Putting the Lawn Back, Eating More Industrial Food and Other Adventures from the CounterIntuitive Edge of Sustainability

My friend Alice hosted an urban permaculture class at her house a few years ago. She lives in an brownstone in a downtown neighborhood of Albany with her husband and two young kids, and the occasional housemate. Two permaculture design teachers and a host of enthusiastic students came together to create several designs for how she might optimize resource use and productivity at her home. She and her family chose one of the plans, and set to work on a number of inside and outside projects, including transforming her small, sunny backyard into an urban garden, full of food producing plants.

This sounds like a basic, but classic urban garden story, right, and it should be followed by how happy this made her family. Instead, it turned out that all these energetic designers who happily imagined arbors and gardens, set to the project of restoring contaminated soil and optimizing production, in fact missed something really critical. Swept along with enthusiasm and with the implicit assumption that permaculture design is really mostly about food, my friend Alice and her husband missed it to - until the gardens were in place, at great expense of effort.

What they'd missed with this - that ultimately her tiny backyard wasn't primarily a food-producing space. Her son and daughter, still too young to play safely on the urban streets needed the lawn more than they needed a food producing garden. With most of the space allotted to food production, her children were constantly bouncing balls and trampling delicate plants. They tried to stay in the space allotted to them, but it became obvious from moment one that none of the designers had really designed for a family with kids.

So, in an irony that I think is worth telling, my friend Alice, as part of her design project, put back her lawn. She ripped out kale and tomato plants, reseeded it with grass seed and restricted her food production to a much smaller marginal area. For all that we talk of food-not-lawns (Lord knows, the world is full of unnecessarily vast lawns both public and private not presently being used for the good of any playing children, I think this in no way undermines the basic idea that large chunks of our national lawn would be better as almost anything else), in fact, what Alice and her family needed was lawn-not-food.

Alice is not the only person I know who, in the name of making their lives work better have found themselves doing something counter-intuitive - in fact, so have we. Every once in a while, I run workshops and tours of my family's food storage, and in recent years, I've been opening the doors and showing people something I never thought would be there - a fairly large quantity of industrial canned goods.

Why does a woman famous for preserving anything and everything and growing her own have shelves full of canned meats and turnip greens? Well, in the last couple of years, sustainability has included adding more industrial foodstuffs into our diet, believe it or not. It started when our friend Jay, always a low-key freegan (read "dumpster diver") lost his job. His partner Andy still had one, so Jay decided that until another job came along, he'd take over the household economy. They live in an urban area, so instead of foraging for berries (actually he does that too, there are a surprising number of fruit trees and bushes going unharvested in Albany) Jay went from being an occasional trash-picker to making it a serious hobby.

If you are grossed out by the idea of this, you probably shouldn't be - behind many businesses are dumpsters not filled with rotting garbage but with food and goods with small imperfections that in no way undermine their basic quality. Imagine crates of peaches, removed because a few top ones have brown spots, boxes of bread not sold that day from expensive bakeries (and no, not lying the dumpster but carefully crated and bagged). Consider pieces of usable lumber just tossed in the trash, or packages of clothes or boxes of shoes tossed because the outer box got damp.

Jay and Andy started out cautiously, but began to realize how much was being thrown away. Their clothes came from the Target dumpster - Andy got 25 pairs of jeans in his size one day, thrown out for no discernable reason. They began to eat expensive gourmet baked goods daily, and Jay preserved the produce he found. They built up a sizeable pantry based on discarded canned goods - not bulging botulism cans, but a can with a label tear or a whole case of clam chowder discarded because the box bottom had broken.

They found themselves with more than they could use, and began sharing it out. They first offered us packages of pull-ups in my youngest son's size (at the time he wasn't toilet trained), then canned vegetables and meats that no one was really interested in eating, which we fed to the dogs mixed with rice and a few other ingredients. Andy hates spicy food, and one day Jay came by with a vast quantity of whole pickled jalapenos and a couple of loaves of spiced pear bread, still sealed and utterly fresh, and we became a stop on Jay's distribution rounds, which include friends, family, the local shelter, etc... We have animals that will eat food not especially appealing to people, and are also a welcome site for things Jay and Andy consider too weird or spicy to eat. And yes, we do eat them - after years of never opening a can, I make salads out of canned beans and put canned hominy in my corn bread. We give some of what they give us away still further.

I believe that consuming food and using goods that would otherwise fill landfills is an unadulterated good - and so a new portion of our sustainable food system has become the consumption of industrial goods. We do draw the line pretty firmly at the gross - when Jay finds Twinkies they go somewhere else, and even the dogs won't eat canned peas ;-), but we have had a modest addition to our diet of non-local food.

I use these two examples because I think they are good ways to describe the range of possible places that reducing your impact can take you. Adapting-in-Place, Rioting for Austerity, making your life more resilient and reducing your consumption aren't one-size-fits-all activities, and determining what is truly sustainable is never going to involve plugging in formulas. There are some generalities that one can articulate, and some broad principles we can apply, but the answer isn't simple.

