“Forests, Fisheries, Agriculture: A Vision for Sustainability”
http://www.wellfedworld.org/PDF/FAOConsult12-09.pdf
Showing posts with label green: sustainability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green: sustainability. Show all posts
Friday, December 18, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Why Local, Sustainable Agriculture?
Why local, sustainable agriculture?
- Did you know that 17 % of petroleum demand in the US is for the food production industry? (http://www.energybulletin.net/5173.html)
- Did you know that the food on your plate has traveled an average of 1500 miles to get there? (Barker & Mander, 1999, Invisible Government: The WTO Global Government for the New Millenium)
- Did you know that the average age of a farmer in Colorado is 55?(“Losing Ground - Colorado’s Vanishing Agricultural Landscape)
- Did you know that between 1997 - 2002 Colorado lost an average of 690 acres of prime agricultural land per day to residential development? (“Losing Ground - Colorado’s Vanishing Agricultural Landscape)
- Did you know smaller farms tend to be 2-10 times more productive than larger farms? (http://www.energybulletin.net/5173.html)
- Did you know that 90% of the agricultural subsidies benefit corporations and big farmers growing food for export; while 500 family farms close down every week in the United States? (http://www.energybulletin.net/5173.html)
- Did you know that 91 cents of each dollar spent at traditional food markets [ie: commercial] goes to suppliers, processors, middlemen, and marketers; only 9 cents of each dollar actually goes to the farmer? (Smith, Stewart. 1992. “Farming Activities and Family Farms: Getting the Concepts Right.” Presented to the US Congress Symposium, “Agricultural Industrialization and Family Farms: The Role of Federal Policy.”)
What is sustainable agriculture?
Sustainable agriculture is a way of raising food that is healthy for consumers, preserves agricultural land, provides a fair wage to the farmer, supports and enhances rural communities, does not harm the environment and respects animals.
Some principles of sustainable practices include:
- Reducing off-farm inputs including petroleum based synthetic chemicals
- Managing instead of controlling pests and weeds
- Reestablishing natural biological relationships with the farm setting
- Farming within the physical limitations of the farm
- Using plant and animal species that are adapted to the environment of the farm
- Conserving soil, water, energy, and biological resources
- Integrating the idea of long term sustainability into the design of the system
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Your Green Daily Planner =)
YOUR GREEN DAILY PLANNER
From your morning shower to your evening's meal, our slideshow will tip you off on greening your routine.
http://www.thegreenguide.com/home-garden/energy-saving/one-green-year-gallery?source=email_gg_20090128&email=gg
You bring your own forks and spoons to use at work, replaced your conventional cheese with organic and compost your trash. Now it's time to pull together all the strands in the green year ahead of you and walk through a day in the low-impact life.
7:00 a.m. Read the morning paper online.
Reading a year's worth of newspapers on your computer saves 520 pounds of paper, or about three trees per year.
7:15 a.m. Shower with a low-flow showerhead.
Because low-flow showerheads reduce water consumption, they can save up to 10 percent on water-heating costs.
8:45 a.m. Brew a cup of eco-friendly coffee at home and pour it into a reusable mug.
Because conventional coffee is grown on clear-cut land and requires loads of chemical fertilizers, each household that switches to organic, shade-grown coffee helps protect more than 9,000 square feet of rain forest. Plus, Americans toss out 16 billion disposable paper cups per year
8:50 a.m. Power down before you leave the house.
TVs, stereos, chargers and most appliances with clocks drain energy when they're plugged in—even if they're not on. It's called "standby power," and it accounts for 5 percent of residential energy, costing U.S. consumers over $4 billion per year. Plug them into power strips that you can switch off easily.
9:00 a.m. Carpool to work.
According to the California Air Resources Board, approximately 50 percent of air pollution comes from automobiles.
9:30 a.m. At work, fire up your laptop.
Laptops require much less energy than desktops.
11:00 a.m. Print on both sides of the page, single-space your files and decrease the size of the margins.
Americans use 5.4 million tons of office paper every year. You use four times less paper when you print single-spaced and on both sides. Save even more by shrinking the margins to .75 inches from the standard inch.
5:55 p.m. Plug your computer into a power strip and switch it off at the end of the day.
Over the course of one year, you'll save 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, and reduce standby power loss.
6:00 p.m. Text your partner to say you're on your way home.
Text messages sent from a cell phone use 30 times less energy than sending an email from a desktop computer.
6:25 p.m. At the ATM, say no to a receipt.
It takes two billion feet of paper to create receipts for the eight billion ATM transactions that occur each year in America—most of which ends up as litter.
7:15 p.m. Before you head to dinner and a movie, print the tickets from your desktop.
Movie tickets printed at home are easier to recycle than the paperboard used to print tickets at the theater.
8:00 p.m. Eat dinner at a restaurant that serves locally grown, organic food.
From your morning shower to your evening's meal, our slideshow will tip you off on greening your routine.
http://www.thegreenguide.com/
You bring your own forks and spoons to use at work, replaced your conventional cheese with organic and compost your trash. Now it's time to pull together all the strands in the green year ahead of you and walk through a day in the low-impact life.
7:00 a.m. Read the morning paper online.
Reading a year's worth of newspapers on your computer saves 520 pounds of paper, or about three trees per year.
7:15 a.m. Shower with a low-flow showerhead.
Because low-flow showerheads reduce water consumption, they can save up to 10 percent on water-heating costs.
8:45 a.m. Brew a cup of eco-friendly coffee at home and pour it into a reusable mug.
Because conventional coffee is grown on clear-cut land and requires loads of chemical fertilizers, each household that switches to organic, shade-grown coffee helps protect more than 9,000 square feet of rain forest. Plus, Americans toss out 16 billion disposable paper cups per year
8:50 a.m. Power down before you leave the house.
TVs, stereos, chargers and most appliances with clocks drain energy when they're plugged in—even if they're not on. It's called "standby power," and it accounts for 5 percent of residential energy, costing U.S. consumers over $4 billion per year. Plug them into power strips that you can switch off easily.
9:00 a.m. Carpool to work.
According to the California Air Resources Board, approximately 50 percent of air pollution comes from automobiles.
9:30 a.m. At work, fire up your laptop.
Laptops require much less energy than desktops.
11:00 a.m. Print on both sides of the page, single-space your files and decrease the size of the margins.
Americans use 5.4 million tons of office paper every year. You use four times less paper when you print single-spaced and on both sides. Save even more by shrinking the margins to .75 inches from the standard inch.
5:55 p.m. Plug your computer into a power strip and switch it off at the end of the day.
Over the course of one year, you'll save 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, and reduce standby power loss.
6:00 p.m. Text your partner to say you're on your way home.
Text messages sent from a cell phone use 30 times less energy than sending an email from a desktop computer.
6:25 p.m. At the ATM, say no to a receipt.
It takes two billion feet of paper to create receipts for the eight billion ATM transactions that occur each year in America—most of which ends up as litter.
7:15 p.m. Before you head to dinner and a movie, print the tickets from your desktop.
Movie tickets printed at home are easier to recycle than the paperboard used to print tickets at the theater.
8:00 p.m. Eat dinner at a restaurant that serves locally grown, organic food.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Is FL Just One New Development Away From Environmental Ruin?
Is Florida Just One New Development Away From Environmental Ruin?
By Stan Cox, AlterNet
January 15, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/119325
http://www.alternet.org/water/119325/
[Read comments:
http://www.alternet.org/water/119325/#comments ]
The monumental stone signs and freshly paved entry road appear to lead to nothing but wide-open, semitropical countryside. But a second look reveals a skyline of sorts on the horizon, and it's topped by a beige-and-brown, sharply arched roof. That turns out to be a 100-foot-tall church known as the Oratory, which sits at the core of downtown Ave Maria, Fla.
The new town is situated in a semi-agricultural part of Collier County, 30 miles northeast as the gull flies from the beaches of Naples -- the state's southwesternmost resort area. But with its narrow, curving streets, cobblestones, quaint architecture, fresh stucco and paint, and (on a recent Tuesday afternoon) almost total absence of any human presence, Ave Maria appears to be a village in some unidentifiable European nation that has just endured an all-out attack by an enemy armed only with neutron bombs and power washers.
Facing the Oratory is the gleaming Ave Maria University, and clustered around the town center are streets lined by densely packed houses. Stubs of yet-to-be-built streets lead off in all directions, but most of the 8 square miles owned by the town remain open land.
Ave Maria is the creation of Domino's Pizza tycoon and prominent conservative Catholic Tom Monaghan, who teamed up with the Barron Collier Co. (the latter founded in the 1920s by the region's original big-time developer). In addition to the university, the town plan calls for 11,000 residences of various sizes, 690,000 square feet of retail space, 400 hotel rooms, two schools and two golf courses.
Much of the controversy surrounding Ave Maria has focused on the question of how it can simultaneously be a Catholic enclave and a governmental unit. But Ave Maria is also the most recent and most striking incarnation of south Florida's most persistent problem: Overdevelopment.
Agribusiness, led by Big Sugar, once posed the greatest threat to south Florida's ecosystems. The long struggle to save the Everglades from agricultural and urban growth on the state's southeast coast -- a struggle that is far from over -- has been thoroughly documented by Michael Grunwald in his 2006 book The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida and the Politics of Paradise.
Now the chief threat to lower Florida's remaining natural lands comes from residential developments like Ave Maria and the tentacles of transportation and commerce that feed them. As Grunwald and others have shown, local governments and developers in southwest Florida are creating new environmental crises faster than the past mistakes made on the other side of the state can be corrected.
Historian Gary Mormino of the University of South Florida up the west coast in St. Petersburg, looks at the low-lying, automobile- and air-conditioning-dependent peninsula where he lives and sees a state that's extremely vulnerable to coming climatic changes and energy shortages: "Florida is a kind of brave new world in the 21st century. And we haven't arrived very well prepared."
What's more, in his 2005 social history of modern Florida, Land of Sunshine, State of Dreams, Mormino concluded that "the Florida of today is the America of tomorrow." If he's right, we'd better pay closer attention to the paving and building that's going on down at our continent's soggy tail end.
Long-Run Biology
Six million years ago, South Florida was covered by a shallow sea. Then the state's original land-developers -- microscopic marine organisms -- went to work. Their calcium-rich remains gradually built up a solid limestone floor, and large parts of that floor rose into the sunshine from time to time as sea levels fluctuated over the past 100,000 years.
The southern part of the state remains part dry, part wet. Here, the collection of extraordinary ecosystems collectively known as the Everglades are sustained by vast sheets of fresh water that creep continuously and imperceptibly south across the entire lower peninsula.
But over the past century, thanks to encroachment from the coasts and farming in the interior, the Everglades is down to half its original size. In the state's southwestern counties -- including Lee and Collier, which, respectively, contain the coastal cities of Fort Myers and Naples -- the natural system that's now endangered is very different from the more easterly "River of Grass" that has been under siege by Miami-area urbanization and sugarcane farming for so many years. The victim here is the Big Cypress Swamp -- a vast, flat mosaic of cypress forests, wet prairies, pinelands and marshes. The culprit is growth: Collier County, which had a scant 16,000 inhabitants in 1960 and 86,000 in 1980, is now home to almost 350,000 people year-round -- plus an additional 150,000 or so winter residents. Additional throngs of tourists converge on the area from December through February to soak up the warmth.
