A thoughtful reader left a provocative (no, not that kind, the thought kind) comment on a post of mine last summer, asking some interesting questions about industrial agriculture:

On a more serious note, do you think the industrial food system is bad in-and-of-itself, or in the ways it currently operates? Could the system be changed? More importantly, could we (as in all almost 7 billion of us) survive without the industrial food system? How do we address the issue of food distribution (and why aren’t we doing a better job of it now)? I’m not sure if there are solid answers to these questions. As it is, I’m just kind of thinking out loud.

I hit the first two questions in Can Industrial Agriculture Work?.  Now on to the “more importantly.”  It really is more important, because for now, if a solution involving changing our behavior doesn’t work for us, it’s not going to happen, no matter how good for the planet it may be.

Can sustainable agriculture feed the world?

Study after study shows that as far as yield per acre is concerned, sustainable agriculture done right outperforms industrial agriculture.  It just does.  (Why do we care about yield per acre? Lots of people, crowded planet, limited fertile farmland.)  What we tend to look at with industrial agriculture is yield per dollar.  And with that as its focus, industrial agriculture beats organic for that.

But, and this is a big but… BUT that yield per dollar equation relies on two major inputs: oil and water.  One more time – industrial agriculture relies on cheap and easy access to oil and water.  We have no reason to believe that oil is getting cheaper (see: What is peak oil?).  And we more or less know that, barring some huge technological breakthrough, we are in trouble when it comes to fresh water, the kind our animals, our food crops, and our families need to survive.

At what cost?

The other thing to remember about industrial agriculture is that those prices you see in the grocery store aren’t real.  If you live in the US, they’re actually heavily subsidized by your tax dollars.  You may not realize it, but much of our current agricultural system is propped up by the Farm Bill (although this year, maybe not?), without which current practices would be absolutely unsustainable (that is, one way on top of all the other ways they are already unsustainable).  Prices as we know them simply don’t reflect reality.

As for the externalized costs of industrial agriculture – costs to the land, water, animals, our own health – they are… heartbreaking.

And these prices, this system, our “food reality,” is indeed, unsustainable.  It is not really a question of whether we can feed the world – over 10 billion people by 2050 – without industrial agriculture.  We can.  We know we can.

Photo CC ||  http://www.flickr.com/photos/kkoshy/

Honestly, I believe we really cannot feed that many people with industrial agriculture, at least not as we know it today.  Sustainable agriculture means more efficient land use, definitely a must-have for a more crowded planet.  It also means not depleting our limited resources, rebuilding rather than decimating the land we are using to grow crops, and moving away from buying food with oil.  Industrial agriculture isn’t working for the planet, and as we try to feed more and more people, we will feel the crunch and it will become clear that it’s not really working for us now.

Related posts:

1. Can Industrial Agriculture Work? (Part 1)
2. The Sustainable Agriculture Fad
3. Why I Feed My Pets Raw

This was a really great question posed by a reader on a post called Canning & Gratitude:

On a more serious note, do you think the industrial food system is bad in-and-of-itself, or in the ways it currently operates? Could the system be changed? More importantly, could we (as in all almost 7 billion of us) survive without the industrial food system? How do we address the issue of food distribution (and why aren’t we doing a better job of it now)? I’m not sure if there are solid answers to these questions. As it is, I’m just kind of thinking out loud.

Instead of writing a novel in the comments, I promised her a blog post with my thoughts on her excellent questions.  In fact, it will probably end up being a series of blog posts, because yeah – big questions.  Long answers.  Lots of thoughts.

First off, is the industrial food system bad in-and-of-itself?

No.  I tend to think no on this one.

Part of this answer will depend on what we mean when we say “industrialization.”  We could probably debate that until the proverbial cows come home.  But for the purpose of this pondering, we’ll use the Wikipedia definition:

Industrial farming is a form of modern farming that refers to the industrialized production of livestock, poultry, fish, and crops. The methods of industrial agriculture are technoscientific, economic, and political. They include innovation in agricultural machinery and farming methods, genetic technology, techniques for achieving economies of scale in production, the creation of new markets for consumption, the application of patent protection to genetic information, and global trade.

Industrialization, like anything, is a tool.  How we use it is our choice.  Given this definition, industrial agriculture is actually a portfolio of tools, and we have a choice about the directions we take with and goals for which we develop them.

Innovation in farming methods and agricultural machinery are not inherently bad.  Innovation in farming methods and agricultural machinery that disregard the bigger picture, the health of the whole, and sustainability over the long term are a huge problem.  That type of industrialization will not serve the planet OR our own needs.  These methods excel at maximizing profit, but fail across the board in numerous other ways.

Photo CC || http://www.flickr.com/photos/walmartcorporate

Industrial agriculture as it exists now, with it’s priorities “misaligned,” so to speak, fails us nutritionally.  It fails the planet.  It fails our children and their children.  It fails those who are starving for lack of access to food in a world where there is enough to feed everyone.  Which leads to the next question…

Could the system be changed?

I believe very strongly that it could be.  It is absolutely incredible the ingenuity, creativity, and flat out awesome that humans are capable of when we get ourselves moving towards a clearly-defined goal.

But right now our incentives are all weird.  Between agricultural subsidies from the farm bill and corporations having the rights of actual human beings, it’s a weird, incentive-skewed world out there.  All of our awesome humanness is being directed in funky directions, distracted, or minimized.

If we could somehow get rid of all that, I think the ingenuity and investment currently fueling industrial agriculture could create a system that looks very different.

What I wonder though is if industrial agriculture might always look… well, industrial.  Look at industrial organic and how far it has strayed from the original spirit of organic agriculture.  The criteria are met, certainly, but industrial organic operations are taking on a lot more of the “industrial” these days than we necessarily picture.  Does industrial agriculture just end up looking industrial?

Or maybe industrial could also look like solar and wind powered farm machinery.  Or vertical urban agriculture.  Or things we haven’t yet dreamed of because of weirdified feedback loops.  Clean industrial.  Sustainably industrial?

I don’t know.  But I’m hopeful.  How about you?  What do you think?

Related posts:

1. Industrial Agriculture Ate My Facebook
2. The Sustainable Agriculture Fad

Hope everyone is having a good “Monday” back after the Memorial Day holiday.  Yesterday I hassled a friend about heading home to be productive.  After all, the only activities allowed on Memorial Day are relaxing, eating and doing a ton of yard work.

