Sustaining Us

Contemplating the title of this one was easy, Tofu. A clever name for this post would do nothing to animate this plain, bland food. In fact, the only appropriate title I could come up with was “Tofu, The Cook’s Chameleon,” a name derived from Tofu’s ability to be shaped and flavored like almost any food.

Coming home from a long day in NYC on Sunday, dinner had still yet to hit the pan. With just a few hours until Monday, I wanted a good nutritious start to the week. Since beginning my writings on this page, I’ve sincerely done my best to live sustainable, so in the interest of the planet I visited Basic Foods, a stalwart of Hoboken’s organic scene. Three food groups needed to be covered tonight, protein, carbs, and fats. Carbs and fats would be covered with my mix of pasta and olive oil, but protein was a challenge. Animal meat is resource intensive. Beef, chicken, and pork all require plenty of water, produce and processing to make it to my table. Tofu is heavily processed but utilizes a less intense supply chain. It should be noted that the spectrum is covered by Tofu, if you’re looking for any meat product, tofu can substitute. I’ve yet to taste the varieties but with time, I will report back. My choice was an organic “Firm,” variety, as opposed to “Extra Firm.”

By the end my basket was full of Silk Chocolate Milk(Soy Milk), Organic Red Swiss Chard( A Leafy, Spinach-Like Green), and “Firm” Tofu. The meal was simple and full of flavor, frying tofu in teriyaki sauce is very nice, and is complimented nicely along steamed greens, and a plate of pasta and olive oil.

Satisfying on so many levels, I had a topic to write about today. While the health benefits and downfalls of soy are debated and perhaps overexaggerated, let’s look at it from a far. Soy is sustainable. Sustainable for our bodies and the planet, it is less taxing on the environment to produce and is a substitute for meats that contain greater amounts of saturated fat, cholesterol, and preservatives. Not to mention… tofu is cheap. A whole 14 oz. is priced at just $2 dollars in Basic Foods. Compare that to an organic pound of any meat. The same serving of organic salmon costs $13 at Freshdirect.com. Tofu, the chameleon of all foods, is good for you and the environment, give it a go sometime.

Cotton has quite the notorious history in the United States and continues to build it’s notoriety throughout the world. An early benefactor of slave-labor, cotton farmers thrived during the revolutionary years in the United States. Since then, cotton has become the most chemical intense crop in the world. At first sight, Organic Cotton in Target, I snickered that the “Organic Label” had been exploited and commercialized. How could organic cotton benefit the consumer? As the thought of Organic Cotton simmered in my head, I became curious about what made cotton organic and why is was better. That began my research.

Every morning as you get dressed, cotton is part of the party. Cotton, after all, is the fabric of our lives. But where did it come from? This map, shows shows a large concentration of cotton farming taking place in the United States, China, and much less developed countries. But dig deeper, more simply, where does cotton come from. Acha! The ground, and one step further, a farm. It turns out 25% of insecticide use and 10% of pesticide use takes place on the world’s cotton crop. In poorer countries, cotton is picked manually, poisoning the pickers and their families. While thousands of deaths and a plethora of illness can be directly attributed to pesticide and insecticide exposure, there are thousands more that occur as a result of slower exposure from contaminated water sources.

The organic cotton movement is no joke, it’s not a trend, and its one of the most effective examples of how switching to organic can have a real impact. When possible, make the organic choice, just because you can’t eat organic cotton, that doesn’t mean it can’t still be better for you.

Read more >> Options >>

If sustainability is to catch on, it must be taught, and where better than America’s colleges. Packed with liberal attitudes toward social progress, educational institutions have the support and momentum to propel the movement forward. The Sustainable Endowments Institute produces college report cards that reflect a sustainable momentum. Measuring the operational measures taken in sync with endowment practices is a two pronged measurement technique. Operational measures determine at what level a university already employs better practices, and the study of each university’s endowments approach, is intended to judge how the university earmarks funding for continued sustainable progress. Each school’s report card can be seen here.

At their disposal, educational institutions have an immense cache of goodwill that can propel the greening of tomorrow’s landscape. Take my alma mater for example. Penn State has some of the country’s leading climate scientists. Under a new policy, all new-building and major renovation projects require LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification, further establishing a sustainable trend in central Pennsylvania’s appropriately names “Happy Valley.” The personnel and policies are in place to utilize the best resources any institution has, its students.

