CHAPTER 10

---

As we consciously consider the first few basic needs, like air, water, and food, we can start to see how our most basic needs overlap with one another and what work could serve us well during the era of A2C2. But what comes next in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs?

WARMTH. Loosely defined, if it gets too cold or hot, our survival comes into question. In the most basic terms, are we living indoors, or are we living outdoors? Even if we can continue to breathe and have a reliable source of water and food, how long could we survive without adequate shelter or clothing against the elements or extreme weather? We’ve come a long way since the cave, but is there an appropriate avenue when discussing the current Homelessness Crisis in America or housing in general?

The United States has experienced a significant increase in homelessness over the years, with over half a million American citizens experiencing homelessness on any given night. The issue is not limited to those who are visibly homeless but also includes those who are couch surfing or living in overcrowded and unstable conditions. In addition to our citizens, once any number of unauthorized immigrants illegally cross the southern border, they are immediately homeless as well, which further adds to the housing uncertainty in America. Homelessness, housing insecurity, and the challenges of addressing this issue are not just domestic challenges unique to the United States but matters of global importance to meet the basic human need for warmth. So, what are the root causes of inadequate warmth?

Homelessness and housing insecurity often result from economic, social, and personal factors. Common factors include job loss, unaffordable housing, mental health and addiction issues, domestic violence, childhood trauma, or poverty. For many individuals and families, a single unexpected event, such as a medical emergency or job loss, can lead to homelessness or housing insecurity. Additionally, systemic issues like income inequality and discrimination can create barriers to stable housing and perpetuate homelessness. The complexity of homelessness and housing insecurity makes it challenging to address, but providing warmth is well worth the effort.

Despite all the challenges, there are successful strategies for preventing homelessness and providing stable housing for the unhoused. One such strategy is the Housing First Approach, which prioritizes stable housing as the initial step in addressing homelessness. This approach is grounded in the belief that stable housing is a fundamental human right. Without a regular place to live, it becomes nearly impossible for individuals to address other issues, such as mental health, substance abuse, or other factors that have contributed to becoming displaced. However, providing a stable place to live for the unhoused is a significant first step in helping humans find warmth.

So, is it back to the cave again, or is there a product that could better serve billions of humans for adequate warmth than a bunch of holes in the sides of the hills?

Hemp! Due to its remarkable versatility in clothing and housing humans, hemp will become one of the most significant contributors to improving life on planet Earth within our lifetimes. Without the integration of hemp into our agricultural landscape, the remainder of this century may be exceedingly challenging for billions of people.

Hemp farming boasts numerous environmental benefits. Hemp requires less water than traditional crops for the same applications, can be grown without pesticides or herbicides, serves as an effective cover crop, has a deep root system that holds the earth in place to prevent soil erosion, and aids in enriching the soil through a process known as phytoremediation (phytoremediation is the natural ability of plants to extract contaminants or toxins from the soil, effectively cleansing the soil).

Hemp is also an exceptional carbon sequesterer. On a per-acre basis, this plant possesses significant carbon draw-down capabilities. Hemp absorbs carbon dioxide (CO2) during photosynthesis and releases oxygen (O2), reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Hemp is estimated to absorb more CO2 per hectare (10,000 square meters) than most other crops and trees. Also, hemp can thrive in various climates and soil types, making it a versatile option for our global carbon sequestration efforts. These numerous benefits occur before it’s time to harvest the crop for its edible components, such as hemp hearts, or the byproducts used in textiles or construction, like shiv. But what is hemp shiv, and how does it contribute to warmth?

Hemp shiv, or shiv, is the stalk of the hemp plant machined into smaller pieces that serve as crucial components of construction material known as hempcrete. Hempcrete consists of hemp shiv, water, and lime. Once processed, the resulting mixed material is lightweight, robust, and exhibits excellent insulation properties. As hempcrete sets in place, it will remain a carbon-sequestering material throughout its lifespan because, after installation in a building, it absorbs carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air as it cures and hardens. Despite its hardening, hempcrete is still very breathable, which aids in regulating building moisture levels, reducing the risk of mold growth. Hempcrete is an ideal alternative to traditional building materials.

Furthermore, hempcrete is non-toxic, fire-resistant, and boasts a low carbon footprint because of its non-petrochemical makeup. This family-friendly feature provides peace of mind for individuals and their families as an alternative to petrochemical insulations and treated lumber that will experience off-gassing in a modern home.

Regrettably, hemp still faces limitations due to unnecessary legal complications and the lingering stigma associated with hemp production in many parts of the world. Despite its insignificant levels of THC, the sought-after psychoactive component of cannabis, hemp remains an excessively regulated crop in the United States. These unnecessary barriers are gradually dissipating as the potential of hemp is increasingly recognized and appreciated as a valuable asset in addressing a wide range of challenges beyond food security. Still, limited incentives exist to cultivate this crop beyond the plant’s primary compound, CBD, for medicinal applications.

Unfortunately, other crops receive subsidies and support despite their negative environmental impacts and limited range of applications. Promoting monoculture crops like corn, soybeans, and cotton has led to overfarming, which pulls many of the nutrients from the earth without giving the ground enough time to repair itself naturally. Overfarming also leads to diminishing crop yields over time. It increases the financial cost to farmers because more inputs, including chemical fertilizers, additional irrigation, and more intensive land management with cover cropping, are needed.

