Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

It’s about time someone took Northern California’s high-technology prowess and applied it to building the green car.

In San Carlos, California, in the heart of the high-tech capitol of the world, a new company called “Tesla Motors” is taking up the challenge to build an electric car. As we demonstrate in “The 100% Electric Car,” there is technology available now to build a car that will run on batteries, with a range sufficient for nearly all normal commutes. Also in the article is a table that shows that at $.10 per kilowatt-hour (and electricity is often cheaper than that), it can cost under $.03 per mile to drive a car charged with electricity from the grid.

People who criticize battery-powered cars ignore the facts. The legendary General Motors EV-1 had a 1,600 pound battery pack and a range of about 100 miles. This was a great car; it had a range sufficient for most commute cycles, and it had a top speed of 185 MPH! The manufacturer actually installed a governor on the car to restrict drivers from going that fast. But the EV-1 used lead-acid batteries that only held about 90 watt-hours per kilogram. The nickel metal hydride batteries going into today’s hybrids have an energy density much higher, up to 200 watt-hours per kilogram, and lithium-ion batteries have gotten energy densities up to 300 watt-hours per kilogram.

Remember, as the weight of the battery pack diminishes, the range per kilowatt-hour of on-board storage goes up (since the car weighs less), so the improvement in range is more than proportional to the improvement in energy density. It is likely a car powered exclusively with batteries, using today’s technology, could have a range of 200 miles or more.

There’s more – hybrid cars as they are produced today are extremely complex because their internal combustion engine must be linked to the drive train. What if a battery-powered electric car had a range extending internal combustion engine that was connected only to an onboard generator? This engine would be able to run at maximum efficiency, since it would operate at a constant RPM. Also, with such a technology, you could throw away the expensive transmission – electric motors don’t need transmissions since they have a range of practical RPM sufficient for the normal range of vehicle speeds.

Using this ‘serial hybrid’ technology, far easier to manufacture and maintain, a 20 horsepower clean diesel engine, operating at efficiencies up to 40%, could extend the range of a battery powered car with today’s technology by nearly 50% – depending on many factors such as the size of the car, of course.

Tesla Motors was founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning. They have received $40M in investor funding and they already have over 80 employees. They intend to sell their first cars sometime in 2007. It will be very, very interesting to see what they come up with.

In parts of the world where there are heavy rains for a few months per year, then an extended dry season, managing water is a challenge. This is particularly true if there is a large urban population in such a region. Typically this challenge is met through construction of large storage dams and reservoirs. But there is another way.

For thousands of years urban dwellers have constructed cisterns to harvest runoff. But for the last fifty years or so, the conventional wisdom has been to ignore the potential of cisterns, and focus on dam building. Whether or not dams are a valid solution to water management, the ancient practice of building water storage capacity in the form of decentralized cisterns is making a comeback.

In a newly launched superblog “network of networks,” GoingOn.com, an ABC News Network reporter Dinesh Rawat has just posted news from India, where in Rajasthan, government policy is turning to cisterns to harvest water. Here it is:

“Rajasthan is likely to make water harvesting structures compulsory for all types of buildings and plots in urban areas, earlier this rule was mandatory only for plots of 300 square metre or more. Houses on all types of plots and buildings, including government, semi-government, educational institutions, commercial and industry buildings, will have to construct water harvesting structures. A bill to this effect will be introduced in the next session of Vidhan Sabha.

Local bodies minister Pratap Singh Singhvi said the rule has been critical in arresting the fast depleting ground water level. This rule, he hoped, would help in recharging the ground water. Singhvi said those buildings, which do not have water harvesting structures, would not be given water connections. The civic bodies at the time of map clearance of the building will deposit a security amount for building water harvesting structures. If the builder fails to build it, then the civic body would utilise the security deposit to construct it.”

In our article “India’s Water Future,” at the bottom of the story there is a chart showing water usage in India and elsewhere. Indians on average consume 470 cubic meters of water per year – Europeans on average consume 605. This would equate to a cistern nearly 8 meters per side for every person in every building. But because this per capita quantity includes water used for agriculture and industry, this is a misleading statistic.

According to ITT Industries Guidebook to Global Water Issues, the average urban dweller can enjoy an excellent lifestyle on just 150 liters of water per day, which is only 55 cubic meters per year. This would equate to a cistern less than 4 meters per side for every person in every building, a far more practical size. Moreover, cisterns don’t have to completely replace water distribution systems, nor is their storage necessary during the rainy season.