The Big Cypress Swamp's flora and fauna are just as sensitive to disruption of natural water flows and fragmentation of habitat as are those of the vast, grassy tracts of Everglades to the east. To date, most attention has been focused on the region's most charismatic inhabitant, the Florida panther. The big cats require large, undisturbed ranges (100 to 400 square miles for one animal), and their numbers have been thinned severely by the spread of human activity across the landscape. But the panther's plight is only one highly visible indicator of much broader ecological degradation.
In South Florida, problems often have a way of coming down to a matter of water. The region leads the nation in water use per person. The most heroic efforts to square the circle, to keep both the remaining natural lands and the accelerating commercial development of South Florida supplied with clean water, are doomed from the start. There simply is not enough to go around.
Short-Run Economics
Their famous can-do spirit intact, despite a real-estate market that was hit early and hard by the big pop of the national housing bubble, southwest Florida developers continue to demand the freedom to pave and build ever farther inland from the Gulf of Mexico and its bright-white beaches. Asked about the region's building boom in 2002, Al Hoffman, then-CEO of WCI Communities, told the Washington Post, "There's no power on earth that can stop it!" So far, no one has proved him wrong.
At the time of Hoffman's prophecy, WCI had done as much as any company to make Naples the second-fastest metro area in the country. Today, Hoffman is gone, WCI is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and board chairman Carl Icahn recently sold his 6 million company shares for a total of 2 cents (not 2 cents per share, just 2 cents).
The march of suburbia hasn't stopped, but it has slowed. And Florida's real-estate and construction barons are now clamoring for a healthy share of federal bailout money to get them through hard times.
Naples currently ranks 11th among 350 cities nationwide in mortgage foreclosures (Fort Myers just up the coast is No. 1); despite that, it's still in seventh place for population growth. It also has the second-highest per capita income in the nation, so there's plenty of cash in the system to help push roads and subdivisions into new territory. The Bonita Bay Group, a dominant force among developers in the region, saw its new home sales shoot up in the crash of 2008, exceeding 2007 sales by 38 percent.
Since the 1950s, when Northerners looking for a future home in the sun would shell out the widely advertised "$10 down and $10 a month" for southwest Florida swampland that might one day be dredged, drained and built upon, the region's energies have been focused on the manufacture of real estate. Writer John Rothchild put it best: "as Detroit must sell cars, Florida must sell property."
From 1980 to 2000, an average of 400 people per day moved out of Florida. Most of them, according to Mormino, were fed up with runaway growth and sprawl. But each day during those same years, 1,000 people moved into the state.
Whatever happens to the national economy, South Florida will march on in its pursuit of growth. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, approved in 2000, is meant to save South Florida's ecosystems while keeping its humans supplied with water. But it emphasizes water supplies for cities and suburbs and gives mainly lip service to the natural hydraulic flow that keeps the Everglades alive. Based as it is on the assumption that the region's population will double by 2050, CERP faces an uphill battle, to say the least.
And it's not just living space that will be needed. Doubling the population will mean, at minimum, doubling the population of golfers. As of a year ago, Lee and Collier counties were already home to 152 golf courses -- one of the densest concentrations of fairways in the country -- and given the demand, space certainly could be made for 150 more.
The fast eastward creep of southwest Florida's development is mirrored by continued inland creep from the state's east coast. Grunwald wrote The Swamp, "In coming decades … South Florida could become an uninterrupted asphalt megalopolis stretching from Naples to Palm Beach. Perhaps it could be called Napalm Beach."
A Paler Shade of Green
Ave Maria is not hanging out there totally alone in eastern Collier County. It was preceded a century ago by the town of Immokalee, 8 miles to the north. Lying amid orange groves and fields of tomatoes and other vegetables, Immokalee is home to 20,000 people, many of them immigrant agricultural workers. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers has won headline-making victories in recent years, pushing Subway, Taco Bell and other fast-food chains to pay more for tomatoes. But the people who pick the tomatoes go home each day to trailer parks that present a shocking contrast to the condos and McMansions just over the horizon in Ave Maria.
Half of all mobile homes in the United States can be found in the southern half of Florida. Those occupied by well-heeled retirees can be quite luxurious, but the trailers in Immokalee are clearly unfit for human habitation. Clustered in dusty lots at the center of town or scattered around its fringes, the bare aluminum boxes have windows hardly bigger than slits, and many have no functioning air conditioner.
In contrast to Immokalee's trailers, Ave Maria's solid, climate-controlled properties are built atop a colossal earth-moving project that was needed to render the area suitable for building. Now, when the residents and students of Ave Maria go for a walk beyond their town limits, they have plenty of open countryside in which to wander. Having found a haven from Naples' frenetic development to the east, and what Mormino calls "the other Florida" in Imokalee to the north, they will also be sheltered, as Ave Maria University advertises in its promotional literature, "against the windstorms of secularism and apostasy which seem to overwhelm our nation and our church." (That lofty goal is reflected beautifully in the shape of the Oratory's facade, which brings to mind ceremonial papal headgear).
Another town, to be called Big Cypress, will be located between Ave Maria and Naples. Still on the drawing board, it will include -- just for a start -- 9,000 residences, a 500-room hotel, ample shopping, schools, a 200-bed hospital and the requisite golf course. Between and surrounding the two new towns will remain some of the more ecologically important zones of the Big Cypress Swamp. And the towns, say developers and some environmental groups, will be pioneer settlements in a new era of green planning, meant to protect rather than degrade the region's land- and waterscapes.
An order signed by Gov. Jeb Bush in 1999 urged Collier County to protect 200,000 acres of land in the Immokalee area by concentrating development in "urban villages," "new towns" and "satellite communities" rather than on larger, traditional rural housing tracts. In 2002, a plan called the Rural Land Stewardship Area created a complex credit-trading system that allows developers to build on certain numbers of acres if they preserve other areas.
Some major environmental groups have endorsed the county's plans to allow dense settlements in the Big Cypress region. One Audubon of Florida representative told the press, "People will look back a decade from now, and we'll have protected a million acres of land based on this model, and we'll say, 'It all started right there in Immokalee.' "
But others have sounded alarms over the environmental impact. I asked Ellen Peterson, who chairs the Sierra Club's Calusa Group in southwest Florida, if the region's self-styled "green" developers like Barron Collier and the Bonita Bay Group have earned the plaudits they've received from major environmental groups, including Audubon International.
Peterson has no faith in developer-led conservation: "You can't put people close to panthers and not end up killing panthers. And anytime there is increasingly dense development around water, you get runoff of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals." The economic and ecological costs of the vast infrastructure needed to support new housing developments, she said, turn out to "far exceed the one-time environmental impact fee that developers pay."
Land preservation can take strange forms in Collier County. After the county commission purchased a 2,500-acre former ranch last fall under a program called Conservation Collier, it began weighing the possibility of allowing recreational all-terrain vehicle use on the property. The program's acquisition director said the property, "will be used for all sorts of things the Conservation Collier ordinance allows … which is quite a bit."
In December, there surfaced a map illustrating the potential for "build-out" into the Rural Land Stewardship Area that has been designated in eastern Collier County. On the map, a large portion of the RLSA is peppered with 22 black ovals designating "development areas" laced together by four- and six-lane roadways and bypassed by a few "panther corridors." The effect is reminiscent of the most tortuously gerrymandered legislative districts, or perhaps Israeli maps of a vision for the West Bank. Ostensibly development-free parts of the RLSA are cut by six-lane thoroughfares that will take residents in to Naples, Fort Myers and Bonita Springs on the coast.
Published on the Naples Daily News Web site, the map was applauded by some environmental groups but eyed with deep suspicion by others. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida was swift with its negative reaction. Conservancy spokeswoman Nicole Ryan told me that most of the stewardship area is the property of a half-dozen large landowners who contracted with a private firm to come up with a way of building new subdivisions that would be acceptable to the county commission. The map, she says, illustrates the principle that, "When a plan is drawn up at the developers' request, it will be done to their benefit."
The area's mainstream environmental organizations gave up long ago on trying to call a total halt to encroachment on undeveloped lands. "We know there will be growth," Ryan said. "Florida has landowner-friendly property-rights laws that allow one housing unit for every 5 acres, and you can't take that right away in this state." She says the new strategy of clustering development isn't as bad -- at least theoretically -- as having development spread uniformly across the county.
But as plans have evolved, the amount of landscape to be built up has already almost tripled, and that, says Ryan, is certain to disrupt panther habitat and much more. Planners can call as loudly as they want for nice-sounding elements like villages, nodes and mass transit, says Ryan, but if developers get their way, "we'll have glorified subdivisions leapfrogging one another 20 miles east of Interstate 75 [the former eastern boundary of sprawl], and everyone will be driving in to Naples."
From Sunshine State to Land of the Air-Conditioned Flea Market
Novelists, historians and journalists have exhausted entire thesauruses in their attempts to capture the exuberance with which Florida has welcomed hordes of diverse new residents and all sorts of zany enterprises for over half a century.
Now, as Ellen Peterson watches what she sees as "developers' greed" fueling the relentless encroachment on wetlands, she sees a golden goose killing itself: "Without large wetlands to the east, this area won't be beautiful anymore." But, I asked her, if the environment that originally attracted people to southwest Florida is largely gone, why do people keep coming? "A lot of people who live here don't know what it used to be like, so they don't know what they're missing," she says. "Fifteen years ago, just sitting on my porch, I'd hear a symphony of fish every evening, when they were jumping in the Imperial River. Now it's silent, and it's all because of development."
The sun and winter warmth are still there, says Ryan, but not much else is left. "Now this area looks like everywhere else. It's all one damn strip mall. One intersection on Bonita Beach Road has pharmacies on three of the four corners! Speculation and greed have ruined it here."
Balmy weather, sand and sea have been bringing people to southwest Florida for decades, but the recipe for perpetual economic growth includes ingredients of a very different kind. The most recent project to take its name from the ecosystem it's helping to destroy is Naples' Big Cypress Market, just outside the city's southern frontier. The vast, bland, metal-and-concrete structure features an 87,000-square-foot, 300-booth, air-conditioned flea market, mini-winery, performance stage, farmers market and tiki bar.
Maybe sun and fun once were enough to keep people here happy, but, according to Big Cypress Market's developer, "A lot of people are looking for something other than going to the beach and golfing down here. They go shopping to be entertained to some degree.''
A Florida vacation used to be like a trip to an exotic foreign country, but today new residents and visitors need not fear homesickness. They can spend increasing numbers of hours each day in air-conditioned houses, offices, stores and restaurants just like those they left back home, and enjoy familiar scenery as they sit through ever-worsening traffic jams. Many go for long periods without ever catching a glimpse of a beach, let alone a cypress forest or mangrove swamp.
