Down on the Farm

I am elated to hear megabusinesses are now quantifying efficiency of resources, realizing it affects the sustainability of their bottom line -- better late than never. I am dismayed to see the nascent concept of sustainability being "defined" by Unilever and Walmart, as described in "What's New for Dinner," by Frederick Kaufman (Fall 2010). Any accounting of environmental impact that ends at the point of sale is woefully inadequate and misleading. I would encourage the use of a clearer term such as cost analysis and leave the word sustainability for the larger concept of choosing human actions that leave the biosphere intact for our great-great grandchildren. In that sense, no matter how efficiently resources are used to create and sell a product, the most sustainable action is often not to make or buy the product at all.

Posted online by J Rain

Frederick Kaufman describes a "best business practices" approach to industrial farming, which, of course, makes sense to anyone in business. However, I found the author's use of the term sustainable totally unrelated to the farming operations he was describing, no matter what metrics the growers/producers use. Metrics are money-managing devices, not sustainability devices. Using less of a finite resource (natural gas, for example, in the production of nitrogen fertilizers) is still using a finite resource and is not ultimately a sustainable practice.

Posted online by Peter McCarville

To the Mountaintop

I live in southwestern Virginia, where the struggle goes on to stop mountaintop destruction by coal companies. Having been a member of NRDC for only about 10 years, I appreciated your story "A Force for Nature" (Fall 2010), which recapped the history of the organization. It is truly amazing what has been accomplished, and I shudder to think where our world would be ecologically without the work you have done.

Anne Corley
Bristol, Virginia

Cold, Hard Facts

In "Cold Comfort," by Michael Behar (Fall 2010), the author states that President Jimmy Carter "lost the election and didn't have the courage to issue final standards before leaving office." Courage? In 1977 Carter pushed for major energy legislation, including high taxes on gas- guzzling vehicles, taxes on oil, and a 50-cent tax on gasoline to be phased in over 10 years. The man had the courage and foresight to install a solar collector on the White House roof. Imagine. And that is why he, as well as Al Gore or anyone who dares question the military/industrial/oil complex, is ridiculed.

Posted online by Steven Matter

It’s odd not to see any mention of strategic tree planting, both for roads or driveways as well as residences, in Behar's article. I don’t need air-conditioning even when it is 90 degrees Fahrenheit outside. The big, deciduous maples planted on the south side by the folks who built my old farmhouse in 1870 still function very well. The house is in the cool shade in summer, and, after the leaves shed, sunlight comes through during the fall and winter months.

Ron Blackmore
Madison, New York

Out of This World

There are many reasons why we push to have places protected from industrial development. We might be protecting an endangered species or an important watershed, or preventing pollution from poisoning people, or saving a wetland critical to migrating birds. And let’s not forget saving something beautiful simply for people to enjoy. The possible reasons could go on and on. But every one of them comes back to life. The goal is to protect life and the things on which life depends. None of this applies to the moon, the subject of "Save the Moon," by Alan Burdick (The Synthesist, Fall 2010). No life. No water tables. No atmosphere. Industrial mining of the moon is hard to imagine within our lifetimes. But even if industry tries to mine the moon, there is still no air to pollute and no liquid water to pollute. What exactly are we losing?

Posted online by Ethan Solomita

ERRATUM

In "Cold Comfort," Michael Behar wrote that "the Ice Bear [air-conditioning unit] can slash total energy consumption up to 40 percent." The article should have made clear that this figure refers to the fuel saved by utility companies that no longer have to produce power during peak periods. The manufacturer, Ice Energy, says that it saves its customers about 5 percent to 10 percent off their energy bills.

The Editors