Taking these factors into account, cisterns of modest size can decisively solve the challenge of providing adequate water to urban areas that receive torrential rain for part of the year, but on balance experience water scarcity.

In spite of the fact that California is a state with ample open space for building, California is one of the worst places in the world to try to buy a house. There’s plenty of room for new homes, but far too few ever get built. At a staggering 163,707 square miles in size, California is so huge that its 35 million inhabitants only average 213 people per square mile. Germany, by contrast, has 598 people per square mile. The United Kingdom has 641 people per square mile.

In spite of having all this empty land, Californians have deluded themselves into thinking their open space is in jeopardy. Over the last 30 years, a powerful anti-growth lobby has developed that has stymied virtually all attempts to build roads and houses. Very few developers are able to weather this storm, and the homes they build are crammed onto lots so small you can barely fit a swingset in the back yard.

Because of development restrictions, we have tiny new homes costing $500,000 that are worth $150,000. Then we try to compensate by mandating “affordable housing” that reduces the price of a tiny house to a whopping $350,000. This is absurd and stupid, and is the result of a small lobby of fanatics manipulating the public, the media, and the political leadership.

Why shouldn’t a farmer be allowed to grow houses instead of food? Most of California’s cities grew on prime farmland. But per square mile, homes don’t use as much water as most crops, and there is no danger of California running out of farmland.

Even if building on farms isn’t a good idea, why should that stop development in hills and rangeland? Protecting endangered species is important, but has been turned into an over-used weapon by anti-development fanatics to stop property owners from building subdivisions.

If development restraints were dramatically lessened, we would have affordable homes for nearly everyone. It would completely transform our economy in a most positive way. It would allow people to live the American dream, instead of living in indentured servitude to their mortgages.

If development restraints were dramatically lessened, development would, ironically, take a more natural course, since many smaller players would be able to engage in more diverse and dispersed building. The result would be far more aesthetically pleasing than the walled off stucco canyons that typify current new housing projects.

Finally, if development restraints were dramatically loosened, inner-city farms and parks would not have to be “in-filled” out of existence. And outside cities, land would be cheaper allowing the purchase of easements to protect vast areas of greenbelts and farms, and developers would be able to afford to carpet the land with vast and beautiful swaths of rural “ranchette” communities.

The costs of stifling home building and road building are far, far higher than the benefits. Let property owners build homes if they want to, and give California back to the people.

In an earlier post “Power the World with Photovoltaics,” we demonstrate that the entire energy requirements of the human race could be fulfilled by a photovoltaic array 143,872 square miles in size. Insofar as this is only about one-quarter of one percent of the earth’s surface, or 668 square feet per person, there is no shortage of available space for photovoltaics.

With biofuel, however, there is a question as to whether or not there is enough land available to grow biofuel and also preserve farms and wilderness. For example, some of the best biofuel crops – biodiesel from jatropha and bioethanol from sugar cane – are able to produce about 6,000 barrels of fuel per square mile per year. This equates to about 55 million Btu’s of energy per square mile per year.

This means that using the best biofuel crops we’ve got today, to produce enough fuel to fulfill entire energy requirements of the human race (400 quadrillion Btu’s per year) we would need to devote 10.8 million square miles to growing biofuel. Considering there is only about 5.5 million square miles of arable farmland on the entire planet, this is not possible.

Biofuel is an important source of fuel, and in some parts of the world growing biofuel makes compelling economic sense, but today at least, biofuel doesn’t show nearly the potential of photovoltaics to efficiently turn sunshine into energy to power human civilization.

There is an interesting analysis “Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae,” authored by Michael Briggs at the University of New Hampshire. He cites studies that indicate biofuel may soon be economically derived from algae. But he makes a huge assumption – stating that algae farms could yield “5,000 gallons per acre-year.” This equates to a yield over 10 times that of the best biofuel crops we’ve got.

Comparing various forms of solar energy boils down to how efficiently they convert sunlight into usable power. Since raw sunlight provides 100 watts per square foot, a photovoltaic array that produces 10 watts per square foot has an efficency of 10%. Some photovoltaic arrays can do much better than that, with efficiencies reported as high as 20% on high-quality production panels.

You can make the same calculaton with today’s best biofuel crops – diesel fuel extracted from jatropha and ethanol distilled from sugar cane both produce about 55 million Btu’s per square mile per year. Since raw sunshine provides about 41 trillion Btu’s per square mile per year, their efficiency is a paltry .13%.

