The Conservation Report

Andrew Sullivan believes that Ronald Bailey has exposed a food miles farce, but you can’t compare bananas to apples without considering the reality of unsustainable consumption and the unsustainability of industrial agriculture.

Bailey argues that using food miles—the distance food travels to get to your plate—as a factor for sustainability isn’t realistic. He gives several examples in an attempt to discredit the food miles argument, but these examples aren’t strong enough to discredit the argument. For example, he cited a study that found the “cold storage of British apples produced more carbon dioxide than shipping New Zealand apples by sea to London.” However in many parts of the world like Michigan, it is certainly unsustainable to purchase apples from a Michigan supermarket that came from New Zealand when locally grown organic Michigan apples can be purchased in a local Michigan farmer’s market. Furthermore, the energy or fuel used to transport New Zealand apples to Michigan is very high.

I understand what Bailey is trying to argue, but he isn’t considering all the factors. For example, he argues “It is possible to grow bananas in Iceland, but Costa Rica really has the better climate for that activity.” Certainly, bananas should be purchased and transported from the best place possible, but there are other factors in addition to climate or suitability that should be taken into consideration when determining the best place possible such as distance, infrastructure used to produce the food, fuel costs, in addition to the impact on the local environment and markets.

I don’t believe consumers shopping locally in Michigan expect to buy bananas grown in Michigan, but if the closest and best place is Costa Rica, then Costa Rica is reasonable. On the other hand, I believe that some consumers have a problem with purchasing apples from New Zealand or blueberries from Chile, when the same produce can be purchased locally.  To my knowledge, New Zealand apples don’t offer anything substantially different than apples grown in the United States, so purchasing apples grown in New Zealand seems silly or unreasonable.  Furthermore, if consumers known as locavores decide to purchase produce from within a 50- or 100-miles radius, then that’s their choice, and their choice saves a lot of energy.

Ultimately, I believe Bailey’s assessment is lacking because it seeks to discredit the food miles argument when the food miles factor is still a very important factor in determining sustainability. He says, “Food miles advocates fail to grasp the simple idea that food should be grown where it is most economically advantageous to do so,” but he fails to take into consideration rising fuel consumption and rising fuel prices. More than ever, it is important to conserve resources where possible. Furthermore, climate change policy is seeking to cut out unnecessary carbon where it exists.

Personally, I believe the consumer has a moral responsibility to purchase food packaged in materials that can be recycled or food that can be locally or organically grown in order to force industry to make more sustainable decisions. Of course, not all people have the luxury of making sustainable decisions because they may not have the knowledge or resources to do so, but many Americans are in the position to make better choices to some degree, and there are several ways to contribute to sustainability. For example, you can: (1) focus on purchasing produce grown within a 100-mile radius, (2) commit to purchasing a portion of your food from a local farmer’s market during the summer, (3) make a good faith attempt to purchase sustainable seafood, (4) commit to some type of vegetarianism, or (5) purchase food that comes in reduced and recyclable packaging. I agree with Marc at In One Ear… Out the Other:

Yet despite the versatility of such crops, we still rely on far away industrialized agriculture to provide most of our diet, and the reason is that the historically low price of fuel has allowed us to concentrate and specialize our agriculture to certain regions. Most of our cereals in this country are produced in the plains states, our vegetables in California and poultry and pork to the South, and those products are then shipped across the country from those locations because of the benefit of cheap fuel. The system reinforces itself too, cheap Plains states cereals are shipped to the South to feed chickens. Guano is collected from Southern chicken farms and used for fertilizers out West, and etc.. The system works and works well, economically speaking, to the extent that we have cheap fuels for transportation.

Cheap fuels, however, are not likely to continue to be a reality. Grains grown in South Dakota fall at the same latitude and growing season as grains to be grown in New York, yet most New Yorkers still rely on Western grains. To drive through Western New York and it becomes immediately evident that those crops can and are grown successfully there; there are fields and fields of corn, yet hardly any are intended for human consumption. The majority is “field corn” or corn grown to supplement cow feed for local dairy production. However, besides for the economics of cheap fuel, there is no real reason not to diversify.

So while carbon emissions from food transport may represent a small part of overall emissions, its important to the extent that its an unsustainable and soon to be economically irrelevant portion. Also, when we’re talking about reducing carbon emissions globally by a certain date by 10%, 20%, 40% - that 1% becomes all the more significant.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Calculate you carbon footprint here.

