From: ah395@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey T. Hansen)
Subject: Re: Ban Gas Weedeaters
Reply-To: ah395@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey T. Hansen)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 20:02:45 GMT


In a previous article, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) says:

>
>Unfortunately it is those "stupid overpopulated Californians" who buy
>a heck of a lot of the agricultural produce....grown by you care-less
>farmers out there.

Now, there's no need to devolve into a flame fest here.  As a california
native who happily moved away many years ago, let me add a few caveats
here.  California is the leading agricultural producing state for 
many, many fruits and vegetables that are sold around the country.
Not the other way around as you infer above.  

>I don't like it here and expect to leave soon myself.
>The point is..for those of you who move to the country for hobby
>farming, homesteading, commercial farming, etc....it seems like
>pollution should be concern...if not because you will notice very
>little of its effects...but because

Hydrocarbon emissions is not a major problem in most parts of
the country, it's only the particular environment of the Southern
California that produces the 200 or more days per year of first
stage or better smog alerts.  The fact that a large portion of
America lives in this smog infested area is the problem.  They tend
to have a distorted view of the rest of america, with a what's good 
for us is good for you attitude.  Well, for a majority of us, that's
not the case.  Here in cleveland, for example, hydrocarbon emissions
are not a problem at all, with a freshening breeze off the lake 
keeping the air circulating, rather than the inversion layers that
trap the hydrocarbons in the Souther California area.  

Rather, we've got our own pollution problems to deal with, and 
we are dealing with them.  A large coal fired power plant in the area
spews tons of sulfur dioxide, for example.  That's a problem.  And
if we used more electricity, then they'd need to burn more coal!


>as we used to say in the 60s:  what goes around, comes around.
>Currently 200 acres per hour of land in the US alone is removed from
>natural or agricultural use for development.
>It won't be long before even the remotest farmers will feel the toxics.
>Why not farm according to an eco-moral standard?
>Especially if it is not significantly costly.
>-- 
>            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley


I always hated the saying what goes around comes around, because it's
so narrow.  While the earth is just one planet, and we all depend on
it for our day to day living, it is also an enormously complex system
with many built in checks and balances that we have no idea about, and
what we feel is a problem today may turn out to be nothing, on a 
global scale.  Basically, I do farm with a moral standard, but I don't
take a myopic view of the world as do most californians.

And by the way, I didn't understand the californian myopism until I moved
away, so don't be suprised by the shock when you do, too.  It's a BIG world
out here.

-- 
ah395@cleveland.freenet.edu
Jeffrey T. Hansen
Not affiliated with Case Western Reserve University

Newsgroups: misc.rural