This talk was delivered at the Building A New World Conference at Radford University in Virginia.

I’m going to come at this idea of sustainability from a bit of a different angle. It’s also a potentially risky angle for me, being that we’re in the proverbial heart of tobacco country and the title of my talk is “Sustainable Solutions for the World’s Deadliest Crop.” But I’m hopeful that the relevancy–not only to the state we’re in–but to the very idea of sustainability itself, will outweigh any feathers I might ruffle.

It probably seems odd to think of tobacco as something that needs a sustainable solution. The tobacco industry is after all on the decline in this country. The proportion of smokers has fallen from a high of 46 percent in 1950 to 21 percent in 2004. Such a rejection of not only an iconic but exceedingly addictive product is absolutely unprecedented in modern history. So what could be the problem? Americans are actually consuming less of something for once.

The problem is that as we’ve lost our craving–or rather, seen through the manipulative advertising and propaganda–the multinationals have been forced to shift their focus to new markets. According to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, the global number of smokers is expected to grow from the 1.1 billion in 1998 to around 1.3 billion by 2010. But this growth will really only occur in the poorest parts of the world. Of the 1.1 billion smokers in 1998, 80 percent lived in low or middle-income countries.

This same trend can be found on the production-side of things as well. From 1971 to 1997–again, according to the FAO–leaf production increased globally, but only in the developing world. As the US federal government phased out support for tobacco farming and the general attitude toward tobacco production here in the states got more hostile, it became easier and more profitable to grow the crop in poorer regions of the world. It’s expected that by the end of the decade, 87 percent of the world’s tobacco will be grown in developing nations.

Again, as Americans we may not see this as a problem. But as a global community–which has become more and more the reality, both in terms of business and the environment–an increase in global smoking and tobacco production trends has implications for everyone on the planet.

Aside from the well-documented health effects associated with smoking–which can by no means be understated (100 million people died of smoking-related diseases last century and another 1 billion are expected by the end of this century)–there are also numerous environmental ramifications brought on by the production of tobacco.

Since it is a particularly sensitive plant, tobacco often requires 16 applications of pesticides during the three-month growing period. In developing countries, where environmental laws are absent or not enforced, chemicals like DDT and dieldrin—both banned in the United States—are sprayed on the tobacco.

These pesticide applications often harm animals that live or feed near them, causing loss of biodiversity or genetic mutations. And runoff and leaching during a rainstorm carry the pesticides into waterways and aquifers, thereby contaminating the drinking supply.

But that’s almost the least of it. Once harvested the crop wreaks ever more havoc on the environment.

Without even factoring in the paper wrapping, packaging and print advertisements—which require as much paper by weight as the tobacco being grown—nearly 600 million trees are felled each year to provide the fuel necessary for drying out the tobacco. That means one in eight trees cut down each year worldwide is being destroyed for tobacco production. In South Korea and Uruguay, tobacco-related deforestation accounts for more than 40 percent of the countries’ total annual deforestation. And as trees begin to disappear, so do valuable nutrients in the soil, which are needed to maintain whole ecosystems and the climate.

The only thing that increases with the loss of trees is carbon dioxide emissions, which is yet another threat to the climate. It’s been estimated that the 9 million acres being deforested annually for tobacco production accounts for nearly 5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a lot, when you think about it, from just one industry.

Yet–in the face of this impending ecological and climate disaster–farmers in developing countries continue to grow tobacco because of the tremendous financial incentives from multinational corporations like Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds. With enticements such as farming supplies or a guaranteed foreign exchange for their crops, farmers are reluctant to use their land for anything else.

Even when some corporations try to boost their green reputation by offering to replant trees on excess farmland, most tobacco farmers use what little land is left to grow food for their families. But if farmers were to stop growing tobacco and only grow food crops– as the Yale University School of Medicine reported a while back–10 to 20 million of the world’s current 28 million undernourished people could be fed.

Now, that clearly cuts right to the very heart of the need for sustainable solutions. Not simply sustainable production practices. It’s possible to grow tobacco organically, without as many pesticides, and using curing methods that do not require wood fuel. One company doing just that is Natural American Spirit–which many of you have no doubt seen advertised in progressive magazines like Mother Jones. They pride themselves on being 100 percent additive free, but due to a court ruling they must also state that their cigarettes are as hazardous as other cigarettes. This is why sustainable production practices alone aren’t the answer.

Sustainability, I believe, is more than what’s good for the environment. It’s what’s good for the community. And the environment is a part of that–a big part. But so is the health of community members and the prosperity of farmers. That’s why the sustainable solution to tobacco needs to be something that helps the community as whole. Ideas for this alternative are already taking shape, namely in the form of organic fruits and vegetables.

According to the London-based Panos Institute, which specializes in development issues, “Many crops can grow in land that is now under tobacco—they include the majority of grain crops and vegetables. Things like sugar cane, bananas, coconut, pineapples and cotton could all be suitable.”

Right here in Virginia, there’s a non-profit organization called Appalachian Sustainable Development, whose goal is to create jobs that help the environment instead of hurting it. That’s put them in direct contact with tobacco farmers, helping them transition to organic produce by not only teaching them the methods, but also finding local supermarkets that will buy from them. The PBS series NOW did a whole special on this, documenting how one farmer, who was slow to the idea at first because of its hippie connotations, now says he’s making twice as much on organic produce as he was making on tobacco.

Meanwhile, in North Carolina, another non-profit, called the Golden Leaf Foundation, has been using funds from the massive tobacco litigation settlements of the ’90s to help farmers transition from a tobacco-dependent economy to alternative programs like goat farming.

From the successes of our small communities we can actually make the case for sustainable living in the larger global community–something we all belong to and desperately need to engage and protect.

We can also take a lesson from tobacco that some products simply aren’t needed. That may seem obvious, but we live in a consumer world that would sooner sell us the eco-friendly version of something than admit that that something actually isn’t needed in the first place. The most eco-friendly thing we can do is to use less useless products and more life-sustaining ones.