Re: Is there such a thing as \"organic\" tree care?
Decry the use of cropland for fuels but support canola for lubricants?
It is a very complex issue. I think Mario hit the nail on the head, and many other excellent point have been made. Organic means such a range of things, it is hard to understand exactly what is meant. As to organic certified produce, I believe it can be a misnomer. The products used for IPM of many of the 'organic certified' orchards and vineyard here in the Okanagan are equally or more toxic than their non-organic counterparts.
It is simply a word which makes people feel better about their consumption, but it is most likely a marketing strategy driven to greater profitability rather than any altruistic goal of environmental responsibility.
With regards to the use of the term 'organic' by landscape or tree companies, I believe its simply a marketing tool. If you don't buy into it, then don't use it. Just like using Facebook. Is there an altruistic goal by the use of the word organic in product labelling anyway? Not in my books, just a bandwagon marketing strategy that has permeated our culture. Consider all the petroleum based cosmetic products that slap 'natural' and 'organic' on the product container, paint it green, and the consumer pats themself on the back.
We need to be able to qualify the environmental impacts in economic terms in order to measure the efficacy of either fossil fuels vs. biofuels, organic vs. non-organic.
I would say, on the surface, biofuels represent a sustainable resource which can be grown on cropland which already exists, whereas fossil fuels represent a dwindling resource which elicits a more obvious environmental damage. Considering that the cropland already existed, only is converted from food production to fuel (and lubricant) production. I would not say I am well read on ths subject, but I would say that there are obviously benefits and disadvantages to both. On the surface it would appear to me that biofuels represent a sustainable alternative to traditional fossil fuels. Read up on the use of sucrose based fuels in Brazil.
I note your point about the original nature of the cropland, which was most likely ecologically valuable prior to conversion to farmland. Look at the situation with Lake Winnipeg, for example. But, again, this only points to the need to be able to measure, in economic terms, the value of the 'work' done by specific ecological environments. Consider the pipeline planned to run through the Great Bear Rainforest on the coast of BC. If there is no way to measure the economic value of the forest, it would seem that the economic benefit of pumping millions of barrels of crude would outweigh the unmeasured economic value of the land.
Wow...rant over, I'll take the cup of STFU now.