Good morning, Just let me say, I've never seen the term green difinitively defined, so I don't necessarily know the answer to your question. Try to keep in mind that some of us don't necessarily go 100 Per cent organic, but I for one am leaning that way, but by trying to develop our garden soils, we hope to avoid problems(pests and disease), while having a healthier and better tasting product from our gardens. Remember it is the journey that is fun, not the destination. have a great day,,steve

Not at all. "Green" is a current buzzword and means different things to different people, most of which are politically charged. "Organic" is a very well-defined concept but the precise definition depends on application.

To understand and define "organic" as it applies to food grown and marketed in the second half of the 20th century, you would have to learn about the history of organo-phosphate pesticides, and certain other chemicals developed & produced between WW1 and WW2. In the late 1940's, after the war was over, the use of chemicals to control insects and weeds became widespread among farmers, but only in those countries that are described as industrial and developed. The "organic foods" movement developed and grew as an alternative to what had become conventional farming practice by 1950. In the 1970's and 1980's you could buy produce labeled "organic," but there was no well-defined legal definition, so here in the USA, the federal government stepped in, and the phrase "USDA Certified Organic" was written, along with the necessary procedures for growers to follow. So if you want to market your produce as USDA Certified Organic here in the USA, you have to register your farm with the government, and follow certain procedures that mainly pertain to what chemicals you can/cannot use, and you also have to comply with recordkeeping requirements. It is true that we have freedom of speech here, and there are no language police, so you can use the word "organic" however you want. But if you market produce in the USA, and label it "USDA Certified Organic," without complying with the relevant regulations, that would be fraud, and you would end up in court sooner or later.

I like your take, Pam.

Al

Though I'm tempted to write a book in response, I'll just agree with gardengal and add that there are caveats to both terms and that neither should automatically be assumed to be "better" than the alternative... whatever it may be. Suffice it to say that depending on the context "Green" doesnÂt necessarily have anything to do with "Organic" and "Organic" doesnÂt always mean that something is "Green."

"Green" kind of more or less refers to an environmentally friendly something. Organic refers to kind of more or less similar things but to many people refers to a method of growing food. For some the terms are interchangeable while for others they are not which causes many problems.

I recently looked up a short history of Fritz Haber on the internet. If there is any single person most responsible for motivating the organic food movement, I think it would have to be Fritz. Or, possibly Mrs Haber, also a chemist. To this day, all chemicals are considered to be evil, by many people. There are some days that I find this notion agreeable.

IMO

Answer to the title: Dogma (1c)
Answer to the posted question: No

Lloyd

green is a color and organic is a way of growing something

Answer to Lloyd; Agreed
Answer to jonas; Agreed
Curt :)

As an example, recycling aluminum cans is 'green' but not organic. Putting up solar lights in your garden path is 'green' but not organic. Environmentally friendly like kimmsr said.
My idea of organic is to garden w/o the use of herbicides or pesticides.

Green is my family name. Organic is the chemistry class that gave me all the trouble in college.

..
About a buck a pound.
..

I can be green without being organic - recycle a plastic bottle (or better yet re-use the one I bought last week) instead of sending it to the land fill. Then spray all the area around my recycle bin with round up. This may be 'green' to a degree.

I can be organic without being green - purchase a bunch of "organic" amendments from Lowe's and then have my grass clipping and fallen leaves taken away to the municipal waste facility.

Or I can try to do both by using the organic matter that I might waste to improve my soil so that I may not have to use any (or at least fewer) of the chemicals (by this I mean pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and commercially produced nutrients) on my garden where I produce things that I eat and grow my landscape plants.

Green is best described by the three R's - Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.

Organic, as has been stated, has a very specific definition according to the USDA. However most of us don't bother with that because we are not going for certification, just our own versions of healthy.

Steve

Green is probably a term came from Green Revolution.
Green Revolution in agriculture means the growing of crops adopted (selected) to chemicals. It was successful idea, yields had increased. The other side of this coin is that diseases increased too. Not too many men are suitable to serve in the army now, for example.
Organic is more holistic approach.

