Chris Malloy’s Newest Film Focuses on Food’s Relationship With the Environment

Author: Andrew Amelinckx | Published: August 1, 2017 

Malloy’s latest documentary is Unbroken Ground, which he made for Patagonia Provisions. The 25-minute film, released today, looks at four innovative solutions to agricultural problems, through the lens of the thought leaders behind them: Wes Jackson of The Land Institute, who has been working on a perennial wheat variety that could greatly improve soil health; Stephen Jones, the director of Washington State University’s The Bread Lab, a combination think-tank and baking laboratory that produces grain and legume varieties for small U.S. farmers; Dan and Jill O’Brien, the owners of Cheyenne River Ranch, who switched to raising cattle to bison, which they believe is a more sustainable protein source; and Ian Kirouac, Keith Carpenter, and Riley Starks, the founders of Lummi Island Wild, who use reef netting—a more environmentally friendly technique—to catch salmon.

Malloy, like his two younger brothers, Keith and Dan—who have also had storied surfing careers and are filmmakers—is a brand ambassador for the outdoor clothing and gear company Patagonia. He raises beef cattle on a ranch in Lompoc, California, where he lives with his wife and three kids.

We recently caught up with Malloy via phone to ask him about filmmaking, ranching, and more.

Modern Farmer: When did you begin making films?

Chris Malloy: Around ’97 I was making a living as a surfer when I had a kind of career-ending injury. I was confronted with either driving a tractor for my dad or finding another hustle. I’d been exposed to filmmaking through being in front of the lens for so long. I had a few bucks saved up so I went out for 18 months and made a surfing doc and fell in love with it. At the beginning, it was surf-oriented then it slowly and surely evolved into conservation and ag issues

MF: How did you get into ranching?

CM: I want to be super clear that while I run some cows and my wife grows a lot of food, I don’t make a living as a rancher, a farmer, or a fisherman. I do all those things out of passion and as a pursuit to feed my kids food that I’ve been involved in producing. I grew up having pigs, chickens, goats, and my dad grew some food, but he drove a dozer for a living. I think there’s a big delineation between folks who have a passion for growing food, and that special character who is crazy enough to make that their whole life. My wife and I dream of the day when we can do that full time. In the interim we get to feed our friends and family food that we’re really proud of.

 

 

MF: Tell me a little about the film’s premise.

CM: Farmers, ranchers, and fishermen are really demonized by our society. They’re seen as backwards and extractive. This film isn’t anti-farming, ranching, or fishing; it’s pro-farming, ranching, and fishing. It’s about alternatives that are financially viable so that the common man can feed his family—maybe not right now, but down the road. This film is not a victory lap, it’s a battle cry; it’s a report of where some visionary, half-crazy folks have gotten with offering an alternative vision for agriculture.

MF: Did you find a common set of ideas or ideals, which all the characters in the film share?

CM: All these people share a few things in common, but one is that they’re all a little crazy. They have a very educated hunch that they can supply a viable alternative to a specific area of agriculture, and they’ve dedicated their lives to it. This is about shifting agricultural systems worldwide. Wes Jackson says if you’re trying to tackle a problem that you can fix in your lifetime, you’re not thinking big enough. All of them have calloused hands and sunburned faces, but are also thinkers and philosophers, on some level. These people are doing it and have been doing it for decades. That, for me, was what made them collectively so inspiring to be around.

KEEP READING ON MODERN FARMER 
WATCH THE FILM HERE 

Here’s What Indonesia Is Doing About Haze From Forest and Peatland Fires

Author: Nithin Coca | Published: August 10, 2017

In 2015, massive fires burned across Indonesia, releasing hazardous smoke across neighboring countries. How close is the country to meeting its goal of reducing haze from future fires?

August 10, 2017 — Two years ago, Indonesia experienced the largest fire event in modern human history, with more than 2.5 million hectares (6 million acres) of tropical landscape burning, emitting more greenhouse gases than all of Germany does in a year. But the most visible sign of the disaster was the haze that spread across a huge swath of Asia; the particulates in the smoke sullying the air that tens of millions of people breathed. According to one study, the haze resulted in an estimated 100,000 deaths

It was a watershed moment — and one the world knew could not be repeated as global attention focused on the role forests play in regulating climate during that year’s COP-21 climate conference. Fires in the tropics are dangerous, emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases and releasing toxins, especially when they sit atop carbon-dense peat bogs. But these disasters have become commonplace in Indonesia due to exploitation of peatlands. 