If the promise of biodiesel extracted from algae is realized, you will see a ten-fold improvement in biofuel efficiency, to 1.3% (based on 5,000 gallons per acre-year). At that level of efficiency – less than one-tenth that of today’s photovoltaics, but cheaper to implement – it might be feasible for biofuel to become a realistic alternative to petroleum.

If solar power is the purest form of renewable energy known, then how much solar power have we got? The answer to this question, when considered alongside how efficiently we can convert raw sunshine into usable power, helps determine whether or not it is realistic to consider solar energy as a viable alternative to conventional energy sources.

In full sun, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year.

With these assumptions, figuring out how much solar energy hits the entire planet is relatively simple. 12.2 trillion watt-hours converts to 12,211 gigawatt-hours, and based on 8,760 hours per year, and 197 million square miles of earth’s surface (including the oceans), the earth receives about 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million “quads” of Btu energy per year.

In case you haven’t heard, a “quad Btu” refers to one quadrillion British Thermal Units of energy, a common term used by energy economists. The entire human race currently uses about 400 quads of energy (in all forms) per year. Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.

Clearly there is enough solar energy available to fulfill all the human race’s energy requirements now, and for all practical purposes, forever. The key is developing technologies that efficiently convert solar power into usable energy in a cost-effective manner.

For energy conversion constants a good website is Energy Conversion, to help elucidate this data.

In a repeat of what happened last year, immediately prior to the 4th of July recess the US Senate will take up the debate as to whether or not to ratify the proposed anti-flag burning amendment. If the proposal is passed this time around, this amendment is sure to be ratified by 35 states in short order, and will become enshrined as part of the US Constitution.

This amendment must be stopped. The unintended consequences of the proposed 28th amendment, banning flag burning, will be far reaching. An amendment banning flag burning cannot possibly be interpreted in terms as narrow as its proponents may believe. The 28th amendment will stand in direct conflict with the 1st amendment, the right to free speech.

Imagine the interpretation and enforcement of the 28th amendment. What if a protester burns an American flag that has an extra stripe, or just one star, or is red, white and black instead of blue? What if a protester destroys an image of an American flag that is frosted onto a cake, or is immolated by virtual flames on a screen saver? What if a pundit or commentator merely utters rhetoric that desecrates the flag?

The flag amendment is designed to protect a symbol – not the flag specifically, but anything that might be reasonably construed as the flag, anything that can be said to represent the same sacred values the flag represents. By designating a specific symbol as unique, deserving protection that denies 1st amendment rights, where will the line be drawn?

If this passes, why wouldn’t any symbol that can be equated with the American flag – and by extension the America Republic – be able to claim special protection from desecration? There are infinite concepts and objects that can be symbolically equated with the American flag – and since it is the symbol that is being sanctified, all of these equivalent symbols will also become entitled to special protection.

Once this line is crossed, don’t depend on the courts to guarantee free speech rights in areas where the 28th amendment might be interpreted to apply. There isn’t recourse to constitutional rights when these rights themselves have been redrawn. The rules will change fundamentally. Proponents of the anti-flag burning amendment are not improving American rights and liberties, they are tampering with them in dangerous and unpredictable ways.

It’s interesting that the state legislatures, and the U.S. House of Representatives, which have overwhelmingly approved the proposed 28th amendment, are heavily gerrymandered institutions, whereas the U.S. Senate, where approval or rejection hangs by a thread, is the last legislative body in America that is not gerrymandered. Needless to say, flag descration is reprehensible. But America already has laws to protect important symbols and to restrict extremely offensive conduct. Modifying the constitution itself is a huge, unnecessary leap.

The reason Americans don’t want to burn their flag is because they can. Don’t take that reason away, or the sacred American freedoms represented by the American flag will be tragically undermined.

Based on reputable estimates, as of 2006, total world energy consumption has just topped 400 quadrillion BTU’s. Check the Infoplease website for a good summary of world energy consumption by region and by decade, including forecasts.

If it takes 3,413 BTUs to equal one kilowatt-hour (it does), and if you assume all energy consumption in the world is electrical, this would mean that in 2006 the world will consume about 13,370 gigawatt-years of electricity.

There are many critics of photovoltaic power, and one of their claims is you couldn’t possibly squeeze enough of these panels onto the planet to fulfill humanity’s energy needs. The purpose of this entry is to prove that criticism dead wrong.