Wait, what?  Yah, I had to add that to the list because that is what our weekend was about.

To Portland…

DH and I spent the first part of the weekend down in Portland.  Highlights include derby teamwork & strategy clinic (<3 RCR so bad!), visiting my friend’s farm and her new baby goats, and eating amazing Portland food.  New recycled cotton derby socks.

Best of the weekend?  Ned Ludd. Amazing food, kitchen garden out back, container garden in the front.  Homemade pickles.  Yum.  The farm-to-cone sea salt and caramel ice cream at Salt & Straw came in a close second.

Inside Ned Ludd. Photo CC|| http://www.flickr.com/photos/29311691@N05/

The options for real, local, sustainable food in Portland never cease to astound me.  It’s such a luxury to be able to eat out and have so many choices for thoughtfully prepared, ethically sourced food.  Affordable.  Sure, not IHOP affordable.  But not IHOP food either!  And having these choices shouldn’t be a luxury.  Clearly, it doesn’t have to be.  What would it take to bring places like this more into the mainstream?  Or at least to more places?

And Back

Memorial Day proper was garden day.  We mapped out what is going where in the yet-to-be-built (we’re getting there!) raised beds and weeded.  Weeded, weeded, weeded.  I’m excited to get the scarlet runner beans and the herb gardens going, and just waiting for a day with a little bit less precipitation to get the beds built.

Although, if all else fails, I’ll just build garden beds in the rain.  It’s Washington, right?

Post-Recycled Consumer Goods, What?

Right now I’m reading You Are Here: Exposing the Vital Link Between What We Do and What That Does to Our Planet (longest subtitle ever, right?).  It’s a good book – I’ll do a full review when I finish it.  Short version for now: engagingly written, some of the same stuff but some new stuff too.

New stuff like the difference between recycled-content goods and post-consumer recycled goods.  Maybe I’m the only person in the world who missed this memo, but I totally did.

I try to be good about buying recycled products.  Toilet paper, office supplies, pretty much anything where I have the option, I buy recycled.  I totally didn’t realize that I was missing the mark here.  From You Are Here:

Recycled-content products are usually made from the leftovers of production when new goods are manufactured.  With paper, this is the extra shavings of pulp and sawdust, for example.  Post-consumer recycled products, on the other hand, are made from materials that have served their function for consumers and have been recovered through a recycling program.  The latter is obviously better for the environment because virgin materials are being saved.

Either way recycled is better than not recycled, but I have been mistakenly thinking that “recycled” meant “post-consumer recycled.”  Good to know.

Speaking of recycled, this weekend I saw shopping carts made out of recycled plastic (post-consumer?  who knows…).  Those were pretty neat!

How was everyone’s Memorial Day weekend?

Related posts:

1. Greenwashing Our Way Towards Better Standards?
2. Edible Urban Gardening and My Project
3. #EcoMonday And Living Green One Day A Week

Grist featured an article this week about the “war” between the city and the suburb.  (Yikes – talk about a loaded word in a liberal military household.)

I am still trying to figure out where I stand on this one – there are valid arguments in both camps (and some kind of ludicrous ones as well).  I don’t know that the framing of this issue as a war is useful and I’m not sure if it’s already inevitable.  While I agree that this kind of framing can be mobilizing, I think we’ve all seen how “war” efforts can stagnate and deflate serious problems.  The War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, anyone?

/end mini-soapbox

Photo CC || http://www.flickr.com/photos/migulski/

Given all that, I’m not sure if these articles are particularly useful.  If framing this issue as a war is detrimental to finding sustainable solutions, I hate to be spreading it around.  But on the other hand, perhaps this is an effective method of building momentum.

The Grist article that I mentioned above links to and extensively quotes from this interview with Worldchanging’s Alex Steffen, but it is definitely worth reading the full piece in its entirety.

From last year, part one and, more recently, part two of Saving The Suburbs.

And finally, an article I could barely get through – The War Against The Suburbs.  It’s vitriolic and filled with disdain, but certainly does its best to… well, just give it a skim.

So what do you guys think?  Are we at war?  Is this framing a useful construct?

Related posts:

1. Sustainability Saturday – #3
2. Sustainability Saturday #5
3. Sustainability Saturday #6

Today, yesterday, tomorrow – water.  Okay, so not actually tomorrow, but for this Sustainability Saturday I’m going to continue with yesterday’s Blog Action Day theme of water.  But in retrospect, that post seems a little gloomish to me.  And I don’t want to be a gloom shroom, so today’s water roundup is going to be all about solutions.  Amazing, beautiful, creative solutions to the water-related issues at hand!

Drinking Water

First off, drinking water.  We need it.  Around a billion people are without it ever day, and hundreds of thousands of children die each year due to lack of access to drinking water.  The problems with water as far as drinking is concerned are cleanliness and access.

From the ingenious Roundabout Play Pump, which harnesses kid-energy to provide water for an entire village, to the Hippo Water Roller and the Q Drum, people are coming up with elegant answers to the question of water transport.

Photo CC || http://www.flickr.com/photos/edytamaterk
Also, check out their wonderful photostream on Flickr!

Something as simple and as affordable as the LifeStraw could make the difference for people in countries with limited access to clean water, particularly given the expectation of increased freshwater shortages in the future.  The ability to sip clean water from a stagnant pool could mean the difference between life and death for millions of people.

Our Oceans

As for the oceans, unfortunately we’re not making much progress getting the plastic back out of the Pacific Gyre.  But there are some real solutions on the front of sustainable fishing and food production.

Catch shares are a new way of distributing fishing quotas that, at least as of now, seem to be working to sustain and rebuild fish populations.  With a catch share system, fishermen actually have an incentive to preserve and maintain the fish population.  Okay, so unless you’re a geeky wonk like me, catch shares may not be sexy and creative, but here’s something something more important than sexy: catch shares are working.

There are also some very creative responses to the pollution issues posed by traditional fisheries.  Ecologically sustainable ways to farm fish are out there.  It can be done, and again, there are people doing it!  (But for now, don’t assume that you’re doing the planet any favors by buying the farmed fish in your local grocery store.  Be sure you know where your seafood comes from.)

Can you see this video?  If not, click here to watch it on the blog.