“The root cause of this crisis was forest clearance and peatland drainage at large scale by the plantation sector, which has turned previously valuable ecosystems into huge monoculture plantations, while leaving remaining forests and peatland at high risk of burning,” says Annisa Rahmawati, forests campaigner at Greenpeace Southeast Asia. For years, both palm oil and paper pulp industries built canals to drain peatlands across the country to expand production, which cause them to turn from wet landscapes to dry ones, ready to burn. 

“Fires were a symptom of failed policies,” says Arief Wijaya, senior manager for climate and forests at the World Resources Institute Indonesia. “How the government managed land use was not effective.” 

Historically, agencies at national and local levels distributed land to smallholders and large plantation companies under a patchwork system with no comprehensive national oversight. The result was overlapping and conflicting boundaries, making it impossible to determine who controls burned land. 

KEEP READING ON ENSIA

The 12 Forward Thinkers Changing Style and Sustainability

Author: Lindsay Talbot | Published: July 19, 2017

Washington may be bailing on the planet, but the fashion industry isn’t.

hese people, from all different industries, all have one thing in common: They’re at the forefront of style and sustainability, and want to be part of the solution. They’re retrofitting factories and building stores that rely on clean energy and emit less of the carbon contributing to global warming. They’re transforming discarded plastics choking our oceans and waterways into jeans and sneakers. They’re developing innovations that reduce waste, recycling materials, and leading by the example of their personal choices. Trends in fashion may come and go, but taking care and being mindful of the environment is one trend that defies all seasons.

Here, the trailblazers we highlight in our first-ever sustainability issue, on newsstands now.

The Original: Yvon Chouinard

Because he sided with the planet long before it was trendy to do so.

PROFESSION: Founder, Patagonia.

ECO CRED: Founded in 1973, Patagonia has racked up major firsts in its steady march toward sustainability. First to switch all of its cotton clothing to organic in 1996 (and heavily invest in regenerative agriculture, working with farmers and scientists to develop technologies that rebuild topsoil and capture carbon in the earth for over 20 years). First clothing line to make fleece using recycled bottles. First to pledge 1 percent of annual sales (as an “Earth tax”) to grassroots organizations, for upwards of $82 million in grants and in-kind donations to date.

OFFICE SPACE: Under Chouinard’s stewardship, the company scrupulously measured the eco-impacts of articles of its clothing in The Footprint Chronicles on its website; converted its Ventura, California, headquarters to new solar-powered smart-grid energy systems; started the Worn Wear initiative, which repairs clothes so they can be used longer; and launched a Drive-Less program that rewards employees who carpool, take public transit, or bike, skateboard, etc., to work with a yearly stipend. Last year, staffers drove 798,900 fewer single-driver miles, cutting CO2 emissions by 589,900 pounds and saving 30,400 gallons of fuel.

KEEP READING ON MARIE CLAIRE

Fashion Waste Poised to Become Environmental Crisis

Author: Dr. Joseph Mercola | Published: August 16, 2017

Over the past decades society has moved from using biodegradable, recyclable natural products to highly resilient and nonbiodegradable plastics made with toxic chemicals. Plastics invade nearly every area of your life — even parts you don’t see, such as your clothing and microbeads in your makeup and facial products.

Each of these contribute to a rapidly growing problem in the environment, especially our oceans, where plastic micropollution is quickly overtaking the fish population. Discarded plastics are polluting your food supply and ultimately finding their way into your body where they accumulate over time. The risk grows with every discarded bottle, bag, shower curtain and load of wash.

Microfibers that enter the water supply from your washing machine are not the only ways fabric is fast becoming an environmental crisis. The fashion industry has nurtured people’s desire for new clothes to the point that trends shift weekly. These rapidly changing trends naturally result in more clothing being discarded, ultimately clogging up our landfills.

Clothing Purchases on the Rise

The Waste and Resources Action Plan (WRAP) in the U.K. estimates the average piece of clothing lasts approximately 3.3 years, but this estimate may be too high.1 According to one British fashion company, many customers only keep new clothing for about five weeks before it ends up being donated or thrown out.

