowering and dispossessing small farmers and landless laborers. The WTO and the World Bank are pushing countries like India to move from food-first to export-first policies. A nutritional apartheid is thus being created, with the scarce land and water of the South being used for growing fruits and vegetables for the rich North and the elites of the South, and leaving the people of the South dependent on imports of food staples such as wheat, rice, and corn. Both sides of the equation add food-miles to our daily bread. And while the destruction of local food systems and Soil Not Oil.indb 106 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 107 dependence on globalized food supply is made to look “natural,” it is a deliberate result of policy designed and driven by global agri- business and supermarket chains. The step-by-step dismantling of India’s local food markets exemplifies just how artificial and violent the globalization of food systems really is. f a i l u r e o f “ e x p o r t - f i r s t ” p o l i c i e s It is a sad irony that the creation of Agricultural Export Zones (AEZs) intended to increase farm exports proved of no help to the vegetable grower. A bumper crop of potato did not bring farm- ers any profit; in fact, it ruined them, driving many to commit suicide. Despite the fact that the Indian government created three AEZs for potato cultivation, the potato could neither be exported nor utilized in the food-processing industry. Rather than increas- ing the exports of vegetables, the creation of AEZs has facilitated the import of vegetables. • India is now the fifth-largest importer of raw vegetables, after the US, the EU, Japan, and Canada. • The import bill for vegetables rose almost 20 percent in 2002; exports have been virtually static. • India is spending three times more buying raw vegetables from the world markets than it is earning from exporting them. The bill came to a huge $678 million in 2002. That was higher than the combined imports of Russia, Hong Kong, and Brazil. In contrast, India sold only $246 million worth of vegetables in 2002.28 • Exports of processed vegetables, fruits, and nuts plummeted from $70 million in 2001 to just $58 million in 2002.29 Experts have expressed fears that the large-scale diversion of land, capital, and other resources for crops like vegetables, flowers, and gherkins will severely affect food security. The very profitabil- ity of the cultivation of these crops needs to be properly assessed, taking fully into account the investment, the incentives given, and the value of the land and other forms of scarce natural resources diverted, or to be diverted. Since fruits and vegetables are perish- able, they need to be transported in refrigerated trucks and by air. Trade in perishables is adding to the global carbon footprint. Soil Not Oil.indb 107 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 108 The biodiverse, water-prudent, and drought-resilient agri- culture of the South is being destroyed precisely when diverse and decentralized systems need to be conserved to reduce the impact of and increase resilience to climate change. On the one hand, drought is increasing as a result of climate change. On the other hand, it is increasing due to globalization of the food sup- ply and diversion of the land and water to produce cheap food for the rich in the North. Peasants and pastoralists are pushed off the land and denied access to water as corporate farming for exports takes over. A 50-gram bag of salad in the UK costs about 1 pound but wastes almost 50 liters of water. A mixed salad takes 300 liters.30 As Bruce Lankford of the University of East Anglia has stated, “We are exporting drought.” Global retail chains like Tesco, Sainsbury’s, and Wal-Mart are increasingly sourcing fruits and vegetables from Africa and India. This is leading to the large-scale uprooting and impoverishment of farmers, and is contributing to drought and desertification, while increasing food-miles and undermining food security and food sovereign- ty. While India is being made to grow vegetables for Europe, we are also being forced to import pesticide-laden wheat in spite of sufficient domestic production, which is further threatening farmers’ livelihoods. The poor are paying three times over—through increased vul- nerability to climate change, through increased water scarcity as scarce water is used for export crops, and through the uprooting of communities from their land, villages, and homes to make way for wasteful globalized trade. Globalized trade in food is hurting the poor and the planet. It is putting the future of our food at risk for short-term profits of global agribusinesses. s o i l n o t o i l : m a k i n g a t r a n s i t i o n t o b i o d i v e r s e , o r g a n i c , l o c a l f o o d s y s t e m s The industrialized, globalized food system is based on oil. It is un- der threat because of the inevitability of “peak oil.” It is also under threat because it is more vulnerable than traditional agriculture to climate change, to which it has contributed. Industrial agriculture Soil Not Oil.indb 108 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 109 is based on monocultures. Monocultures are highly vulnerable to changes in climate, and to diseases and pests. In 1970 and 1971, America’s vast corn belt was attacked by a mysterious disease, later identified as ‘‘race T” of the fungus Helminthosporium maydis, causing the southern corn leaf blight, as the epidemic was called. It left ravaged cornfields with with- ered plants, broken stalks, and malformed or completely rotten cobs. The strength and speed of the blight was a result of the uniformity of the hybrid corn, most of which had been derived from a single Texas male sterile line. The genetic makeup of the new hybrid corn, which was responsible for its rapid and large- scale breeding by seed companies, was also responsible for its vulnerability to disease. At least 80 percent of the hybrid corn in America in 1970 contained the Texas male sterile cytoplasm. As a University of Iowa pathologist wrote, “Such an extensive, ho- mogenous acreage is like a tinder-dry prairie waiting for a spark to ignite it.”31 Industrial agriculture is dependent on chemical fertilizers. Chemically fertilized soils are low in organic matter. Organic matter helps conserve the soil and soil moisture, providing in- surance against drought. Soils lacking organic matter are more vulnerable to drought and to climate change. Industrial agricul- ture is also more dependent on intensive irrigation. Since climate change is leading to the melting of glaciers that feed rivers, and in many regions of the world to the decline in precipitation and increased intensity of drought, the vulnerability of industrial agriculture will only increase. Finally, since the globalized food system is based on long-distance supply chains, it is vulnerable to breakdown in the context of extreme events of flooding, cy- clones, and hurricanes. While aggravating climate change, fossil fuel–dependent industrialized, globalized agriculture is least able to adapt to the change. We need an alternative. Biodiverse, organic farms and local- ized food systems offer us security in times of climate insecurity, while producing more food, producing better food, and creating more livelihoods. The industrialized, globalized food system is based on oil; biodiverse, organic, and local food systems are based on living soil. The industrialized system is based on creating waste and pollu- Soil Not Oil.indb 109 8/25/08 2:01:03 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 