I've always tried to remain as environmentally conscious as possible in my actions, and as a result I'm almost exclusively pro-green in my views on politics and social issues. I love organic foods, I'm strongly in favor of attempts to reduce carbon emissions, and I constantly strive to find that perfect mix of efficiency, productivity, and sustainability in all aspects of life (including farming). So far in my life, these personal standards have usually gone hand-in-hand with one another. But like most issues in the world, there are always constant reminders that things are rarely black and white and never easy. A U.S. study recently made the claim that our modern intensive agriculture methods that came about from the Green Revolution in the 1960s (when new high-yield crops were developed to make formerly poor farming regions like India and South America suddenly fertile) has actually saved the planet large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, despite a heavier dependence on chemical and energy inputs.

At first this seems backwards, that requiring more energy and chemicals nets you less emissions. However, older methods of farming require much larger tracts of land to produce the same yields as the modern methods used in commercial agriculture (the food most of us buy when we go to the supermarket). To quote the article,

"Farming this way would have required less energy and use of chemicals such as fertilisers, whose production involves emissions of CO2 and whose use generates nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. However, additional emissions from the extra land clearance, releasing carbon stored in trees and soil, would have been the more important factor by far."

To us environmentalists (as amateur as I may be), this raises quite a dilemma. Organic farming (or older methods which still use inputs like pesticides but in smaller amounts) is less destructive to the environment in terms of poisoning the landscape and, potentially, ourselves; but since organic farms prohibit use of pesticides and most fertilizers, they generally require larger tracts of land to be cleared to produce comparable yields to modern techniques and thus contribute more to global warming.

It seems to me the solution to this dilemma might be the old adage "all things in moderation". From everything I've read over the years, there are some things that are really ok to buy commercially. On the other hand, there are some foods that I've heard you should always buy organic, such as peaches, bell peppers, and potatoes. (I really like this article of foods with the most as well as those with the least amount of pesticide residue, although the ads are a tad annoying). Of course it's always good to cut greenhouse gases, but at the same time I think it's important to reduce as many toxins entering the body as possible. What I really hope to avoid, though, is another "Penn and Teller: Recycling is Bullshit" scenario, where people get hold of a few facts on an issue and immediately polarize to one end or the other. The interplay between farming and the environment is complex and there is no 100% correct course of action to take, but that doesn't mean one side or the other is devoid of merit. So go out and buy some generic supermarket wheat bread and get hold of some organic peach jam, and have yourself a snack; on this issue, sometimes you can have the best of both worlds.