Meanwhile, developers and environmental planners will continue to haggle over acres of land and gallons of water, more shining-cities-on-the-swamp will be built, and environmental quality of life -- as always in the Sunshine State -- will be available for sale or barter.
An anecdote related by Michael Grunwald sums up the extent of physical and mental dislocation that growth has inflicted on the region. When, he wrote, a highway extension threatened 1,500 acres of Lee County panther habitat a few years ago, a county commissioner argued the roadbuilder's case by saying, "Look, we've got tens of thousands of people sitting in traffic. That's not good for the environment either."
In southwest Florida as in the rest of America, everyone cares about protecting the environment, but no one seems to agree on where to find it.
Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book, Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, was just published by Pluto Press.
By Stan Cox, AlterNet
January 15, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/
http://www.alternet.org/water/
[Read comments:
http://www.alternet.org/water/
The monumental stone signs and freshly paved entry road appear to lead to nothing but wide-open, semitropical countryside. But a second look reveals a skyline of sorts on the horizon, and it's topped by a beige-and-brown, sharply arched roof. That turns out to be a 100-foot-tall church known as the Oratory, which sits at the core of downtown Ave Maria, Fla.
The new town is situated in a semi-agricultural part of Collier County, 30 miles northeast as the gull flies from the beaches of Naples -- the state's southwesternmost resort area. But with its narrow, curving streets, cobblestones, quaint architecture, fresh stucco and paint, and (on a recent Tuesday afternoon) almost total absence of any human presence, Ave Maria appears to be a village in some unidentifiable European nation that has just endured an all-out attack by an enemy armed only with neutron bombs and power washers.
Facing the Oratory is the gleaming Ave Maria University, and clustered around the town center are streets lined by densely packed houses. Stubs of yet-to-be-built streets lead off in all directions, but most of the 8 square miles owned by the town remain open land.
Ave Maria is the creation of Domino's Pizza tycoon and prominent conservative Catholic Tom Monaghan, who teamed up with the Barron Collier Co. (the latter founded in the 1920s by the region's original big-time developer). In addition to the university, the town plan calls for 11,000 residences of various sizes, 690,000 square feet of retail space, 400 hotel rooms, two schools and two golf courses.
Much of the controversy surrounding Ave Maria has focused on the question of how it can simultaneously be a Catholic enclave and a governmental unit. But Ave Maria is also the most recent and most striking incarnation of south Florida's most persistent problem: Overdevelopment.
Agribusiness, led by Big Sugar, once posed the greatest threat to south Florida's ecosystems. The long struggle to save the Everglades from agricultural and urban growth on the state's southeast coast -- a struggle that is far from over -- has been thoroughly documented by Michael Grunwald in his 2006 book The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida and the Politics of Paradise.
Now the chief threat to lower Florida's remaining natural lands comes from residential developments like Ave Maria and the tentacles of transportation and commerce that feed them. As Grunwald and others have shown, local governments and developers in southwest Florida are creating new environmental crises faster than the past mistakes made on the other side of the state can be corrected.
Historian Gary Mormino of the University of South Florida up the west coast in St. Petersburg, looks at the low-lying, automobile- and air-conditioning-dependent peninsula where he lives and sees a state that's extremely vulnerable to coming climatic changes and energy shortages: "Florida is a kind of brave new world in the 21st century. And we haven't arrived very well prepared."
What's more, in his 2005 social history of modern Florida, Land of Sunshine, State of Dreams, Mormino concluded that "the Florida of today is the America of tomorrow." If he's right, we'd better pay closer attention to the paving and building that's going on down at our continent's soggy tail end.
Long-Run Biology
Six million years ago, South Florida was covered by a shallow sea. Then the state's original land-developers -- microscopic marine organisms -- went to work. Their calcium-rich remains gradually built up a solid limestone floor, and large parts of that floor rose into the sunshine from time to time as sea levels fluctuated over the past 100,000 years.
The southern part of the state remains part dry, part wet. Here, the collection of extraordinary ecosystems collectively known as the Everglades are sustained by vast sheets of fresh water that creep continuously and imperceptibly south across the entire lower peninsula.
But over the past century, thanks to encroachment from the coasts and farming in the interior, the Everglades is down to half its original size. In the state's southwestern counties -- including Lee and Collier, which, respectively, contain the coastal cities of Fort Myers and Naples -- the natural system that's now endangered is very different from the more easterly "River of Grass" that has been under siege by Miami-area urbanization and sugarcane farming for so many years. The victim here is the Big Cypress Swamp -- a vast, flat mosaic of cypress forests, wet prairies, pinelands and marshes. The culprit is growth: Collier County, which had a scant 16,000 inhabitants in 1960 and 86,000 in 1980, is now home to almost 350,000 people year-round -- plus an additional 150,000 or so winter residents. Additional throngs of tourists converge on the area from December through February to soak up the warmth.
The Big Cypress Swamp's flora and fauna are just as sensitive to disruption of natural water flows and fragmentation of habitat as are those of the vast, grassy tracts of Everglades to the east. To date, most attention has been focused on the region's most charismatic inhabitant, the Florida panther. The big cats require large, undisturbed ranges (100 to 400 square miles for one animal), and their numbers have been thinned severely by the spread of human activity across the landscape. But the panther's plight is only one highly visible indicator of much broader ecological degradation.
In South Florida, problems often have a way of coming down to a matter of water. The region leads the nation in water use per person. The most heroic efforts to square the circle, to keep both the remaining natural lands and the accelerating commercial development of South Florida supplied with clean water, are doomed from the start. There simply is not enough to go around.
Short-Run Economics
Their famous can-do spirit intact, despite a real-estate market that was hit early and hard by the big pop of the national housing bubble, southwest Florida developers continue to demand the freedom to pave and build ever farther inland from the Gulf of Mexico and its bright-white beaches. Asked about the region's building boom in 2002, Al Hoffman, then-CEO of WCI Communities, told the Washington Post, "There's no power on earth that can stop it!" So far, no one has proved him wrong.
At the time of Hoffman's prophecy, WCI had done as much as any company to make Naples the second-fastest metro area in the country. Today, Hoffman is gone, WCI is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and board chairman Carl Icahn recently sold his 6 million company shares for a total of 2 cents (not 2 cents per share, just 2 cents).
The march of suburbia hasn't stopped, but it has slowed. And Florida's real-estate and construction barons are now clamoring for a healthy share of federal bailout money to get them through hard times.
Naples currently ranks 11th among 350 cities nationwide in mortgage foreclosures (Fort Myers just up the coast is No. 1); despite that, it's still in seventh place for population growth. It also has the second-highest per capita income in the nation, so there's plenty of cash in the system to help push roads and subdivisions into new territory. The Bonita Bay Group, a dominant force among developers in the region, saw its new home sales shoot up in the crash of 2008, exceeding 2007 sales by 38 percent.
Since the 1950s, when Northerners looking for a future home in the sun would shell out the widely advertised "$10 down and $10 a month" for southwest Florida swampland that might one day be dredged, drained and built upon, the region's energies have been focused on the manufacture of real estate. Writer John Rothchild put it best: "as Detroit must sell cars, Florida must sell property."
From 1980 to 2000, an average of 400 people per day moved out of Florida. Most of them, according to Mormino, were fed up with runaway growth and sprawl. But each day during those same years, 1,000 people moved into the state.
Whatever happens to the national economy, South Florida will march on in its pursuit of growth. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, approved in 2000, is meant to save South Florida's ecosystems while keeping its humans supplied with water. But it emphasizes water supplies for cities and suburbs and gives mainly lip service to the natural hydraulic flow that keeps the Everglades alive. Based as it is on the assumption that the region's population will double by 2050, CERP faces an uphill battle, to say the least.
And it's not just living space that will be needed. Doubling the population will mean, at minimum, doubling the population of golfers. As of a year ago, Lee and Collier counties were already home to 152 golf courses -- one of the densest concentrations of fairways in the country -- and given the demand, space certainly could be made for 150 more.
The fast eastward creep of southwest Florida's development is mirrored by continued inland creep from the state's east coast. Grunwald wrote The Swamp, "In coming decades … South Florida could become an uninterrupted asphalt megalopolis stretching from Naples to Palm Beach. Perhaps it could be called Napalm Beach."
A Paler Shade of Green
Ave Maria is not hanging out there totally alone in eastern Collier County. It was preceded a century ago by the town of Immokalee, 8 miles to the north. Lying amid orange groves and fields of tomatoes and other vegetables, Immokalee is home to 20,000 people, many of them immigrant agricultural workers. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers has won headline-making victories in recent years, pushing Subway, Taco Bell and other fast-food chains to pay more for tomatoes. But the people who pick the tomatoes go home each day to trailer parks that present a shocking contrast to the condos and McMansions just over the horizon in Ave Maria.
Half of all mobile homes in the United States can be found in the southern half of Florida. Those occupied by well-heeled retirees can be quite luxurious, but the trailers in Immokalee are clearly unfit for human habitation. Clustered in dusty lots at the center of town or scattered around its fringes, the bare aluminum boxes have windows hardly bigger than slits, and many have no functioning air conditioner.
In contrast to Immokalee's trailers, Ave Maria's solid, climate-controlled properties are built atop a colossal earth-moving project that was needed to render the area suitable for building. Now, when the residents and students of Ave Maria go for a walk beyond their town limits, they have plenty of open countryside in which to wander. Having found a haven from Naples' frenetic development to the east, and what Mormino calls "the other Florida" in Imokalee to the north, they will also be sheltered, as Ave Maria University advertises in its promotional literature, "against the windstorms of secularism and apostasy which seem to overwhelm our nation and our church." (That lofty goal is reflected beautifully in the shape of the Oratory's facade, which brings to mind ceremonial papal headgear).
Another town, to be called Big Cypress, will be located between Ave Maria and Naples. Still on the drawing board, it will include -- just for a start -- 9,000 residences, a 500-room hotel, ample shopping, schools, a 200-bed hospital and the requisite golf course. Between and surrounding the two new towns will remain some of the more ecologically important zones of the Big Cypress Swamp. And the towns, say developers and some environmental groups, will be pioneer settlements in a new era of green planning, meant to protect rather than degrade the region's land- and waterscapes.
An order signed by Gov. Jeb Bush in 1999 urged Collier County to protect 200,000 acres of land in the Immokalee area by concentrating development in "urban villages," "new towns" and "satellite communities" rather than on larger, traditional rural housing tracts. In 2002, a plan called the Rural Land Stewardship Area created a complex credit-trading system that allows developers to build on certain numbers of acres if they preserve other areas.
Some major environmental groups have endorsed the county's plans to allow dense settlements in the Big Cypress region. One Audubon of Florida representative told the press, "People will look back a decade from now, and we'll have protected a million acres of land based on this model, and we'll say, 'It all started right there in Immokalee.' "
But others have sounded alarms over the environmental impact. I asked Ellen Peterson, who chairs the Sierra Club's Calusa Group in southwest Florida, if the region's self-styled "green" developers like Barron Collier and the Bonita Bay Group have earned the plaudits they've received from major environmental groups, including Audubon International.
Peterson has no faith in developer-led conservation: "You can't put people close to panthers and not end up killing panthers. And anytime there is increasingly dense development around water, you get runoff of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals." The economic and ecological costs of the vast infrastructure needed to support new housing developments, she said, turn out to "far exceed the one-time environmental impact fee that developers pay."
Land preservation can take strange forms in Collier County. After the county commission purchased a 2,500-acre former ranch last fall under a program called Conservation Collier, it began weighing the possibility of allowing recreational all-terrain vehicle use on the property. The program's acquisition director said the property, "will be used for all sorts of things the Conservation Collier ordinance allows … which is quite a bit."
In December, there surfaced a map illustrating the potential for "build-out" into the Rural Land Stewardship Area that has been designated in eastern Collier County. On the map, a large portion of the RLSA is peppered with 22 black ovals designating "development areas" laced together by four- and six-lane roadways and bypassed by a few "panther corridors." The effect is reminiscent of the most tortuously gerrymandered legislative districts, or perhaps Israeli maps of a vision for the West Bank. Ostensibly development-free parts of the RLSA are cut by six-lane thoroughfares that will take residents in to Naples, Fort Myers and Bonita Springs on the coast.
Published on the Naples Daily News Web site, the map was applauded by some environmental groups but eyed with deep suspicion by others. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida was swift with its negative reaction. Conservancy spokeswoman Nicole Ryan told me that most of the stewardship area is the property of a half-dozen large landowners who contracted with a private firm to come up with a way of building new subdivisions that would be acceptable to the county commission. The map, she says, illustrates the principle that, "When a plan is drawn up at the developers' request, it will be done to their benefit."
The area's mainstream environmental organizations gave up long ago on trying to call a total halt to encroachment on undeveloped lands. "We know there will be growth," Ryan said. "Florida has landowner-friendly property-rights laws that allow one housing unit for every 5 acres, and you can't take that right away in this state." She says the new strategy of clustering development isn't as bad -- at least theoretically -- as having development spread uniformly across the county.
But as plans have evolved, the amount of landscape to be built up has already almost tripled, and that, says Ryan, is certain to disrupt panther habitat and much more. Planners can call as loudly as they want for nice-sounding elements like villages, nodes and mass transit, says Ryan, but if developers get their way, "we'll have glorified subdivisions leapfrogging one another 20 miles east of Interstate 75 [the former eastern boundary of sprawl], and everyone will be driving in to Naples."
From Sunshine State to Land of the Air-Conditioned Flea Market
Novelists, historians and journalists have exhausted entire thesauruses in their attempts to capture the exuberance with which Florida has welcomed hordes of diverse new residents and all sorts of zany enterprises for over half a century.
Now, as Ellen Peterson watches what she sees as "developers' greed" fueling the relentless encroachment on wetlands, she sees a golden goose killing itself: "Without large wetlands to the east, this area won't be beautiful anymore." But, I asked her, if the environment that originally attracted people to southwest Florida is largely gone, why do people keep coming? "A lot of people who live here don't know what it used to be like, so they don't know what they're missing," she says. "Fifteen years ago, just sitting on my porch, I'd hear a symphony of fish every evening, when they were jumping in the Imperial River. Now it's silent, and it's all because of development."
The sun and winter warmth are still there, says Ryan, but not much else is left. "Now this area looks like everywhere else. It's all one damn strip mall. One intersection on Bonita Beach Road has pharmacies on three of the four corners! Speculation and greed have ruined it here."
Balmy weather, sand and sea have been bringing people to southwest Florida for decades, but the recipe for perpetual economic growth includes ingredients of a very different kind. The most recent project to take its name from the ecosystem it's helping to destroy is Naples' Big Cypress Market, just outside the city's southern frontier. The vast, bland, metal-and-concrete structure features an 87,000-square-foot, 300-booth, air-conditioned flea market, mini-winery, performance stage, farmers market and tiki bar.
Maybe sun and fun once were enough to keep people here happy, but, according to Big Cypress Market's developer, "A lot of people are looking for something other than going to the beach and golfing down here. They go shopping to be entertained to some degree.''
A Florida vacation used to be like a trip to an exotic foreign country, but today new residents and visitors need not fear homesickness. They can spend increasing numbers of hours each day in air-conditioned houses, offices, stores and restaurants just like those they left back home, and enjoy familiar scenery as they sit through ever-worsening traffic jams. Many go for long periods without ever catching a glimpse of a beach, let alone a cypress forest or mangrove swamp.
Meanwhile, developers and environmental planners will continue to haggle over acres of land and gallons of water, more shining-cities-on-the-swamp will be built, and environmental quality of life -- as always in the Sunshine State -- will be available for sale or barter.
An anecdote related by Michael Grunwald sums up the extent of physical and mental dislocation that growth has inflicted on the region. When, he wrote, a highway extension threatened 1,500 acres of Lee County panther habitat a few years ago, a county commissioner argued the roadbuilder's case by saying, "Look, we've got tens of thousands of people sitting in traffic. That's not good for the environment either."
In southwest Florida as in the rest of America, everyone cares about protecting the environment, but no one seems to agree on where to find it.
Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book, Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, was just published by Pluto Press.
One Green Year: What You Can Do This Week
One Green Year: What You Can Do This Week
By Kate Hanley
January 12, 2009
http://www.thegreenguide.com/home-garden/energy-saving/one-green-year-part-two?source=email_gg_20090114&email=gg
You could decide to lose weight—again—or this year you could resolve to lighten the load you leave on the planet. To help, we've outlined a series of small changes that add up to big results and divvied them up by time frame—tasks you can complete today, in the next week, during the next month and over the course of the next year. Breaking your efforts into smaller, more manageable tasks isn't a cop-out: By following this plan, each small step adds up to changes that will benefit the health of the planet—and, yes, even your own health—immediately and in years to come.
Food
Over the course of the year,your goal is to educate yourself about food—where it comes from, how it's packaged and transported, and what happens to the waste—so you can make wiser choices at every meal.
This week, start at the end: Research your composting options. Throwing food scraps in the garbage may seem innocuous, but decomposing food not only clogs landfills, it also releases methane—a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. And encasing food scraps in a plastic bag or landfill keeps fruits and vegetables from replenishing the soil, increasing our dependence on chemical fertilizers.
The University of Arizona estimates that if every American household reduced the amount of food it throws away by half, we'd cut our entire environmental impact as a country by 25 percent. Aim to do your part by composting your fruit and vegetable scraps. If you're a do-it-yourselfer, check out a no-fuss option such as the Once a Year Compost Bin ($139.99; cleanairgardening.com). Or find local resources that will accept your food waste, such as a community garden, recycling center or farmer's market, and start storing scraps in your freezer until you can make a drop-off.
Transportation
Vow to take two fewer car trips over the next seven days, replacing them with walking, biking or public transportation. Keep tracking each car trip in your notebook, and start writing down how many gallons of gas you're buying each time you fill up. And for each car trip you do without, note any other benefits you reap beyond saving gas—such as fresh air, exercise, community interaction or reading time—so you can see the full spectrum of ways that driving less impacts your daily life.
Energy
Schedule an energy audit to get a list of suggestions for reducing your home's energy use. You can either get a free audit from your local utility— the best choice if you rent since their suggestions tend to be smaller-scale projects, such as weatherstripping—or from an energy assessment professional. The latter is the best choice if you own your home, since they specialize in larger projects such as helping you choose efficient heating and cooling systems.
A professional assessment will run $350 to $550 but will likely pay for itself in energy savings if you end up making a major improvement. To find a certified building energy rater, visit resnet.org. And if you think an energy audit isn't worth the time or money, think again. "An energy audit will help you focus on the top one or two purchases that will have the biggest impact on your home energy use," says Josh Dorfman, author of The Lazy Environmentalist on a Budget ($14.95, STC, 2009).
Open a savings account devoted to green home improvements. Look at your budget and see what you can set aside toward a new efficient appliance, hot water heater or furnace. Even if it will take a couple of years to get there, it will pay off in the long run.
Everyday Purchases
Create your own personal "Going Green" kit. Small purchases that can add up to a big impact include: - reusable tote bags
- stainless steel water bottle
- travel coffee mug
- BYO-lunch supplies—an insulated carrier, utensils and wax paper or aluminum foil (instead of plastic wrap)
- compact fluorescent light bulbs
By Kate Hanley
January 12, 2009
http://www.thegreenguide.com/
You could decide to lose weight—again—or this year you could resolve to lighten the load you leave on the planet. To help, we've outlined a series of small changes that add up to big results and divvied them up by time frame—tasks you can complete today, in the next week, during the next month and over the course of the next year. Breaking your efforts into smaller, more manageable tasks isn't a cop-out: By following this plan, each small step adds up to changes that will benefit the health of the planet—and, yes, even your own health—immediately and in years to come.
Food
Over the course of the year,your goal is to educate yourself about food—where it comes from, how it's packaged and transported, and what happens to the waste—so you can make wiser choices at every meal.
This week, start at the end: Research your composting options. Throwing food scraps in the garbage may seem innocuous, but decomposing food not only clogs landfills, it also releases methane—a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. And encasing food scraps in a plastic bag or landfill keeps fruits and vegetables from replenishing the soil, increasing our dependence on chemical fertilizers.
The University of Arizona estimates that if every American household reduced the amount of food it throws away by half, we'd cut our entire environmental impact as a country by 25 percent. Aim to do your part by composting your fruit and vegetable scraps. If you're a do-it-yourselfer, check out a no-fuss option such as the Once a Year Compost Bin ($139.99; cleanairgardening.com). Or find local resources that will accept your food waste, such as a community garden, recycling center or farmer's market, and start storing scraps in your freezer until you can make a drop-off.
Transportation
Vow to take two fewer car trips over the next seven days, replacing them with walking, biking or public transportation. Keep tracking each car trip in your notebook, and start writing down how many gallons of gas you're buying each time you fill up. And for each car trip you do without, note any other benefits you reap beyond saving gas—such as fresh air, exercise, community interaction or reading time—so you can see the full spectrum of ways that driving less impacts your daily life.
Energy
Schedule an energy audit to get a list of suggestions for reducing your home's energy use. You can either get a free audit from your local utility— the best choice if you rent since their suggestions tend to be smaller-scale projects, such as weatherstripping—or from an energy assessment professional. The latter is the best choice if you own your home, since they specialize in larger projects such as helping you choose efficient heating and cooling systems.
A professional assessment will run $350 to $550 but will likely pay for itself in energy savings if you end up making a major improvement. To find a certified building energy rater, visit resnet.org. And if you think an energy audit isn't worth the time or money, think again. "An energy audit will help you focus on the top one or two purchases that will have the biggest impact on your home energy use," says Josh Dorfman, author of The Lazy Environmentalist on a Budget ($14.95, STC, 2009).