See more green graffiti

Certainly, bottled water is a scam. First, the advertisement is misleading and second, resources are unnecessarily wasted to tap, bottle, deliver, and dispose of the trash made by bottled water. As a result, the carbon footprint of bottled water is very significant. However, one bottled water company seems to be employing honest advertising and providing a local product to a very large market—New York City.

Tap’dNY, a New York City bottled water company is taking advantage of an ugly truth: bottled water isn’t anything special. Tap’dNY takes tap water and use reverse osmosis, which purifies water so well that I use water filtered by reverse osmosis in my coral reef tank. Basically, reverse osmosis strips natural and unnatural impurities from water and leaves the H₂O. Tap’dNY works “with NYC’s public water system to source the world’s best tasting tap water, purify it through reverse osmosis and bottle it locally, leaving out ludicrous transportation miles.” Furthermore, the company is offering reusable water bottles that can be refilled at refilling stations.

Being a family man, Salon.com writer Mark Benjamin can do a lot with his sport utility bicycle. He can haul groceries, take his kids shopping, and even “haul a barbecue grill and make a margarita” with a blender attachment. Certainly, the blinder attachment, which is powered by human energy, is very cool. How often the average American who purchases such a product will use it is another story.

If you have a family and want to get fit or reduce your carbon footprint then these specially outfitted bikes are a practical alternative to driving a car. Additionally, sport utility bicycles are probably most attractive for Americans living in the suburbs or cities.

Regular bikes are probably more practical if you don’t have a family, and you may or may not be surprised with what you can carry in a large backpack on a regular mountain bike sans back problems of course. Saddlebags are a smart addition to avoid back problems, and I am sure saddlebags have evolved to carry all sorts of things. Read or watch more about Mark Benjamin’s experiences with his specially outfitted sport utility bike here.

Clay Bennett left The Christian Science Monitor and now works at the Chattanooga Times Free Press. Pay him a visit there.

The debate over the effectiveness of organic farming at mitigating climate change is currently being argued. Some argue that conventional or more mechanized methods of agriculture are easier on the planet while others urge that the expansion of organic farming is needed to mitigate impacts of warming. I believe that more organic farming is needed. However, the definition of organic farming whether applied to small or large-scale organic farms needs to be heavy on methods that promote efficiency and sustainability.

Permaculture is a farming methodology (or way of living really) that promotes efficiency by maximizing the use of all available resources in a sustainable manner. The goal is to produce as much as possible without relying on input or very little input into the overall system.

Furthermore, organic farming is a skill. Organic farming methods that were once used centuries before were largely forgotten in mainstream culture once industrial farming took over. Essentially, to be efficient, Americans must relearn farming and not rely on Wal-Mart or Home Depot to purchase bagged soil, chemical fertilizers, or pesticides.

I believe the organic argument (especially how it is presented by the media) parallels the biofuel debate. Many folks believe that biofuels are bad for the planet because of the press. In the beginning the press demonized biofuels in its headlines.

However, not all biofuels are bad for the planet in terms of contributing to climate change or rise in food prices. Essentially biofuels that are made from sugars and starches or the foodstuff can be inefficient. However, cellulosic biofuels utilize the nonfood parts of the plant to produce biofuels so the starches and sugars are not used to produce ethanol. Essentially this is a much more efficient use of the land especially when methods of selective harvesting or applying elements of permaculture. Of course, this excludes cutting down rainforests for palm oil productions. Such land use is reckless because the method does not maximize carbon sequestering, destroys biodiversity and if the land becomes unproductive, it will possibly loose any ability to sequester carbon.

Certainly, large-scale organic farming must be scrutinized. For example, purchasing Michigan apples produced by mechanized agriculture is arguably superior to organic apples purchased in a Michigan supermarket that were grown in New Zealand. However, small-scale organic farming or even large-scale methods that employ elements of permaculture could actually provide more work than conventional agriculture. Furthermore organic farming should not rely on chemical fertilizers that are petroleum based, antibiotics, and hormones (or very limitedly) thereby reducing the impact these substances have on the environment and our own health.

Furthermore, soil associated with organic farming is also healthier and can produce more than conventional agriculture that weakens the soil structure therefore making conventional farming susceptible to droughts and erosion. The press can sometimes lack a holistic analysis of situations involving environmental degradation.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse me or my work and their image is protected under an attribution license.

On the Net: Rodale’s LaSalle urges expansion of organic farming to mitigate impacts of warming
On the Net: Surprise! Conventional Agriculture Can Be Easier on the Planet

People will behave altruistically towards the environment if given the tools to do so. Education, infrastructure and resources are key elements in fighting environmental degradation. Additionally, environmental buzzwords or ideas like “carbon footprint” and “carbon neutrality” serve as tools that help bring abstract or intangible ideas like environmental degradation and global warming into perspective. Recently these buzzwords were voluntarily put into action in a few fishing tournaments across Florida.

Some recreational fishing tournaments have taken steps to reduce their impact on the environment by practicing catch and release, raising money for charities, carpooling to tournaments and fishing with kayak. Kayaks go where motorboats cannot and there is no rumbling or smoky outboard motor burning fossil fuel. The sounds of nature are clear and animals do not flee from the onslaught of an approaching motorboat. Kayaks are manatee friendly too. Manatees die from interactions with boat propellers or suffer from lacerations via accidental and negligent encounters. From the Tallahassee Democrat:

“Kayak fishermen have been fishing green for a very long time and the tradition has grown exponentially over the last few years with the advent of the sit-on-top kayak,” Suber said. “In addition to the recreational fishing, local and regional tournaments have been formed that are also designed in a green format.”

Suber said they compete in a Catch-Photo-Release tournament for charity, where fish are caught, measured and released to the same habitat where they were caught. All competitors are in human-powered paddle boats and fish with hook-and-line methods and artificial or natural bait.

Recently kayakers car-pooled from as far away as Wisconsin, New Jersey and Virginia to compete with anglers from Alabama, Georgia and Florida in the Forgotten Coast region located below Tallahassee.

Certainly, kayaks work as a great alternative to motorboats for freshwater and coastal shallow water fishing but what about deep-water ocean fishing? Recently, Miami hosted the world’s first fishing tournament that offset around 200 tons of carbon dioxide emissions by investing in green technology that captures methane gas, which is converted into electricity. The tournament was even co-sponsored by Environmental Defense. Resource users and environmentalists can work together to solve complex environmental problems. From Environment News Service:

The tournament is offsetting an estimated 200 tons of carbon dioxide emissions through AgCert, which will use the funds for an East Coast methane capture project. Methane gas from dairy farms will be converted into electricity, balancing out the tournament’s greenhouse gas impact on the environment.

Environmental Defense, a co-sponsor of the tournament, wants to make sure the tournament’s carbon neutral message resonates with Florida anglers. The group has launched the Green Button Project, which offers anglers the chance to buy climate mitigation credits when they fuel their boats.

“We hope that someday every motor runs on clean, renewable energy, but until then we’re doing what we can to help boaters connect the dots and cut their own carbon footprint,” said Jerry Karnas, Florida Climate Project director for Environmental Defense.

These anglers are practicing voluntary regulation. People need education sans propaganda and successful environmental education programs translate into voluntary regulation. Individuals and groups act faster to solve environmental problems than governments. Changing behavior voluntarily is often a better way to achieve environmental goals because the government is encumbered by ideologies, lobbyists, special interests and the struggle to enact on environmental degradation that often seems too complex and hard to grasp since our political and technological society often overshadows indicators in nature until it is too late.

The fact that individuals and groups are making efforts shows that environmental education is working. Getting people to think about how they live and how their choices impact the environment will lead to altruistic behavior that is beneficial to the environment. However, changing consumer habits is just a piece of the puzzle and more must be done to fight population increase and our reliance on nonrenewable energy. Otherwise, all the gains will continue to be lost generation after generation or to a new and ever growing hungry population.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse me or my work and their image is protected under an attribution license.

IMAGES contrast normal energy use with reduced energy use associated with WWF’s “Earth Hour” event. Image at top by Paul Miller/AP Photo and at right by Mark Baker/AP Photo

Sydney along with other cities around the world dimmed the lights in a symbolic event to recognize climate change and how working together humanity can remedy the problem through cooperation. The event is known as “Earth Hour” and is organized via the World Wildlife Fund. The event is simply a beautiful idea. From the World Wildlife Fund:

Earth Hour is a global event created to symbolize that each one of us, working together, can make a positive impact on climate change - no matter who we are or where we live.

Created by WWF in Sydney, Australia in 2007, Earth Hour has grown from a single event into a global movement. In 2008, millions of people, businesses, governments and civic organizations in nearly 200 cities around the globe will turn out for Earth Hour. More than 35 US cities will participate, including the US flagships–Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix and San Francisco.

Earth Hour brings together communities, local governments, corporate and nongovernmental organizations to heighten awareness about climate change and to inspire our nation to take practical actions to reduce their own carbon footprints.

Earth Hour: March 29, 2008 8 - 9 PM

Cities around the world will join together in literally turning off the lights for one hour to offer leadership and symbolize their commitment to finding climate change solutions.

Lights will be turned off at iconic buildings and national landmarks from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Local businesses and restaurants will also be asked to turn off their lights.

People at home can take advantage of the hour by replacing their standard light bulbs with energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs.

“This is the perfect opportunity for individuals, governments, businesses and communities around the world to unite for a common purpose, in response to a global issue that affect us all.”
- Carter S. Roberts, President and CEO WWF

Image Found Here
Image Found Here

The media recently raised headlines asserting that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or PHEVs could increase air pollution. The question arises from PHEVs charging into an electric grid that is powered by coal or predominantly by coal. However, PHEVs and coal are not the problem but narrow governmental policy is the problem. More homes should be using renewable energy extracted from sources such as solar. Electric utility companies should be extracting at least 25% of their energy from renewable energy sources and implement plans to increase the percentage. Government vehicles should be fuel efficient and all new government buildings should meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED standards. America’s fuel efficiency standard should be 50 miles-per-gallon. The federal government should be setting a standard for the rest to follow. However, it seems that local governments are more common sensical.

San Francisco may pass a green building ordinance in the next month. Some argue that hybrids are not economical for commercial or governmental fleets but the Highland Park, Illinois city council purchased a hybrid that saved them $980 in fuel costs. As a result, the city council switched “its non-emergency fleet vehicles to Toyota Prius hybrids.” Greensburg, Kansas after a devastating tornado is rebuilding green using LEED standards. All city buildings will be constructed to LEED Platinum level standards.

Most importantly, more research is being conducted to understand the holistic picture of anthropogenic activities and how we can manipulate the entire process to promote efficiency and mitigate the release of carbon. For example, when considering the carbon footprint of manufacturing solar cells not all photovoltaic cells are alike but solar cells are increasingly becoming more energy efficient and a new study compares and highlights the potential of solar energy. From Cleantech, CA:

Based on production data taken from over a dozen solar companies between 2004 and 2006, researchers from Brookhaven National Laboratory and Columbia University compared the manufacturing processes of single-crystal, multicrystal, ribbon silicon solar cells and thin-film cadmium-telluride solar cells.

The assessment also took into account the support materials needed such as cables, and the energy sources used in each manufacturing process. Different values were assigned to electricity generated from sources such as coal and natural gas. The researchers also looked at the use of each system over a 30-year period.

The researchers found that thin-film cadmium-telluride solar cells had the best life-cycle profile. Even though the process emitted the heavy metal cadmium, it still had a lower overall level of “harmful air emissions” than the other PV technologies in the study, they said….

“Overall, all PV technologies generate far less life-cycle air emissions per GWh than conventional fossil-fuel-based electricity generation technologies,” they wrote in the report. “At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity generation could be prevented if electrity from photovoltaics displaces electricity from the grid.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse me or my work and their image is protected under an attribution license.

We can have a healthier environment with less pollution by integrating more renewable energy into homes, which in return adds excess energy into the collective energy grid. We can then either use the collective grid or the renewable energy produced from our home to charge our electric or PHEV cars. However, the beauty of oil is that pound for pound it is loaded with a lot of energy. Oil has produced our civilization today and it allows us to produce our renewable technologies. Consequently, oil should be saved and used appropriately or wisely. Instead, we unnecessarily consume oil with a zealous greed. The caveat is that oil not only gives us energy but carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas. Oil also produces other pollutants.

