Editorial reprinted from The Capital Press
Occasionally, I come across an article that sums up my same sentiments and says it much better that I can. This is a reprint of just such an editorial from the September 6th edition.
We like the concept of sustainability, and so does almost everyone.
It is difficult to argue against the concept of farmers, ranchers and others operating in a “sustainable” manner.
But a problem arises in defining the concept.
When it comes to agriculture, the definition of sustainable is in the eye of the beholder. A family that homesteaded 160 acres and has farmed that ground for 150 years need only look in the mirror to see what sustainable is. The farm has supported the family, provided a livelihood for generations and helped feed the world.
That just about says it all. By any measure, that farm should be considered sustainable.
Yet other individuals and groups have gone to great lengths to define and redefine sustainable using the lens they prefer. That can include leanings toward a particular type of production or lifestyle. Or it can include certain political tenets.
Agricultural concerns large and small are taking up the sustainable banner these days. They want to be able to tell their customers that the food they eat is not only good for them but that it is sustainable.
One example of this effort is General Mills, which has gone to farmers that produce some of the commodities that go into the company’s many products. Working with farmers, the company hopes to develop criteria that show those commodities are grown in a way that is sustainable. That makes sense. All companies, including food processors and retailers, need to listen closely to their customers. If customers want a certain type of products, including those produced sustainably, that company’s leadership would be wise to find a way to meet that expectation.
Working with farmers and others, the companies can develop a definition of sustainability that makes sense economically and environmentally.
Our biggest fear is that politicians might try to hijack the term sustainable. Mind you, government is famous for tripping over itself whenever a new buzzword enters the political lexicon. Some years ago, “renewable” was all the rage in state capitals and in Washington, D.C. Legislators wanted to define it according to their political leanings. Wind turbines and photovoltaic panels were “renewable” even though they required subsidies, but hydroelectric dams were not. In the West and the rest of the nation, dams provide flood control and generate massive amounts of low cost electricity, providing a renewable source of energy and bolstering regional economies.
Yet some politicians refuse to acknowledge that they are “renewable.”
Now sustainability has gained currency, and we can only hope that it will not fall to the same political fate as “renewable.”
Our hope is that politicians will resist the temptation to inflict their views on a concept that, to a large degree, is common sense.
We like the concept of sustainability, and so does almost everyone.
It is difficult to argue against the concept of farmers, ranchers and others operating in a “sustainable” manner.
But a problem arises in defining the concept.
When it comes to agriculture, the definition of sustainable is in the eye of the beholder. A family that homesteaded 160 acres and has farmed that ground for 150 years need only look in the mirror to see what sustainable is. The farm has supported the family, provided a livelihood for generations and helped feed the world.
That just about says it all. By any measure, that farm should be considered sustainable.
Yet other individuals and groups have gone to great lengths to define and redefine sustainable using the lens they prefer. That can include leanings toward a particular type of production or lifestyle. Or it can include certain political tenets.
Agricultural concerns large and small are taking up the sustainable banner these days. They want to be able to tell their customers that the food they eat is not only good for them but that it is sustainable.
One example of this effort is General Mills, which has gone to farmers that produce some of the commodities that go into the company’s many products. Working with farmers, the company hopes to develop criteria that show those commodities are grown in a way that is sustainable. That makes sense. All companies, including food processors and retailers, need to listen closely to their customers. If customers want a certain type of products, including those produced sustainably, that company’s leadership would be wise to find a way to meet that expectation.
Working with farmers and others, the companies can develop a definition of sustainability that makes sense economically and environmentally.
Our biggest fear is that politicians might try to hijack the term sustainable. Mind you, government is famous for tripping over itself whenever a new buzzword enters the political lexicon. Some years ago, “renewable” was all the rage in state capitals and in Washington, D.C. Legislators wanted to define it according to their political leanings. Wind turbines and photovoltaic panels were “renewable” even though they required subsidies, but hydroelectric dams were not. In the West and the rest of the nation, dams provide flood control and generate massive amounts of low cost electricity, providing a renewable source of energy and bolstering regional economies.
Yet some politicians refuse to acknowledge that they are “renewable.”
Now sustainability has gained currency, and we can only hope that it will not fall to the same political fate as “renewable.”
Our hope is that politicians will resist the temptation to inflict their views on a concept that, to a large degree, is common sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment