The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
How to Turn Your Patch of Earth From Barren to Bountiful
By Courtney Lindwall
Growing your own juicy tomatoes or crisp peppers sounds idyllic. But in practice, backyard farming can be daunting. Many gardeners dealing with pests, weeds and unpredictable weather quickly find themselves questioning whether they are working with nature or against it.
Just ask John and Molly Chester, who bought a sandy, barren plot of land in Southern California eight years ago in the hopes of starting the farm of their dreams. New to farming, the couple relied on holistic, regenerative practices (and a lot of trial and error) to revive Apricot Lane Farms. Through their hard work, the 214 acres are now a lush, largely regenerating ecosystem with fertile soil, diverse animal life and an abundant orchard with well over 75 varieties of fruit trees. Better yet: The farm never uses toxic, synthetically derived pesticides, which can kill soil microorganisms, harm pollinators and other wildlife, pollute waterways and make us sick.
John and Molly Chester
The Chesters' story, recounted in the documentary The Biggest Little Farm, is a testament to the wisdom of nature's own fine-tuned systems — and the remarkable rewards that gardeners will reap if they follow its lead. Here's how to cultivate a bit of Apricot Lane Farms' success in your own backyard.
Feed Your Soil
When the Chesters arrived at Apricot Lane Farms, the ground was dry, hard and mostly devoid of life. They knew they'd need to convert dead dirt back into soil before they could grow any crops. "When it's biologically diverse, soil is like this alchemizer of death into life, but you have to feed it," John said. Feeding the soil means building its biota — its below-the-surface ecosystem of microorganisms like bacteria and fungi, which break down decaying organic matter and infuse the soil with nutrients for the next cycle of plant life.
If you find yourself with similarly unhealthy soil, the Chesters recommend worm compost tea: worm waste steeped in water to make a liquid fertilizer teeming with beneficial microorganisms. At Apricot Lane Farms, the couple built an entire vermicomposting (worm composting) facility, but you can make do at home. Just put some worm castings, i.e. the black earthy-looking particles in your compost bin (you can also purchase a bag of castings) into a bag made from old panty hose, cheesecloth or a porous T-shirt. Add the tea bag to a pitcher or bucket of water. "Brew" your tea by adding a sugar supply like molasses for the bacteria (which will feed and multiply) and a small aerator (like a bubbler you'd add to a fish aquarium), which will concentrate the beneficial aerobic microorganisms. Let it bubble for one to two days, stirring occasionally, until a layer of foam develops — a good sign of active microorganisms. Apply to your soil within 48 hours. (If you'd like more information before brewing your own, step-by-step recipes and video tutorials on making worm tea abound.)
Plant Cover Crops
Cultivating native grasses, or simply refraining from ripping out last year's garden plants, will help you maximize the number of living roots in the ground, which offers many benefits to your soil. But by far the best means of nourishing and building up your soil is by planting cover crops. Farmers often plant them after the primary crop has been harvested or in areas that would otherwise be bare. And as John and Molly can attest, they're a critical component of any holistic farming practice. Not only do they protect exposed soil from the baking sun, which can kill critical fungal communities and other important microorganisms, but they also prevent erosion, naturally suppress weeds, improve soil quality, sequester carbon from the atmosphere and minimize flooding.
Cover crops can also enrich your backyard garden. Many gardeners plant them in the fall, in order to protect the soil through the winter and into the spring. Cover crops can also carry nitrogen from the air down into the soil, eventually making it available for the roots of other plants. Come spring, you can then turn these plants into "green manure" by mixing them into the soil and letting them decompose, which releases beneficial nutrients. "Cover crops are protecting this complex universe beneath the ground," John said. "They're also creating soil structure with their roots and increasing oxygen so that you get healthy, aerated soil that is filled with aerobic bacteria instead of anaerobic." At Apricot Lane Farms, cover crops include a "cocktail of grasses and legumes," though the best species for your backyard will depend on climate and your garden's specific needs, be it weed resistance or soil regeneration.
A few common cover crop varieties to investigate:
- Hairy vetch: This legume is hearty, resilient and a powerful nitrogen fixer. Its long roots also help break up soil.
- Buckwheat: Known as a "smotherer," this cover crop will naturally help keep weeds at bay while attracting pollinators. It can then easily be tilled into the soil.
- Clover: The many species of this legume are known to be versatile and powerful nitrogen fixers.
- Alfalfa: This crop's long roots help aerate and bring up nutrients deep within the soil.
- Peas: These legumes taste good, yes, but they also fix nitrogen and crowd out weeds, too.
- Marigold: Well known for its vibrant flowers, this plant also naturally controls pests like insects, frogs, fungi and weeds.
Maintain Habitats for Pollinators and Other Native Wildlife
Biodiversity rules at Apricot Lane Farms. By planting hundreds of plant species with a wide variety of roles, the Chesters have invited in diverse animal life. "Think about an ecosystem as the planet's immune system," John said. "You're trying to imitate that biodiversity." In other words, a diverse ecosystem has better odds of being able to heal itself. Keeping as many pieces as possible of that ecosystem intact provides a natural check on any one plant, animal or disease running amok.
Here are some biodiversity boosters for your own backyard:
- Introduce native flowering species that provide food for visiting pollinators.
- Hang a bee nesting box somewhere it can get sunlight and warmth.
- Provide green, leafy plants for caterpillars to eat, such as milkweed for the monarch butterfly.
- Set up a small wood pile, using brush or old logs, as shelter for lizards, fungi and snakes (the latter can eat other pests, like slugs or rodents).
- Plant trees or shrubs that provide plenty of nesting and cover for birds, or set up a bird house.
- Add a barn owl box or just a simple roosting perch to a pole. Owls and hawks help with rabbits and gophers.
- If you have the space, create a reliable water source in the form of a pond or container garden, which will make your yard more attractive to birds, frogs and dragonflies. Stem the problem of mosquitoes by including goldfish or guppies, which eat the bugs.
- Plant a diversity of cover crops. Instead of just using clover, for instance, mix your clover seeds with some hairy vetch, legumes and more to help your soil reap a diversity of benefits.
To Manage Pests, Play Detective, Then Look to Nature to Help Crack the Case
Over the years, the Chesters have dealt with everything from snail infestations in the orchard to hungry coyotes picking off their chickens. But the challenges have only made them better problem solvers, says John. He suggests that every gardener facing an intrusion — whether by pest, predator or disease — ask a few questions before attempting to control it, especially through artificial means like pesticides or other harsh chemicals.
For starters, understand the source of the problem and what might be fueling it, he says. Then look at what its food is, and in turn what eats it. Finally, ask what conditions it does not like and what conditions benefit its predators.
With those answers, you may find a nature-friendly solution. Take slugs, the bane of many a gardener. If they're chomping down on too many of your leafy plants, think first of what could provide a natural check. Toads and beetles will snack on the slugs if given the proper habitat themselves, potentially ridding you of your problem without requiring use of chemical pesticides. You can also address what snails don't like — sharp, rough ground — and put a layer of crushed eggshell around your plants, which act as a natural deterrent.
"You start to frame the complexity and context of the things you're trying to coexist with," John said. "It's not harmony you want," he added, but a "comfortable level of disharmony."
Looking to take the next step? Consider connecting with a master gardener program in your home state. These programs will not only help you hone your own green thumb but also set you up to train others in your community who want to make a difference in their backyard or garden plot.
- How You Can Help Regenerate the Planet in 2019, Starting With Soil ›
- It's Time to Get Rid of Your Lawn! - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Tara Smith
Fires in the Brazilian Amazon have jumped 84 percent during President Jair Bolsonaro's first year in office and in July 2019 alone, an area of rainforest the size of Manhattan was lost every day. The Amazon fires may seem beyond human control, but they're not beyond human culpability.
Bolsonaro ran for president promising to "integrate the Amazon into the Brazilian economy". Once elected, he slashed the Brazilian environmental protection agency budget by 95 percent and relaxed safeguards for mining projects on indigenous lands. Farmers cited their support for Bolsonaro's approach as they set fires to clear rainforest for cattle grazing.
Bolsonaro's vandalism will be most painful for the indigenous people who call the Amazon home. But destruction of the world's largest rainforest may accelerate climate change and so cause further suffering worldwide. For that reason, Brazil's former environment minister, Marina Silva, called the Amazon fires a crime against humanity.
From a legal perspective, this might be a helpful way of prosecuting environmental destruction. Crimes against humanity are international crimes, like genocide and war crimes, which are considered to harm both the immediate victims and humanity as a whole. As such, all of humankind has an interest in their punishment and deterrence.
Crimes against humanity were first classified as an international crime during the Nuremberg trials that followed World War II. Two German Generals, Alfred Jodl and Lothar Rendulic, were charged with war crimes for implementing scorched earth policies in Finland and Norway. No one was charged with crimes against humanity for causing the unprecedented environmental damage that scarred the post-war landscapes though.
Our understanding of the Earth's ecology has matured since then, yet so has our capacity to pollute and destroy. It's now clear that the consequences of environmental destruction don't stop at national borders. All humanity is placed in jeopardy when burning rainforests flood the atmosphere with CO₂ and exacerbate climate change.
Holding someone like Bolsonaro to account for this by charging him with crimes against humanity would be a world first. If successful, it could set a precedent which might stimulate more aggressive legal action against environmental crimes. But do the Amazon fires fit the criteria?
Prosecuting crimes against humanity requires proof of widespread and systematic attacks against a civilian population. If a specific part of the global population is persecuted, this is an affront to the global conscience. In the same way, domestic crimes are an affront to the population of the state in which they occur.
When prosecuting prominent Nazis in Nuremberg, the US chief prosecutor, Robert Jackson, argued that crimes against humanity are committed by individuals, not abstract entities. Only by holding individuals accountable for their actions can widespread atrocities be deterred in future.
The International Criminal Court's Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, has promised to apply the approach first developed in Nuremberg to prosecute individuals for international crimes that result in significant environmental damage. Her recommendations don't create new environmental crimes, such as "ecocide", which would punish severe environmental damage as a crime in itself. They do signal, however, a growing appreciation of the role that environmental damage plays in causing harm and suffering to people.
The International Criminal Court was asked in 2014 to open an investigation into allegations of land-grabbing by the Cambodian government. In Cambodia, large corporations and investment firms were being given prime agricultural land by the government, displacing up to 770,000 Cambodians from 4m hectares of land. Prosecuting these actions as crimes against humanity would be a positive first step towards holding individuals like Bolsonaro accountable.
But given the global consequences of the Amazon fires, could environmental destruction of this nature be legally considered a crime against all humanity? Defining it as such would be unprecedented. The same charge could apply to many politicians and business people. It's been argued that oil and gas executives who've funded disinformation about climate change for decades should be chief among them.
Charging individuals for environmental crimes against humanity could be an effective deterrent. But whether the law will develop in time to prosecute people like Bolsonaro is, as yet, uncertain. Until the International Criminal Court prosecutes individuals for crimes against humanity based on their environmental damage, holding individuals criminally accountable for climate change remains unlikely.
This story originally appeared in The Conversation. It is republished here as part of EcoWatch's partnership with Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story.
By Natalie Hanman
Why are you publishing this book now?
I still feel that the way that we talk about climate change is too compartmentalised, too siloed from the other crises we face. A really strong theme running through the book is the links between it and the crisis of rising white supremacy, the various forms of nationalism and the fact that so many people are being forced from their homelands, and the war that is waged on our attention spans. These are intersecting and interconnecting crises and so the solutions have to be as well.
The book collects essays from the last decade, have you changed your mind about anything?
When I look back, I don't think I placed enough emphasis on the challenge climate change poses to the left. It's more obvious the way the climate crisis challenges a rightwing dominant worldview, and the cult of serious centrism that never wants to do anything big, that's always looking to split the difference. But this is also a challenge to a left worldview that is essentially only interested in redistributing the spoils of extractivism [the process of extracting natural resources from the earth] and not reckoning with the limits of endless consumption.
What's stopping the left doing this?
In a North American context, it's the greatest taboo of all to actually admit that there are going to be limits. You see that in the way Fox News has gone after the Green New Deal – they are coming after your hamburgers! It cuts to the heart of the American dream – every generation gets more than the last, there is always a new frontier to expand to, the whole idea of settler colonial nations like ours. When somebody comes along and says, actually, there are limits, we've got some tough decisions, we need to figure out how to manage what's left, we've got to share equitably – it is a psychic attack. And so the response [on the left] has been to avoid, and say no, no, we're not coming to take away your stuff, there are going to be all kinds of benefits. And there aregoing to be benefits: we'll have more livable cities, we'll have less polluted air, we'll spend less time stuck in traffic, we can design happier, richer lives in so many ways. But we are going to have to contract on the endless, disposable consumption side.
Do you feel encouraged by talk of the Green New Deal?
I feel a tremendous excitement and a sense of relief, that we are finally talking about solutions on the scale of the crisis we face. That we're not talking about a little carbon tax or a cap and trade scheme as a silver bullet. We're talking about transforming our economy. This system is failing the majority of people anyway, which is why we're in this period of such profound political destabilisation – that is giving us the Trumps and the Brexits, and all of these strongman leaders – so why don't we figure out how to change everything from bottom to top, and do it in a way that addresses all of these other crises at the same time? There is every chance we will miss the mark, but every fraction of a degree warming that we are able to hold off is a victory and every policy that we are able to win that makes our societies more humane, the more we will weather the inevitable shocks and storms to come without slipping into barbarism. Because what really terrifies me is what we are seeing at our borders in Europe and North America and Australia – I don't think it's coincidental that the settler colonial states and the countries that are the engines of that colonialism are at the forefront of this. We are seeing the beginnings of the era of climate barbarism. We saw it in Christchurch, we saw it in El Paso, where you have this marrying of white supremacist violence with vicious anti-immigrant racism.
That is one of the most chilling sections of your book: I think that's a link a lot of people haven't made.
This pattern has been clear for a while. White supremacy emerged not just because people felt like thinking up ideas that were going to get a lot of people killed but because it was useful to protect barbaric but highly profitable actions. The age of scientific racism begins alongside the transatlantic slave trade, it is a rationale for that brutality. If we are going to respond to climate change by fortressing our borders, then of course the theories that would justify that, that create these hierarchies of humanity, will come surging back. There have been signs of that for years, but it is getting harder to deny because you have killers who are screaming it from the rooftops.
One criticism you hear about the environment movement is that it is dominated by white people. How do you address that?
When you have a movement that is overwhelmingly representative of the most privileged sector of society then the approach is going to be much more fearful of change, because people who have a lot to lose tend to be more fearful of change, whereas people who have a lot to gain will tend to fight harder for it. That's the big benefit of having an approach to climate change that links it to those so called bread and butter issues: how are we going to get better paid jobs, affordable housing, a way for people to take care of their families?
I have had many conversations with environmentalists over the years where they seem really to believe that by linking fighting climate change with fighting poverty, or fighting for racial justice, it's going to make the fight harder. We have to get out of this "my crisis is bigger than your crisis: first we save the planet and then we fight poverty and racism, and violence against women". That doesn't work. That alienates the people who would fight hardest for change.
This debate has shifted a huge amount in the U.S. because of the leadership of the climate justice movement and because it is congresswomen of colour who are championing the Green New Deal. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaibcome from communities that have gotten such a raw deal under the years of neoliberalism and longer, and are determined to represent, truly represent, the interests of those communities. They're not afraid of deep change because their communities desperately need it.
In the book, you write: "The hard truth is that the answer to the question 'What can I, as an individual, do to stop climate change?' is: nothing." Do you still believe that?
In terms of the carbon, the individual decisions that we make are not going to add up to anything like the kind of scale of change that we need. And I do believe that the fact that for so many people it's so much more comfortable to talk about our own personal consumption, than to talk about systemic change, is a product of neoliberalism, that we have been trained to see ourselves as consumers first. To me that's the benefit of bringing up these historical analogies, like the New Deal or the Marshall Plan – it brings our minds back to a time when we were able to think of change on that scale. Because we've been trained to think very small. It is incredibly significant that Greta Thunberg has turned her life into a living emergency.
Yes, she set sail for the UN climate summit in New York on a zero carbon yacht ...
Exactly. But this isn't about what Greta is doing as an individual. It's about what Greta is broadcasting in the choices that she makes as an activist, and I absolutely respect that. I think it's magnificent. She is using the power that she has to broadcast that this is an emergency, and trying to inspire politicians to treat it as an emergency. I don't think anybody is exempt from scrutinising their own decisions and behaviours but I think it is possible to overemphasise the individual choices. I have made a choice – and this has been true since I wrote No Logo, and I started getting these "what should I buy, where should I shop, what are the ethical clothes?" questions. My answer continues to be that I am not a lifestyle adviser, I am not anyone's shopping guru, and I make these decisions in my own life but I'm under no illusion that these decisions are going to make the difference.
Some people are choosing to go on birth strikes. What do you think about that?
I'm happy these discussions are coming into the public domain as opposed to being furtive issues we're afraid to talk about. It's been very isolating for people. It certainly was for me. One of the reasons I waited as long as I did to try and get pregnant, and I would say this to my partner all the time – what, you want to have a Mad Max water warrior fighting with their friends for food and water? It wasn't until I was part of the climate justice movement and I could see a path forward that I could even imagine having a kid. But I would never tell anybody how to answer this most intimate of questions. As a feminist who knows the brutal history of forced sterilisation and the ways in which women's bodies become battle zones when policymakers decide that they are going to try and control population, I think that the idea that there are regulatory solutions when it comes to whether or not to have kids is catastrophically ahistorical. We need to be struggling with our climate grief together and our climate fears together, through whatever decision we decide to make, but the discussion we need to have is how do we build a world so that those kids can have thriving, zero-carbon lives?
Over the summer, you encouraged people to read Richard Powers's novel, The Overstory. Why?
It's been incredibly important to me and I'm happy that so many people have written to me since. What Powers is writing about trees: that trees live in communities and are in communication, and plan and react together, and we've been completely wrong in the way we conceptualise them. It's the same conversation we're having about whether we are going to solve this as individuals or whether we are going to save the collective organism. It's also rare, in good fiction, to valorise activism, to treat it with real respect, failures and all, to acknowledge the heroism of the people who put their bodies on the line. I thought Powers did that in a really extraordinary way.
What are you views on what Extinction Rebellion has achieved?
One thing they have done so well is break us out of this classic campaign model we have been in for a long time, where you tell someone something scary, you ask them to click on something to do something about it, you skip out the whole phase where we need to grieve together and feel together and process what it is that we just saw. Because what I hear a lot from people is, ok, maybe those people back in the 1930s or 40s could organise neighbourhood by neighbourhood or workplace by workplace but we can't. We believe we've been so downgraded as a species that we are incapable of that. The only thing that is going to change that belief is getting face to face, in community, having experiences, off our screens, with one another on the streets and in nature, and winning some things and feeling that power.
You talk about stamina in the book. How do you keep going? Do you feel hopeful?
I have complicated feelings about the hope question. Not a day goes by that I don't have a moment of sheer panic, raw terror, complete conviction that we are doomed, and then I do pull myself out of it. I'm renewed by this new generation that is so determined, so forceful. I'm inspired by the willingness to engage in electoral politics, because my generation, when we were in our 20s and 30s, there was so much suspicion around getting our hands dirty with electoral politics that we lost a lot of opportunities. What gives me the most hope right now is that we've finally got the vision for what we want instead, or at least the first rough draft of it. This is the first time this has happened in my lifetime. And also, I did decide to have kids. I have a seven year old who is so completely obsessed and in love with the natural world. When I think about him, after we've spent an entire summer talking about the role of salmon in feeding the forests where he was born in British Columbia, and how they are linked to the health of the trees and the soil and the bears and the orcas and this entire magnificent ecosystem, and I think about what it would be like to have to tell him that there are no more salmon, it kills me. So that motivates me. And slays me.
- 'The Battle for Paradise': Naomi Klein on Disaster Capitalism & the ... ›
- Naomi Klein: No Is Not Enough - EcoWatch ›
As the climate crisis takes on more urgency, psychologists around the world are seeing an increase in the number of children sitting in their offices suffering from 'eco-anxiety,' which the American Psychological Association described as a "chronic fear of environmental doom," as EcoWatch reported.
By Ben Jervey
Drivers of electric cars are being unfairly punished by punitive fees in several states, according to a newly published analysis by Consumer Reports. Legislators in 26 states have enacted or proposed special registration fees for electric vehicles (EVs) that the consumer advocacy group found to be more expensive than the gas taxes paid by the driver of an average new gasoline vehicle.
By Oliver Milman
Two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is either a crisis or a serious problem, with a majority wanting immediate action to address global heating and its damaging consequences, major new polling has found.