110 tion; a living agriculture is based on no waste. The industrialized system is based on monocultures; sustainable systems are based on diversity. l i v i n g s o i l Every step in building a living agriculture sustained by a living soil is a step toward both mitigating and adapting to climate change. Over the past 20 years, I have built Navdanya, India’s biodiversity and organic-farming movement. We are increasingly realizing there is a convergence between the objectives of conserv- ing biodiversity, reducing climate-change impact, and alleviating poverty. Biodiverse, local, organic systems reduce water use and risks of crop failure due to climate change. Increasing the biodi- versity of farming systems can reduce vulnerability to drought. Millet, which is far more nutritious than rice and wheat, uses only 200 to 300 millimeters of water, compared with the 2,500 millimeters needed for Green Revolution rice farming. India could grow four times the amount food it does now if it were to cultivate millet more widely. However, global trade is pushing agriculture toward GM monocultures of corn, soy, canola, and cotton, worsening the climate crisis. Biodiversity offers resilience to recover from climate disas- ters. After the Orissa supercyclone of 1998, and the tsunami of 2004, Navdanya distributed seeds of saline-resistant rice varieties as “Seeds of Hope” to rejuvenate agriculture in lands that were salinated as a result of flooding from the sea. We are now creating seed banks of drought-resistant, flood-resistant, and saline-resistant seed varieties to respond to such extreme climate events. Climate chaos creates uncertainty. Diversity offers a cushion against both climate extremes and climate uncertainty. We need to move from the myopic obsession with monocultures and centralization to di- versity and decentralization. Diversity and decentralization are the dual principles needed to build economies beyond oil and to deal with the climate vulner- ability that is the legacy of the age of oil. In addition to reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience, biodiverse organic farming also produces more food and higher incomes. As David Pimentel has pointed out: “Organic farming approaches for maize and beans Soil Not Oil.indb 110 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 111 in the US not only use an average of 30% less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality, and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does.”32 After Hurricane Mitch struck Central America in 1998, farm- ers who practiced biodiverse organic farming found they had suf- fered less damage than those who practiced chemical agriculture. The ecologically farmed plots had on average more topsoil, greater soil moisture, and less erosion, and the farmers experienced less severe economic losses.33 Fossil fuel–based industrial agriculture moves carbon from the soil to the atmosphere. Ecological agriculture takes carbon from the atmosphere and puts it back in the soil. If 10,000 medium- sized US farms converted to organic farming, the emissions reduc- tion would be equivalent to removing over 1 million cars from the road. If all US croplands became organic it would increase soil-carbon storage by 367 million tons and would cut nitrogen oxide emissions dramatically.34 Organic agriculture contributes directly and indirectly to reducing CO2 emissions and mitigating the negative consequences of climate change. Navdanya’s work over the past 20 years has shown that we can grow more food and provide higher incomes to farmers without destroying the environment and killing peasants. We can lower the costs of production while increasing output. We have done this successfully on thousands of farms and have created a fair, just, and sustainable economy. The epidemic of farmer suicides in India is concentrated in regions where chemical intensification has increased costs of production. Farmers in these regions have become dependent on non-renewable seeds, and monoculture cash-crops are facing a decline in prices due to globalization. This is affecting farmers’ incomes, leading to debt and suicides. High costs of production are the most significant reason for rural indebtedness.35 Biodiverse organic farming creates a debt-free, suicide-free, productive alternative to industrialized corporate agriculture and brings about a number of benefits. It leads to increased farm productivity and farm incomes, while lowering costs of produc- tion. Pesticide-free and chemical-free production and processing bring safe and healthy food to consumers. We must protect the Soil Not Oil.indb 111 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 112 environment, farmers’ livelihoods, public health, and people’s right to food. We do not need to go the Monsanto way. We can go the Nav- danya way. We do not need to end up in food dictatorship and food slavery. We can create our food freedom. Biodiverse, organic, and local food systems help mitigate climate change by lowering greenhouse gas emissions and increasing absorption of CO2 by plants and by the soil. Organic farming is based on the recycling of organic matter; industrial agriculture is based on chemical fertilizers that emit ni- trous oxides. Industrial agriculture dispossesses small farmers and converts small farms to large holdings that need mechanization, which further contributes to CO2 emissions. Small, biodiverse, or- ganic farms, especially in third world countries, can be totally fossil fuel–free. The energy for farming operations comes from animals. Soil fertility is built by recycling organic matter to feed soil organ- isms. This reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Biodiverse systems are also more resilient to droughts and floods because they have a higher water-holding capacity, making them more adaptable to the effects of climate change. Navdanya’s study on climate change and organic farming has indicated that organic farming increases carbon absorption by up to 55 percent and water-holding capacity by 10 percent. f e r t i l i t y i n c r e a s e d u e t o o r g a n i c f a r m i n g 3 6 percent increase over industrial farming Crops Organic matter Microbial activity Microbial biomass Water- holding capacity N P K Pearl millet 28–55 4–25 2–10 2–3 0–2 0–1 8–15 Clusterbean 32–44 22–54 12–25 4–9 12–34 2–4 25–47 Moth bean 31–47 11–23 8–15 4–7 7–21 1–2 4–9 Mung bean 27–41 28–59 11–33 4–8 11–27 2–6 5–11 The environmental advantages of small-scale, biodiverse organic farms do not come at the expense of food security. Biodiverse or- ganic farms produce more food and higher incomes than industrial Soil Not Oil.indb 112 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 113 monocultures. Mitigating climate change, conserving biodiversity, and increasing food security go hand in hand. The conventional measures of productivity focus on labor as the major input (and the direct labor on the farm at that) and externalize many energy and resource inputs. This biased produc- tivity pushes farmers off the land and replaces them with chemicals and machines, which in turn contribute to greenhouse gases and climate change. Further, industrial agriculture focuses on produc- ing a single crop that can be globally traded as a commodity. The focus on “yield” of individual commodities creates what I have called a “monoculture of the mind.” The promotion of so-called high-yielding varieties leads to the displacement of biodiversity. It also destroys the ecological functions of biodiversity. The loss of diverse outputs is never taken into account by the one-dimensional