But most exciting for me is aquaculture.  Aquaculture is so cool! Veggies + fish + small space + almost no waste = amazing.  Aquaculture is one of those cool ideas that can make sustainability sexy.  Particularly since it’s not just an idea on the drawing board.  It’s real and it’s happening right now.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Anyone have any positive, hopeful water-related projects or news to share?

Happy weekend, everyone!

Related posts:

1. Sustainability Saturday #5
2. Sustainability Saturday – #3
3. Sustainability Saturday #6

As promised and intended for last week, in honor of the fact that I have spent the last two weeks canning things (and that there appears to be no end in sight), this week’s Sustainability Saturday is about canning.  There’s not much more to say about that except thank goodness for the internet!  I don’t think I would ever have felt confident enough to take on this project without all the resources (and new friends!) I’ve found through the internet.  Thank you, Al Gore.

First off, first canned, fig jam.  This was a great recipe to start with and it turned out really nicely.  It didn’t gel quite enough, but I know now that was my fault, not the fault of the recipe.  I actually can’t say enough good things about the entire Pick Your Own site.  It’s a fantastic resource for real and local foodies.

Next, we have Food In Jars.  Wow, just wow.  I estimated my tomato order based on her fantastic picture of what 60lbs of tomatoes looks like, and her recipe for Unfancy Pickled Jalapeno recipe answered my question about what to do with 5lbs of jalapenos.  Somehow I didn’t end up with nearly that many jars of finished product, but it may be because I ended up with lots of cosmetic slicers instead of romas.

And finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention DH’s favorite from this whole process: jalapeno jelly.  He joked that I should have made more than two batches, but when I see how much of it he’s eaten in the last week… maybe I should have.  I certainly had the jalapenos for it!

I canned most of my tomatoes whole in order to speed up the process and because I couldn’t decide how much of what to make.  But I did make a couple batches of tomato sauce and salsa from the recipes on Thy Hand Hath Provided.  My sauce ended up a little runny and bland – my fault, not the fault of the recipe – but the salsa was delicious.

I also almost set the house on fire.  Literally.  Casualty: cork trivet that hitched a ride onto a burner on the bottom of a pan.  Oops.  Disaster averted though, thank goodness.

Do you have any good recipes to share – your own or anyone else’s?  Leave the link (or the recipe) in the comments!

Related posts:

1. Sustainability Saturday #7
2. Sustainability Saturday – #2
3. Sustainability Saturday – #3

In the spirit of disaster preparedness and zombie attacks, I present to you this super-cool disaster planning tool.  I’m not being end-of-the-worldish here, but I think this kind of thing is a good exercise that can bring to light some of the areas in which your household is disconnected with your community.  What I want to know is where is the little zombie icon under the “What to do if…” section? What to do if… ZOMBIES! (Zombie picture borrowed from Grist’s Stupid goes viral: The Climate Zombies of the new GOP)

I also really enjoyed Chef Kelly Myer’s column on preserving fruits in alcohol, which I found while searching for blackberry recipes, and it inspired me to try peaches or nectarines next week.  Per usual, as new as this seems to me, this is probably something my great-grandmother could have taught me if she were still alive.

On the other side of news, here’s a good article for the climate skeptics in your life: Arctic Round-Up: New Sea Routes Opening Up, New Infrastructure Imagined, and Canada’s Taking Action.  Amazing how the Arctic totally isn’t melting.  It’s all in our head.  Those are fake trade routes and fake ships and I have no idea what you are talking about Canada has a military huh?

Finally, I really want to build an Earthship.  Or I wanted to until one of my lovely Tweeps (come waste time with me on Twitter!) said that he had wanted to until he stayed in one.  Apparently they are crazy humid!  So I’m amending my desire to wanting to go stay in one and see if I can take the humidity.  Anyone care to join me?  Also, they are made of recycled tires that may or may not offgas.  Does any of you science-minded readers have thoughts on handling that issue?

Happy fall-is-coming weekend, everyone!

Related posts:

1. Sustainability Saturday – #2
2. Sustainability Saturday – #3
3. Sustainability Saturday #5

Happy Saturday, everyone.  It’s been a fairly good week in sustainability news.  And by that I mean that no additional catastrophes (at least not that I heard of) joined the more or less Hollywood-esque summer we’ve been “enjoying.”

Along those lines, here’s a great article about how to lower your movie theater and popcorn budget this summer; just turn on the news.

Alright, sorry… /end cynicism.

Last week I wrote a bit about writing a new, more epic story for your life.  This family did just that.  They set a goal, they started working towards it, and they reached their goal two years before they had hoped to.  For those skeptics out there, it is possible and people are doing it.  Check out Family of Four Grows Their Food in a Swimming Pool.

After Copenhagen there was a lot of discussion about addressing climate change on a local or regional level.  But maybe what we need to be doing in the wake of the failure of federal climate change policy is celebrating the EPA.

Getting even smaller, this week I concluded that I don’t have to do all of it.  But because we definitely want to do some of it ourselves, check out Sustainable Eats’ Simple Lives Thursday blog hop for a ton of great thoughts, ideas, recipes and discussions about living more sustainably on an individual level.  And oh… the recipes.  Yum.

And finally, I can’t believe it’s almost September.  I didn’t participate in One Small Change in July and August, but I’m pondering what I want to do for September.  One idea I had was having a No Plastic month, but I haven’t made up my mind yet.  Are you signing up for the next One Small Change challenge?

Hope everyone is having a wonderful weekend!

Related posts:

1. Sustainability Saturday – #3
2. Sustainability Saturday #5
3. Sustainability Saturday – #2

Today we are happy to share a guest post by Marcy Tate, a home improvement writer at Networx.  She covers topics including green home renovations and green electrical installations.  In the terms of Small Changes, Big Solutions, some of these steps are easily implemented as “things you just do.”  On a broader scale, it’s time to start working on retrofitting not just our own homes, but entire communities.

Making your home green-friendly is not only good for you and the environment; it’s also good for your wallet.  Many green home improvements can actually increase the value of your home and work to lower your utility bills.  The good news is that it’s not as hard as it used to be to make your home green. Unlike a few years ago, many green home products are easily accessible and affordable.  Here is a glance at some of the best ways to make your home green.