Open a savings account devoted to green home improvements. Look at your budget and see what you can set aside toward a new efficient appliance, hot water heater or furnace. Even if it will take a couple of years to get there, it will pay off in the long run.
Everyday Purchases
Create your own personal "Going Green" kit. Small purchases that can add up to a big impact include: - reusable tote bags
- stainless steel water bottle
- travel coffee mug
- BYO-lunch supplies—an insulated carrier, utensils and wax paper or aluminum foil (instead of plastic wrap)
- compact fluorescent light bulbs
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Sustainability Series: Frito Lay
Sustainability Series: Frito-Lay
Monday December 29, 2008
http://www.foodnutritionscience.com/index.cfm/do/monsanto.article/articleId/243.cfm
What began as two small, mom-and-pop chip operations back in the early 1930’s is now the largest snack-selling company in the United States. Today, Frito-Lay, maker of such favorites as LAY'S®, FRITOS®, CHEETOS® and SUNCHIPS®, has more than fifteen $100 million brands. We talked to Al Halvorsen, Director of Environmental Sustainability at Frito-Lay, about the importance of setting “green” goals – and achieving them.
How does your business define sustainability?
Frito-Lay has a very robust and thoughtful approach to sustainability, nearly fifteen years in the making. Consistent with our parent company’s (PepsiCo) view of sustainability, we strive for Performance with Purpose. That means that we must deliver on performance for our shareholders, but we want to do so in a sustainable and responsible manner.
PepsiCo categorizes its sustainability efforts into three pillars. The first pillar is human sustainability. Under this pillar, we work to deliver products that are of the highest quality and made in the best way possible. For example, we were one of the first major companies to remove trans fats from our portfolio.
The second pillar is talent sustainability. We want to empower our talent base and employ the best talent possible.
The third pillar is environmental sustainability. At Frito-Lay we’ve identified five categories where we can have the most impact: water, energy, packing, waste and greenhouse gas emissions. We are looking at the triple bottom line, focusing on reducing the environmental footprints that we have as a corporation.
We officially kicked off our environmental initiatives in 1999, when we set some aggressive goals to reduce water by 50% per pound of product, natural gas by 30% and electricity by 25%. And we’re honing in on those goals. Year to date, we’ve reduced water by 38%, gas by 29% and electricity by 22%.
Interestingly, our sustainability strategies have really flown to our bottom line as well. If we had done nothing to reduce water and energy use since 1999, we would’ve spent an additional 55 to 60 million dollars in 2008 alone. Again, this goes back to the concept of Performance with Purpose. We are reducing our environmental footprint and using the impact of these successes to drive productivity.
How are you incorporating sustainable practices into your business?
I’ll tell you about two great projects that demonstrate our Performance with Purpose efforts. The first project is at our Modesto, California plant. We’ve installed large parabolic mirrors that focus the sun’s intensity onto a pipe carrying high pressure and high temperature water, which in turn is converted into steam. The steam is then used in our manufacturing plant to cook our products. This is a different application of renewable energy than we’ve used in the past, and literally takes the sun’s rays to help process our products. At this facility we make SUNCHIPS®, so the brand was able to translate an environmental sustainability project to a consumer message. The brand can make the case that we are really living up to our name.
A second project that highlights our sustainability efforts is a net zero plant concept at our Casa Grande, Arizona manufacturing facility. We are currently in the process of taking our plant as far off the energy and water grids as possible. This plant will use three main pieces of technology. We plan to recycle and clean/filter our water so that we can reuse it, use solar panels or concentrators to generate renewable energy, and utilize biomass boilers to create renewable steam and electricity.
In the future, the price of commodities could become unaffordable and water might not be readily available. We are using this plant as a learning lab to see where we can take cutting edge technologies and apply them in a way that makes environmental and economic sense.
What are your short term and long term goals?
Short term we’re looking to reduce our footprint and drive efficiencies in the system. By 2017, Frito-Lay would like to reduce water by 75%, fuels by 50% and electricity by 45%. Long term, we are taking a holistic view, looking up and down the supply chain, working cross-functionally. We want to take a broader approach, encompassing all functions and partners. We want the c
Monday December 29, 2008
http://www.foodnutritionscience.com/index.cfm/do/monsanto.article/articleId/243.cfm
What began as two small, mom-and-pop chip operations back in the early 1930’s is now the largest snack-selling company in the United States. Today, Frito-Lay, maker of such favorites as LAY'S®, FRITOS®, CHEETOS® and SUNCHIPS®, has more than fifteen $100 million brands. We talked to Al Halvorsen, Director of Environmental Sustainability at Frito-Lay, about the importance of setting “green” goals – and achieving them.
How does your business define sustainability?
Frito-Lay has a very robust and thoughtful approach to sustainability, nearly fifteen years in the making. Consistent with our parent company’s (PepsiCo) view of sustainability, we strive for Performance with Purpose. That means that we must deliver on performance for our shareholders, but we want to do so in a sustainable and responsible manner.
PepsiCo categorizes its sustainability efforts into three pillars. The first pillar is human sustainability. Under this pillar, we work to deliver products that are of the highest quality and made in the best way possible. For example, we were one of the first major companies to remove trans fats from our portfolio.
The second pillar is talent sustainability. We want to empower our talent base and employ the best talent possible.
The third pillar is environmental sustainability. At Frito-Lay we’ve identified five categories where we can have the most impact: water, energy, packing, waste and greenhouse gas emissions. We are looking at the triple bottom line, focusing on reducing the environmental footprints that we have as a corporation.
We officially kicked off our environmental initiatives in 1999, when we set some aggressive goals to reduce water by 50% per pound of product, natural gas by 30% and electricity by 25%. And we’re honing in on those goals. Year to date, we’ve reduced water by 38%, gas by 29% and electricity by 22%.
Interestingly, our sustainability strategies have really flown to our bottom line as well. If we had done nothing to reduce water and energy use since 1999, we would’ve spent an additional 55 to 60 million dollars in 2008 alone. Again, this goes back to the concept of Performance with Purpose. We are reducing our environmental footprint and using the impact of these successes to drive productivity.
How are you incorporating sustainable practices into your business?
I’ll tell you about two great projects that demonstrate our Performance with Purpose efforts. The first project is at our Modesto, California plant. We’ve installed large parabolic mirrors that focus the sun’s intensity onto a pipe carrying high pressure and high temperature water, which in turn is converted into steam. The steam is then used in our manufacturing plant to cook our products. This is a different application of renewable energy than we’ve used in the past, and literally takes the sun’s rays to help process our products. At this facility we make SUNCHIPS®, so the brand was able to translate an environmental sustainability project to a consumer message. The brand can make the case that we are really living up to our name.
A second project that highlights our sustainability efforts is a net zero plant concept at our Casa Grande, Arizona manufacturing facility. We are currently in the process of taking our plant as far off the energy and water grids as possible. This plant will use three main pieces of technology. We plan to recycle and clean/filter our water so that we can reuse it, use solar panels or concentrators to generate renewable energy, and utilize biomass boilers to create renewable steam and electricity.
In the future, the price of commodities could become unaffordable and water might not be readily available. We are using this plant as a learning lab to see where we can take cutting edge technologies and apply them in a way that makes environmental and economic sense.
What are your short term and long term goals?
Short term we’re looking to reduce our footprint and drive efficiencies in the system. By 2017, Frito-Lay would like to reduce water by 75%, fuels by 50% and electricity by 45%. Long term, we are taking a holistic view, looking up and down the supply chain, working cross-functionally. We want to take a broader approach, encompassing all functions and partners. We want the c
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Michael Braungart on sustainability and such
Q&A: Michael Braungart
Interview with Michael Braungart
October 29, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/11/sustainability-interviews-michael-braungart.html
http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/11/sustainability-interviews-michael-braungart.html
Mother Jones: What's your definition of sustainability?
Michael Braungart: We need to make systems and products which are not just sustainable, but products which are good. Which are not just a little less bad, but which are good, which are beneficial. And therefore it goes beyond sustainability. It's really about innovation, about making things that the other species are happy that we are here on this planet. So it's not about minimizing our ecological footprint. It's about having a big footprint, but making sure that this footprint becomes a wetland, that the other species are happy that we're here.
MJ: Give me two examples—one of a product that is sustainable, and one of a product that's actually making a positive impact on our planet.
MB: Take paper for example. Paper never is designed for recycling, yet now when you do recycling and make recycled paper to use it as toilet paper, just with one kilogram of paper you're contaminating more than five million liters of water that can no longer be used as drinking water because they contain so many toxic chemicals. That looks sustainable, because it's 100 percent recycled paper, but it's the opposite. It basically makes the problem even bigger.
So we need to make systems which are good. For example, we developed an ice cream package for Unilever which is not just biodegradable. The ice cream packaging basically contains seeds from real plants. It's a film when it's frozen, and it's a liquid at room temperature, so it degrades within hours, and at the same time it contains seeds from real plants. So whenever you throw things away, you support the biosphere with it. So you're beneficial with it, not just a little less bad.
With all that, it means that instead of apologizing every day for being on the planet and drinking still water instead of sparkling water to reduce your carbon dioxide emissions, you can be beneficial, and this is why it's not sustainability, because sustainability will only slow down the collapse of the planet. But it really will not change the whole thing.
MJ: I understand the concept of thinking in terms of added value instead of damage control, but isn't there a danger of letting perfect become the enemy of good? It's still important to recycle paper even if we know that that's not necessarily the value-added kind of thing you're talking about.
MB: But the paper industry now—there's 20 years of recycling of paper in Europe at least, and at least 10 years of recycling of paper in the US, and the paper industry still didn't change the ink. It even made it worse. For example, these green magazines, maybe even your own, were printed with soy-based ink. What a nightmare, because the pigments in these inks, which are heavy metals in most cases, are chlorinated substances. Before, they were not accessible for the biosphere. Now, when you put them into soy-based metrics, then they become accessible. Now we find them in the biosphere. Now we find that they accumulate in biological systems like breast milk. Before, at least they didn't accumulate. At least they were not negative for human beings, but now we find them everywhere. So it's more like when you sit in the Titanic, and you say, "Oh, isn't it better we bail out the water with a tablespoon instead of a teaspoon?"
When people now try to be a little less bad, they make it even worse, because they basically stabilize the wrong systems and make them perfectly wrong. For example, East Germany has been protecting the environment so much better than West Germany just by inefficiency. Because they couldn't destroy all the wetlands. So the species diversity in East Germany was so much higher than in West Germany because of inefficiency. East Germany was so inefficient that they couldn't destroy the wetlands because they didn't have the money for that. So if you do something wrong, don't make it perfect, because then it's perfectly wrong.
