Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:53:38 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I said:
"Viewing an issue, such as the movement of bees, from the perspective of
not only whether it will be profitable today, but also whether this profit
will be enjoyed into the future seems farsighted, not unreasonable".
This is not an apology for the border being closed. I just don't find it
unreasonable to ask the question "is a practice sustainable or not".
I can see plenty of ways in which the movement of bees (particularly in
the realm of genetic material) could be an important part of a sustainable
system. I am somewhat perplexed that these arguemnts were not put
forward. A case could be made, for example, that moving bees from
California to Alberta was pretty sustainable because this system made a
lot of honey with a smaller material investment and with fewer inputs, not
to mention that more families were able to make their living from
beekeeping back then than now. It's unfortunate that the argument goes
straight to giving up and saying, "sustainability is essentially a slight-
of-hand that is used to undermine the legitemacy of beekeeping
associations".
The science of sustainability is not in the state of decay and
institutional constipation that the previous post suggests. Some of the
conclusions, when you do the work and make the calculations, have been
counter-intuitive. The organic specialist I saw last week wanted to know
if it took less non-renewable energy to grow lettuce out of season in the
midwest (under plastic hoop houses) or to truck it in from the south. You
might think that the rigid position of someone in organic agriculture
might be "local is ALWAYS better energy-wise". Not so. His sincere and
methodical study of the problem showed that shipping lettuce by truck
takes less energy than his best attempts to grow them in hoop houses.
Grow it in a heated greenhouses, he continues, and you might as well be
eating gasoline. Clearly there are many non-energy benefits to eating
locally-produced lettuce out of season in the mid-west, but energy, he
concludes, is not one of them.
It is a shame that we can't have a similarily informed discussion on the
sustainability of beekeeping practices.
Allen says:
"Suggesting that beekeeping is not sustainable is defeatist IMO".
I have made the case that eating honey is a more sustainable proposition
for Canadians than eating refined sugar from Cuba and Australia. Asking
for a critical discussion on the sustainability of our current practices
is not meant to be defeatist its simply a way to engage, rather than
sidestep, the issue that Ted began the thread with.
Adony
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|