Maybe my kids are right. I guess I am getting pretty dense. Otherwise why can't I figure out the reason conservation efforts and environmental protection movements don't get the priority they deserve. A good example of this is society's reaction to the issue of soil degradation. A few years back the United Nations set out to study the most pressing problems facing the sustainability of our earth. Their report indicated a number of areas where we are in danger. Number one on the list was not war or disease, it was not global warming or pollution. It was soil degradation! The number one problem facing the earth as far as the nations of the world were concerned is soil degradation but not one headline or news report in this part of the world featured this item. I don't get it! We sure get upset about other things like clear cutting the forests, oil spills in the ocean, AIDS (which gets more research dollars than breast cancer but affects only a small percentage of people comparably), even the price of gasoline gets more news copy than soil degradation. Gas in the city of Regina goes over sixty cents a litre and we have MP's initiating studies to satisfy the massive disapproval. Where are our priorities?
Recently I watched a news report from Vancouver where several irate motorists vented their feelings over the lengthy closure of a lane on the Second Narrows bridge resulting in two hour delays getting to work. Noticeably absent in the news report was the fact that most vehicles in the traffic jam were less than half full. Most had one occupant, the driver. I thought, maybe they should close a lane on all the bridges in Vancouver forcing a shift to a more environmentally friendly form of public transit like car pooling, busses or light rail. People are more concerned more about their disrupted lifestyle than the fact they are pumping tons of C02 into the atmosphere which may affect our very future.
We don't have to go out of this province to find examples of questionable priorities. The recent emphasis on innovative programs and diversification faces all government, non-government and commodity groups on the prairies. But should innovation and diversification be the goal if resource sustainability and non-government groups like the SSCA are not given the same billing. Lately the SSCA has had to fight like hell to receive public support dollars for work that certainly will affect the public well being. You're not offering anything innovative or diverse we are told. No, we are not offering anything too diverse or innovative we are just trying to protect the one resource that the world deems is in danger and the one which is tantamount to our eating needs. Sure we must strive to be innovative and diversify out of our resource based economy to sustain ourselves in the future. This is a laudable objective but lets not forget about those important resources like our soil which provides us with our food. We can be as innovative and diverse as anyone on the planet but one fact must not be overlooked. No soil, no food. It's that simple.
I can partially understand ones apathy toward soil conservation. It's not like we haven't previously addressed the issue. The SSCA has recently been working to limit soil tillage by promoting low disturbance seeding (LDS) techniques. Other groups and government organizations like the PFRA have worked for years initiating soil conservation measures. Currently we estimate Sask. has over 17% of our soil protected from degradation as a result of LDS. This is great! Saskatchewan has a better record than anyone when it comes to soil conservation programs. However, people say lets move on and be innovative and diversify. I've heard several people (one of them being an esteemed U of S professor) make the comment that no more funding needs to be placed towards direct seeding initiatives. After all there is now an air seeder on every quarter section so lets move on, lets go do something innovative.... Wait a minute. What about the other 83% of our land that is still being tilled extensively? Shouldn't we still be pushing to get those acres protected? What about the soil we see in the ditches all across Saskatchewan every winter and spring? What about those farmers who are just getting into a soil conservation program like LDS? If we want to foster innovation in agriculture maybe we should help these farmers who will be experiencing new crops and rotations as a result of adopting a seeding system that will seem very diverse and innovative to them.
It's like we have a tumor in the body that needs treatment and after a couple of chemo shots the doctor says, "well I think that's starting to work lets forget about any more treatments. I want to try out this new liposuction technique on that double chin of yours. It will make you look so much better to others." Why do I not get the drift of this picture? Maybe someone smarter than me could explain this. Would you do that, those of you who complain about sitting alone in your car in a two hour long traffic jam, or you who get motivated by the high cost of gasoline or you who build 2000 square foot wood frame homes for a family of three or those of you who complain about farmers spraying pesticides while you wash out your paint brushes in the back yard and keep that gray hair under control with some chemical for which you show no concern? Clue me in please.
In the meantime, those of us who are more concerned about the more important issues to the planet should mention our concerns to the policy makers. Make a little more noise. About the same amount of noise that is coming from those who suggest we should be more innovative and diverse should be about enough.