How much panel area would be necessary to power the entire world with nothing but photovoltaic energy? How large a panel would it take to generate 13,370 gigawatts of electric power, all year around?

First of all, triple the power requirement, under the assumption that you only will get 8 hours of full sun per day. In reality the output of photovoltaics is somewhat better than that, but let’s satisfy the skeptics and stay conservative.

This means you will have to generate not 13,370 gigawatts of energy, but 40,109 gigawatts – all using photovoltaic panels. If you spread them all over the earth, in every time zone, you’ll be fine. How much land would it take?

Assuming 10 watts per square foot – and that is definitely conservative nowadays – you would need to cover 143,872 miles of the earth’s surface with photovoltaic panels. Does that sound like a lot? It isn’t.

This area equates to only .2% of the 56 million square miles of land on earth. It equates to barely one acre per square mile, or for our metric readers, about one quarter of one hectare per square kilometer.

Put another way, enough photovotaics to provide 100% of the energy currently produced from all sources in the world in 2006 would equate to only 668 square feet of photovoltaic panel per person, or not quite 70 square meters per person.

The entire world could be powered using photovoltaics while consuming no space other the rooftops of the world. The algebra is immutable.

Read The Coming Boom in Photovoltaics for an explanation as to why the price of photovoltaics is about to plunge, and read The True Cost of Photovoltaic Power for an explanation as to why photovoltaics are already a compelling long term investment, even at today’s prices and without subsidies.

Everyone seems to agree mass transit is the solution to everything. But what the mass transit advocates don’t tell you is that our freeways don’t have to be clogged up all the time, and that they are deliberately neglecting freeway upgrades while they pour money into mass transit that doesn’t work. Light rail only works in very high density urban centers, and if the anti-freeway people have their way in California, you are going to be “in-filled” into a world of high rises and stucco canyons.

Let’s not go any further without noting the cause of congestion is not freeways. That’s right. You heard that right. The anti-freeway folks have got us thinking freeways CAUSE congestion. They say the more roads we build, the more “bad development” occurs, and the more cars get stuck on the freeway. This is nonsense – population growth causes congestion, and more freeways alleviates congestion.

During America’s great freeway building boom of the 1960′s, the older and larger urban centers of America got plenty of freeways. Urban planners back then hadn’t faced the mighty anti-freeway coalition, and common sense prevailed. Freeways were blasted through the hearts of these cities, and a building boom ensued. Today, thanks to freeways, great suburbs with big lots (instead of postage stamp-sized lots) were built, and Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area were born as great cities of the world.

Later in the 1980′s and the 1990′s the freeway building boom wound down, but the population of California kept growing. Between 1960, when the freeway programs were being implemented, and 2005, the population of California has increased from 15 million to 35 million people. And for this reason, cities that grew primarily during the 1960′s and 1970′s have good freeway systems, and cities like Sacramento do not.

If you wait in your car for hours each day, barely moving, in one of three meager northbound lanes on Interstate 5, trying to make it in to Sacramento, remember this – there should be at least five northbound lanes in that area. When you sit on Sunrise Blvd. trying to go north anywhere near Highway 50 at 6 p.m., remember this – there should be at least four northbound lanes in that area, and Bradshaw Road needs to be extended northwards to I-80 via a new eight lane bridge over the American River. Those are a few examples.

To connect the San Francisco Bay Area to California’s Central Valley, another freeway, at least eight lanes, needs to be built connecting Interstate 680 to Interstate 5. And interstate 580 over the Altamont Pass needs to be widened to at least ten lanes. This is what needs to be done.

Within a few years California will have 40 million people living with a freeway system designed for a state with 20 million people. That’s the hard fact, and pretending the car is going to go away, or that shoppers in the exurbs are going to take light rail to the grocery store, is complete nonsense. We need more freeways.

Anti-freeway fanatics believe more freeways cause congestion. They are wrong. Population growth causes congestion. Why don’t they advocate putting a fence around the Nevada and Oregon borders, in addition to the Mexican border, and then implement a “one-child” plan like the Chinese did? Who knows, maybe by 2150 we could get our population down to 20 million, and have unclogged freeways.

Along with building more freeways and adding more lanes to freeways, we need to get rid of car pool lanes. First of all, they are discriminatory – anyone on an urgent errand or who is on-call can’t arrange for a car pool partner. But equally important, car pool lanes don’t reduce congestion, they cause congestion. Just when freeways need the most lanes, they are choked off and less flow occurs.