Appliances

If your appliances are over 10 years old or do not work properly, you may want to consider purchasing new, energy-efficient appliances.  Over the past few years, most well-known appliance makers have taken great steps to make their appliances more energy-efficient.  Always look for Energy Star approved appliances.  While some energy-efficient appliances require more up-front costs, homeowners will save in the long run as additional money can be saved through federal tax credits available to those who install certain Energy Star approved appliances.  From dishwashers to washing machines, Energy Star appliances can lower your water and electric bills as they conserve more water and energy than older, conventional models.

Paint

Harmful VOCs (volatile organic compounds) are often found in paints and stains.  Until recently, most paints contained dangerous levels of harmful VOCs.  Nowadays, most paint manufacturers produce low-VOC or zero-VOC paints.  Always select low or zero-VOC paint for an eco-friendly choice.

Flooring

There are several green flooring options, including bamboo and concrete.  Bamboo flooring is easily accessible and sold at big box home improvements stores throughout the US.  It is an excellent alternative to hardwood floors because bamboo is sustainable, growing quickly and abundantly.  Concrete floors are eco-friendly because less energy is used in the production of concrete than any other flooring type, and concrete is recyclable.  Additionally, concrete floors work to reduce energy consumption.  Because they can make one feel cooler, there is less of a need to use the air conditioning.  During the winter, concrete floors absorb the heat from the sun, helping to keep your home warm.  Be aware that concrete flooring is more expensive than other flooring options.  However, homeowners experience a good rate of return on this long-lasting floor type.

Lighting

The first step to green the lighting in your home is to replace old, inefficient light fixtures with low-voltage, energy-efficient fixtures and bulbs.  Place fixtures strategically for the most lighting coverage and not near natural light sources.  Remember to turn lights off if no one is in the room.

Select energy-efficient fixtures such as pendant lights for any room in your home or under-the-cabinet lighting for the kitchen.  Pendant lights and under-the-cabinet lights are available in low-voltage varieties.  Also, energy-saving, long-lasting xenon and halogen light bulbs can be used with these types of fixtures.  In fact, halogen bulbs can last for about 10,000 hours.

Tubular Skylights

Tubular skylights are gaining popularity in the US as homeowners realize their energy-saving potential.  A tubular skylight, also known as a sun tube or sun tunnel, resembles a recessed lighting fixture and blends well with any home décor.  They are small in size, making them more energy-efficient than conventional skylights.  Their small size means that there is less heat loss experienced in the winter and less heat gain in the summer.  Adding a tubular skylight can reduce the need for lighting in the daytime, thus saving even more energy.

Countertops

Green countertops include concrete, ceramic and recycled glass, as they do not contain petroleum-based plastics or non-renewable quarried stone.  Concrete countertops are eco-friendly because concrete is a widely available and renewable resource; ceramic tile manufacturing doesn’t create pollution, so the tiles are therefore considered an eco-option; recycled glass countertops are eco-friendly, as they are made from sustainable, recycled resources and can be recycled.

Cabinets & Furniture

The overall trend in green remodeling and renovations is to reuse and reclaim when possible.  One of the best ways to practice this is to resurface your cabinets instead of replacing them.  Resurfacing your kitchen cabinets will keep the old ones out of landfills.  If you do need to purchase new cabinets, select those from reclaimed or recycled wood.  Look for furniture that is made from sustainable wood and is formaldehyde and VOC- free.

Water Conservation

The best way to conserve water at home is to improve your water usage habits.  Additionally, install water-saving devices in the kitchen and bathroom.  For a few dollars, low-flow aerators can be installed into every faucet to reduce the flow of the water.  Low-flow shower heads do the same by reducing the flow.  Dual-flush toilets can also help you save by providing two flush options: full flush and half flush.  If you are in the market for a new toilet, select a high-efficiency model.

Energy Conservation

Have a professional energy audit performed on your house.  It will reveal areas where your home needs energy-saving improvements, such as additional insulation or window sealing.  Additionally, install a programmable thermostat and use it in a way that will save energy.

Related posts:

1. 19 Simple Ways to Start Thinking About Climate Change – Blog Action Day
2. Way Behind With the Green Power Program
3. Five Ways To Avoid Global Caregiver’s Syndrome

I’m into small changes.  I’m currently working on reducing the impact my household has on the planet – I recycle, consume much less than I once did, am changing the way I eat.  Today I’m even going to try to make my own butter. I really do believe in the power of small change.  So it bothers me when I hear someone criticize people who are choosing to make incremental changes in their lives for not being a part of the bigger solution.

It’s not that I see the small changes as the solution, or even as a piece of the solution.  I profoundly believe that we need change at a systems level, change that will fundamentally reshape the way that we live on this earth.  But it seems like the issue is often framed as an either or thing, and I don’t think that small changes and meaningful solutions are mutually exclusive.

For me, systemic solutions are what we must strive to imagine, develop, and implement on a broad scale.  Small changes are what you do on the way, because you don’t have much choice but to live while you’re getting there.  Each small change or individual action, even in aggregate, is not going to save the world.  If every single person recycled, we’d still be in trouble.  If everyone stopped taking commercial flights, we’d still have huge problems.  But those small changes – particularly if adopted on a widespread basis – will help buy us time.  Time we need to catch up to where we need to be on a systemic level.  Time to change the paradigm.

More importantly (perhaps?), I think small changes also pay off in our day-to-day life.  Slowing down, living more consciously and reconnecting with our families, our communities, and our choices enriches us.  You have to eat – why not do so consciously?  If you’re going to consume, do so with self-awareness.  In the same way you would hold a door open for someone or say please and thank you, we can strive for our lives to be acts of courtesy to the world.  We need big, systemic change.  But the little things we do make an extraordinary difference in our lives and the lives of those around us.

Sometimes I sit back and try to imagine a world in which each of us lives our daily lives with courtesy, consciousness and consideration.  We help where we see a need, and in turn receive acts of generosity when we are struggling.  We direct our energy consciously and deliberately towards a cause, whatever it may be for each one of us.  In the meantime, rather than moving through the world haphazardly, we strive to give each interaction the full attention and respect it deserves.