>rantI live in a place where, when the sun went down, and the dark came up, there was a star show like I've never seen anywhere else. We have no city lights to make the stars dim, and the constellations are vivid against the black sky. Most of the residents here are gone after Labor Day, and after 10:00 at night, for 3/4 of the year, I could stand in my yard and see only one dim porch light at the head of the lake.

Until the advent of those cheap solar lights that people can afford by the dozens. Now every yard across the lake is peppered with them, competing with my star show all year, even though the residents of those homes are wintering in Florida and South Carolina, and even though, when they are here, they have no intention of taking a walk in their gardens after dark. It's bad enough that no one can enjoy a summer night anymore, because one millionaire with a house the size and with the light intensity of a casino is too inconsiderate to ever turn off the hundreds of lights that he's strung on every peak and railing of his house, now all the poorer people can keep their yards lit all night, too.

Between the four wheelers who destroy my blueberry fields in the summer and solar light people who ruin my fall evenings, I waste many waking hours fantasizing about vandalism. I don't want anyone to think I'm a curmudgeon, so I won't mention what I think of people inflicting their windchimes and bug zappers on their neighbors who might prefer the sounds of bird song and lapping waves. >/rant

...something else. I meant to disagree with Steve. :^]
I don't think you can be "green" and not garden organically, although I agree that not all organic gardening methods are green. My former use of manures on my lakeside garden, for instance. Former, after this year, when I planted a heavily amended garlic bed not 20 feet from the lake. I did put a hay buffer between it and the water.

When I think of "Greenies", I think of the people in the 70s who so willingly jumped on the 'Urban Cowboy' hay wagon with their shiny boots and belt buckles topped off by the had-to-have-to-be-in cowboy hats; and I do the same thing now as I did then - I smile a little smile and go on with my life as it is. To be able to say "I'm green" is cool, it's the 'thing', but if you look just a little beyond the newspapers and network news, the reasons for the movement can quickly be seen to be about politics - not about 'green', but about the 'long green', and control, hardly warranting our falling into the throes of eco-hysteria over the size of our carbon footprint.

It's wonderful to be a good steward of the earth, but we're in the process of relinquishing a huge portion of national sovereignty and more personal freedom, not to mention the individual cost in dollars, over what the real scientific community has long known to be, and decried as politically employed junk science.

Al

Al said:
but we're in the process of relinquishing a huge portion of national sovereignty

What do you mean?

I replied via email.

Al

Well played. Thanks Al.

curt~

I replied via email.
I replied via email too.

I don't understand the problem, really.

Valerie - Off-thread e-mail is probably the best to help you understand what Al meant about a loss of sovereignty.
This creed comes to mind: http://www.ushistory.org/documents/creed.htm

These ideals have only an obscure connection to the way many of us feel about organic gardening -- which is another kind of stewardship than that expressed in the creed.

I hope I'm not out of order in this message.

Valerie, I wouldn't want you to be misled. There are many of us here in the U.S.---including members of the "real scientific community" who do not agree with Al and Barb. I don't want you to think that they speak for anyone but themselves.

annpat, I understand it.
We also have pluralism in Russia, so different opinions is not a problem.
It was just curious for me how it can be that one of the most powerful country in the Wourld is "relinquishing a huge portion of national sovereignty". It sounds somewhat strange.

For the record - I think it's assuredly accurate to say that I don't speak for annpat, and I certainly don't profess to speak for all Americans, but it's a little over the top to say that I am a lone voice in the wilderness and speak only for myself. There are millions upon millions of Americans - mainstream Americans AND scientists who hold that belief, and the number grows by the minute, especially so in the light of recent revelations.

Al

Yep, agreed, a debtor nation, importing nearly all material things is not a sovereign nation, but a slave nation. Found in the Bible too.

The volatile turn this thread has taken may be the best illustration of the difference between GREEN & ORGANIC.