Today, the average woman in the U.S. owns 30 different outfits, as compared to the nine she owned in 1930,2 and we throw away approximately 65 pounds of clothing per person each year. Americans spend more on shoes, jewelry and watches than on higher education, and 93 percent of girls say shopping is their favorite activity.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates the amount of clothing recycled is equivalent to taking 1 million cars off the road each year.3 But, 13 million tons of textiles still make it to U.S. landfills every year. The American apparel industry grosses $12 billion.4 Estimates are the average family in the U.S. spends $1,700 per person each year on clothing. The dollar amount is not significant as it represents a small percentage of annual spending, but the cost to the environment is steep.

Fashion Industry Waste Laden With Toxic Chemicals

While it may seem the number of textiles discarded are not important, as most fabric should be biodegradable, the reality is the large amount of clothing thrown away contains more than cotton. The textile industry has taken full advantage of chemicals available to protect the garment or make changes to the product without consideration for how these chemicals affect the environment.

Procedures to treat clothing include using specialized chemicals, such as biocides, flame retardants and water repellents.5 Over 60 different chemical classes are used in the production of yarn, fabric pretreatments and finishing.

When fabrics are manufactured, between 10 and 100 percent of the weight of the fabric is added in chemicals.6 Even fabrics made from 100 percent cotton are coated with 27 percent of its weight in chemicals. Most fabrics are treated with liquid chemicals to ready them for the fashion industry, going through several treatments before being shipped to a manufacturer.

Many chemicals have known health and environmental issues. Greenpeace7 commissioned an investigation into the toxic chemicals used in clothing. They purchased 141 different pieces of clothing in 29 different countries. The chemicals found included high levels of phthalates and cancer-causing amines. The investigators also found 89 garments with nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). Levels above 100 ppm were found in 20 percent of the garments and above 1,000 ppm were recorded in 12 of the samples.

Any level of phthalates, amines or NPEs found in clothing that remains against your body is unacceptable as they are hazardous materials. However, the dangers from these chemicals don’t end when you finish wearing the garment. As the material makes it to a landfill, these chemicals leach out from the fabric and make it to the groundwater.

Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) have been widely used in textile marketing and have been linked in epidemiological studies with several different types of cancers in humans.

These chemicals are so ubiquitous they’ve been found in the blood of polar bears and found in tap water supplies used by 15 million Americans in 27 states.8 Cheap, mass-produced clothing has given many individuals the chance to purchase the current style without breaking the bank. But an initial reduction in price on clothing may be at the expense of both people and the environment.

KEEP READING ON MERCOLA.COM

OCA and the True Potential of Organic Cotton

Published: August 8, 2017 

A prosperous organic cotton sector benefits everyone—from farmer to consumer. To realize the sector’s potential, we need to bring about the conditions that will allow the crop that safeguards the environment and enhances farmer livelihoods to flourish. 

The issue as to whether growing organic cotton produces lower yields is a hot topic. Clarity on this issue is important for understanding how far the lower social and environmental costs of organic cotton production are realized in practice.

To understand this issue, it is helpful to distinguish between organic cotton farming’s potential and what still needs to be done to fully realize that potential. Worldwide, organic cotton yield figures are highly variable. Organic cotton fiber yields reach up to 1,687 kg per hectare in Turkey, but just 508 kg per hectare in India, the world’s largest producer of organic cotton. Reaching the higher end of this yield spectrum is possible if the right enabling conditions are in place.

This is where the Organic Cotton Accelerator (OCA) comes in.  OCA partners have joined forces to solve the sector’s problems and ensure the yields and benefits of organic cotton reach their full potential. OCA partners are piloting interventions designed to improve the organic cotton farmer business case, increase transparency in the supply chain, and secure availability and access to quality, high-yielding organic seed varieties. OCA plans to scale these interventions to ensure the environmental, economic and social benefits of organic cotton are fully maximized.

KEEP READING ON ECOFASHION WORLD 

Towards a Climate-beneficial Wardrobe

Published: August 1, 2017 

Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.

Author: Lisa Friedman | Published: August 7, 2017 

The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.

The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.

“Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” a draft of the report states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.

The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote.

The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it.