It is absolutely possible to get distracted by the little things, and we cannot afford to think that by recycling that glass bottle or driving a hybrid, we’ve done our part to solve the problem.  But I think we need to stop arguing about small changes versus big changes.  It’s wasting our time and energy, and creating division where there ought to be unity.  Small changes offer insufficient solutions for the problems we face, but they enrich our lives and communities in the present moment.  What if small changes were just the way we live while we work to imagine and fight for a brighter future?  What could our world look like if each action was a deliberate act of respect for our own lives and the lives of those around us?

Thumbnail Photo CC: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiegall/

Related posts:

1. One Small Change: Cloth Napkins

Yay, it’s Saturday!  And the sun actually came out for a whole two and a half days this week.  It was like a miracle, or at least it felt like one.  Hello, sun!  We’ve missed you!

Sustainability Saturday is without theme this weekend, because frankly my life is weird these days, and not lending itself to themes.

First up, Tuna’s End. The tuna, the tuna, the tuna.  More on this later, but here’s something to think about as you read this thoroughly researched and excellently written article about the decline of bluefin tuna: trade is everything.

Shared by a reader a few weeks ago (see, I’m catching up!) here is a graphic representation of the wide world of oil – where it comes from, who has it and how we use it.  Note the transportation sector – yikes!

In case you were looking for a little oil spill deja vu in your life, does any of this look familiar?

Sometimes The Oil Drum is a little too dense and doomish for me, but this week they had a brilliant guest post on the relationship between oil, agriculture, food, hunger, and obesity.  It is well worth the read.

As is fairly frequently the case, the best article I read this week came courtesy of Worldchanging – a discussion of why they haven’t been covering the BP oil spill, and an excellent explanation of systems, solutions-oriented thinking.  We need to be ambitiously and optimistically pursuing creative solutions.

This super-cool proposed solution appealed to my inner geek .

Ok, so never mind.  The theme this week was oil, with a little bit of food thrown in because food is tasty and we need it.

Finally, I feel it is my duty to share with you, so that you may learn from my experiences.  I did a shout out on Twitter and Facebook asking for organic solutions to my issue of aphids on my fruit trees.  The final verdict was water, with or without soap.  FYI, washing the aphids off your fruit trees when there is a slight breeze results in a rain of bug parts and pissed off, wet biting ants!  Just saying.  (My fruit trees look much better though.)

Happy Saturday, folks.

Related posts:

1. Sustainability Saturday – #3
2. Sustainability Saturday – #2
3. Saturday Morning Sustainability – A Week in Review

This issue of Sustainability Saturday has been postponed until… well, never, due to a concussion, a visit to a sustainable rabbit farm (thoughts and pictures forthcoming) and picking up the parrotlet.

So tell me about this week!  Anything good, bad, horrifying, or thought-provoking to share with all of us?

Related posts:

1. Saturday Morning Sustainability – A Week in Review
2. Sustainability Saturday – #2
3. Sustainability Saturday – #3

It’s Saturday again – man, did this week go by quickly!

This week we’ll be heading a little more to the theory side, with one exception: BP oil spill top-kill.  You’d almost have to live in a hole in a ground to have missed this, but be sure to keep an eye and an ear out for more status updates today.

So Now To The Theory

This great article explores the relationship between globalization and sustainability in terms of environmental carrying capacity.  This makes sense – it’s what competitive advantage is all about.  But I don’t remember Adam Smith mentioning the ecological ramifications.

The Powerful Vagueness of Sustainability discusses sustainability as a systemic process guided by our best science, instead of as a scientific absolute.  Another advantage of a deliberate “vagueness” or openness about the details is that it encourages creativity.  However, I would argue that this creativity must be guided by strong and clear principles if it is to result in effective and meaningful solutions.

The New York Times Freakonomics blog covered an article in Rolling Stone (if anyone has a link to the original article, let me know?) about how corporate buyers are purchasing farmland to capitalize on food shortages and other potential effects of climate change.  Fascinating, and I’m not really sure how I feel about it.

Finally, Racialicious gives us an insightful discussion of racial considerations in the sustainable food movement.  In my opinion, this is a must read and a must think about.  Also, I’m a huge fan of the gummy bears.

Happy weekend, everyone!

Related posts:

1. Saturday Morning Sustainability – A Week in Review
2. Sustainability Saturday – #2
3. The Sustainability of Radical Optimism

Since there’s a good chance not all of you spend your week submerged in news about sustainability, environmental politics, grassroots efforts, etc., I thought I would share with you some of the interesting things I came across this week.

Before the Oil Comes – From Megan Jordan, author of Velveteen Mind, a different side of the BP Gulf oil spill.  It’s a beautifully written piece that is well worth reading.

Locally Grown Won’t Cut It – Here’s a glimpse into the other side.  It’s good to remember that there are organized entrenched interests at work here.  In other words, people’s livelihoods are caught up in preserving the status quo.  The changes we advocate are very threatening to a lot of people, and it would behoove us to remember that.

A fascinating “Sustainability Faceoff” between McDonald’s and Starbucks. The article itself acknowledges that, on the surface, this may seem like an unusual choice of businesses.  But a sustainable future is not going to be based on companies like McDonald’s and Starbucks magically disappearing.  It is going to require corporations across the board to move systematically towards the “mouth of the funnel” in ways that are commercially and economically feasible – LED lightbulbs, sustainable fishing programs, recyclable and compostable packaging, and supplier sustainability scorecards (or something similar).

From Gabon, here’s a example of how important it is to find creative ways for local communities to be engaged in conservation efforts.

And for you real food types, how to make your own butter in a mason jar!

Finally, Sustainability Education Provides a Reason to Hope.  We need as many reasons to hope as we can find.

Happy Saturday, everyone!

Related posts:

1. Saturday Morning Sustainability – A Week in Review
2. Five Things NaNoWriMo Teaches Us About Sustainability
3. The Sustainability of Radical Optimism

A few weeks ago, I mentioned the funnel vs. the cylinder.  It would be hard to do a shorter version than what I put in that post, but I’ll give it a shot.

Funnel v. Cylinder “Class Notes”

• Ecological barriers = walls.
• We think we’re in a cylinder.
• Trying to avoid hitting the walls, invent our way into a wider cylinder.
• Actually in a funnel.  Forces acting to push the walls inward = population growth, market demand, positive feedback loops, resource availability, etc.