calculus of productivity. When the benefits of biodiversity are taken into account, biodiverse systems have higher output than monocultures. And organic farming is more beneficial for the farmers and the earth than chemical farming. When agro-forestry is included in farming systems, carbon absorption and carbon return increase dramati- cally. Date palm and neem increase the carbon density in the soil by 175 and 185 percent, respectively. Studies carried out by the USDA’s National Agroforestry Center suggest that soil carbon can be increased by 6.6 tons per hectare per year over a 15-year rotation and wood by 12.22 tons per hectare per year. Since both soil and biomass sequester carbon, this amounts to removing 18.87 tons of carbon per hectare per year from the atmosphere.37 Soil and vegetation are our biggest carbon sinks. Industrial agriculture destroys both. By disrupting the cycle of returning organic matter to the soil, chemical agriculture depletes the soil carbon. Mechanization forces the cutting down of trees and hedgerows. Organic manure is food for the community of living beings that depend on the soil. The alternatives to chemical fertilizers are many: green manures such as sesbania aculeata (dhencha), gliricidia, and sun hemp; legume crops such as pulses, which fix nitrogen through legume-rhizobium symbiosis; earthworms; cow dung; and composts. Farmyard manure encourages the Soil Not Oil.indb 113 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 114 buildup of earthworms by increasing their food supply. Soils treated with farmyard manure have from two to two and a half times as many earthworms as untreated soils. Earthworms con- tribute to soil fertility by maintaining soil structure, aeration, and drainage. They break down organic matter and incorporate it into the soil. The work of earthworms in soil formation was Darwin’s major concern in his later years. Of worms he wrote, “It may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of crea- tures.”38 The little earthworm working invisibly in the soil is the tractor, the fertilizer factory, and the dam combined. Worm- worked soils are more water-stable than unworked soils, and worm-inhabited soils have considerably more organic carbon and nitrogen than the original soil. Their continuous move- ment forms channels that help in soil aeration. It is estimated that they increase the air volume of soil by up to 30 percent. Soils with earthworms drain four to ten times faster than those without, and their water-holding capacity is higher by 20 per- cent. Earthworm castings, which can amount to 4 to 36 tons per acre per year, contain five times more nitrogen, seven times more phosphorus, three times more exchangeable magnesium, 11 times more potash, and one and a half times more calcium than soil.39 Their work on the soil promotes the microbial activ- ity essential to the fertility of most soils.40 At the Navdanya farm in Doon Valley, we have been feeding the soil organisms. They in turn feed us. We have been building soil and rejuvenating its life. The clay component on our farm is 41 percent higher than those of neighboring chemical farms, which indicates a higher water-holding capacity. There is 124 per- cent more organic-matter content in the soil on our farm than in soil samples from chemical farms. The nitrogen concentration is 85 percent higher, the phosphorus content 10 percent higher, and the available potassium 25 percent higher. Our farm is also much richer in soil organisms such as mycorrhiza, which are fungi that bring nutrients to plants. Mycorrhizal association makes food material from the soil available to the plant. Our crops have no dis- eases, our soils are resilient to drought, and our food is delicious, as any visitors to our farm can vouch. Our farm is fossil fuel–free. Oxen plow the land and fertilize it. Soil Not Oil.indb 114 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 115 By banning fossil fuels on our farm we have gained real en- ergy—the energy of the mycorrhiza and the earthworm, of the plants and animals, all nourished by the energy of the sun. b i o d i v e r s i t y : o u r n a t u r a l c a p i t a l , o u r e c o l o g i c a l i n s u r a n c e Biodiversity is our real insurance in times of climate change. Tra- ditionally, farmers have increased their resilience by growing more than one crop. Sir Albert Howard saw in “mixtures,” or biodiversity, the secret of sustainability and stability of farming in India. As he wrote in the 1940 classic on organic farming: Mixed crops are the rule. In this respect the cultivators of the Orient have followed Nature’s method as seen in the prime- val forest. Mixed cropping is perhaps most universal when the cereal crop is the main constituent. Crops like millets, wheat, barley, and maize are mixed with an appropriate subsidiary pulse, sometimes a species that ripens much later than the ce- real. The pigeon pea, perhaps the most important leguminous crop of the Gangetic alluvium, is grown either with millets or with maize. The mixing of cereals and pulses appears to help both crops. When the two grow together, the character of the growth improves. Do the roots of these crops excrete materials useful to each other? Is the mycorrhizal association found in the roots of these tropical legumes and cereals the agent involved in this excretion? Science at the moment is unable to answer these questions: she is only now beginning to investigate them Here we have another instance where the peasants of the East have anticipated and acted upon the solution of one of the prob- lems which Western science is only just beginning to recognize. Whatever may be the reason why crops thrive best when associ- ated in suitable combinations, the fact remains that mixtures generally give better results than monoculture.41 At Navdanya we have built on this ancient, time-tested knowl- edge, farming in nature’s ways, based on biodiversity. Not only are we protecting biodiversity, we are increasing food production, farmers’ incomes, and resilience in the face of climate change. On our farm, we have fields of seven (saptarshi), nine crops (navdanya), and twelve crops (baranaja). Navdanya in fact means Soil Not Oil.indb 115 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 116 “nine seeds” or “nine crops.” Biodiverse fields always perform bet- ter than monocultures. They survive frost and drought, early rain and late rain, too much rain and too little rain. b i o d i v e r s e v s . m o n o c u l t u r e p r o d u c t i o n 4 2 Crop Average Produc- tion (kg/ha) Average Rate [[pricetk]]/kg Total (in Rs) BAR ANAJA (12) 1 Bajra 440 8 3,520 2 Maize 1,280 8 10,240 3 Safed Chemi 600 25 15,000 4 Ogal 360 20 7,200 5 Mandua 600 10 6,000 6 Jhangora 440 15 6,600 7 Urad 600 20 12,000 8 Navrangi 680 20 13,600 9 Koni No. 1 280 10 2,800 10 Lobia 600 20 12,000 11 Til 400 30 12,000 12 Koni No. 2 340 10 3,400 Total 6,620 104,360 MONOCULTURE 1 Maize 5,400 8 43,200 NAVDANYA (9) 1 Til 400 30 12,000 2 Safed Chemi 720 25 18,000 3 Mandua 1,120 10 11,200 4 Dholiyia Dal 640 20 12,800 5 Safed Bhatt 760 15 11,400 6 Lobia 800 20 16,000 7 Jhangora 520 15 7,800 8 Maize 560 8 4,480 9 Wheat 480 25 12,000 Total 6,000 105,680 MONOCULTURE 1 Mandua 3,600 10 36,000 SAPTARSHI (7) 1 Urad 600 20 12,000 2 Moong 520 25 13,000 3 Mandua 560 10 5,600 4 Safed Bhatt 680 15 10,200 5 Dholiyia Dal 560 20 11,200 6 Maize 680 8 5,440 7 Lobia Dal 600 20 12,000 Total 4,200 69440 MONOCULTURE 1 Urad 2,400 20 48,000 The baranaja (twelve crops) of bajra (pearl millet), maize (corn), safed chemi (beans), ogal (buckwheat), mandua (finger millet), jhangora (barnyard millet), urad (black gram), navrangi (rice bean), two varieties of koni (horsetail millet), lobia (bean), Soil Not Oil.indb 116 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 117 and til (sesame) produced more food and earned more than twice that of the corn monoculture The baranaja or navdanya system of farming is a guarantee against hunger and an insur- ance against crop failure due to climate variability. In diverse parts of the country, biodiverse agricultural systems outperform monocultures. Symbiosis among plants contributes to an overall increase in productivity of the crops. In the Western Ghats, a small farm typically has 1.5 acres of paddy, 0.5 acres of areca nut, and a kitchen garden with vegetables that include eggplants, beans, cucumbers, chilies, and small gourds. Likewise, in the eastern Himalayas, especially in Sikkim, the dominant land use is the sustainable Alnus-cardamom agro-forestry system, in which car- damom plants and Alnus trees are intercropped to the benefit of cardamom production. In Rajasthan too, in the arid tract of Jodhpur and parts of western Rajasthan, neem-based agro- forestry and khejri (Prosopis cineraria), wherein crops like bajra, sorghum mung, moth bean, and corn are grown together, have fulfilled the nutritional requirements of the communities.43 A recent study conducted by Navdanya in four districts of West Bengal shows that multiple cropping (MC) is economi- cally more efficient than modern intensive chemical farming systems that cultivate monocultures. The net value of the an- nual production of an average MC farm is uniformly more than that of an average monoculture farm. The MC farms of East Medinipur district are sown with a wide range of crops, both in a sequential rotation and intercropped. Some of these farms— mostly smaller than a hectare in size—grow over 50 types of crops, excluding rice. The rain-fed farms of Bankura district are comparatively less diverse, hardly exceeding 14 crops a year, including rice. The irrigated monoculture farms, by contrast, grow two rice varieties in Bankura district and three rice va- rieties in East Medinipur district (all high-yielding varieties, or HYV). The cost of all inputs (water for irrigation, seeds, agrochemicals, labor, and energy) was calculated to compare the relative gain in output value of the modern monoculture farms with that of the MC farms, and the remarkable finding was that the value of farm produce increases significantly with greater diversity of crops. Farmers explain this as “farm fatigue” Soil Not Oil.indb 117 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 118 from monoculture and intensive use of agrochemicals—an es- sential feature of modern agriculture. These data contradict the prevailing mainstream agronomic view that intensive cultivation of a staple crop enhances productiv- ity. A majority of farmers in Bankura and Medinipur have realized over years that the yield of monoculture farms is unsustainable. Many of these farmers have reverted back to traditional farming systems involving folk crop varieties. Some of them have experi- mented with a hybrid system of rotational cropping of a large number of “secondary” crops and an HYV rice. However, most of these MC farmers reported that the cost of the inputs eats away at the extra production of HYV rice and that the best means to cut down on the extraneous inputs is to “give the land a recess” by growing vegetables and fruits for a few years before replanting it with rice.44 Small biodiverse farms have higher productivity than mon- ocultures, which are a necessary aspect of industrial agriculture based on external inputs. Higher biological productivity translates into higher incomes for small farmers. In Rajasthan, monocultures of pearl millet yielded Rs 2,480 of net profit per acre, whereas a biodiverse farm of pearl millet, moth bean, and sesame yielded a net profit of Rs 12,045 per acre, nearly five times the profit. In Uttarankhand, a monoculture of paddy yielded Rs 6,720 per acre, whereas a biodiverse farm yielded Rs 24,600 per acre, three and a half times the profit. In Sikkim, a monoculture farm of corn yielded Rs 4,950 per acre while a mixed farm of corn, radish, lahi saag, and peas yielded Rs 11,700 per acre. Navdanya’s rice and wheat farmers have doubled production by using indigenous seeds and organic methods. Jhumba rice in Uttarankhand produces 176 quintals per hectare compared with 96 quintals per hectare of Kas- turi, a high-yielding rice variety. The paddy yields are 104 and 56 quintals per hectare, respectively. Farmers in West Uttar Pradesh have gotten yields of 62.5 quintals per hectare using a native wheat variety for organic production, compared with 50 quintals per hectare for chemically produced wheat. Conservation of native seeds and biodiverse ecological farming have yielded incomes two to three times higher than monoculture farming, and eight to nine times higher than industrial systems using genetically engineered seeds. Soil Not Oil.indb 118 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 119 s e e d s o f f r e e d o m , s e e d s o f l i f e Twenty-one years ago, in 1987, I started to save seeds to create a different future than the one envisioned by the biotechnol- ogy industry—in which all seeds are genetically engineered and patented. The vision for seed freedom evolved as Navdanya. Navdanya means “nine seeds,” and it also means “the new gift.” Through Navdanya, we have brought the new gift of ancient seeds to our farmers. Navdanya builds community seed banks based on rescuing, conserving, reproducing, multiplying, and distributing native varieties or farmers’ varieties—varieties evolved and bred over millennia. On the one hand, our seed saving defends seeds as a commons—resisting through our daily actions the degraded, im- moral, uncivilized idea that seeds are the “intellectual property” of corporations, and that saving them is a crime. On the other hand, Navdanya’s seed banks are the basis of another food economy, one based on biodiversity and cultural diversity, on sustainability, and on the future. The dominant food economy is based on monopolies and monocultures, on industrialization of production and globaliza- tion of distribution of a handful of crops—corn, soy, rice, and wheat. This economy has pushed 1 billion people into hunger; another 2 billion into obesity. It is killing species and farmers. One hundred fifty thousand small farmers of India have committed sui- cide because they were forced to buy costly, unreliable seed every year from corporations like Monsanto, which collect exorbitant royalties. Navdanya’s seed saving spreads seeds of life instead of seeds of death. We spread seeds of hope instead of seeds of hopelessness and despair. We spread seeds of freedom instead of seeds of slavery and seeds of suicide. After the 2004 tsunami, our salt-resistant rice varieties rebuilt the devastated agriculture of Tamil Nadu. Our seeds of Dehradun basmati gave us the strength to fight RiceTec of Texas, which had patented basmati rice. Our seeds of native wheat varieties inspired us to fight Monsanto when it patented low-gluten wheat. Our seeds teach us lessons in diversity and democracy. From our seeds we learn how to defend freedom of biodiversity and freedom of farmers in an age of corporate monopolies, terminator technologies, and globalized monocultures. Soil Not Oil.indb 119 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 120 A false assumption is growing that we need genetic engineer- ing to deal with climate change. It is false for a number of reasons. First, nature