A simple example: When you're in front of a Nazi, then definitely an inefficient Nazi is so much better than an efficient one. So don't make the wrong thing perfect. That's what's done by all these what I call Al Goreisms. Al Gore, who forgot about the environment for eight years when he was in power, and then he came back and said, "Oh yes, I remember that even in kindergarten I knew about the greenhouse effect already." And the key thing is, and really key for everything it's related to, really protecting the environment, it's not like Al Gore says. It's not an ethical thing. Because not to take care of the greenhouse effect is just stupid. You don't need ethics for that. Because you're just an idiot when you don't take care of the greenhouse effect. You don't need ethics for that. Because when you make it an ethical problem, what you could see with Al Gore, you forget about ethics when you need it. Because he was in power and he was diluting the Kyoto
treaty. He said, "Oh, we can't do this for American industry," and he later didn't even get the diluted version ratified.
MJ: Let's pretend that we make all of this good stuff. One could argue that it is still better for somebody not to buy anything at all—that consumerism is not good for the environment.
MB: I only have compassion for that person. The best thing is not to do any gymnastics, to stay in bed, to minimize your exhalation, to cut your hair short to use less shampoo. You cannot even shoot yourself, because you would still have emissions. So basically out of all this blame and shame debate we generated this feeling that we are paying this planet and it would be better if we wouldn't exist. Look at ants, look at other species on this planet. They don't reduce, they don't avoid. Look at a cherry tree in spring. No reduction, no avoidance, no consumerism of blossoms or whatever. No, it's celebrating abundance, but to be good. And for being good you can do as much as possible. And you don't need to be perfect. You can say in 10 years all the products will be either good for the biosphere or for the technosphere. And as a customer, the more you buy the quicker I can make my change. If you make a green seal on your product, it says "Hey, close down
the factories," even better. So they need to make changes by selling their stuff, even if it's not perfect.
MJ: But even if you make a great product like that, you still have to manufacture it.
MB: You want to manufacture it. It's a different thing. We celebrate the human footprint. When you're in Sweden, I understand, your footprint means the soil doesn't come back for 20 years. But when you're in Italy, your footprint means the water stays longer in the meadow. So why don't you have a big footprint which is beneficial for the others? You know this joke where there's one planet meeting another one? And one says, "Hey, you really look terrible." The other planet says, "Yes, I know. I have Homo sapiens." And the other planet says, "Oh yes, I know that. I had this before. But don't worry, it will disappear."
We celebrate human genius. Look, our natural lifetime expectation would be 30 years. That's it. Ninety-five percent of all the people who ever lived on this planet didn't live longer than 30 years. Should we now say that all this activism that is making healthy medicine, healthy nutrition, healthy housing is not good because people live so much longer? How perverse! Like Al Gore says, the most crucial thing for healing the planet is to stabilize human population. Which means everybody who shoots a lot of other people is really good for the planet. That's the logic of it.
Now, I want to look at a child and say, "Hey how nice. How good that you're here. I like that you breathe. I like that you move. I like that you look at things. I like that you grab things." I want to celebrate human genius and creativity. So why should we apologize for being here instead of celebrating human genius and learning from nature? Nature never makes things that accumulate in breast milk. I analyzed breast milk now for 16 or 17 years already, and there was not one sample of any breast milk sample, whether in the US, or in Asia, or in Europe, which could be sold as drinking milk. Not one. Nature would never do this. How stupid. How perverse. And that's really where we can learn. You don't even want to know how toxic these chemicals are. It's chemical harassment. It's not fair. The baby didn't ask for these products. We can learn from nature, but to be clear, the most toxic substances are still natural substances. The strongest carcinogens are
still natural carcinogens. So how we get older than 30 years is human creativity, it's science, it's medicine, it's hygienic knowledge, it's chemistry, it's physics. And we can celebrate this as well. So it's both. It's a real partnership.
MJ: Let's say that we do make all of these really good products. How do we manufacture them without creating carbon emissions?
MB: We work on horizontal chimneys because the problem is carbon is too rare to put it in the atmosphere. We work with colleagues who do a project in Amsterdam which is called Happy Shrimp. So we use the carbon dioxide, we use the nitrous oxide to grow small organisms. Bacteria, algae, etc. We make things—we get oils out of it; we get carbohydrates out of it. We burn the material again, and we put it back into water cultures. If you look at algae, that's why I say, "How can you be so perverse to make any kind of biodegradable plastic out of corn?" The productivity of water cultures to make algae is more than 200 times higher than any type of corn. So the way to hell is paved with good intentions. People try to be a little less bad. No, we need to make systems that are good.
Take the US, for example. The US lost about 50 percent of the whole topsoil in the last 200 years. How can you be so stupid to do agriculture which releases the carbon in the environment? To be clear, two-thirds of all the carbon is in the soil. Right now in the US we are losing about 5,000 times more topsoil than is rebuilt per unit. So in one year the US loses the topsoil that has been built for 5,000 years. So it's not about CO2 being released in manufacturing. It's about how you get it back into soil.
MJ: Are there any companies creating beneficial products like the ones you described?
MB: Yes, a lot of them. Shaw, for example, creating carpets. Shaw is the world's largest maker of carpets. They're nearly three times bigger than any competitor. They're the world's largest single user of polymers as well. They're no longer selling carpets. They sell floor packaging insurance. Now they don't need the cheapest stinking stuff anymore. They can use the best and healthiest polymers, which even clean air in houses. They're not just not toxic; they clean the air.
The funny thing is in a very perverse way, George Bush was very beneficial for the US because everybody said, "Let's not wait for the government anymore. It's up to us." I was in Australia last year, and at the same time George Bush was there. When our president gets here and says, "I am so glad to be in Austria," when he's in Australia—when you have such a president, you say, "I can do something because I know I'm smart. And if this person can be our president, my God, what potential do I have." And you also know it's up to us.
Kiera Butler is an associate editor at Mother Jones.
Interview with Michael Braungart
October 29, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/11/sustainability-interviews-michael-braungart.html
http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/11/sustainability-interviews-michael-braungart.html
Mother Jones: What's your definition of sustainability?
Michael Braungart: We need to make systems and products which are not just sustainable, but products which are good. Which are not just a little less bad, but which are good, which are beneficial. And therefore it goes beyond sustainability. It's really about innovation, about making things that the other species are happy that we are here on this planet. So it's not about minimizing our ecological footprint. It's about having a big footprint, but making sure that this footprint becomes a wetland, that the other species are happy that we're here.
MJ: Give me two examples—one of a product that is sustainable, and one of a product that's actually making a positive impact on our planet.
MB: Take paper for example. Paper never is designed for recycling, yet now when you do recycling and make recycled paper to use it as toilet paper, just with one kilogram of paper you're contaminating more than five million liters of water that can no longer be used as drinking water because they contain so many toxic chemicals. That looks sustainable, because it's 100 percent recycled paper, but it's the opposite. It basically makes the problem even bigger.
So we need to make systems which are good. For example, we developed an ice cream package for Unilever which is not just biodegradable. The ice cream packaging basically contains seeds from real plants. It's a film when it's frozen, and it's a liquid at room temperature, so it degrades within hours, and at the same time it contains seeds from real plants. So whenever you throw things away, you support the biosphere with it. So you're beneficial with it, not just a little less bad.
With all that, it means that instead of apologizing every day for being on the planet and drinking still water instead of sparkling water to reduce your carbon dioxide emissions, you can be beneficial, and this is why it's not sustainability, because sustainability will only slow down the collapse of the planet. But it really will not change the whole thing.
MJ: I understand the concept of thinking in terms of added value instead of damage control, but isn't there a danger of letting perfect become the enemy of good? It's still important to recycle paper even if we know that that's not necessarily the value-added kind of thing you're talking about.
MB: But the paper industry now—there's 20 years of recycling of paper in Europe at least, and at least 10 years of recycling of paper in the US, and the paper industry still didn't change the ink. It even made it worse. For example, these green magazines, maybe even your own, were printed with soy-based ink. What a nightmare, because the pigments in these inks, which are heavy metals in most cases, are chlorinated substances. Before, they were not accessible for the biosphere. Now, when you put them into soy-based metrics, then they become accessible. Now we find them in the biosphere. Now we find that they accumulate in biological systems like breast milk. Before, at least they didn't accumulate. At least they were not negative for human beings, but now we find them everywhere. So it's more like when you sit in the Titanic, and you say, "Oh, isn't it better we bail out the water with a tablespoon instead of a teaspoon?"
When people now try to be a little less bad, they make it even worse, because they basically stabilize the wrong systems and make them perfectly wrong. For example, East Germany has been protecting the environment so much better than West Germany just by inefficiency. Because they couldn't destroy all the wetlands. So the species diversity in East Germany was so much higher than in West Germany because of inefficiency. East Germany was so inefficient that they couldn't destroy the wetlands because they didn't have the money for that. So if you do something wrong, don't make it perfect, because then it's perfectly wrong.
A simple example: When you're in front of a Nazi, then definitely an inefficient Nazi is so much better than an efficient one. So don't make the wrong thing perfect. That's what's done by all these what I call Al Goreisms. Al Gore, who forgot about the environment for eight years when he was in power, and then he came back and said, "Oh yes, I remember that even in kindergarten I knew about the greenhouse effect already." And the key thing is, and really key for everything it's related to, really protecting the environment, it's not like Al Gore says. It's not an ethical thing. Because not to take care of the greenhouse effect is just stupid. You don't need ethics for that. Because you're just an idiot when you don't take care of the greenhouse effect. You don't need ethics for that. Because when you make it an ethical problem, what you could see with Al Gore, you forget about ethics when you need it. Because he was in power and he was diluting the Kyoto
treaty. He said, "Oh, we can't do this for American industry," and he later didn't even get the diluted version ratified.
MJ: Let's pretend that we make all of this good stuff. One could argue that it is still better for somebody not to buy anything at all—that consumerism is not good for the environment.
MB: I only have compassion for that person. The best thing is not to do any gymnastics, to stay in bed, to minimize your exhalation, to cut your hair short to use less shampoo. You cannot even shoot yourself, because you would still have emissions. So basically out of all this blame and shame debate we generated this feeling that we are paying this planet and it would be better if we wouldn't exist. Look at ants, look at other species on this planet. They don't reduce, they don't avoid. Look at a cherry tree in spring. No reduction, no avoidance, no consumerism of blossoms or whatever. No, it's celebrating abundance, but to be good. And for being good you can do as much as possible. And you don't need to be perfect. You can say in 10 years all the products will be either good for the biosphere or for the technosphere. And as a customer, the more you buy the quicker I can make my change. If you make a green seal on your product, it says "Hey, close down
the factories," even better. So they need to make changes by selling their stuff, even if it's not perfect.
MJ: But even if you make a great product like that, you still have to manufacture it.
MB: You want to manufacture it. It's a different thing. We celebrate the human footprint. When you're in Sweden, I understand, your footprint means the soil doesn't come back for 20 years. But when you're in Italy, your footprint means the water stays longer in the meadow. So why don't you have a big footprint which is beneficial for the others? You know this joke where there's one planet meeting another one? And one says, "Hey, you really look terrible." The other planet says, "Yes, I know. I have Homo sapiens." And the other planet says, "Oh yes, I know that. I had this before. But don't worry, it will disappear."