So if we accept that we are in a funnel and not a cylinder, the rational response changes.  In a cylinder, it might be rational to edge away from the walls, try to nudge them outwards, or even try to decrease our speed so that we don’t hit the walls quite as hard.  In the funnel, none of these responses make sense.  Because ecological systems are complex, we don’t know exactly how quickly the walls of the funnel are sloping inward.  Therefore, the only rational response in the funnel (or the only one I see – any others?) is to move as quickly as possible towards the center.

In other words, if you’re running from an avalanche, you don’t try to calculate the exact speed of movement that will put you just out of reach of the debris.  You just haul ass and hope you make it.

TSCA in the Funnel

Congress is currently in the process of reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Take a look around you.  From the computer on which you’re reading this post to the glaze on your coffee mug to the clothes that you’re wearing, you are probably surrounded by chemicals.  It may not be particularly reassuring that TSCA has been around in its present form since 1976.  A lot has changed since 1976.  (But My Little Ponies are back.  And composed of chemicals.)

(Random Sidenote:  The TSCA is sometimes referred to as “TOSCA.”  Once upon a time, I wanted to go to Julliard. Who am I kidding?  I still want to go to Julliard.  But anyways, I took a lot of voice lessons and had season tickets to the opera.  Tosca is still one of my favorite operas, which has weirdly translated over into a fond affection for the Toxic Substances Control Act, or at least its name.  I’m glad Congress is taking a look at reforming TSCA – it needs it – but I’ll miss the name.)

I’m sensitive to many chemicals.  By sensitive, I mean I burst into hives and want to rip the skin from my body.  No fun.  Why am I telling you about my hives?  Because it’s a constant reminder that in addition to the obvious environmental ramifications, there are human health issues at stake with TSCA as well.  Human health issues and environmental issues are similar in that we often don’t identify them until they are widespread.  And until it’s too late to fix them.  We find ourselves in a continual game of catch-up, with our health and our planet at stake.

I can’t help but wonder how TSCA and the TSCA reform efforts would look different if our political leaders were operating within a funnel paradigm rather than a cylinder.  What would it look like if they designed a bill to move us rapidly towards the mouth of the funnel rather than playing chicken with the walls of the cylinder?

Photo borrowed from The Natural Step framework.

Related Posts:

• Of Funnels, Cylinders, and Walls

Related posts:

1. Of Funnels, Cylinders & Walls
2. Shouldn’t But Do: Act II Popcorn

Here’s a nice little clip of Rob Hopkins at TED, speaking about the Transition Initiative, peak oil, climate change, and cultural narrative.  For those interested but not well-versed in Transition, it’s a really nice intro.

In the video, Hopkins mentions the idea of “running into a wall” in terms of peak oil and climate change.  He showed a picture of a truck crashing into a brick wall.  (Some days I feel like that.  Not the world, just me.  But that’s another story.)

My Intro to Sustainable Engineering class calls this concept the “illusion of the cylinder.” We (society, individuals, corporations, etc.) are traveling through a cylinder, the walls of which represent our limitations – resources, ecosystems, etc.  We are trying to avoid hitting the walls, tweaking systems based on “as much as possible.”  Limit our impact as much as possible.  Reduce consumption as much as possible.  Minimize pollution as much as possible.  As long as we can either keep ourselves from hitting the walls or, as we have done in the past, push the walls outward through technological innovation, we will be okay.

Except that according to my class (and Rob Hopkins, a bunch of climate scientists, sustainability activists, environmentalists… the list goes on), we’re not really in a cylinder.  We’re in a funnel.  The walls of the funnel are closing in on us, propelled by positive feedback loops in ecosystems, population growth, market pressure, resource availability, etc.  As the funnel narrows, our options are increasingly limited and the time frame for consideration, discussion, debate, and action grows shorter.  We have to start moving, and fast.

By the way, there’s a massive oil spill going on right now…

Are we in a cylinder?  Are we in a funnel?  Or are we in a truck with failed brakes, hurtling towards a brick wall?  Discuss.

Related Posts:

• The Funnel, The Wall and the Toxic Substances Control Act

Related posts:

1. Transition: An Introduction

Since it’s Wednesday (and sometimes I do this on Wednesdays), I thought I’d share a great TED video in which chef and scholar Dan Barber gives us a glimpse of a new/old kind of sustainable farming.  It’s definitely worth watching, even if you’re not a foodie.  And even if foie gras makes you go EW.  (Foie gras definitely makes me go EW.)

(If you can’t see the video for some reason, click here.)

I think that Eduardo Sousa embodies the kind of heart our world needs.  And actually, so does Dan Barber.

On that note, I have a guest post up today at 25 & Trying.  It’s a different sort of thing than I usually post here – a friend told me it was more heart and less head.  Go check it out if you could use a little bit more heart in your day.

And food for thought – how would it change your life if you were wholehearted about everything you did?  How might it change the world?

Related posts:

1. Putting the Development in Sustainable Development

As you know, my One Small Change for March was to drive less.  Let’s just say that I failed.

Okay, fine.  So I didn’t fail.

I expected that simply giving up my horse lease as a recreational activity cut my gas usage by 3/4 automatically.  It actually ended up being pretty close to that: I used just under half as much gas in March as I did in February.  I also had my move to factor in, which definitely changed my driving patterns for a few weeks.

So why do I feel like I failed, or at least cheated?

No Pain, No Gain

I cheated.  I just changed what I was doing, I didn’t change how I was getting there.  Yes, it did make a big difference.  But it wasn’t hard or painful or irritating.  It didn’t take any great sacrifice on my part.  It didn’t require any research.

In fact, it made my life easier.  My new super fun thing, roller derby (yes, roller derby), happens to be right by the co-op, which used to be way out of my way.  It’s also on the way to the farmer’s market, which is back in season now.  So I’m eating better, and having to plan my grocery shopping less.

Roller derby is also cheaper than riding horses, without even factoring in the gas.  And I had a really inexpensive horse lease.  I’ve been able to get everything used except for my pads (safety first, people), and had a blast scouring thrift store racks for pieces of cute outfits.

And…shh… don’t tell anyone.  At least right now, roller derby is way more fun than riding horses.

Positive Change Doesn’t Have To Be Hard

I’m really torn on this one.  On the one hand, if changing one optional activity can make that big of a difference, isn’t that great?  I mean, nobody is going to say that using half as much gas is a bad thing.  Particularly since it’s not like I gave up recreation entirely.  I just changed what I was doing in a way that reduced my vehicular gas usage by over 50%.

I feel like this shouldn’t bother me.  I always tell people that positive change doesn’t have to be hard.  The whole concept behind my deliberate optimism is that we can make choices that are better for the planet and better for ourselves.  But this one really felt like it should be harder!  So I’m not stopping here.

Busses, Bikes and Skates

A car-reduced life has become more of an ongoing project than a one small change moment.  I’ve started to explore the bus routes.  Honestly, it doesn’t look so good.  Busses only run every 30 minutes, and I have to transfer lines to get to my primary walkable area.  It looks better if you add some sort of faster ground transportation – a bicycle or, I suppose, skates – to either end.  But it looks worse in bad weather, and gets harder at night, as the walkable destination lacks sidewalks and lighting.

I’ll keep you posted with updates on how this “second phase” of the project goes.  Right now, what is most striking is the need for conscientious civic planning that takes alternate forms of transportation into consideration.  We’re talking about deep walkability, which is sadly something that my current route lacks.

How does your community fare as far as public transportation?  What gives your community deep walkability or what is it still missing?

No related posts.

Alright, I’ll be honest.  I kind of feel like I’m copping out on this one because it’s not as “big” as my last couple of small changes.  But that’s why it’s one small change.  Right?  That’s what I’m telling myself.

I’ll do a more in-depth update and discussion of last month’s small change – decreased car usage – next week.  For now, I’ll just say that this is and will continue to be an ongoing project of mine.  Still eating real food as much as possible, but hand-washing dishes is over.  New house = new, very efficient dishwasher.  There’s no way I can beat this one with hand-washing (it uses reclaimed heat from the water to dry dishes, blah blah technical blah).

For this month, I’m taking on a relatively easy switch: cloth napkins.  I’ve used recycled paper napkins for the longest time, and reuse them to within an inch of their lives, but there is absolutely no reason for me to continue using paper napkins.

In a nice moment of synchronicity, I ran out of napkins within a day or so of receiving a set of cloth napkins as a housewarming gift.  I’ll most likely supplement my supply of cloth napkins as cute ones show up at the thrift store (an easy way of rendering moot the life cycle cost of cloth v. paper debate).  But for now, four is more than enough to serve my household of one.

This change is a no-brainer for April, which is going to be a bit busier than last month (in spite of the fact that last month we bought a house and moved – tell me how that works?).  Which brings me to my next item…

Looking for Guest Posters

My dear hubs is home for his two weeks of deployment leave this month, and I have resolved to break my internet addiction while he is home.  I would love to find some guest posts for this here bloggy blog while I’m mooching around at the end of April.

If you are interested in submitting a guest post, please let me know.  The post should be in some way related to the broad spectrum of things I write about on this blog and not too, too long.  Is that vague enough for you?  And if you have a blog, I would love to write a guest post for you in exchange.

Happy Friday everyone – hope you all have a great weekend!

Related posts:

1. One Small Change & 28 Day Real Food Challenge

Last week, I posted about the naturalistic fallacy, and why it’s important to avoid falling back on this kind of reasoning.  But then I started thinking about intuition, and how much I actually value what my intuition has to say.

Where Science Fails…

As important as it is to give science the consideration it deserves, the fact is, science totally sucks at some things.  And one of those things is dealing with sustainability.  Not all of sustainability,but certainly the part that involves projecting the precise results of our actions on the biosphere and human health.  The more complex the system, the worse science is at creating specific models.  So when you get to something as big as, say, every interconnected system in the entire world, science ends up chasing after the target, woefully behind.

Take, for example, the development of DDT.  When DDT was invented, it was awesome.  Talk about a great invention – a insecticide that had no effect on mammals.  They even gave the guy a Nobel Prize for it!  Some scientists expressed concern about possible risks, but it is too difficult to predict certain results within a complex system.  But then concerns were confirmed when things (like bald eagles) started dropping dead.  Too bad it was already too late.  And, oh wait, it harms humans too.  Oops.

Intuition Succeeds?

DDT (and a bunch of other similar examples) make me wonder if our intuitions have an edge here.  Because my intuition says pretty clearly that dumping tons of toxins (even ones that supposedly don’t affect mammals) into the environment is a bad thing.  Kind of like my intuition is not a huge fan of genetically engineering similar insect-killing chemicals into corn, which will then become part of almost every item of processed food I consume.

This is how the conversation usually goes:

Intuition: That’s just not right.  That’s just not safe.  That’s just not… natural.

Me: Intuition, that’s the naturalistic fallacy.  That’s not a good enough reason.

Intuition: I don’t care.  It’s not natural.  Don’t eat that.  Don’t do that.  Don’t buy that.

And usually I listen, and then go do a bunch of research so that I have a “good” reason for what is fundamentally an act of listening to my intuition.  I’m never really surprised when the science catches up and reveals that my intuition was right all along.

The Problem of Articulating

The other issue that was brought up in the comments of the naturalistic fallacy post is that of articulation – what a good point!  Sometimes people feel something, know something, but have a really hard time understanding or articulating why they feel that way.  It might be because they don’t understand why they feel the way they do.  Or maybe they understand the issue completely and just struggle to communicate it clearly.

Either way, the result is often expressed as naturalistic fallacy – it’s just not natural – when the issue is articulation.  And in either case, it’s an example of your intuition having an understanding beyond what you are able to clearly express.  It seems like that should get to count for something…

But where does this leave us?  Are we back to a place where we value intuition, hunches, and gut reactions, even though they can muddle a dialogue which needs to be based in some measure of science?  Or must we continue to watch as the science chases the consequences of unpredictable actions?

What, if any, role should intuition play in the dialogue about sustainability?

Related Posts:

• The Naturalistic Fallacy

Related posts:

1. The Naturalistic Fallacy

This post is my contribution to Sustainablog’s Pedal-a-Watt Powered Blogathon this weekend. The long-running green blog (and new green shopping site) is publishing for 24 hours straight to raise funds for the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage in Northeastern Missouri. Go join the fun: read post contributions from around the green blogosphere, leave a comment to be entered in a drawing for some great green prizes, and join in the Tweetchat at #susbppb.