and farmers have evolved, and continue to evolve, varieties of plants that are resilient to drought, floods, and salinization due to cyclones, three major impacts of climate change. In Navdanya community seed banks, we have crops like mil- let that can withstand severe drought; we have rice that grows 18 feet tall and can survive the floods of the Ganges basin. We have rice that can tolerate salt, which we distributed after the Orissa cyclone and the tsunami. The salt-tolerant varieties we have saved, multiplied, and distributed include Kalambank, Kartikpatini, Cha- kaakhi, Dhala patini, dudeshwar, lilabati, and luna (which means “salt”). Flood-resistant rice varieties include Jalaj, Abhiman, Bhut- na, Sada dhepa, Sada pankul, Jal kalas (which means “the water pot”), Bagada, Betana, Bhundi, Champi, Fareka, Indrijiba, Madia, and Kala bagada. In regions that face floods and the ingress of saltwater from the sea, these varieties offer security in the face of climate change. But rice does not only grow in wet regions. We have also saved hundreds of drought-tolerant rices, such as Bhat kalon, Chaina, Gyarsu, Jhumka, Ramjawain ukhri, Asan leija, Bhut moni, Kaya, Loha, Gora, Nata, and Raja manik. These are rain-fed rices that need no irrigation.45 And there are many varieties of other crops that have the potential to evolve and help us face the growing water scarcity. The drought-resistant native wheats, and the millets like ragi, jhangora, koni, bajra, and jowar are “forgotten foods” that are the foods of the future.46 Second, genetic engineering will only allow corporations to take these seeds, appropriate their traits, patent them, and prohibit their use by farmers who don’t make heavy royalty payments. Ge- netic engineering does not create the traits for drought, flood, and salt tolerance; it merely allows the transfer of traits across species. In Navdanya we are creating community seed banks for cli- mate emergencies so that the widest varieties of crops are available to communities to respond to climate-related disasters. And this diversity is available as a commons. Diversity and the commons are the two types of insurance we have in times of uncertainty and unpredictability. Diversity gives us the basis to evolve and adapt Soil Not Oil.indb 120 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 121 under changing conditions. Climate change is not a linear phe- nomenon that creates warming everywhere, or more rain or less rain. It is nonlinear, and it is better to talk of climate chaos than climate change or global warming. Our community seed banks of climate change–resilient varieties become even more important as the gene giants like Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, and Dow apply for patents on climate traits in crops such as drought tolerance and flood tolerance.47 In the context of climate chaos, diversity is the basis of adap- tation. Monocultures and uniformity are recipes for breakdown. While at the ecological level, we need diversity to respond to climate chaos, at the social and political levels, we need the com- mons. Monopolies and concentration of ownership of resources enhance vulnerability in periods of chaos. The mechanistic paradigms on which genetic engineering, intellectual property rights and patents on seeds, and globalized corporate control over food systems are based have given us cli- mate chaos. They cannot help us adapt and evolve. As Einstein said, you cannot solve a problem using the mind-set that created it. Mechanistic thought creates monocultures of the mind. We must move beyond monocultures to protect the earth’s rich diversity and use it to respond to climate chaos. Humanity has eaten over 80,000 edible plants over the course of its evolution. More than 3,000 have been used consistently. However, we now rely on just eight crops to provide 75 percent of the world’s food. Monocultures are destroying biodiversity, our health, and the quality and diversity of food. Monocultures have been promoted as an essential component of industrialization and the globalization of agriculture. They don’t in fact produce more food. All they produce is more control and profits—for Monsanto, Cargill, and ADM. They create pseudo-surpluses and real scarcity by destroying biodiversity, local food systems, and food cultures. In 1998, India’s indigenous edible oils—made from mustard, coconut, sesame, linseed, and groundnut and processed in artisa- nal cold-press mills—were banned, with “food safety” used as an excuse. At the same time, restrictions on the import of soy oil were removed. The livelihoods of 10 million farmers were threatened. One million oil mills in villages were closed. More than 20 farmers were killed while protesting against the dumping of soy on the Soil Not Oil.indb 121 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 122 Indian market, which was leading to a fall in the price of domestic oilseed crops. Millions of tons of artificially cheap GM soybean oil continue to be dumped on India. Women from the slums of Delhi formed a movement to dump soy and bring back mustard oil. “Sarson bachao, soya- bean bhagao” (save the mustard, drive away the soybean) was the women’s call from the streets. We did succeed in bringing back mustard through our satyagraha (noncooperation with the ban). The same companies that dumped soy on India—Cargill and ADM—are destroying the Amazon to grow soy. Millions of acres of rain forest—the lungs, the liver, the heart of the global climate system—are being burnt to grow soy for exports. Armed gangs take over the forest and use slaves to cultivate soy. When people like Sister Dorothy Stang oppose the destruction of the forests and the violence against people, they are assassinated.48 While people in Brazil and India are being threatened di- rectly by these agribusiness monocultures, people in the US and Europe are also at risk. Eighty percent of soy production is being used as cattle feed to provide cheap meat. Cheap meat that is, in effect, destroying both the Amazon rainforest and people’s health in rich countries. One billion people are without food because industrial monocultures robbed them of their livelihoods in ag- riculture and their food entitlements.49 Another 1.7 billion are suffering from obesity and food-related diseases. Monocultures lead to malnutrition—for those who are underfed as well as those who are overfed. Corporations are forcing us to eat untested GMO food. Soy is in 60 percent of all processed food. It has high levels of isofla- vones and phytoestrogens, which produce hormone imbalances in humans. Traditional fermentation, as in the food cultures of China and Japan, reduces the levels of isoflavones. The promotion of soy in food is a huge experiment promoted with $13 billion in subsi- dies from the US government between 1998 and 2004, and $80 million a year from the American soy industry.50 Nature, culture, and people’s health are all being destroyed. Local food cultures have rich and diverse alternatives to soy. For protein we have thousands of varieties of beans and grain legumes—the pigeon pea, chickpea, mung bean, urd bean, rice bean, adzuki bean, moth bean, cowpea, Soil Not Oil.indb 122 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 123 lentil, horse gram, and fava bean. For edible oils we have sesame, mustard, linseed, saffola, sunflower, groundnut. With the spread of monocultures and the destruction of local farms, the food system has become dependent on fossil fuels—for synthetic fertilizers, for running giant machinery, for long-distance transport. We are increasingly eating oil, not