One government scientist who worked on the report, Katharine Hayhoe, a professor of political science at Texas Tech University, called the conclusions among “the most comprehensive climate science reports” to be published. Another scientist involved in the process, who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity, said he and others were concerned that it would be suppressed.

The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency did not immediately return calls or respond to emails requesting comment on Monday night.

The report concludes that even if humans immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the world would still feel at least an additional 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit (0.30 degrees Celsius) of warming over this century compared with today. The projected actual rise, scientists say, will be as much as 2 degrees Celsius.

A small difference in global temperatures can make a big difference in the climate: The difference between a rise in global temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius and one of 2 degrees Celsius, for example, could mean longer heat waves, more intense rainstorms and the faster disintegration of coral reefs.

Among the more significant of the study’s findings is that it is possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change. The field known as “attribution science” has advanced rapidly in response to increasing risks from climate change.

The E.P.A. is one of 13 agencies that must approve the report by Aug. 18. The agency’s administrator, Scott Pruitt, has said he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

 

 

KEEP READING ON NEW YORK TIMES 

Loss of Fertile Land Fuels ‘looming Crisis’ Across Africa

Author: Jeffrey Gettleman | Published: July 29, 2017 

The two elders, wearing weather-beaten cowboy hats with the strings cinched under their chins, stood at the edge of an empty farm, covering their mouths in disbelief.

Their homes — neat wooden cabins — had been smashed open. All their cattle had been stolen. So had their chickens. House after house stood vacant, without another soul around. It was as if some huge force had barreled into the village and swept away all the life.

Sioyia Lesinko Lekisio, one of the elders, had no doubts who did this. Swarms of herders from another county had invaded, attacking any farm or cattle ranch in their path, big or small, stealing livestock, ransacking homes and shooting people with high-powered assault rifles.

“There’s nothing we can do about it,” he said. “They want our land.”

Kenya has a land problem. Africa itself has a land problem. The continent seems so vast and the land so open. The awesome sense of space is an inextricable part of the beauty here — the unadulterated vistas, the endless land. But in a way, that is an illusion. 

Population swells, climate change, soil degradation, erosion, poaching, global food prices and even the benefits of affluence are exerting incredible pressure on African land. They are fueling conflicts across the continent, from Nigeria in the west to Kenya in the east — including here in Laikipia, a wildlife haven and one of Kenya’s most beautiful areas.

 

Large groups of people are on the move, desperate for usable land. Data from NASA satellites reveals an overwhelming degradation of agricultural land throughout Africa, with one recent study showing that more than 40 million Africans are trying to survive off land whose agricultural potential is declining.

At the same time, high birthrates and lengthening life spans mean that by the end of this century, there could be as many as four billion people on the continent, about 10 times the population 40 years ago.

It is a two-headed problem, scientists and activists say, and it could be one of the gravest challenges Africa faces: The quality of farmland in many areas is getting worse, and the number of people squeezed onto that land is rising fast.

“It’s a looming crisis,” said Odenda Lumumba, head of the Kenya Land Alliance, a group that works on land reform. “We are basically reaching the end of the road.”

More than in any other region of the world, people in Africa live off the land. There are relatively few industrial or service jobs here. Seventy percent of Africa’s population makes a living through agriculture, higher than on any other continent, the World Bank says.

 

But as the population rises, with more siblings competing for their share of the family farm, the slices are getting thinner. In many parts of Africa, average farm size is just an acre or two, and after repeated divisions of the same property, some people are left trying to subsist on a sliver of a farm that is not much bigger than a tennis court.

A changing climate makes things even harder. Scientists say large stretches of Africa are drying up, and they predict more desertification, more drought and more hunger. In a bad year, maybe one country in Africa will be hit by famine. This year, famine is stalking three, pushing more than 10 million people in Somalia, Nigeria and South Sudan to the brink of starvation.

But much of Africa’s farmland is in danger for another, perhaps simpler, reason: overuse. Fast-growing populations mean that many African families can’t afford to let land sit fallow and replenish. They have to take every inch of their land and farm or graze it constantly. This steadily lowers the levels of organic matter in the soil, making it difficult to grow crops.

In many areas, the soil is so dried out and exhausted that there is little solace even when the prayed-for rains finally come. The ground is as hard as concrete and the rain just splashes off, like a hose spraying a driveway.

