So a couple of weeks ago I wrote a story for DeSmog reporting on self-described โlunatic farmerโ Joel Salatinโs views about climate change and how he thought it might not be caused byย humans.
Thereโs been quite a reaction to the story, mainly through Facebook discussions sparked by Salatin himself and by others who are part of what you might broadly describe as the sustainable farming movement (this is an entirely imperfect term though, given the diversity of thought among the great many people looking for alternative ways to grow healthy food in a way that has less impact on theย environment).
Iโve been accused by one Australian figure, Tammi Jonas, the interim president of the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance, of writing an โunproductive and divisiveโ article that was โpure click bait โgotchaโ rubbish.โ More on that in aย bit.
Salatin penned a long response on his Polyface farms Facebook page that was liked almost 3,000 times and shared 1,000 timesย more.
So I thought I should go over some of the responses and clear a few thingsย up.
First, someย background.
Salatin describes himself as a โChristian libertarian environmentalist capitalistย lunatic.โ
Heโs a high-profile figure, has appeared in multiple documentary films, written books, and is an oft-invited speaker. Heโs been featured in Time magazine and inspired many people to change how they work on theย land.
All want to learn more about the work on his Polyface farm in Virginia, where he uses a mix of useful modern tech (electrified fencing, for example) and livestock movements to mimic natural processes and enrich his soil and pasture without needing to load it up with artificial chemicals and fertilizers (that, again, is a very short summary of what he does, and some might be unhappy with it). He is a big advocate for having localized food systems. For that and more, many people are rightly thankful for hisย work.
In late June, Salatin appeared at a โRed Pill Expoโ in Montana alongside some characters with what you might politely call unconventional views (the twin towers in the 9/11 attacks came down because of a controlled explosion, climate change is a hoax, and other such conspiratorialย rubbish).
I wrote a story about that, and given I knew about Salatinโs status I wanted to know why he had agreed toย appear.
Given I write a lot about climate science (itโs a lot of my beat), I asked him some questions about his views on climateย change.
Salatinโs response came in after the first story had been published, so I wrote a follow-up.
In short, Salatin told me he thought scientists might be wrong that humans are causing climate change โ a position that puts him at odds with pretty much every major scientific institution in the world, not to mention the actual evidence in the scientificย literature.
I put Salatinโs claims to several climate scientists and asked people in the sustainable food movement about his views, and then published a story about it. Pretty straight forwardย really.
Nowhere in the story did anyone challenge the legitimacy of his methods on theย farm.
Clearly, his views on climate science are seperate, as the story pointedย out.
But this was a story not only because Salatin had shared a platform with conspiracy theorists, but also that he is a high-profile individual who is in a position to reach and influence large numbers of people (as he has done with his advocacy for his own farmingย methods).
Salatin published a response (you should read it), where he described โvenomous vitriolic vituperative invectivesโ coming at him โfrom a blog regarding climate change and asserting that Iโm a classic climate changeย denier.โ
In his response, Salatin seemed to want to undermine the credibility of the story by ignoring how criticism of his position was not coming from me, but from several respected climateย scientists.
Those critics are no lightweights. It was Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who said Salatin was repeating โstandard denier talkingย points.โ
Rahmstorf went to great lengths to deconstruct Salatinโs throwaway line that because โGreenland was once named that because it was a pastoral, hospitable place to live,โ this somehow showed the current threat from human-caused climate change might not beย real.
โThere is no evidence that Greenland was any โgreenerโ or had substantially less ice during Viking times than now, or for that matter in the first half of the 20th century before global warming really took off,โ Rahmstorf toldย me.
It was Professor Andy Pitman, director of the Australian Research Council Center of Excellence for Climate System Science, who pointed out Salatinโs claim that a few decades ago we were โinundated with the science that by now, we would enter a new ice ageโ was another classic denierย myth.
Pitman also pointed out Salatinโs claim that โscience is limited to what we can observe and what we can duplicateโ was alsoย false.
Because Salatin did not link to my original story, or explain to his followers that it was actually not โa blogโ criticizing him but several leading climate scientists, this gave his audience a selective and partial version of theย story.
Nor did Salatin actually respond to any of the criticisms of his views, but instead took the opportunity to criticize scientists, based on his own experience with those working in agricultural science and other related fields. Heย wrote:
โ[Scientists have] been grossly wrong as many times as perfectly right. Each of these oops orthodoxies included a minority view of heretics who were eventually exonerated in the process of time. Farmers learnย patience.โ
He seems to have transposed his distrust of scientists in one field, into another entirely different field. This, to me, is like being skeptical of brain surgeons because you once met a dodgy animalย vet.