A certain amount of carbon dioxide is trapped underground within oil reserves and a certain amount aboveground within the atmosphere. Civilization adds to the carbon dioxide aboveground via tailpipe emissions. The automobile is but one instrumentality or utility amongst many that we use to convert oil into carbon dioxide. We have the technology to live in a cleaner world today and facilitate civilization to bank its oil wealth. We can then collect on the interest incurred. The amount of oil left in the ground represents wealth and wealth represents power. We live within an oil rush. It is sad but it is our reality. You can live in reality or you can shy away into a zombieotic or robotic like existence. I however want to save the polar bears. Polar bears not only represent nature’s ingenuity but as a species they are symbolic in that their health and survival or extinction will reflect our priorities as a species. From the Washington Times:

A Bush administration decision on listing polar bears as endangered species and victims of global warming has erupted into a separate battle on Capitol Hill to block oil and gas exploration in order to protect the animals’ arctic hunting grounds.

The administration delayed its January deadline on whether to list the bears, but is moving ahead with a separate move Feb. 6 to issue new permits for oil drilling in the Chukchi Sea, which Democrats and environmentalists say they oppose….

“Robert Frost wrote about two roads diverging in the wood, and here we have the Bush administration looking down two roads with regard to the polar bear,” Mr. Markey said. “Down one road lies the survival of the polar bear and the orderly consideration of oil drilling and global warming and common sense. Down the other road, too often traveled by this administration, lies regulatory lunacy and a blatant disregard for moral responsibility.”

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse me or my work and their image is protected under an attribution license.

From the TreeHugger:

British rock and rollers have been rated on how eco-friendly they are and how carbon neutral their tours have been this year. The scores ranged from 0: as carbon neutral as Bob Geldof’s bathwater to ten: as good for the Earth as an oil spill. The Police, fronted by green crusader Sting, topped the charts at 7 for causing massive pollution on their recent world tours. At their Dublin concert 82,000 fans racked up untold amounts of carbon emissions.

—
Photo source for attribution here. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse me or my work and their image is protected under an attribution license.

Not to take the fun out of the holidays but I do agree with this opinion from Deb Roelofs who wrote into The Grand Rapids Press. I believe being tactful reflects sustainability because plastic inflatable decorations are just too much:

Here is one small way our community members can sabotage efforts to save the planet. Purchase thousands of colored lights and plastic inflatable toys for your yard to seek attention and stress the power grid. Leave them on 18 hours a day. Hope that your house is highlighted in the annual parade of lights story in The Press.

That will encourage hundreds of people to tour the city in their cars and SUVs and use more precious resources viewing the spectacular electronic display. Then we can all be assured we are doing our part to keep the American consumerist spirit of Christmas alive.

Examples of how folks are having a “greener” Christmas include:

On the Net: SUSTAINABILITY: How green is your Christmas tree? And other tips.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse me or my work and their image is protected under an attribution license.

Al Gore in a move to improve his jet-setting carnivore image took public transportation when “he arrived Friday in Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize” according to the Associated Press. Given all the conservatives who love to hate Al Gore, I believe his efforts are nobel.

Image Found Here

Natural disasters are another variable to be considered in climate change models. The University of New Hampshire is conducting research to determine how much carbon is released during natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. From the Boston Globe:

George Hurtt, an associate professor who co-authored a study published in the academic journal Science, said the more than 300 million dead or damaged trees will send about 105 million metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere as they decompose, an amount equal to the carbon all forests in the United States take in each year.

The research is significant because while carbon emissions are considered a key factor in global warming, most scientists have focused only on man-made carbon emissions, Hurtt said. Some researchers believe that as global warming progresses, storms will get stronger and happen more frequently, Hurtt said, which creates a cycle of putting more carbon into the atmosphere.

“This situation with these hurricanes is a factor that hasn’t been considered yet that could make any amount of global warming that might happen due to human emissions even worse,” he said.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse me or my work and their image is protected under an attribution license.

Frito-Lay’s factory is trying to reach as close to net zero as possibly by recycling water and using renewable resources. From the New York Times:

Its goal is to take the Casa Grande plant off the power grid, or nearly so, and run it almost entirely on renewable fuels and recycled water. Net zero, as the concept is called, has the backing of the highest levels of corporate executives at PepsiCo, the parent company of Frito-Lay.

There are benefits besides the potential energy savings. Like many other large corporations, PepsiCo is striving to establish its green credentials as consumers become more focused on climate change. There are marketing opportunities, too. The company, for example, intends to advertise that its popular SunChips snacks are made using solar energy.

Diane Rehm and her panel discuss how the private sector is adapting to climate change where the “green revolution will as time goes on rival globalization and the arrival of the internet in terms” of influence on the private sector. Click to listen to “Going Green in the Private Sector“.