While hemp offers us numerous environmental benefits and products that are safer and more sustainable, the challenges related to policies and the stigma that persists ultimately limit hemp production. Although hemp is a safer textile and building material, further investment into this crop is needed. We can work toward a more sustainable and environmentally friendly future by fully deregulating hemp cultivation and promoting its use. Policymakers should acknowledge the advantages of hemp farming and the potential of hempcrete in sustainable construction. Hempcrete and other hemp-based building materials could revolutionize the construction industry and provide a safer environment for families.

Rooted in the premise that we can start farming more hemp to offer better warmth with the end products, like housing materials or textiles for literal clothing, what goes into large-scale farming that incentivizes the cultivation of one crop over the next? Farming subsidies!

Farming subsidies are financial incentives governments provide to assist farmers in managing agriculture’s unpredictable nature. They serve as a safety net for farmers, help maintain a consistent food supply, and contribute to the prosperity of rural economies. These financial aids have significantly influenced modern farming practices. While some countries allocate billions of dollars annually to sustain their agricultural sector, these subsidies also face criticism for their potential to distort the free market and contribute to environmental degradation. There are four types of farming subsidies to consider.

Direct Payment Subsidies - Farmers receive a predetermined sum of money from the government, which is determined by the amount of land they cultivate. This payment is independent of the crops they grow or whether they encounter success or failure in their crops. The primary purpose of these subsidies is to offer farmers financial support and guarantee them a consistent income, regardless of market fluctuations.

Direct payment subsidies have faced criticism for creating a financial safety net for farmers without encouraging the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Farmers can persist with environmentally harmful practices without specific environmental or conservation requirements while benefiting from these subsidies.

Price Support Subsidies - Price support subsidies constitute a farming subsidy approach wherein the government establishes a minimum price for a specific agricultural product. Suppose the market price falls below this minimum threshold. In that case, the government intervenes by purchasing the surplus supply at the minimum price, stabilizing the market, and shielding farmers from price fluctuations. This intervention aims to secure a fair income for farmers and ensure they can sustain their farming operations without enduring substantial losses. The continuity of farming is crucial, regardless of market conditions.

While price support subsidies offer stability to farmers, they come with certain drawbacks. They can incentivize overproduction, leading to excessive supply and a surplus of crops that pose challenges in selling and storing the surplus. Subsidies like these can burden the government and taxpayers financially because the government is required to buy surplus crops at a minimum price. Doing so disrupts the free market by artificially maintaining prices, potentially resulting in market inefficiencies and reduced competition.

This subsidy model is frequently employed to bolster commodity crops such as wheat, corn, and soybeans, which are susceptible to volatile market prices influenced by weather conditions, international trade dynamics, and supply and demand fluctuations.

Input Subsidies - The primary objective is to lower production costs and enhance overall profitability. Input subsidies offer farmers financial aid for purchasing inputs such as fertilizers, seeds, and other essential materials required for agricultural production. 

When farmers face challenges accessing credit and cannot afford inputs through regular market channels, input subsidies come into play. The provision of input subsidies facilitates the adoption of new agricultural technologies and practices, leading to increased crop yields and improved crop quality. However, there are valid concerns regarding the potential downsides of input subsidies.

Notably, input subsidies can result in the excessive use of fertilizers and other chemicals, adversely affecting the environment and human health. Some experts also contend that input subsidies can be financially burdensome for governments and that the benefits may not consistently reach the small-scale farmers most in need of support.

Furthermore, input subsidies have the potential to create dependency on government assistance, possibly discouraging farmers from exploring alternative, more sustainable, and cost-effective farming methods in the long term.

Insurance Subsidies - Insurance subsidies fall within the agricultural subsidies, offering financial assistance to farmers to cover the costs of insurance policies that safeguard their crops or livestock from unexpected losses caused by natural disasters or diseases. These subsidies serve as a valuable resource for farmers to manage risks and protect their investments, a critical consideration for small and medium-sized farmers who often have limited resources to cope with such unforeseen losses.

As demonstrated, each type of subsidy offers unique support to farmers and presents several advantages. These benefits include providing a safety net for farmers facing economic hardships, ensuring a stable food supply, leading to more sustainable agricultural practices, and contributing to the growth of rural economies.

Nonetheless, it is essential to acknowledge that farming subsidies come with their share of disadvantages. These drawbacks encompass the potential for overproduction and surplus supply, the preference for giant agribusinesses over smaller family farms, environmentally harmful practices, and the distortion of global trade dynamics, which can have unforeseen repercussions.

As an illustrative example of subsidies working against us, the United States is the largest global corn producer, accounting for nearly one-third of the world’s total production. Fueled mainly by government subsidies over the past several decades, approximately one-third of the corn produced in the United States is for ethanol production, another one-third for animal feed, and the remaining one-third serves human consumption, export, and various industrial applications. With most corn finding its purpose in fuel, animal feed, export, or industry, it raises concerns regarding the overproduction of corn, specifically, the allocation of valuable farmland and the environmental consequences of these end products. Addressing this issue presents challenges since corn remains a vital agricultural resource. Still, the quantities in production may exceed genuine demand.

One potential strategy could be shifting away from extensively produced crops for non-food purposes, i.e., systematically reducing the production of farming corn for fuel, limiting the crop’s export, etc. Instead, if we cultivate any crop for non-food applications, then it should serve us better than corn does. For instance, reducing subsidies for certain crops like corn and increasing support for other crops, such as hemp, might offer a means to alleviate some of the environmental impacts of agriculture while ensuring adequate food supply, but also for clothing and housing to improve upon warmth, and by simply reevaluating farming subsidies. Human beings’ basic need, warmth, could be better realized within our lifetime. As we add to our awareness and continue our reflection, the possibilities for practical actions and strategies continue accumulating and building upon the last. Things are starting to heat up.