A few years ago I appeared on a panel in New York City with Jim Kunstler and Colin Beavan (aka No Impact Man), and Colin, in his talk, said that there are three things you can do to reduce your impact on the world that have the greatest impact. Don't have a tv, don't eat meat and don't own a car. I laughed, because I have/do all three of those. I do own a tv (although we have no tv reception and use it only for watching DVDs), which provides an occasional pleasurable movie night for my husband and I (no theaters out here) or a video for my kids. A car is a necessity - in fact, we recently bought a very large, not terribly efficient vehicle to meet the dual needs of an expanded household with foster children and also expand our ability to take our farm products to market. And we both raise for sale and eat pastured meat - it is the best use of our hilly, wet, steep, cold land which grows vegetables and grains only with great difficulty but grass in vast abundance.

Despite our failure with Colin's prescription for greater sustainability, it isn't at all clear to me that living in an urban area would enable my family to use less energy, or be a better option for us. We use less than 20% of the American national average household energy usage - and that's at a household size that is double the national average. The C02 implications of our permanently pastured animal production are very different than those of CAFO meat production. And while I'm not that wild about tv, I don't see the careful use of it as a malign presence in my life - nor do I particularly distinguish it from going to the movies, watching internet video, etc...

The general principles that Colin was articulating are probably right - for your average American, cutting down on meat consumption is a really important idea. For an audience full of New Yorkers, advocating that they give up the car is a great idea - and more others could do it than do - my father raised three young daughters carless in the outer suburbs of MA. Giving up the lawn, cutting down on industrial food consumption, getting rid of the TV - all of these are good ideas, broadly speaking.

After we speak broadly, however, each of us has to come down to cases, and to particular circumstances. Rural, suburban and urban, large families and singles, old and young - different circumstances lead to different solutions. Carpooling for one, selling the car and buying a better bike for the other. Moving closer to work for one, moving out to the country to work at home for another. Doing the work yourself for one, hiring a neighbor for another.

What matters in the end are the results - that's one of the reasons I like the Riot for Austerity - everyone gets the same goal, but absolute freedom in bringing it about. And yes, without public infrastructure or other changes, sometimes we'll fail - but we can get closer than most of us imagined by being creative, adaptable and flexible and keeping the overall goal in mind - the using of a fair share of the world resources.


More like this

My mother in law ate a roasted turnip at my house the other day. It was unfamiliar enough to her in that form (she'd had mashed turnips before) that she had to ask me what it was, and it was a reminder of the fact that this time of year truly is the only time that many Americans come in contact…
"Context is everything. Breastfeeding is almost universally beneficial in infants, but in an elderly cardiac patient, it can be fatal." - Spider Robinson Quite a number of readers suggested I respond to James McWilliams' piece in the New York Times "The Myth of Sustainable Meat." McWilliams has…
A newly produced UN Report rightly points out, among other things, that the western model of meat and dairy production simply won't work on a planet of 9 billion people. The report, which quantifies the basic unsustainability of affluent societies and the challenges facing us in satisfying needs…
A friend of mine, Colin Beavan (aka No Impact Man) once observed that cutting your energy usage should be as easy as rolling off a log - that as long as it is always easier to use more resources, and the path of least resistance heads towards taking the car or turning up the heat, we're destined to…

Good permaculture to lawn story.

Easy to forget also that nothing lasts forever. In a few years the kids won't to play on a lawn. Then veggies could go back.

Wise. Very wise! Thank you!

Your comments about the lawn make some sense in the American context. The "lawn" for downtown really should be something shared. You know, a park. Remember those?

As phony crises escalate, the impulse of the oligarchs to privatize the public realm is becoming ever clearer. The Greeks may have to privatize the Parthenon. Roy Blount Jr. suggests they sell the naming rights to their country and re-brand themselves "Crisco."

...just a thought from suburbia (where parks as shared lawns are on leftover floodplain, rather than prominent, important shared property like most downtown parks...e.g. Central Park in NYC).

By Adam Eran (not verified) on 04 Oct 2011 #permalink

The flipside of that is that some of us can more or less coast, in terms of saying that we're using less energy: living in an apartment building and commuting by subway, sometimes bus, and foot means I'm using significantly less energy than if I had a separate house and/or drove to work by myself. But that's not why I'm doing it: I'm doing it because I like living this way. I like reading on my way to and from work, and not worrying about whether I'm entirely awake when I step into the vehicle because someone from the Transit Workers Union is driving.

Yes, the environment benefits regardless of my motivation, but I don't want to claim credit for taking trouble that I'm not.


nor do I particularly distinguish [tv] from going to the movies, watching internet video, etc..."

Unless you only watch commercial free TV, there are a couple of major differences.

1) Attention span. TV shows are broken off every 5-7 minutes to show a commercial or five. Each commercial is a deliberate interruption of the story being told, deliberately bright and memorable -- and distracting.

2) Ad content. It is one thing to choose the appropriateness of the subject matter -- the show, or movie. You cannot control the content of the ads. Some may enhance your life -- most introduce social trends and energy wastes, or scented toxins, that erode just a bit our national character, our values, our health. "Convenient" is a buzzword for "Spend more energy to put money in our pockets, customer-prospect."