One commenter wrote: โJoel, Iโve been following you for years. You even inspired me to start my own small livestock farm. But you lose me completely when you start equating climate science with pasteurization and industrial animal husbandry. Really? Itโs just sad if you see equivalencyย there.โ
Perhaps because it fits with his libertarian politics of individualism, Salatin offered a laundry list of things which people would not be doing if they โreally, really, seriously thought their actions today, right now, were causing climateย change.โ
No more movie theatres, flights, recreational sports, driving, fast-food and a few other trappings of modernย life.
I wonder if Salatin extends his accusation of a lack of conviction on climate change to all the people who fly him across North America and the rest of the world to have him speak (heโs been to Australia eightย times)?
One commenter wrote to Salatin: โYour argument seems to be (1) Since most people donโt take drastic actions to reduce climate change, they donโt really believe it. (2) Since most people donโt really believe it, it isnโt true. Both components are erroneous. First, many people belive [sic] that eating junk food, or smoking, or leading sedentary lives is bad for their health, yet do it anyway. Jumping from belief to action is very hard, especially when consequences are somewhere far in the future. Second, facts donโt depend on whether anyone believes inย them.โ
Salatinย concluded:
โYou see, folks, what we do says a lot more about our convictions than what we say, what we sign, or at whom weย yell.โ
Fellow Guardian blogger Martin Lukacs has written an excellent critique of this idea that we should all be more concerned with our personal actions than those of governments or corporations (as is often the case, I personally think you have to balance both and suspect Salatin might think theย same).
Lukacs argues a great victory of the prevailing neoliberal politics is to shift the blame and guilt for the worldโs problems away from governments and corporations toย individuals.
โWhile we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant,โ writes Lukacs. You should readย it.
Now onto some otherย criticism.
My story, according to a Facebook comment from Tammi Jonas, was โpure click bait โgotchaโ rubbish.โ It should be said I tried to contact Jonas for comment, as she has hosted Salatin in Australia before. I left voicemail messages and sent a text but by the time she responded, the story was live. Coincidentally, she told me a reason she was in intermittent contact was that she was actually at Polyface farms with Salatin at theย time.
Iโve since had a long conversation with Jonas over the phone. She still contends my story was โnot productiveโ and that Salatinโs views on climate science shouldnโt matter. She says he doesnโt speak about it publicly anyway. She thinks I shouldnโt have written the story, but also accepts that Salatin should not be beyondย criticism.
Many other commentators either refused to accept that Salatin was โa denier,โย or attacked my story for not covering in detail all the other good stuff that Salatin hasย done.
But does it matter if Salatin refuses to accept the evidence for human-caused climateย change?
As Dr. Nick Rose, executive director of Sustain: The Australian Food Network and a lecturer on food systems at William Angliss Institute in Australia, wrote in one Facebookย comment:
โWhy should he be immune from being held up to scrutiny โ why does his hero farmer status mean that his views should not be publicly discussed? This discussion is not about damaging his reputation as a farmer. It is about warning about the dangers of putting people up on pedestals and working out for ourselves, as a movement, after critical and careful reflection, what our values and principles need toย be.โ
Another commenterย wrote:
โAnti-climate science perspectives are getting a good deal of air time in these responses, as are comments about single mothers & people on welfare. In other words, his comments have added fuel to a very ugly fire burning in US politics right now. So words themselves can be as important as deeds when they promoteย contempt.โ
Rose also posted my original story on his own Facebook page, prompting more heatedย discussions.
There was some especially insightful and lively commentary on the Facebook page of social entrepreneur Robert Pekin.
Pekin carries the awesome job title of CiEiO at Food Connect, a leading community-assisted agriculture business in Brisbane (Iโve written about Robert and have met him many times and, I think, weโve probably shared beers on a few occasions some years ago. For what itโs worth, I think heโs a fantastic bloke, but I disagree with his view that Salatin had offered any kind of โrebuttalโ to the substantiveness of the originalย story).
Russ Grayson, a Sydney-based independent journalist with a specialism in permaculture and food security, wrote a blog post on the reactions to the story. Hereโs a bit ofย that:
โWhat we have here among regenerative agriculture practitioners and supporters in Australia, though, is cognitive dissonance over Salatinโs social/political/religious attitudes and his farming system. People recognise the value of his farming system but his attitudes are out of synch with those of many in that movement inย Australia.
There is a second disconnect, too. It is Salatinโs adopting an approach to farming that would form part of any larger strategy to ameliorate the worse impacts of a changing climate while being a climate change denier. It is understandable that some see this as a glaringย contradiction.โ
So this is the bit where Iโm supposed to offer some neat little concluding paragraph that pulls all these threadsย together.
Well, youโre not going to getย one.
Main image: Joel Salatin at Polyface Farm in Virginia. Credit:ย cheeseslave,ย CCย BYย 2.0
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts