One Good Year

  • Home
  • Synopsis
  • Watch
  • Trailer
  • Organize A Screening
  • Contact
  • Latest Posts
  • More
    • “Is this legal?” and other FAQs
    • About Humboldt (and Mendocino)
    • Director’s Statement
    • Technical Specs
    • Bios

KQED Forum on environmental costs of pot growing

Posted on December 29, 2012 by Mikal

Hi everyone, I’m on the road at the moment, but wanted to give a brief update. I got a few on-air comments on KQED’s Forum discussion a few days ago. The subject was the environmental costs of pot growing, spurred by the L.A. Times piece I critiqued in recent posts. Luckily, all of us, other than the guy from Fish and Game, were what you might call pro-pot environmentalists. That is to say, we understand the community, culture and economics of pot production and know it can be grown in a manner that is organic, fish-friendly, land-friendly and community-friendly. (And as shameless self-promotion, that is part of what my film shows.) We are also long-time environmental activists who are very concerned about the negative impacts that some growers are having.

This is an important distinction to make. Most people who rail against the negative impacts of pot growing are also anti-growing and anti-marijuana, which makes it hard to bridge the divide between enviros and growers. Those of us who can have one foot in each world are in the best position to find solutions.

The KQED podcast can be heard here:
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201212270900

Happy new years!

Posted in Humboldt Grower Culture, One Good Year in the media, Pot and environment | 4 Comments
« Greed Weed
One Bad Year »

4 thoughts on “KQED Forum on environmental costs of pot growing”

  1. Uti says:
    December 29, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Mikal, Do you know if there is a written transcript of the show? I’m deaf and can’t listen to it.

    • Mikal says:
      January 5, 2013 at 10:33 am

      Uti, sorry, no I don’t know if there is a transcript. Best bet is to check with the site, maybe check their contact info and drop them a line. If you find a transcript, let me know and I’ll post the link here for others.

  2. Bud Green says:
    January 2, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    Well … in the glass-is-half-full view, it’s nice to see attention being paid to environmental issues. Perhaps this heralds the start of a serious public policy debate.

    No, wait, we’re talking about cannabis, so throw informed debate out the window. What you’ll see, instead, is a lemming-like rush to ban outdoor cultivation of cannabis, which of course creates ginormous environmental impacts through increased electrical consumption, risk of house fires, utility theft … and the list goes on.

    As this new wave of zoning ordinances sweeps California, medical cannabis advocates would be well served by understanding the environmental costs and carbon footprints associated with both indoor and outdoor cultivation. This isn’t high on the list of concerns of many indoor growers, sadly, but inaction will bite them on the butt too with increasing indoor restrictions and energy taxes like the one just passed in Arcata. Here in Fresno, I’m attempting to challenge the city’s outdoor growing ban on grounds they failed to conduct an initial environmental study. Read more, and wish me luck: http://fresnocannabis.org/suit-targets-medical-marijuana-growing-ban/

    • Mikal says:
      January 5, 2013 at 10:41 am

      Hi Bud, thanks for the comment and link and sorry for the delayed reply. I’m on the road and got behind on replies. That’s great that you’re challenging that ban. Indoor-only and other mindless and paranoid regulations are what we get when growers don’t come out of the woods and grow rooms and organize. Seriously, folks, what other industry sits there and lets politicians who know ZERO about the subject write regulations? Most ordinances are drawn up after lobbying and public debate by all interested parties. But, the cannabis industry by and large sits back and lets others push them around. Even industry groups that have formed often have a hard time getting funding or convincing people to show up at hearings and so on.

      This passivity among growers who won’t lift a finger to look after their own interests has always been a burr in my sock. The result will be corporate-friendly, anti-environment regulations that will exclude most small farmers. That will force people to stay in the black market, even if they want to go legit.

      Good luck with Fresno.

Comments are closed.

Search

Recent posts

  • “25 To Stay Alive”
  • One Bad Year
  • KQED Forum on environmental costs of pot growing
  • Greed Weed
  • More Drug War Hysteria For The North Coast–Part 2
  • More Drug War Hysteria For The North Coast
  • ONE GOOD YEAR covered by local weekly
  • “Clip a bale of ganja!” In one-and-a-half minutes.
  • Being “Marijuana Positive” isn’t just for stoners.
  • As pot becomes legal, don’t burn the family farmers.

Latest Tweets from @OneGoodYear

Categories

  • Craigslist Pot-Related Posts
  • Daily Life Of A Pot Farmer
  • Humboldt Grower Culture
  • Law enforcement
  • Legalization
  • Legalization in other states
  • Marijuana News
  • marijuanalingo
  • Medical Marijuana
  • One Good Year in the media
  • Only In Humboldt
  • Pot and environment
  • Pot Economics
  • Pot Tourism
  • Proposition 19
  • Reefer growing madness
  • SoHum History
  • The Making Of The Film
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • April 2012
  • February 2012
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • May 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010

Follow One Good Year on Twitter

Like One Good Year on Facebook

CyberChimps WordPress Themes

© One Good Year