food, threatening the planet and our health. Moving beyond monocultures of the mind has become an im- perative for repairing the food system. Biodiverse small farms have higher productivity and they generate higher incomes for farmers. And biodiverse diets provide more nutrition and better taste. Bringing back biodiversity goes hand in hand with bringing back small farms. Corporate control thrives on monocultures. Citizens’ food freedom depends on biodiversity. Human freedom and the freedom of other species are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive. r e b u i l d i n g l o c a l f o o d c o m m u n i t i e s The globalized food system is causing destruction at every level. Biodiversity is being destroyed in favor of monocultures of corn, soy, and canola. Food has been reduced to a commodity. And the commodity can run a car, feed animals in factory farms, or feed people. Uniqueness, distinctiveness, quality, nutrition, and taste are no longer in the equation. Farmers are being destroyed because prices of farm products are driven down through a combination of monopolistic buying by global corporations and dumping of subsidized products. In the meantime food prices keep rising for the poor, and hunger grows. The long-distance transport of food pollutes the atmosphere with carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. No one is gaining from globalized trade in food except the corporations. Localization of food systems to reduce food-miles is a climate-change imperative. It is also a food-sovereignty and human-rights imperative. Small farmers will only survive in the context of vibrant and robust local food economies. Localization is also a food-security imperative. Short supply chains ensure better democracy in distribution, better-quality food, fresher food, and more cultural diversity. In India, the movement for retail de- Soil Not Oil.indb 123 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 124 mocracy is a vital part of keeping local markets alive. Across the world, farmers markets are reappearing. The search for local foods to reduce food-miles and create more intimate food systems has created a new dichotomy between “organic” and “local.” In my view this is a false dichotomy. To be organic means to be whole and wholesome—for the earth, for our bodies. Food that could have been grown next door but has been imported from thousands of miles away is not organic by any ecological standards. If we care about getting rid of toxins in our food, we should also care about the atmospheric pollution that is causing climate change. They are two facets of ecological destruction. A nonviolent, wholesome food system should have place for neither. Organic that leaves out food-miles is not fully organic. Organic that leaves us feeling strangers on the land is not truly organic. As Michael Pollan observes in his book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, One of the key innovations of organic food was to allow some more information to pass along the food chain between the pro- ducer and the consumer—an implicit snatch of narrative along with the number. A certified organic label tells a little story about how a particular food was produced, giving the consumer a way to send a message back to the farmers that she values to- matoes produced without harmful pesticides or prefers to feed her children milk from cows that haven’t been injected with growth hormones. The word organic has proved to be one of the most powerful words in the supermarket: Without any help from government, farmers and consumers working together in this way have built an $11 billion industry that is now the fast- est growing sector of the food economy. Yet the organic label itself—like every other such label in the supermarket—is really just an imperfect substitute for direct observation of how a food is produced, a concession to the real- ity that most people in an industrial society haven’t the time or the inclination to follow their food back to the farm, a farm which today is apt to be, on average, fifteen hundred miles away. So to bridge that space we rely on certifiers and label writ- ers and, to a considerable extent, our imagination of what the farms that are producing our food really look like. The organic label may conjure an image of a simpler agriculture, but its very existence is an industrial artifact. The question is, what about the farms themselves? How well do they match the stories told about them?51 Soil Not Oil.indb 124 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 125 Organic farming is based on ecological processes and principles of agroecology. It is also based on human communities working in cooperation and with dignity and freedom. There was an old conflict between chemical-industrial ag- riculture and organic farming. There is a new conflict emerg- ing between authentic organic, based on small, biodiverse farms, and pseudo-organic, based on large-scale, monoculture corporate farms that grow for export. Authentic organic farming is based on biodiversity, small family farms, local markets, and fair trade. Organic farming emerged as a systemic alternative to industrial agriculture, which destroyed biodiversity, polluted ecosystems and food with agrochemicals, uprooted and displaced small farmers, and undermined local markets through subsidized long- distance transport. Pseudo-organic farming destroys small farms and uproots small farming communities to create large export-oriented indus- trial farms in which farmers are viewed as laborers and serfs, in- stead of sovereign producers. Pseudo-organic farming is based on destruction of biodiversity and creation of monocultures. It does not abide by the essential ecological processes of renewal of soil fer- tility, rejuvenation of water, and biodiversity. It merely substitutes chemical inputs with “organic” inputs. This is input substitution, not agroecology. Agroecology is the scientific basis of authentic organic farm- ing. Authentic organic practices are based on principles of self-or- ganization—from the level of the organism to the farm and agro- ecosystem to the community. Ecologically, self-organization refers to the capacity of living organisms and agro-ecosystems to renew fertility by rejuvenating soil microorganisms and recycling organic matter; to manage pests through building resilience and maintain- ing a pest-predator balance; to conserve water; and to conserve and renew biodiversity. Seed giving rise to seed and earthworms rejuvenating soil fertility are examples of the self-organizing capac- ity of nature and living systems, which are the basis of a sustainable agriculture. Socially, self-organization is encapsulated in Gandhi’s swaraj (self-rule, self-governance, self-organization). It is the basis of food sovereignty—the right to produce in freedom. So- cial and ecological self-organization reinforce each other. Only Soil Not Oil.indb 125 8/25/08 2:01:04 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 126 small farmers working in cooperation with the soil and plants can provide the care and attention required to facilitate nature’s self-organization. Food sovereignty, therefore, rests on agro- ecology. Both are built on the principle of self-organization. Self-organized production rests on the principles of agroecol- ogy, and self-organized distribution rests on the principles of localization—local consumption through local markets. Such economic self-organization ensures that local food needs are met and local food security and livelihoods strengthened, pre- venting malnutrition, hunger, poverty, and