But since we in CA are "urbanizing" the Great Cental Valley at the most rapid rate in our state, it seems of relevant concern to all stewards of the soil as well as those concerned with national sovereignty. I think that a nation that must import its food, is fooling itself about real sovereignty.

In this respect, I feel that forums such as this that help us to increase our knowledge of sustainable agricultural methods [back-yard & commercial] are of great value.

Since saaak hasn't responded to this thread, I'm guessing his question got answered.

Personally, I love it when a thread swerves. Makes the dull winter a little less blah.

Val

The Central Valley of California, and the chronic lack of irrigation water there has me wondering. How did we get so dependent on fresh produce from the Central Valley? New Jersey used to be known as the "Garden State," and there is no lack of fresh water in New Jersey. What happened? I have nothing against California, & nothing against the people who grow food there. But this is a big country, and there are other places where fresh produce can be grown commercially.

ORGANIC:

• CHEMISTRY: relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis; "hydrocarbons are organic compounds"
• GEOLOGY: being or relating to or derived from or having properties characteristic of living organisms; "organic life"; "organic growth"; "organic remains found in rock"
• MEDICINE: involving or affecting physiology or bodily organs; "an organic disease"
• GARDENING: of or relating to foodstuff grown or raised without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides or hormones; "organic eggs"; "organic vegetables"; "organic chicken"
• CULTURAL: simple and healthful and close to nature; "an organic lifestyle"

In gardening, the definition of "synthetic" is pretty stretched (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_(food) ) and some truly nasty "natural" compounds can qualify, such as rotenone and 20% acetic acid and copper compounds. READ the labels and the MSDS of these things.

"Harmless", "natural" pest controls like Bacillus thuringensis kill butterflies ... if you want butterflies you have to tolerate caterpillars.

Also, some of the "certified organic" fertilizers and additives are shipped long distances, and have a big "carbon footprint".

*******************
"Green" considers the environmental impact of producing and shipping and disposal of something, and does the minimum necessary to solve a problem:

Maine kelp extract, green sand, or Italian dolomite powder might be fabulously organic and OMRI registered, but when shipped to Arizona they are definitely not "green" because of the shipping. The all-natural, locally produced Ironite (mined about 100 miles north of here) is a lot greener. The soil sulfur I use is a byproduct of the copper smelting operations 100 miles east of here (when they cleaned up their emissions, the found out they were collecting substances they could purify and sell for a profit!)

My backyard compost is REALLY GREEN because it's converting waste that would be trucked away into fertilizer. It's not strictly organic, because I use small amounts of ammonium sulfate (by product of natural gas production and purification) to boost the nitrogen content, but it's local.

One of the purposes of Green Movement is to stop global warming. Right? One of the main reason of global warming is emission of gas CO2. Right?

Recently, Academy of Science of Russian Federation made a statement that:

1. There is no any global warming (just only temporary cyclic warming common to the Earth).
2. Gas CO2 in any amount doesn't cause global warming.

Interestingly, who makes "global warming"?

We might get at the crux of the issue a little more directly if we were to rephrase the question as .... who promotes the theory of global warming?

Al

Yes, Al ;-)

I always thought of green as a mixture of yellow and blue. :)

valerie,

Are you saying The Academy of Science of Russian Federations statement is a credible one ,or pointing out that politics is trumping science in Russia?

"who promotes the theory of global warming?"

Absolutely, which goes hand in hand with "Who stands to make the most money off of it?" In the end, as is so often the case, it will come down to "follow the money".

Personally, me, in my own opinion, the weakening of the earth's magnetic field has more to do with global warming than any activities of man (more solar radiation 'cuz our shields are down). Not that being better stewards of the place would be a bad idea.

tj

P.S. As a Packer fan I'm green and gold ;-)

I have not understood the question, sorry. May you ask in other words?

I am saying statement is credible.
Moreover, recently in the meeting with president Medvedev academicians said that if he want to know who promote "global warming" they can make scientific research on this subject and find "them". :)

Count me in too, Al. PC is about killing us.