While we’re at it, enough already with fighting developers. It is ridiculous that a home should cost a half-million dollars on a tiny piece of land in California’s Central Valley. Instead of high density infill – which ruins city neighborhoods and causes traffic congestion – we need more low density sprawling suburbs interlaced generously with greenbelts, freeways, expressways and ranchettes. We have totally green homes just around the corner, that produce energy and process water efficiently. We have totally green cars practically here already, ultra-low emission cars, clean diesel cars, flex fuel cars, and battery-assisted cars. Homes and cars won’t hurt the environment, so what’s the beef with suburban sprawl if it’s done tastefully?

Gentlemen, get out the bulldozers. Unclog the roads and recreate the California nation.

Ceago Del Lago on the spring equinox, 2006 with Mount Konocti in the distance

Jim Fetzer owns a winery called Ceago del Lago in a fine place in California where the hills meet the northern shore of a lake. In the winter the sun shines directly onto the slopes beyond the water and bathes the land in light, allowing a sheltered microclimate where grapes grow warmer. Vineyards march up the low hillsides, and on the shore, a mission-nouveau chateau rises in the misty flats just off the lake.

In this pristine spot, where the air is cleaner than anywhere else in the USA, this winery and vineyards have arisen that emulate the vision of the pioneer of organic farming, Rudolf Steiner. His principles of biodynamic farming, recorded in 1924, were the first formal compilation of organic farming techniques, and in many respects remain the epitome of organic farming theory and practice. In northern California several notable wineries have adopted biodynamic practices, and the wines they make are as good as any.

Biodynamic farming claims to be the original and purest form of organic agriculture. Often misunderstood because biodynamic theories include aspects of mysticism, the practical concepts of biodynamics are the key to restoring the earth, reinvigorating lands; when chemicals and corporations fail, biodynamics can bring back what has been lost in our mechanized world. Ceago’s winery and vinegarden apply the best of biodyamics; scrupulous adherance to the practice of biodynamic agriculture, with a respectful acknowledgement of the vast gray area where realities of the seasons finally may give way to superstition.

Jim Fetzer Founder of Ceago Del Lago

“It makes sense to work with the rhythms of nature instead of fight them.”

So says Jim Fetzer, owner and founder of Ceago. Fetzer, along with three of his grown children, Katrina, Barney, and Andraya, founded Ceago in 2000, and what they’re doing is a textbook example of biodynamic farming techniques.

There are significant distinctions between organic farming and biodynamic farming. As organic farming techniques have become increasingly mainstream, they have also embraced compromises that have invited criticism from the early adopters. Organic pesticides, for example, are concentrated natural substances which can be just as toxic and as persistant as synthetic pesticides.

“Organic farming has done a good job selecting treatments that won’t hurt people, but applied to insects they can be just as deadly to the good insects and micro-organisms as chemicals,” said Ceago’s vintner and winemaker, Javier Tapia.

Biodynamics is a word built on two words derived originally from ancient Greek; bio, meaning life, and dyn, meaning force. Biodynamics rests on the premise that any farm is still a natural ecosystem to be nurtured, that soil and cash crop health is dependent on retaining a natural balance where the health and vitality of the other plants, animals, insects, micro-organisms and soil are all integral to productive and sustainable farming.

The Ceago Fetzers www.ceago.com

Embracing biodynamic practices was a natural extension of a commitment to organic winemaking that has a long history in the Fetzer family. The patriarch of the family, Bernard Fetzer, started up a winery in the Ukiah area back in the 1960′s, and was among the first to go totally organic. When he passed away in 1981, his wife and their eleven children kept alive the family tradition, until the popular Fetzer brand was sold by the family in 1992. For eight years, under the terms of the sale, the Fetzer family had agreed to stay out of the winemaking business. But during this time they continued to grow grapes, extending and intensifying their understanding of biodynamic techniques, and when their non-compete agreement expired, several of the Fetzer children, Jim Fetzer among them, jumped back into winemaking.

Semi-wild cover crops shelter the awakening vines on a warm weekend of early spring

As soon as you approach the the 270 acre Ceago del Lago estate, you know you aren’t visiting just another winery. The Fetzers, who have a reputation for going first class, aren’t holding back. The mission-style winery, nestled on the shoreline, might just be one of the most beautiful new structures you’ve ever seen. To one side are the shimmering waters of Clear Lake, which at 67 square miles of surface and over 100 miles of shoreline is the largest freshwater lake in California. To the other side of the winery vineyards stretch across the flats, backdropped by rolling hills of grass and oak. It is a magical place.

The winery buildings may look like they are made of mission adobe, or Florentine stone, but in reality are constructed of huge blocks made out of a mixture of recycled styrofoam and concrete. These blocks, which are over a foot thick, are hollow in the middle, so when they’re stacked, their hollow core can be filled with steel rebar and cement, creating an extremely strong structural wall. With the outside covered with stucco, these walls are not only structurally strong, but they provide great insulation. These thick walled structures also contribute, of course, to Ceago’s architectural charm. They are manufactured by a Texas based company called Perform Wall, and they are truly building blocks for the green age.

The practice of biodynamic farming rests on six interrelated principals:

Plant Diversity: The farm is an ecosystem, and to be healthy, the farm must embrace, utilize and emulate nature. The land on the farm needs to include habitat corridors and fallow areas. Some plants restore essential nutrients that other plants deplete, and visa versa. With biodynamics, encouraging this synergistic diversity is extended to micro-organisms through composting and use of homeopathic sprays that nurture beneficial micro-organisms.

Crop Rotation: Biodynamics depends on soil enrichment through regular crop rotations. Different food crops, cover crops, as well as leaving land fallow or wild all helps to maintain healthy soils. Crop rotation with biodynamics encourages beneficial insects, reduces compaction, and recycles nutrients.

ATTRA National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service

Composting: This is perhaps the heart of a biodynamic farm, with a focus on soil quality, promoting growth, utilizing natural enrichments. Steiner’s biodynamic vision relied on six key preparations, most of which are buried in the fall then unearthed and spread in the spring – all of this during precise periods in the solar year. Some stay buried a full year. These include chamomile flowers packed into a bovine intestine, oak bark buried inside the skull of a domestic animal, dandelion flowers stuffed into a bovine peritoneum (abdominal cavity), yarrow flowers filling a stag’s bladder, as well as burying whole plants of stinging nettle and valerian flower extract. Each of these are treated in very specific manners in order through their decomposition to greatly enrich and revitalize compost and planting areas.

Homeopathic solutions: Homeopathy is the practice of using minute quantities of material to have a large effect on a large environment. Steiner specified two key homeopathic preparations, one to catalyse formation of life, and one to optimize distribution of light. Each of them are first prepared by burying the material in a cow’s horn through the winter. His life formula uses manure containing billions of diverse microbial organisms, which multiply in the fertile fields if mixed with water and sprayed during certain climatic conditions. This formula, so potent a few ounces can easily cover an acre or more, helps create life in the soil, it promotes root activity, stimulates soil micro-life and increases growth of beneficial bacteria. Steiner’s light formula, minutely ground quartz crystals, is mixed in minute quantities with water and sprayed onto the plants where millions of tiny prisms then capture and distribute more light, enhancing photosynthesis, bringing more light to the vines or other plants.

Weed Eating Compost Spreaders - Certain times of year, Ceago’s sheep range free among the vines

Animal life: All native animal life as well as a spectrum of domestic farm animals should be encouraged and managed in an optimal way on every farm. Animals who live on the farm help control weeds and insects, and contribute manure. Wild animals are not discouraged, only managed. Ways Ceago’s keepers nurture animal life is by grazing sheep to eat the weeds (they don’t bother the grapes) at the same time as their manure enriches the soil. Similarly, chickens are released within a mobile chicken coop to eat insects and produce compost.

Life forces: Biodynamics embraces the totality of the influence of the cosmos, not stopping at close attention to the cycles of the sun and moon, which obviously do influence the seasons, but also the planets and stars. Whether or not these finer points are valid is somewhat irrelevant, they provide guidelines that schematicize the myriad of necessary cycles; racking wine, pruning trees, the harvest, the crush. Who is to say where to draw the line between recognizing the influence of the phases of the moon on plants – which is generally accepted – and the influence of the planets, which obviously have a much more subtle role? Steiner certainly didn’t shy away from acknowledging cosmic forces, for better or for worse.

Rudolph Steiner, the founder of biodynamics, was a scientist and mystic whose protean output of writings influenced disciplines ranging from education to theology and philosophy.

It was relatively late in his life, in 1924, that he gave farmers, researchers and landowners who became the founders of biodynamic agriculture two weeks of instruction in his theories in Koberwitz, Silesia, in a part of Germany that is now southwestern Poland. Into seven scintillating lectures he attempted to synthesize everything he’d learned about biodynamic agriculture, incorporating not only scientific principals of agriculture that were being established in that day, but also traditional farming techniques which were being lost in the onrush of modernity. His lectures, which have been compiled in his classic book, Agriculture, aspired to combine the best of these traditions, while comingling somewhat more controversial theories about the influence of astrological forces.

Ceago Fetzers Andraya, Katrina, and Barney

When I asked the Fetzers about the mystical elements of Steiner’s philosophy, they didn’t cringe. “We can’t take everything Steiner said at face value, we have to rely on what works and we have to update his teachings for what we learn,” said Barney Fetzer, who clearly has studied the Steiner writings in great detail. Much of the concepts Steiner writes about that appear at first glance to be somewhat far fetched are in fact well recognized practices around the world, especially in areas where knowledge of traditional agricultural techniques are still strong.

As Katrina Fetzer pointed out, planting on the full moon, when there is less gravity, or pruning on the new moon, when there is more gravity, are time-honored practices that have been validated by empirical observation. Whether or not this means that the timing of other agricultural techniques should take into account the positions of the planets is more debatable, of course, but throughout Steiner’s book
“Agriculture” he reiterates his belief that farmers must see for themselves. Everywhere in Steiner’s writings he urges the readers to verify all of his ideas with scientific experimentation.

If the mystical aspects of the theory and practice of biodynamic agriculture animate its critics, these critics might do well to also reflect on what has happened to organic agriculture as it has gone mainstream. In the May 15th, 2006 issue of the New Yorker, in an article entitled “Paradise Sold,” the author Steven Shapin examines what he calls “Big Organic” agriculture. In this wholly commercialized realm, for example, USDA certified “free range” chickens are grown in a factory warehouse with 20,000 genetically identical birds. Only two small doors open up onto a small outdoor area, and they are only opened up after the birds are six weeks old. Are these birds better than the antibiotic-saturated non-organic chickens? They probably are, but how they are raised is grossly removed from the ideals of organic farming. Big Organic agriculture has been completely coopted by industrial farming techniques, and needs to have its drawbacks recognized equally with its undeniable accomplishments.

Demeter USA The prevailing Biodynamic certification organization in the United States

If anything might give one pause about biodynamic agriculture, and, for that matter, organic agriculture performed as it was originally intended, it is the high level of knowledge required for its successful practice. It is theoretically possible to eke equal measures of calories from the land using sustainable agricultural practices compared to chemical dependent practices. But the number of people involved in farming worldwide, and the level of expertise they would have to possess, would have to increase by orders of magnitude. Is it likely that we will repopulate the great plains of North America with small biodynamic – or organic – intensively cultivated farms? Because if we did, then American crops might still feed the urban centers of the world, but how likely is that? It is a beautiful dream, but in reality biodynamic or pure organic agriculture will probably remain a practice that takes root slowly, establishing niches of enlightened practitioners all over the world. The best we may hope for at the level of agricultural commodities may be Big Organic, somewhat reformed, more thoughtfully monitored, incrementally improved, but never completely true to its ideals.

Biodynamic agriculture is a science and belief system that transcends Steiner, or anyone’s individual theories and teachings. It was articulated first by him, partly in reaction to the onslaught of industrialized agriculture that began a century ago. Mechanization, chemical treatments, and increasing standardization of agriculture prompted Steiner’s attempt to preserve millenia of accumulated wisdom and superstitions which in their application had practical value – and were being washed away in a single generation.

To see the farm as a healthy ecosystem, to emphasize the health and interdependence not just of the crops, but all the plants, along with the farm animals and wildlife, and the soil and micro-organisms – to recognize the uniqueness of each terrain and live sustainably within the seasons – this at the core is highly advanced organic agriculture, true to its highest ideals. That is what Steiner, who in his heart and throughout his intellectual output was a scientist first, meant to be the overriding meaning of biodynamic agriculture. Biodynamics is a science that is meant to evolve, shedding the superfluous, yet recognizing the seasons, the stars, the individuality of each farm, each farmer, each climate and micro-climate, indeed every distinct culture and tradition where it may find its expression.

Refining & spreading biodynamic theories Will Ceago be Koberwitz for the 21st Century?

The Fetzers have plans to expand their Ceago winery buildings to accomodate gatherings perhaps not unlike the one where Steiner gave his lectures back in 1924. A place where anyone can come to learn alternatives to industrial agriculture, and learn about ways to restore lands that have been overused. Imagination alone can visualize exactly what it may have been like in 1924, on a great estate in a tranquil corner of Germany, in the middle of a restless continent, during brief decades of respite from the horrors of total war.

Looking back in time to Koberwitz just eighty years ago, no doubt the hills of Silesia were all the more beautiful because it was during too few years of fitful peace during that second week in June when biodynamics first took root, as the summer solstice approached, and Steiner passed his inspiration on to posterity.

If any place might do such a historical moment justice, and serve as a venue to help carry the principles of biodynamics into the 21st century, it is Jim Fetzer’s spectacular winery “Ceago del Lago” (www.ceago.com) in California’s verdant Lake County, nestling on Clear Lake’s tranquil and bucolic northern shores where land meets water. Who is to say what great new ripples will emanate from these biodynamic pioneers in the heart of California?

Biodynamic Associations and Reference Sources:

Demeter USA

http://www.demeter-usa.org/

ATTRA – National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (logo image)

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodynamic.html#abstract

ATTRA

Objectives in Biodynamic and Conventional Farming

- table showing contrasts

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodynamicap1.html

ATTRA

Yield and Quality Under the Influence of Polar Opposite Growth Factors

- table showing earth vs. cosmic

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodynamicap2.html

The Biodynamic Agricultural Association – U.K.

http://www.biodynamic.org.uk/

Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association (BDA) – USA

http://www.biodynamics.com/bda.html

Biodynamic Agriculture Australia

http://www.biodynamics.net.au/index.htm

The Anthroposophic Press – USA

http://www.steinerbooks.org/products.html?&cat=8

Biodynamic Growing – Australia

http://www.bdgrowing.com/

Private Institutions offering long-term courses in biodynamic agriculture and anthroposophy in Europe:

Emerson College, United Kingdom

http://www.emerson.org.uk/

Skillebyholm, Sweden

http://www.jdb.se/beras/default.asp?page=27

Landbauschule Dottenfelderhof, Germany

http://www.dottenfelderhof.de/

Warmonderhof, Netherlands

http://www.warmonderhof.nl/warmhof/english.htm

Formation en Agriculture Bio-Dynamique, France

http://www.bio-dynamie.org/

Institute for Biodynamic Research – Germany

http://www.ibdf.de/

One of the favorite quotes of conservatives comes from none other than the great statesman Winston Churchill, who said “a young person who isn’t a liberal has no heart, and an old person who isn’t a conservative has no brain.” This quote has become an interesting but perhaps underexamined truism. Perhaps Churchill was dead wrong about this.

First of all, for Churchill to declare such a dichotomy at all is suspect. It implies that liberalism is all heart and conservatism is all brain. Wouldn’t one think both heart and brain are necessary to weigh ethical issues and the public policies that might support them? But Churchill’s quote is even more problematic than this – because even if one accepts his dichotomy, it should be turned on its head. It is the young who are smart, and the old who have heart.

When you are young, being a conservative is easy. A young person is invulnerable. Their life stretches out before them interminably. If they are knocked down, they get right up. They don’t usually suffer infirmities. If their luck is bad, their luck will change. If they are weak, they will get stronger. There is time, and a world to conquer. Nothing bad can happen to them. If life is a laissez-faire, Ayn Randian, Hobbesian jungle – good! They will fight; they will win.

When you start to get old, your outlook usually changes. An older person is more likely to have realized that there may not be that big win. An older person may not get up as quickly when they’re knocked down. An older person may know how hard it is to get insurance coverage when they’re sick, or a job when their skills are outdated. An older person realizes that bad things can happen to you even if you work hard, and have the vision and integrity that a competitive society is supposed to reward. An older person knows the world isn’t always fair, and that maybe they’ll need help someday, in spite of everything they ever did.

It is time, pain and scars that puts empathy into the hearts of older people. It is time that takes away the arrogance that a young person might carry. It isn’t the brain that grows when people get old, it’s their hearts. The empathy and caring that comes from the heart – the last defense against bitterness and hopelessness – the heart.

Churchill was wrong on this quote, clever though it sounds. It takes heart and mind together to turn beliefs into policy. It takes the bleeding heart liberal working with the rigidly analytical conservative to take the challenges we face inside and outside America, and come up with solutions that will ease the ills of our time, and win hearts and minds, and build prosperity and freedom and peace.