unemployment. It also provides the ground for cultural diversity in food systems, supported by biodiversity in agricultural systems. Pseudo-organic agriculture is built on the destruction of the self-organizing capacity of human communities and agro- ecosystems. It mimics industrial agriculture, focusing on large- scale production for export, uprooting small farmers, and un- dermining people’s food security and sovereignty. Large-scale, industrial-style, export-oriented pseudo-organic farms are run by giant corporations for profits at the expense of the health of the earth, diverse species, and local communities. The entry of mul- tinational corporations in organic agriculture is based on land reforms for the rich, which usurp the lands of poor and marginal farmers. This is what is happening in Punjab, where the govern- ment is taking over land by force from small farmers and handing it over to corporations planning to export “organic” vegetables and fruits. Just as chemical farming and GM seeds are driving farmers into debt and suicide, pseudo-organic farming, which is corporate and export-driven, is also killing farmers by taking away their land, their livelihoods. An agriculture that destroys biodiversity, uproots local farmers, and leaves local communities without food is not wor- thy of the label “organic.” To be organic is to be just and fair. An agriculture that turns rural areas into graveyards for farmers cannot be called organic. Organic means life-giving. Authentic organic farming gives life. Pseudo-organic farming ends life. To remain authentic, organic farming must be biodiverse, it must stay in the hands of small farmers, and it must deepen food sovereignty. Soil Not Oil.indb 126 8/25/08 2:01:05 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 127 In Navdanya, we work on the following principles of organic and local: • Food for the soil and her millions of microorganisms Organic can be organic only if the food rights of millions of soil organisms are protected. This involves the law of return, of growing food for the soil, not just growing commodities for the market. In fact all “developments” in industrial agriculture are methods of increasing commodity production at the expense of the soil. The Green Revolution, with its chemical-intensive dwarf varieties, killed the soil organisms and used techniques that did not return organic matter to the soil. Genetically engi- neered herbicide-resistant crops, like Roundup Ready soy and corn, deliberately kill vegetation that would have gone back to feed the soil. Feeding markets while starving the soil is a recipe for hunger and desertification. If we feed the soil, we will also feed people, and even have quality production for the market. • Food and nutrition for the farming family The tragedy of industrialized, globalized agriculture is that while commodity markets grow, people starve. More than 1 billion people are now permanently hungry. Most of them are from rural areas. Many of them are food producers. They are denied food either because their soils have been desertified or because chemical agriculture and costly seeds have got them into debt or because they are growing cash crops like cotton and coffee, which bring insufficient returns because globalized trade has pushed down farm prices, or because they have been pushed off the land. It is criminal that our annadatas, our food providers, should themselves be hungry. That is why we ensure that every producer family that is a member of Navdanya first grows healthy and nutritious foods for the household and only trades any surplus. • Food for local communities Everyone must eat. If food is not grown locally, local communi- ties will have to import their food from somewhere far away. That food will be more contaminated and adulterated and less safe. If local communities do not eat local produce, biodiver- sity will disappear from our farms and cultural diversity will disappear from our diets, making both the land and its people poorer. Soil Not Oil.indb 127 8/25/08 2:01:05 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 128 • Unique products for long-distance trade and exports Every part of the earth is productive. Every culture on the earth has evolved its diet according to the particular ecosystem it in- habits. As much as possible, food staples must be grown locally, both to produce what the ecosystem is best suited for, and to produce what local cultures have adapted themselves to. Trade in food must be restricted to what cannot be grown locally; it must be restricted to foods with both a high value and a small ecological footprint in terms of land and water use. Different vegetables and fruits grow in different climates. It is wrong to grow temperate-zone vegetables in the tropics and fly them back to rich consumers. This uproots local peasants, creates hunger and poverty, and destroys local agro-biodiversity. It also blocks the potential for localization in importing countries. Since vegetables and fruits are perishable, transporting them long dis- tances is highly energy-intensive, contributing to climate change. In India, the home of the mango, the Alphonso is only traded and eaten in Maharashtra and Goa, where it grows, and the Dash- eri is largely eaten in the northern regions where it grows. Global trade in perishables destroys the biodiversity of fruits and vegetables. One kind of Chiquita banana, one kind of Wash- ington apple ends up on every table. Local production for local consumption is the best way to conserve biodiversity, taste, and quality. Spices are a perfect candidate for long-distance trade. Tiny quantities are needed to add flavor to food. Spices grow in very specific ecosystems. They cannot be grown everywhere. They give high value with low volumes. This benefits the producer, who can also grow food. In Karnataka, spice growers use 10 percent of their land for spice gardens of pepper, cardamom, and areca nut and 10 percent for paddy for local consumption. These gardens have existed for centuries and are a model for farming that supports trade but is not destroyed by trade. “Spice of life trade” is justified when it enriches the giver and the receiver. Re-localization of our food systems has become an ecological and social imperative. Richard Heinberg, one of peak oils’ preemi- nent theorists, has pointed out that this will require the deindus- trialization of agriculture. Soil Not Oil.indb 128 8/25/08 2:01:05 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 129 The general outline of what I mean by de-industrialization is simple enough: this would imply a radical reduction of fossil fuel inputs to agriculture, accompanied by an increase in labour inputs, and a reduction in transport, with production being devoted primarily for local consumption. Fossil fuel depletion almost ensures that this will happen. But at the same time, it is fairly obvious that if we don’t plan for de-industrialization, the result would be catastrophe.52 Rob Hopkins, the inspiration behind the new transition- culture movement, elaborates on how energy-descent plans, or “powering down” of fossil fuel use, can be a “powering up” of qual- ity of life. The essence of an energy descent plan is that it creates a vision of an abundant low energy future. While the transition away from fossil fuels will be a task of unprecedented proportions, at the same time it offers the potential for a society which is better in many ways, more connected to nature, healthier with more meaningful work, access to nutritious food, enhanced social capital, and more cooperation.53 c l i m a t e c h a n g e a n d t h e t w o c a r b o n e c o n o m i e s : b i o d i v e r s i t y v s . f o s s i l f u e l s Reductionism seems to have become the habit of the contempo- rary human mind. We are increasingly talking of climate change in the context of “the carbon economy.” We refer to “zero carbon” and “no carbon” as if carbon exists only in fossilized form under the ground. We forget that the cellulose of plants is primarily car- bon. Humus in the soil is mostly carbon. Vegetation in the forests is mostly carbon. It is living carbon. It is part of the cycle of life. The problem is not carbon per se, but our increasing use of fos- sil carbon that was formed over millions of years. Today the world burns 400 years’ worth of this accumulated biological matter every year, three to four times more than in 1956. While plants are a renewable resource, fossil carbon for our purposes is not. It will take millions of years to renew the earth’s supply of coal and oil. Before the industrial revolution, there were 580 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere. Today there are 750 billion tons. That accumulation, the result of burning fossil fuels, is causing the climate-change crisis. Humanity needs to solve this problem Soil Not Oil.indb 129 8/25/08 2:01:05 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 130 if we are to survive. It is the other carbon economy, the renewable carbon embodied in biodiversity, that offers the solution. Our dependence on fossil fuels has broken us out of nature’s renewable carbon cycle. Our dependence on fossil fuels has fossil- ized our thinking. Biodiversity is the alternative to fossil carbon. Everything that we derive from the petrochemical industry has an alternative in the realm of biodiversity. The synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, the chemical dyes, the sources of mobility and energy, all of these have sustainable alternatives in the plant and animal world. In place of nitrogen fertilizers, we have nitrogen-fixing leguminous crops and biomass recycled by earthworms (vermi-compost) or microor- ganisms (compost). In place of synthetic dyes, we have vegetable dyes. In place of the automobile, we have the camel, the horse, the bullock, the donkey, the elephant, and the bicycle. Climate change is a consequence of the transition from biodi- versity based on renewable carbon economies to a fossil fuel–based non-renewable carbon economy. This was the transition called the industrial revolution. While climate change, combined with peak oil and the end of cheap oil, is creating an ecological imperative for a post-oil, post– fossil fuel, postindustrial economy, the industrial paradigm is still the guiding force for the search for a transition pathway beyond oil. That’s because industrialization has also become a cultural paradigm for measuring human progress. We want a post-oil world but do not have the courage to envisage a postindustrial world. As a result, we cling to the infrastructure of the energy-intensive fossil fuel economy and try and run it on substitutes such as nuclear power and biofuels. Dirty nuclear power is being redefined as “clean energy.” Non-sustainable production of biodiesel and bio- fuel is being welcomed as a “green” option. Humanity is playing these tricks with itself and the planet because we are locked into the industrial paradigm. Our ideas of the good life are based on production and consumption patterns that the use of fossil fuels gave rise to. We cling to these patterns without reflecting on the fact that they have become a human ad- diction only over the past 50 years and that maintaining this short- term, non-sustainable pattern of living for another 50 years comes at the risk of wiping out millions of species and destroying the very Soil Not Oil.indb 130 8/25/08 2:01:05 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

s o i l n o t o i l 131 conditions for human survival on the planet. We think of well- being only in terms of human beings, and more accurately, only in terms of human beings over the next 50 years. We are sacrificing the rights of other species and the welfare of future generations. To move beyond oil, we must move beyond our addiction to a certain model of human progress and human well-being. To move beyond oil, we must reestablish partnerships with other species. To move beyond oil, we must reestablish the other carbon economy, a renewable economy based on biodiversity. Renewable carbon and biodiversity redefine progress. They redefine development. They redefine “developed,” “developing,” and “underdeveloped.” In the fossil fuel paradigm, to be developed is to be industrialized—to have industrialized food and clothing, shelter and mobility, ignoring the social costs of displacing people from work and the ecological costs of polluting the atmosphere and destabilizing the climate. In the fossil fuel paradigm, to be under- developed is to have nonindustrial, fossil-free systems of producing our food and clothing, of providing our shelter and mobility. In the biodiversity paradigm, to be developed is to be able to leave ecological space for other species, for all people and fu- ture generations of humans. To be underdeveloped is to usurp the ecological space of other species and communities, to pollute the atmosphere, and to threaten the planet. We need to change our mind before we can change our world. This cultural transition is at the heart of making an en- ergy transition to an age beyond oil. What blocks the transition is a cultural paradigm that perceives industrialization as progress combined with false ideas of productivity and efficiency. We have been made to believe that industrialization of agriculture is nec- essary to produce more food. This is not at all true. Biodiverse ecological farming produces more and better food than the most energy- and chemical-intensive agriculture. We have been made to falsely believe that cities designed for automobiles provide more effective mobility to meet our daily needs than cities designed for pedestrians and cyclists. Vested interests who gain from the sale of fertilizers and diesel, cars and trucks, have brainwashed us to believe that chemical fer- tilizers and cars mean progress. We have been reduced to buyers of their non-sustainable products rather than creators of sustainable, Soil Not Oil.indb 131 8/25/08 2:01:05 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.

v a n d a n a s h i v a 132 cooperative partnerships—both within human society and with other species and the earth as a whole. The biodiversity economy is the sustainable alternative to the fossil fuel economy. The shift from fossil fuel–driven to bio- diversity-supported systems reduces greenhouse gas emissions by emitting less and absorbing more CO2. Above all, because the im- pacts of atmospheric pollution will continue even if we do reduce emissions, we need to create biodiverse ecosystems and economies because only they offer the potential to adapt to an unpredict- able climate. And only biodiverse systems provide alternatives that everyone can afford. We need to return to the renewable carbon cycle of biodiversity. We need to create a carbon democracy so that all beings have their just share of useful carbon, and no one is burdened with carrying an unjust share of climate impacts due to carbon pollution. Soil Not Oil.indb 132 8/25/08 2:01:05 PM Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil : climate change, peak oil and food insecurity. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unt on 2019-01-17 09:59:19. Copyright © 2009. Zed Books. All rights reserved.