Worldchanging’s Alex Steffen says that in our world, optimism is a political act, and one that is necessary if we are going to make any progress towards reshaping our systems into sustainable alternatives.  A positive and optimistic view of the future is also a fundamental part of the Transition Initiative process.  And if you take a look at the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage or media from many other intentional communities, you will find this same deliberate optimism.  Sometimes it is directly stated and sometimes it runs just below the surface, but it is always there.

Why?

Because sustainability needs optimism.

Ordinary People Need Optimism Too

It is no secret that Americans are unhappier now than we were 30 years ago.  We – all of us – are radically in need of happiness.  We really need optimism right now.  But optimism can seem so elusive.

The official reason for this void of optimism might surprise you.  It’s not because of the recession, unemployment, Congress, or the crummy results of American Idol.  In fact, we are unhappy because of a “decline in social capital.”  In other words, our communities are broken or, in some cases, nonexistent.  The lack of community leaves us feeling starkly alone, alienated, scared, cynical and pessimistic.

Intrinsic to new urbanism, Transition, and intentional communities is the deliberate development of healthy social structures.  This is no coincidence.  Each of these proposed solutions is based on optimism.  And each recognizes the same brokenness of something fundamentally necessary.  We need community to be happy.  We need community to be optimistic.  We need community to build a sustainable future.

Once Ordinary, Now Radical

It’s sad that we’ve come to a point where creating community has become an act of radical sustainability.

But there is so much awesome to be found in the fact that this act of radical sustainability is actually an act of radical happiness. We have the power to make ourselves happy, and to make the world a better place at the same time.  It’s something that anyone can do.  And it’s completely free.

The first step can be something as simple as inviting your neighbor over for dinner, volunteering at the community food bank, or patronizing your local library.  Start a neighborhood produce exchange or a yard-share, join a CSA, become a member of a co-op or plant a rooftop garden that will grow more than you can eat.

Beyond that, support activities that build community and advocate for development that facilitates people interacting with each other.  Bike trails, walkable cities, and useable community spaces will help us battle our feelings of alienation and isolation.  Developing for community and for optimism is developing for happiness.  And community-supported optimism is necessary for sustainable development.

I know you’re just an ordinary person.  So am I.  But isn’t it about time for us to be this kind of radical?

• All Things Eco at Focus Organic

No related posts.

Today is World Water Day, which makes me feel like I should be writing something about water.  Here’s a bit about water that I wrote while fasting in solidarity with the Climate Justice Fasters before COP15 (and more about it here as part of the same effort).  But I honestly don’t have anything new to say about water at the moment.  Water is crucially important.  As far as climate change is concerned, water – in all its various forms – may be the issue of this century.  The end.

Instead, I thought I’d write about the naturalistic fallacy, because that’s always fun stuff.  Right?  Right. 

What Is The Naturalistic Fallacy?

You are probably familiar with the naturalistic fallacy, even if you didn’t know the term.  It is the source of no small amount of conflict in discussions about environmentalism and sustainability, particularly when it comes to the dialogue between scientists and non-scientists.

Naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that something is “good” because it is so.  It assigns a normative value judgment – an assumption of how something ought or ought not to be – based on how something is “in fact.” Because something is this way, that is how it should be.

One example of a conversation in which the naturalistic fallacy often provides fuel for conflict is the “real food”-driven discussions about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  The debate about GMOs is complex and multifaceted, with many legitimate arguments on both sides. But the naturalistic fallacy frequently pops up, much to the frustration of scientists involved with the issue. The naturalistic fallacy argues that GMOs are bad because they are not “natural.”  Food crops occur in nature without other species genes chemically inserted into their genomes.  Therefore, that is how it ought to be.  Artificial = bad.  Natural = good.  Naturalistic fallacy.

This drives the scientists crazy, and understandably so.  It is fundamentally unscientific.  And it would drive the non-scientists crazy if we applied it to other things, such as human casualties of natural disasters.  While natural, few people would be willing to say, “it is, and so it ought to be” about the victims of a flood or an earthquake.

So What?

I mean, honestly, why do we even care about this?  Who cares if there are a bunch of people running around saying something is good because it’s “natural?”  And a bunch of scientists saying that they’re idiots because their arguments are unscientific (but using really big words). 

We care because the naturalistic fallacy dilutes the dialogue.  With an issue as huge and complex as sustainability and systems design, the dialogue is already pretty confusing.  And the naturalistic fallacy further confuses and distracts scientists and non-scientists alike.

Sustainability encompasses well… everything.  Every field, every market area, every culture, every social and governmental system.  So what we really do not need is to muddy the waters with arguments that are fundamentally incapable of furthering the dialogue, particularly when there are so many valid and vitally important conversations going on all around us.

No related posts.

A couple of months ago on Twitter, someone sent out a link to the Blekinge Institute of Technology (BTH), which was about to open applications for their Intro to Sustainable Engineering class.  I think it was @kaskadia – neither of us are sure, so I’m assigning the credit based on general awesomeness.

It’s been a long time since I’ve been in school.  Or at least it feels like it.  One of my friends had a baby just as I was finishing up college.  Then I moved to DC.  Then she moved to DC.  Then she had another baby.  Her first baby isn’t a baby any more.  Her second isn’t really a baby either.  This all makes me feel old and like school was a very long time ago.

I applied anyways, and I got in.  The only thing I had to pay for was the textbook.  The rest of the course is being funded (I believe) by the Swedish Government, so many thanks to them for providing this opportunity to a bunch of students from around the world.

It is an online course, coordinated by several grad students from one of BTH’s sustainability-oriented Masters programs.  There are 26 other students from all around the world – only two from the US, which for some reason makes this all the more exciting for me. 

I was really excited about the course until the textbook arrived.  I flipped through it and… there are numbers and equations in there.  I very deliberately overachieved in high school, which allowed me to cruise through college without seeing anything that resembled an equation.  I was quite happy keeping it that way.  But I’m going to have to retrieve the book from the freezer (please tell me someone else saw that episode of Friends), because I have to read Chapter 1 for next week.

I am hoping that some of the sustainability stuff will be a little familiar, to counterbalance the fact that the engineering stuff will be completely new.  But I implore you all to stop me if I start throwing numbers and mathematical symbols around the blog.  You can poke your eye out with those things, you know.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scubasteveo/ // CC BY-SA 2.0

No related posts.