America’s Generation Y, happens to be idealistic and driven. Thomas Friedman, a prominent editorial journalist for the New York Times, compiled a mini-profile of us as he toured schools in the south. What he found was that we have positive emotions about our ability to effect change and we tend to act on our idealist convictions, however we are painfully silent on political issues that directly affect us, dubbing us Generation Q, for quiet. He cites examples such as our brazen approach to foreign volunteer work and travel in the years following September 11th, but we are absent in the political debates about global warming, social security, and other longer-term concerns. Does Generation Y have the old saying backwards, do we act to often and talk too little?

Thomas Friedman attacks our generation’s highly fractured and organic communication channels and there’s the rub. Thomas Friedman’s generation, our parents, and those who currently hold office, need to be told explicitly and audibly what our concerns are…let’s call them conventional communicators. Generation Y prefers the viral communication style, via electronic medium, and let’s call ourselves “new age communicators.” There’s a disconnect.

Universities are the perfect place to bridge the gap between conventional communicators and new age communicators. Professors’ interact with students in a free exchanges of ideas unparalleled in society. The next challenge is to have our professors encourage vocal activism regarding our deep convictions. We’ve all heard that small individual changes make a big difference, but who’s to say there’s no room for the Big Splash in politics. The 1960’s and 1970’s saw our activist, peace-loving, parents grow from the highly political fields of Woodstock into the self-assured and powerful Baby Boom Generation. We are independent and proud, but not vocal. Our baby boom parents instilled a sense of uniqueness in us and it may be that very uniqueness that holds us back from embracing and speaking up for the issues that will affect all of us.

The truth about batteries is not nearly as bad as it was a decade ago. The alkaline variety, Duracell and Energizer brands, have a low environmental impact and are safe to disguard when exhausted. In fact, even many rechargeable varieties found in cameras, phones, and camcorders are less toxic than they once were. They should not be disposed of in landfills but their impact is much less than commonly thought. You may ask yourself at this point, why would I tell you that it’s perfectly ok to dispose of batteries in the trash. I’m not. What I am saying is that it’s an option and if throwing away batteries is a convenient option, recharging them are a convenient, environmentally safe, and cost effective option.

Rechargables cost as much as 3X as more plus charger cost. However cost is recovered after three or four cycles, when you buy rechargeable batteries with a charger in a bargain pack. As we grow into an on-demand, mobile society, batteries will play a larger and larger role. If you think back to pre-cell phone days, there were probably millions of fewer batteries floating around and less toxins to seep from them into our municipal waste streams. In the United States, the government stepped in to mandate “low-impact” battery use, guiding us into a more responsible 21st century. The Mercury Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996, was monumental in scope. Essentially it prevented enormous amounts of mercury and other heavy metals from filling our landfills, poisoning us, and polluting our water, air, and food.

The act also created the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, a service that will help the average consumer to find a way to dispose of rechargeable batteries by simply calling in. An even easier option is Earth911, a site that lists locations to recycle a number of consumer goods, including batteries. Many Staples office centers will recycle batteries and even other office equipment(for a price).

All in all, the decision to go green and buy rechargeables is similar to buying a hybrid car or investing in efficiency. It initially costs a great deal more, but saves you and the environment a great deal more down the road.

Evolution is a tricky beast. For thousands of years, human beings adapted and changed through natural selection. When faced with extreme adversity, possible outcomes are limited, life or death. As a race we’ve faced adversity, examples include extreme climate change, famine, and disease, but the hazards have made us hardy.

In the same way we persevere, bacteria, viruses, and parasites thrive. Every time an antibacterial agent is deployed, an entire population of bacteria is put to the test, will it live or will it die? With good bacterial agents, 99.99% of the bacteria die, but what about that hardy .01%. In the course of time, the “survivors” divide and conquer (pun intended). Does it make sense to kill 99.99% of a bacterial population when we know most bacteria out there can’t harm us? As we kill off the weaker bacteria, the stronger continue to thrive .01% today becomes 1% tomorrow. Then 1% may become 5%. While human beings face catastrophe type challenges thousands of years apart, we treat bacteria to similar “catastrophic events,” thousands of times a day. The potential for super-germs grows daily.

Luckily we’ve had allies on our side throughout human history. Good bacteria keeps us healthy. Our bodies live peacefully with hundreds of types of outsiders. They help us digest our food, fight disease, and it’s even theorized that body odor was once a defense mechanism against predators (I’m still searching for where I read this). So I ask, does it make sense? If there’s one rabid dog in a neighborhood, do we kill everyone’s pet to flush out rabies? No, much like your pet dog, bacteria is man’s best friend. A good flora will protect us from harm. Every time we wash our hands with anti-bacterial soap, we kill Lassie with Old Yeller.

A combination of clever marketing and our innate fear of illness ushered in the era of antibacterial agents, allowing them to grow exponentially in popularity. In fact 3 out of 4 liquid soaps contain, triclosan, an antibacterial agent. The truth is, plain hand soap, does the same job, without triclosan. Wikipedia has a nice explanation, in its triclosan entry.

triclosan is not actually necessary in soap to kill bacteria. Soap is itself an effective microbicide due to the fact that soap breaks down oils. All bacterial cell walls are based on lipid chains, which are oil-based. The simple act of applying soap to the hands and rubbing vigorously will cause the cell walls of any bacteria on the hands to be ripped apart by the soap, disintegrating and killing any bacteria present.”

Triclosan is good for marketing, but bad for sustainability. “Bad” bacteria become resistant to triclosan rendering it less effective when it may be needed most. Secondly, as triclosan is introduced into the environment, the sun’s UV rays transform this “helpful” chemical into dioxins, a highly potent carcinogen. It’s debatable whether this particular dioxin, from triclosan, poses a threat to human beings, but the same cannot be said of the threat to other plants, animals, and organisms. Bacteria are everywhere. Would you prefer it be man’s best friend, or our worst nightmare?

As I sat on a bus home this morning, I became aware that I had a decision to make. My intention will never be to effect change with alarmist writing, but how can change be encouraged without detailing the consequences of continuing to live as we do. Do I write and casually avoid posts that address our day to day practices that are damaging and unsustainable, or do I present those topics with the risk of alienating my young (and growing?) audience. My realization is that changing behavior and thinking is difficult, but with an honest and sincere message, this blog will allow the truth to speak for itself.

Compromise, requires two parties to concede certain preferences in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution. Never before have the planet and the human race had to negotiate the way the other exists, but with the advent of new technologies and our ability to manipulate our surroundings, the status quo has changed. Moving forward, change is necessary; Sustainingus.com will post infortmation that will be raw and discomforting, but the posts will always have suggestions and alternatives. Reality will be offered with a dose of optimism and perspective.

What a waste! On the first day of economics class students learn about opportunity cost, the cost of an opportunity foregone. On its face, commuting seems to make financial sense, but what are the true costs? The census bureau recently termed 3.5 million people that commute more than an hour and a half a day, “Extreme Commuters.” Are they really that extreme? Another 10 million “normal” commuters travel at least an hour. Normal?!

Commuting impacts the way we consume. At the top of the list is time. While the average commute is just 24.3 minutes, in concentrated urban areas the numbers escalate. As the old saying goes, time is money and human capital a precious commodity. Adding just one hour to your productive day could go a long way. A very costly second is infrastructure. To move millions of people from point A to point B cost billions in roads, rail, and support services no matter how far the distance, let alone 60 or even 100 miles. Not to mention the millions of tons of CO2 that could be kept out of the atmosphere by finding a job closer to home. Americans in transit are just plain wasteful.

I wouldn’t be fair if I didn’t suggest a solution, alternative, or my favorite, a compromise. The best cure for a long commute is to find a similar job closer to home. Out of the 13 million commuting more than an hour, at least a handful should be able to find something closer to home. For many, the time saved in commuting will be make up for lost compensation working closer to home. For those who absolutely, positively cannot avoid their commute, Cisco has a product named TelePresence. The innovative technology is slowly being incorporated into operations by corporations, universities, and other organizations. TelePresence connects geographically separate spaces with the use of audio, visual, and multimedia inputs, i.e. HD video, high quality microphones and speakers, and computers. As of now, this technology is still cost prohibitive for the average consumer. Used as a substitute for cross country and international business meetings, a consumer application can’t be far behind. Steve Jobs, I’m sure, can’t resist, this is of course, the YouTube era.

Working closer to home saves time, resources, and frustration. Having deeper roots in your own community is worth some thought.

The Great Hot Dog Debate

Part of sustainability is keeping people yourself healthy so that later on you can avoid costly medical treatments and medicines that could be avoided. Sustainability includes efficiency and economy. In this post, I’ll explore how a common chemical found in hot dogs is portrayed in two very different lights in the public eye, as a cheap medicine and a carcinogen.

The Pro: “Savor Life”™ Sodium Nitrites are LifeSavers®

For every point, there is a counter-point. For as bad as sodium nitrite is purported to be, the National Institutes of Health, is considering sodium nitrate as an effective and cheap remedy for, “sickle cell anemia, heart attacks, brain aneurysms, even an illness that suffocates babies.” The findings revolve around the fact that the same way the chemical can protect deli meats, it can protect your tissues. In low levels and in a response to trauma, i.e. a heart attack, sodium nitrate acts as a protection mechanism.