“There are going to be some serious food-security issues,” said Zachary Donnenfeld, a researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa. “More and more countries will be reliant on food imports. You’ll increasingly see the international community come into more rescue-type situations.”

The fact that several of Africa’s biggest economies have grown impressively in the past 10 years may seem like an answer, but analysts say the newfound affluence may actually compound these pressures.

As people gain wealth, they consume more — more energy, more water and usually more meat, all of which intensify the pressures on the environment. In Kenya, a piece of meat is one of the first things people treat themselves to when they get a little extra cash, and as the nation’s economy grows, so does the taste for beef. Cows have always been a traditional form of wealth; now they’re big business. In the past 15 years, the number of cows in Kenya has shot up by more than 60 percent to around 20 million, driving a scramble for grazing lands.

Some parts of Kenya are now so overgrazed by cows and goats that all the grass roots have been eaten, leaving large stretches of bare earth, as measured by NASA satellite imagery that tracks net levels of carbon dioxide absorption. Herders from bare-earth zones in Kenya are often the ones invading ranches.

Private investors are tramping in as well. Since the 1990-2005 period, global food prices have increased by 50 to 75 percent. Many foreign companies and local businesspeople have speculated that despite soil degradation, African farmland is destined to become more valuable. Small landholders across the continent are increasingly getting priced out or even evicted to make way for big commercial farms. This has led to conflict even in usually peaceful places, like Malawi, where a land-defense movement recently started to fight back against foreign-owned tea plantations.

KEEP READING ON THE NEW YORK TIMES 

Chickens Thrive in This Perennial Crop System

Author: Justin Rhodes | Published: July 19, 2017 

At Main Street Project chickens are the center of a regenerative agriculture system that can change how food is produced around the world. In this short video Justin Rhodes learns the basics of Mainstreet’s poultry-centered regenerative agriculture system. 

Main Street Project is developing an alternative food system to reverse the destructive trends of industrial agriculture. With a solid foundation of ecological, economic, and social principles, we ensure that our farms and the regional economies that grow around them serve the entire community. We know that for this model to take root, it must:

  • Compete in the market on quality and price
  • Be accessible to new and established farmers
  • Harness market forces to increase capacity and resilience

As expansion of the system leads to significant regional market share, and that expansion is repeated in other regions and other countries, a new model emerges that is capable of challenging the dominance of industrial food and agriculture. We provide consumers with what they want and need – good, healthy food – through a humane poultry-based production model that is profitable for farmers and fair to workers, restorative for rural communities, and regenerative for the environment.

LEARN MORE ABOUT MAIN STREET PROJECT HERE 

Countries With Coral Reefs Must Do More on Climate

Author: Michael Slezak | Published: July 11, 2017 

Countries with responsibility over world heritage-listed coral reefs should adopt ambitious climate change targets, aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions to levels that would keep global temperature increases to just 1.5C, the UN agency responsible for overseeing world heritage sites has said.

At a meeting of Unesco’s world heritage committee in Kraków, Poland, a decision was adopted that clarified and strengthened the responsibility of countries that have custodianship over world-heritage listed coral reefs.

Until now, most countries have interpreted their responsibility over such reefs as implying they need to protect them from local threats such as water pollution and overfishing.

But between 2014 and 2017, reefs in every major reef region bleached, with much of the coral dying, in the worst global bleaching event in recorded history. Over those three years, 21 of the 29 listed sites suffered severe or repeated heat stress.

Last month Unesco published the first global assessment of climate change’s impacts on world heritage-listed reefs and it concluded that local efforts were “no longer sufficient” – concluding the only hope was to keep global temperature increases below 1.5C.

The new decision builds on that assessment, clarifying the responsibility of countries with custodianship over world-heritage listed coral reefs.

The decision adopted by the world heritage committee said it “reiterates the importance of state parties undertaking the most ambitious implementation of the Paris agreement”, which it noted meant pursuing efforts to limit global average temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

It went on that it “strongly invites all state parties … to undertake actions to address climate change under the Paris agreement that are fully consistent with their obligations within the world heritage convention to protect the [outstanding universal values] of all world heritage properties”.

KEEP READING ON THE GUARDIAN