Pretty much all TV shows these days (and quite a few from the past) are available on disc. This enables us to watch something complicated and intriguing like "Lost" without all those commercial interruptions and long "between-season" breaks. All of these shows-on-disc are available commercially, most of them from Netflix and many from public libraries. The only thing you sacrifice is the immediate "gratification" of watching these shows as they are broadcast and being able to chat about last night's episode with friends and co-workers.

Oh, and you use a LOT less time. Episodes which take up 30 minutes on broadcast TV are really only about 20 minutes long. And you don't have capitalism's most carefully thought-out propaganda hammered into your brain every 5-7 minutes.

My DIL made the same decision to resod the backyard after several years as a veggie garden. The kids needed space, and she needed to be able to see them from the kitchen window. Parks are great, but if Mom can't spare the time to accompany small kids there, backyard lawns are great too.

I recently asked a friend how her garden was doing and she said she wasn't gardening, that there were local organic farms and farmer's markets supplying better quality produce than she could grow herself, so her energy was better directed toward supporting them than trying to do it herself. She operates a natural food store that provides both local and imported products.

Sometimes NOT doing it all and NOT being totally self-sufficient is a sustainable choice too.

It's an illuminating case study, not of why permaculture fails, but why people fail in their efforts to design permaculturally. Permaculture design includes designing for people, and a good design in this case would take the children's needs into account... maybe by planning for a phased succession that would decrease the amount of lawn as the kids need it less, replacing it with play-on-able and productive trees and their own annual plots. And real permaculture design needs to happen at the community scale, not creating tiny little self-sufficient island homesteads, but communities of interdependent producers.

I'm giving thought to giving up the garden for next year, so this post was very appropriate for me. For me, it's lack of time for the rewards. It's been expensive and barely producing. This year, due to the heat and subsequent rain, we lost nearly everything. My husband and I cannot grow enough to feed ourselves.

Every hour I spent on the garden was time I didn't relax, explore, or work on my photography or journals. When you added in cooking and food preservation, I work all day at my job and all night at things that I do not find satisfying, while my passions go unanswered.

I have excellent farmers markets near me. I'd rather buy what I need when it is in season and when the prices are at their lowest, buy it for selected food preservation. No more jams, relishes, or pickles. We don't care enough for them. I doubt I will can anything tomato either. I will continue to dehydrate fruits and vegetables and freeze what we like.

If I don't find satisfaction with the garden and food preservation, it's simply not worth it anymore.


Picking your battles -- and your own way -- is a good lesson. I like growing and eating food but I think I like giving food away even more, to friends, neighbors, family members, coworkers and even strangers. (Plus a lot of birds and bugs!) I do grow quite a bit of food, and I expand my empire each year. But I focus on low-maintenance and automation to eliminate the drudge work and the time consuming bits. If a plant needs much attention, chances are we aren't going to get along.

So for myself, I am not trying to be self-sufficient (I don't really think such a thing exists), and I don't preserve much. I almost always have something fresh to be picked or pulled out of storage or foraged.

The way I look at it, giving to the community is just as much about sustainability as spending all weekend with a pressure cooker. Meanwhile, I learn a whole lot about my land, my soil, my plants, the people I know... and myself.

Kerrick, I think there's a more fundamental issue here than that - I think permaculture's focus has been unduly heavy on food production and much less on everything else. I find it interesting that so many people who knew so much about permaculture found themselves caught in the same fundamental error - and very telling. Despite the lip service permaculture gives to everything else, I think there's a real blind spot.

You know the funny thing is that my friend did not cut food production out of her life, because she's fully aware that urban and suburban gardens are a part of a larger food infrastructure that matters a great deal - she moved it to a local community garden, and to the margins, and did less, but not none. I wouldn't suggest that message of this piece is "give up the garden or the quest to be able to feed yourself in part" - yes, there's no reason not to rely on local producers and we do ourselves - except that some years, local producers have crop failures, and that in the larger picture of food production, home gardens matter a lot. Everyone will make their own choices for them, and come up with the balance they are comfortable with, but I do think that my own case, where local farmers lost even more than I did, ought to be somewhat indicative that we can't always count on others to provide either.


Dumpster eating foster kids?
That might not go over well.

We don't have foster kids yet. And no, we won't feed them dumpster dived foods - but that doesn't mean we can't eat them. They can't drink our goat's milk either.

We've kept our lawn, for precisely that reason. But there are 5 fruit-trees on it, and there are beds of robust stuff around it.

In the last year I've become friends with a woman who buys a lot of outdated and therefore very low-priced goods from small local grocers, including a lot of industrially-raised meat. She comes over once a month and we make dinner together, using a mix of the meat, other stuff she's gotten for cheap, and whatever I have from our gardens or in our pantry that we can use for that meal. She also gives us extra meat that doesn't fit into her freezer. We are glad to have it; now that I raise a lot of fruits and veggies, I am much more aware of how much effort it takes to grow food and don't want to see anything wasted. Yes, I'll eat factory farmed meat if it's otherwise going to go to waste. And I'll eat cupcakes from Mall-Wart for the same reason. One of my goals for the next year is to source more food locally - and that may well mean getting to do more scavenging in back of the local stores.