We celebrate human genius. Look, our natural lifetime expectation would be 30 years. That's it. Ninety-five percent of all the people who ever lived on this planet didn't live longer than 30 years. Should we now say that all this activism that is making healthy medicine, healthy nutrition, healthy housing is not good because people live so much longer? How perverse! Like Al Gore says, the most crucial thing for healing the planet is to stabilize human population. Which means everybody who shoots a lot of other people is really good for the planet. That's the logic of it.
Now, I want to look at a child and say, "Hey how nice. How good that you're here. I like that you breathe. I like that you move. I like that you look at things. I like that you grab things." I want to celebrate human genius and creativity. So why should we apologize for being here instead of celebrating human genius and learning from nature? Nature never makes things that accumulate in breast milk. I analyzed breast milk now for 16 or 17 years already, and there was not one sample of any breast milk sample, whether in the US, or in Asia, or in Europe, which could be sold as drinking milk. Not one. Nature would never do this. How stupid. How perverse. And that's really where we can learn. You don't even want to know how toxic these chemicals are. It's chemical harassment. It's not fair. The baby didn't ask for these products. We can learn from nature, but to be clear, the most toxic substances are still natural substances. The strongest carcinogens are
still natural carcinogens. So how we get older than 30 years is human creativity, it's science, it's medicine, it's hygienic knowledge, it's chemistry, it's physics. And we can celebrate this as well. So it's both. It's a real partnership.
MJ: Let's say that we do make all of these really good products. How do we manufacture them without creating carbon emissions?
MB: We work on horizontal chimneys because the problem is carbon is too rare to put it in the atmosphere. We work with colleagues who do a project in Amsterdam which is called Happy Shrimp. So we use the carbon dioxide, we use the nitrous oxide to grow small organisms. Bacteria, algae, etc. We make things—we get oils out of it; we get carbohydrates out of it. We burn the material again, and we put it back into water cultures. If you look at algae, that's why I say, "How can you be so perverse to make any kind of biodegradable plastic out of corn?" The productivity of water cultures to make algae is more than 200 times higher than any type of corn. So the way to hell is paved with good intentions. People try to be a little less bad. No, we need to make systems that are good.
Take the US, for example. The US lost about 50 percent of the whole topsoil in the last 200 years. How can you be so stupid to do agriculture which releases the carbon in the environment? To be clear, two-thirds of all the carbon is in the soil. Right now in the US we are losing about 5,000 times more topsoil than is rebuilt per unit. So in one year the US loses the topsoil that has been built for 5,000 years. So it's not about CO2 being released in manufacturing. It's about how you get it back into soil.
MJ: Are there any companies creating beneficial products like the ones you described?
MB: Yes, a lot of them. Shaw, for example, creating carpets. Shaw is the world's largest maker of carpets. They're nearly three times bigger than any competitor. They're the world's largest single user of polymers as well. They're no longer selling carpets. They sell floor packaging insurance. Now they don't need the cheapest stinking stuff anymore. They can use the best and healthiest polymers, which even clean air in houses. They're not just not toxic; they clean the air.
The funny thing is in a very perverse way, George Bush was very beneficial for the US because everybody said, "Let's not wait for the government anymore. It's up to us." I was in Australia last year, and at the same time George Bush was there. When our president gets here and says, "I am so glad to be in Austria," when he's in Australia—when you have such a president, you say, "I can do something because I know I'm smart. And if this person can be our president, my God, what potential do I have." And you also know it's up to us.
Kiera Butler is an associate editor at Mother Jones.
Friday, November 21, 2008
FOOD NOT LAWNS: A Better Way to Live - by Heather Havey M.A.
FOOD NOT LAWNS: A better Way to Live by Heather Havey, M.A.
The idea of the neatly-manicured, grass-dominated "lawn" was popularized by wealthy families in 18th century Europe. Most people could not imagine wasting so much space. While a lawn looks sparce, neat, or elegant, it is quite harmful for the environment in multiple ways:
(1) Destroys habitat for birds, animals, bees, beneficial insects, etc
(2) Contributes to global warming because people cut down most or all of the trees
(3) Wipes out such a wonderful opportunity to grow your own organic fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, or any food-bearing, beautiful plants.
(4) Lawn care maintenance is time-consuming and also pollutes via lawnmower fumes, leafblower fumes, and the application of deadly poisons (pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc) which kill not only weeds but also bees, insects, butterflies, birds, animals, and eventually humans.
(5) Is visually boring compared to the endless beauty of growing a diverse yard filled with food-bearing plants, shrubs, trees, flowers, and so on that COULD fill your yard.
"Food Not Lawns" is a movement that began in the northwest US by a group of dedicated, Earth-loving, caring people who realized that our popular notions of yard care simply do not support a healthy planet. Many people around the country are beginning to realize these lessons and making the change-0ver to sustainable, natural living.
What we have to realize is that our current way of living is destructive and not sustainable. We face limited and greatly diminishing natural resources on all levels of life, and if we do not change our ways, then we will lose more than half (or more) of species on this planet and we will also contribute to more human suffering, starvation, and disease through promoting and choosing destructive patterns.
Now that we know a better way, let us choose it.
Not only is it a better, healthier way, but it is also a more beautiful way.
And there is NOTHING so wonderful as watching your own plants grow from seed or from babies, taller and stronger into strong adult plants. Even more so, to walk out into your yard and pick your own organic vegetables or fruits, that you have nurtured with water and compost and sunlight and love, to eat at your table, fills your day and your whole meal with such gratitude and love.
So let us all begin to live closer to nature. If you have a lawn, you are so lucky! Because now you can convert it into a living, thriving, healthy, diverse and beautiful garden - a paradise right in your own yard.
Send your friends & loved ones earth-friendly ecards!
Share this article: Food Not Lawns: A Better Way To Live by copying and pasting this link into your email or on your site.
The idea of the neatly-manicured, grass-dominated "lawn" was popularized by wealthy families in 18th century Europe. Most people could not imagine wasting so much space. While a lawn looks sparce, neat, or elegant, it is quite harmful for the environment in multiple ways:
(1) Destroys habitat for birds, animals, bees, beneficial insects, etc
(2) Contributes to global warming because people cut down most or all of the trees
(3) Wipes out such a wonderful opportunity to grow your own organic fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, or any food-bearing, beautiful plants.
(4) Lawn care maintenance is time-consuming and also pollutes via lawnmower fumes, leafblower fumes, and the application of deadly poisons (pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc) which kill not only weeds but also bees, insects, butterflies, birds, animals, and eventually humans.
(5) Is visually boring compared to the endless beauty of growing a diverse yard filled with food-bearing plants, shrubs, trees, flowers, and so on that COULD fill your yard.
"Food Not Lawns" is a movement that began in the northwest US by a group of dedicated, Earth-loving, caring people who realized that our popular notions of yard care simply do not support a healthy planet. Many people around the country are beginning to realize these lessons and making the change-0ver to sustainable, natural living.
What we have to realize is that our current way of living is destructive and not sustainable. We face limited and greatly diminishing natural resources on all levels of life, and if we do not change our ways, then we will lose more than half (or more) of species on this planet and we will also contribute to more human suffering, starvation, and disease through promoting and choosing destructive patterns.
Now that we know a better way, let us choose it.
Not only is it a better, healthier way, but it is also a more beautiful way.
And there is NOTHING so wonderful as watching your own plants grow from seed or from babies, taller and stronger into strong adult plants. Even more so, to walk out into your yard and pick your own organic vegetables or fruits, that you have nurtured with water and compost and sunlight and love, to eat at your table, fills your day and your whole meal with such gratitude and love.
So let us all begin to live closer to nature. If you have a lawn, you are so lucky! Because now you can convert it into a living, thriving, healthy, diverse and beautiful garden - a paradise right in your own yard.
Send your friends & loved ones earth-friendly ecards!
Share this article: Food Not Lawns: A Better Way To Live by copying and pasting this link into your email or on your site.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Save $4000 next year (& every year): A 12-step plan to save money by going green
Save $4,000 Next Year (And Every Year)
A 12-Step Plan to Save Money By Going Green
by Diane MacEachern
October 23, 2008
http://www.thedailygreen.com/print-this/living-green/blogs/green-products-services/save-money-55102301
http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/green-products-services/save-money-55102301?src=nl&mag=tdg&list=dgr&kw=ist
You can save almost $4,000 every year if you live a greener life.
Here's how:
Take lunch to work and stop tossing disposable takeout waste
Annual cost savings: $1,560
Sell your gas-guzzler and invest in a fuel-efficient model
Annual cost savings: $884
Drive smart to improve fuel economy
Annual cost savings: $600
Buy a reusable water bottle and stop buying bottled water
Annual cost savings: $500
Make your own non-toxic cleaners
Annual cost savings: $300
Skip one driving trip each week
Annual cost savings: $225
Install window and door weather stripping
Annual cost savings: $129
Get a programmable thermostat and use it to regulate heating and cooling
Annual cost savings: $150
Buy a smart power strip and really turn off energy-sucking electronics
Annual cost savings: $94
Install low-flow shower heads, and water-saving toilets and faucets
Annual cost savings: $72
Replace an old washing machine with an EnergyStar model
Annual cost savings: $50 (plus 7,000 gallons of water)
Swap out old bulbs for compact fluorescents
Annual cost savings: $5-10 (per bulb)
Total cost savings: $3,690 per year
PLUS: Swap, Trade Using Freecycle.org, EBay, Craig’s List to save more $$$$$.
For years, naysayers have claimed that "being eco is too expensive." Not any more.
A 12-Step Plan to Save Money By Going Green
by Diane MacEachern
October 23, 2008
http://www.thedailygreen.com/print-this/living-green/blogs/green-products-services/save-money-55102301
http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/green-products-services/save-money-55102301?src=nl&mag=tdg&list=dgr&kw=ist
You can save almost $4,000 every year if you live a greener life.
Here's how:
Take lunch to work and stop tossing disposable takeout waste
Annual cost savings: $1,560
Sell your gas-guzzler and invest in a fuel-efficient model
Annual cost savings: $884
Drive smart to improve fuel economy
Annual cost savings: $600
Buy a reusable water bottle and stop buying bottled water
Annual cost savings: $500
Make your own non-toxic cleaners
Annual cost savings: $300
Skip one driving trip each week
Annual cost savings: $225
Install window and door weather stripping
Annual cost savings: $129
Get a programmable thermostat and use it to regulate heating and cooling
Annual cost savings: $150
Buy a smart power strip and really turn off energy-sucking electronics
Annual cost savings: $94
Install low-flow shower heads, and water-saving toilets and faucets
Annual cost savings: $72
Replace an old washing machine with an EnergyStar model
Annual cost savings: $50 (plus 7,000 gallons of water)
Swap out old bulbs for compact fluorescents
Annual cost savings: $5-10 (per bulb)
Total cost savings: $3,690 per year
PLUS: Swap, Trade Using Freecycle.org, EBay, Craig’s List to save more $$$$$.