The Con: Sodium Nitrites are BNB (Bad News Bears)

Unfortunately, during the industrial revolution chemical utilization boomed. Seemingly inert ingredients used in 1960 are considered carcinogenic today. Among these ingredients to experience awesome growth is Sodium Nitrite. Used to preserve the look and texture of meat, it’s found everywhere meat is. In its initial form it isn’t dangerous, but as it is digested, our bodies transform the chemical into something called nitrosamine a cancer causing chemical.

Most processed meats include Sodium Nitrite to fend off botulism (bacterial infection) and maintain color and texture. With the advent of modern refrigeration to ward off bacterial growth, sodium nitrite is more often used for aesthetic purposes like keeping bologna and bacon pink.

It’s been widely suggested that high amounts of sodium nitrates in your diet aren’t very good for you. Personally, I won’t give up hot dogs, even those that use the chemical, but like everything else that I’ll write about, I encourage everyone to think about the choices. Small choices over a lifetime add up to a lot. See my post about Nalgene Safety and the accumulation of toxins in your body. There are options like sodium nitrite free hot dogs, bacon, and deli meats.

CONCLUSION:

Although they may be bad for you in high doses and in unnecessary foods, your body considers them potent ammo against various diseases. Everything in moderation…

Conservation is nothing new and in many ways we’ve been practicing good conservation techniques for a long time. One of my good friends pointed me in the direction of Revolving Doors, which have been in use for decades. Little did I know just how efficient these mechanisms are. I’ll defer to the good guys at MIT to explain the dynamics of it all, but they save a ton of energy and money. We’re talking major savings. According to the building studied at MIT, the revolving doors insulate four times as well as swing doors. Per entrance or exit, swing doors use these amounts of equivalent energy,

• 1.3 hours of light from a desk lamp
• 4.3 hours of light from a compact fluorescent bulb
• Driving a car 306 feet
• Half a mile jog

Doing some rough math I figured that a building with 1,250 occupants switching from swing doors to revolving doors can save enough energy to get a Hummer from New York City to Washington D.C., a four hour trip. Now imagine the savings in a busy New York City office building. For large institutions the savings involved in the switch could be immense, just ask MIT.

It seems like Al Gore reemerged five years after losing to GWB in 2000. I still say that if the man decided to run with a nobel prize in tow, I’d join that campaign today. But as a true fan of Al Gore, I know that that the best place where he can effect change is outside the White House gates. Al Gore politico and Al Gore person are completely different mediums. The former has a way of chaining himself down and the latter, well, wins Nobel Prizes on the way to reversing a paradigm that human beings are changing the global landscape.

Al Gore’s documentary is making its way into schools this year and has drawn the ire of a pundit on the bench. A UK judge has labeled nine points in an Inconvenient Truth unsubstantiated and subject to a disclaimer. See those nine points here. The judge ruled that although there is evidence to support such claims, the evidence is inconclusive. Simply stated, it could be agreed that the judge is correct, the evidence, while strong, is not concrete. But why single out and Inconvenient Truth? In America, the “evidence” that abstinence prevents teenage pregancy and the proliferation of STI’s is available and sound, but hardly concrete. Where is a ruling that states that prophylactics should be presented side by side with abstinence in sex ed? It’s been widely misreported that the judge called these nine points “errors.” They were in fact places where the judge felt another side of the argument should be laid. A nobel point by a judge over reaching in an attempt to be unbias. It is prudent for a person in such a position to be fair in the presentation of an argument. But here’s the problem…

A judge’s role is to opine on a case, and in this case he was given some latitude with the plaintiff’s argument that the film was laden with propaganda. Seeing how the scientific community had embraced the fact that human beings, in all likelihood, are having an effect on the planet, an Inconvenient Truth isn’t propaganda. Schools have a responsibility to encourage their students to think and challenge the status quo. Schools encourage students to act in productive ways. Al Gore’s film will stir the minds of youth in Britain and furthermore…Is conserving our resources and limiting our impact the kind of message that is propaganda or slanted??? Hardly. The judge focused on the wrong points, yes climate change is hotly debated and less proven than other scientific “truths,” but the message in an Inconvenient Truth, is the message that we as human beings have to start to taking responsibility for our actions. Al Gore’s documentary is a narrowed version of the golden rule, what goes around, comes around. We can only hit the planet so hard, before it smacks us right back.