For years, naysayers have claimed that "being eco is too expensive." Not any more.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Be Aware Of Sustainable Food Issues
Source: Natural News - Be Aware of Sustainable Food Issues
(NaturalNews) We need to consider the issues of producing sustainable food, so that we are aware of what we are buying and eating, and in the long run, help the environment. As natural resources are in demand and under pressure, now is the time to start doing something about it.
At any point in time, food is shipped, flown, or trucked all around the world. Oranges from California make their way into supermarkets in Australia, bottled water wings its way from one country to another, and olive oil from Spain goes to all corners of the globe.
We've become accustomed to buying salmon from Norway, cheese from France, wine from Chile, prawns from Indonesia. In many cases, these products are available locally. Is it because of cost, the exotic quality, or habit that we continue our buying pattern? There could be many reasons. What we don't realize is the amount of energy needed to bring these products into our country.
We may be buying imported products because they are cheaper on the supermarket shelf, but we may get more than we bargained for. At times, we're compromising on the quality of food. While we may be paying less, we could be getting more than what we think. Often food contains chemicals, and usually chemicals banned in our home country, and sometimes unhealthy bacteria, such as salmonella and E.coli.
While the product may cost us less than another, it has costs that we often haven't considered. These are typically long term costs associated with green house emissions due to the use of chemicals for producing, transporting, storing and packing food, amongst others.
More serious is that the world's population is at around 6.6 billion and growing. This means that the capacity to produce food for this many, under current environmental conditions, is being threatened.
Agriculture is affecting the availability of water and it is affecting the ability of the soil to produce foods with nutrients. Agriculture is threatening biodiversity as forests make way for single crops. In addition, the overall agricultural practices generate over 30% of all greenhouse emissions.
This really does call for doing things differently, but can we? Current IMF policies (amongst other similar global organizations) have ensured that some countries cannot produce for themselves, but have to import. And now given the increase in food prices, these people cannot afford to buy the imported food. The policies have ensured unsustainable practices for those that can least afford it.
We may feel that this does not effect us, but what we have learned is that impacts are being felt worldwide. Growing sugar cane for ethanol rather than sugar has had a surprising impact. At the core is the amount of money to be made rather than the sustainability of the practice.
As individuals we can make the choice to find sustainable food sources – food that is environmentally friendly. This may not be the easiest thing to do. For a start what is sustainable food? In general sustainable food is healthy, good quality, affordable food produced at minimum cost to the environment which can be accessed by everyone.
In the UK an alliance called Sustain has worked to define sustainable food. In summary, it is food produced and traded so that local economies are supported; so that plant and animal diversity is protected and natural resources are protected; and so that there are social benefits in providing healthy, good quality and safe products.
UK supermarket chains, Tasco, Waitrose and Sainsbury are establishing codes of practice in the sourcing of food, with some of them labeling food according to its carbon footprint. In other countries, only organic labeling is providing consumers with the knowledge of, at least, some sustainable food growing conditions.
To produce sustainable food, we need to consider what was involved in producing the food, as well as transporting and packing. We also need to consider water usage, impacts to the natural environment and local communities.
Without sustainable food policies in our region how can we discover whether food is sustainable or not? Here are some questions we might ask:
Where does the animal feed come from?
Where does the fertilizer come from?
What water conservation practices are implemented?
How is the produce transported, stored and packaged?
Are pesticides and herbicides used and if so, where do they come from?
Consider also these tips for sustainable eating from the Australian Conservation Foundation:
1. Reduce consumption of animal products
More water and more greenhouse gases are needed to produce beef, than other domestic animals. It is suggested that you buy pasture-fed rather than grain-fed beef, and to buy seafood from sustainable sources – this information may be available from fisheries (for Australia see www.marineconservation.org.au).
2. Buy unprocessed or unrefined foods
This is what nutritionists and natural health practitioners have been saying for years. For the environment, less energy and water is required in processing, and less packaging is used. Fresh fruits and vegetables and dried beans over canned.
3. Buy only what you can eat
An astonishing amount of food is thrown away. In Australia alone $2.9 billion of fresh food was thrown away in 2004. It costs money to throw food away – using water, energy and other resources.
4. Buy certified organic
Certified organic uses no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.
5. Buy locally produced food
It has traveled a shorter distance.
6. Buy food in season
Food in season is typically not shipped from other countries, but from nearby areas.
Sources:
www.acfonline.org.au/default.asp?sectio...
www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20080407-1...
www.opentoorganics.com.au/sust_eat.html
Buzz up!vote nowBoost this article on YahooBuzz! Click "BuzzUp!"
About the author
Lynn Berry is passionate about personal development, natural health care, justice and spirituality. She has a website at www.lynn-berry.com.
(NaturalNews) We need to consider the issues of producing sustainable food, so that we are aware of what we are buying and eating, and in the long run, help the environment. As natural resources are in demand and under pressure, now is the time to start doing something about it.
At any point in time, food is shipped, flown, or trucked all around the world. Oranges from California make their way into supermarkets in Australia, bottled water wings its way from one country to another, and olive oil from Spain goes to all corners of the globe.
We've become accustomed to buying salmon from Norway, cheese from France, wine from Chile, prawns from Indonesia. In many cases, these products are available locally. Is it because of cost, the exotic quality, or habit that we continue our buying pattern? There could be many reasons. What we don't realize is the amount of energy needed to bring these products into our country.
We may be buying imported products because they are cheaper on the supermarket shelf, but we may get more than we bargained for. At times, we're compromising on the quality of food. While we may be paying less, we could be getting more than what we think. Often food contains chemicals, and usually chemicals banned in our home country, and sometimes unhealthy bacteria, such as salmonella and E.coli.
While the product may cost us less than another, it has costs that we often haven't considered. These are typically long term costs associated with green house emissions due to the use of chemicals for producing, transporting, storing and packing food, amongst others.
More serious is that the world's population is at around 6.6 billion and growing. This means that the capacity to produce food for this many, under current environmental conditions, is being threatened.
Agriculture is affecting the availability of water and it is affecting the ability of the soil to produce foods with nutrients. Agriculture is threatening biodiversity as forests make way for single crops. In addition, the overall agricultural practices generate over 30% of all greenhouse emissions.
This really does call for doing things differently, but can we? Current IMF policies (amongst other similar global organizations) have ensured that some countries cannot produce for themselves, but have to import. And now given the increase in food prices, these people cannot afford to buy the imported food. The policies have ensured unsustainable practices for those that can least afford it.
We may feel that this does not effect us, but what we have learned is that impacts are being felt worldwide. Growing sugar cane for ethanol rather than sugar has had a surprising impact. At the core is the amount of money to be made rather than the sustainability of the practice.
As individuals we can make the choice to find sustainable food sources – food that is environmentally friendly. This may not be the easiest thing to do. For a start what is sustainable food? In general sustainable food is healthy, good quality, affordable food produced at minimum cost to the environment which can be accessed by everyone.
In the UK an alliance called Sustain has worked to define sustainable food. In summary, it is food produced and traded so that local economies are supported; so that plant and animal diversity is protected and natural resources are protected; and so that there are social benefits in providing healthy, good quality and safe products.
UK supermarket chains, Tasco, Waitrose and Sainsbury are establishing codes of practice in the sourcing of food, with some of them labeling food according to its carbon footprint. In other countries, only organic labeling is providing consumers with the knowledge of, at least, some sustainable food growing conditions.
To produce sustainable food, we need to consider what was involved in producing the food, as well as transporting and packing. We also need to consider water usage, impacts to the natural environment and local communities.
Without sustainable food policies in our region how can we discover whether food is sustainable or not? Here are some questions we might ask:
Where does the animal feed come from?
Where does the fertilizer come from?
What water conservation practices are implemented?
How is the produce transported, stored and packaged?
Are pesticides and herbicides used and if so, where do they come from?
Consider also these tips for sustainable eating from the Australian Conservation Foundation:
1. Reduce consumption of animal products
More water and more greenhouse gases are needed to produce beef, than other domestic animals. It is suggested that you buy pasture-fed rather than grain-fed beef, and to buy seafood from sustainable sources – this information may be available from fisheries (for Australia see www.marineconservation.org.au).
2. Buy unprocessed or unrefined foods
This is what nutritionists and natural health practitioners have been saying for years. For the environment, less energy and water is required in processing, and less packaging is used. Fresh fruits and vegetables and dried beans over canned.
3. Buy only what you can eat
An astonishing amount of food is thrown away. In Australia alone $2.9 billion of fresh food was thrown away in 2004. It costs money to throw food away – using water, energy and other resources.
4. Buy certified organic
Certified organic uses no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.
5. Buy locally produced food
It has traveled a shorter distance.
6. Buy food in season
Food in season is typically not shipped from other countries, but from nearby areas.
Sources:
www.acfonline.org.au/default.asp?sectio...
www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20080407-1...
www.opentoorganics.com.au/sust_eat.html
Buzz up!vote nowBoost this article on YahooBuzz! Click "BuzzUp!"
About the author
Lynn Berry is passionate about personal development, natural health care, justice and spirituality. She has a website at www.lynn-berry.com.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Journal of Sustainability
The Journal of Sustainability is now on-line and FREE.
We're posting it in a blog format. We'll add to it as the quarter
goes, and at the end of the quarter we'll archive it and start over.
Watch as we grow.
www.JournalofSustainability.com
We're posting it in a blog format. We'll add to it as the quarter
goes, and at the end of the quarter we'll archive it and start over.
Watch as we grow.
www.JournalofSustainability.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Most Sustainable Cities 2008
Source: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/portland-again-tops-a-sustainable-cities-list/
Below are the 2008 sustainable city rankings, with the previous rankings (in 2006) in parentheses. If you live in one of these communities, feel free to weigh in with your own ranking.
1) Portland (1)
2) San Francisco (2)
3) Seattle (3)
4) Chicago (4)
5) New York (6)
6) Boston (7)
7) Minneapolis (10)
8) Philadelphia (8)
9) Oakland (5)
10) Baltimore (11)
11) Denver (9)
12) Milwaukee (16)
13) Austin (14)
14) Sacramento (13)
15) Washington (12)
16) Cleveland (28)
17) Honolulu (15)
18) Albuquerque (19)
19) Atlanta (38)
20) Kansas City (18)
21) San Jose (23)
22) Tucson (20)
23) Jacksonville (36)
24) Dallas (24)
25) Omaha (37)
26) San Diego (17)
27) New Orleans (32**)
28) Los Angeles (25)
29) Louisville (35)
30) Columbus (50)
31) Detroit (43*)
32) Phoenix (22)
33) San Antonio (21)
34) Miami (29)
35) Charlotte (34)
36) Houston (39)
37) Fresno (33)
38) El Paso (31)
39) Fort Worth (46)
40) Nashville (42)
41) Arlington (41)
42) Long Beach (30)
43) Colorado Springs (26)
44) Indianapolis (45)
45) Virginia Beach (48)
46) Memphis (43*)
47) Las Vegas (27)
48) Tulsa (40)
49) Oklahoma City (49)
50) Mesa (47)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
