Sustaining Us

What could a Guppie (Green Yuppie) write about from Cabo San Lucas??? Well although I’m not on a green stamped vacation, I can at least offer some color commentary and practices that I will bring back to the states perhaps. With my parents footing the bill I must say the vacation is absolutely beautiful. The hotel is new and in pheonomenal shape. Considering energy efficiency, they definitely do their best. Much like their Euro counterparts, the Riu Palace, has a master switch in the hotel room to turn all electronics on or off in their hotel rooms. I noticed that this can be quite annoying for the person who likes to keep an alarm clock. But do we really need alarm clocks, hotels offer wake up calls, and furthermore, who doesn’t have a cell phone these days to tell the time or set an alarm (supposedly 171 million Americans do use one)?  The hotel utilizes other standard practices such as allowing guests to choose to reuse towels.

So while I was basking in the sun, of course protected with Aveeno SPF, courtesy of someone special, I figured the most interesting to write about would be “Green Vacationing.” With my parents offering a tropical getaway the only input I had was, yes or no. But, green options do exist, just go and find em!

After reading about the oil spills in the Black Sea and Russia’s attempt at immediate remediation of the surrounding areas, I remembered an article from this summer. In New York Magazine, I learned of an enormous oil spill that resides just under Greenpoint, Brooklyn. This oil spill is different however, in its composition, and source. It’s estimated that 17 to 30 million gallons of oil are spilled in and around Greenpoint, but it’s not just oil, and it didn’t happen all at once. In a slow methodical industrial process, chemicals like Perchloroethylene (Dry Cleaning Carcinogen), Benzene (multi-purpose toxic chemical), naphtha (broad spectrum chemical notorious as an ingredient of napalm), currently found in the area, were spilled, expelled, or otherwise neglected in industrial accidents in the late 19th century. The article reminds me that the industrialized past includes an unfortunate legacy that is unbeknownst to many. If you venture to read this article in New York Magazine, I think you’ll be surprised at the prevalence of the chemicals in the area, and the almost complete lack of outcry until recently. An excerpt below…

in 2005, Riverkeeper [and environmental advocacy group] drilled a test hole in industrial Greenpoint and analyzed the soil itself. They found dirt so polluted with methane and benzene that had they dug it out with a shovel and tossed it on the ground, they could have been found guilty of the illegal dumping of toxic waste.”

We find ourselves the victim of our own success in many cases, discovering potent chemicals without knowing much about their respective legacies. Just miles from where I grew up, Burnt Fly Bog, was an area where waste oil was reprocessed. It’s legacy landed it on the EPA’s SuperFund list, where millions of dollars were used to restore the property and protect the potable water table.

So what’s the point of this post? The point is that this is a tremendous opportunity. I’ve written before about brownfield (polluted site) remediation. In particular, I mentioned Cherokee Investments as a partnership capitalizing on available resources and incentives to redevelop “badlands”. With the economy in flux and so much uncertainty is it so far fetched to foresee a New Deal based upon the Greening of America? With the economy coming under the burden of increased energy prices at the same time our dollar depreciates abroad, domestic improvements seem like a real possibility. We have the opportunity to take one of the unfortunate legacies from our industrial past and turn it into the fodder of our clean, green future.

It turns out tap water is safe to drink. After years of effective marketing and clever packaging, bottle water has replaced tap water as the water of choice for millions of Americans. While convenience plays a major role in the bottle water market, it’s not the entire story. In the beginning, bottled water needed an angle, and what better way to reach Americans than with body image, it’s better for you. Bottled water companies purported that with minerals added and advanced filtering, bottled water couldn’t be beat. This was wildly successful, what ensued can only be described has unfortunate. While water consumption in general is better for Americans, it most often replaces carbonated or sugary drinks, it’s delivery into the American home, may be damaging. Fresh water is in short supply and being diminished as evidenced in plain site at the Hoover Dam. So when, it takes three times as much water to create a bottle that will transport water, we should begin to rethink our uses, but that’s for a later part to this series.

What is relevant to this series is the argument for tap water. Undoubtedly, tap water is a safer product than bottled water, if for no other reason than regulation. Tap water is tested hundreds of times a day while bottled is tested maybe once a week in a bottling plant. Bottled water faces more lenient standards when being tested for bacteria and parasites as well. While both bottled and tap are tested before delivery to the consumer, it would be irresponsible to neglect to mention the swath of research available suggesting that plastic leeches chemicals into the product itself, contaminating bottled water after initial testing.

So what about tap??? If there are lingering concerns about what to do about this moral dilemma, there is a solution. If you live an area where you are unsure about your water quality, a Pur horizontal faucet mount should quell your fears. It covers a few more chemicals and heavy metals than Brita, and is generally reviewed better. But what about transport. Perhaps the biggest savings in using tap water over bottled water, is the opportunity to reduce trash. Even with companies proactively stepping up recycling efforts, see Coca Cola 100% recycling goal, Americans need to avoid plastic. Americans consume 28 billion bottles of water a year. The amount of energy required to create these bottles, transport them, refrigerate them, return them for recycling, and reprocess them is enormous. Just check out this post about FIJI water… The expense is monstrous, especially when there are much more efficient alternatives. Although there are a great number of non-plastic metal and alloy alternatives, I am biased. I have been very satisfied with my Sigg Bottle. It’s an aluminum bottle with a kitchen/food-safe enamel on the inside. Filling my reusable container over the past month, I estimate that I’ve saved over 100 plastic bottles and cups, and $75 dollars in bottled water costs, easily recouping my initial $40 investment for two bottles.

Next, Part II - Conservation

In a capitalist system such as ours, the government’s place is to protect us and buoy us, helping us regain traction when we lose our footing. (Please bear with this post, the sustainable message at the end is clear…) The need for government is accentuated during infrequent and catastrophic events. Ask Californian’s about the need for government help after fire consumed billions in property value and 600,000 acres of land. We derive a great deal of benefit from government when we need it most. Farming is no different.

For decades, farming has benefited from government intervention(cash) when rapid changes in economic conditions disallowed farmers from quickly changing with the times. Farming is illiquid. Most businesses, in times of need, can convert pieces of their business into cash, without losing the business entirely. I.e. Faced with a monthly lease payment, an electronics store might hold a sale to convert unsold inventory into cash. For a farmer, the only option when times become dire, is a sale of land, going out of business, and even that may not always be a valuable option, as farmers’ skill sets aren’t best suited for moving to another job.

For that reason, American farm subsidies grew. Whether it was the collapse of prices as the result of imports, or climbing gas prices cutting into profits during the 70’s, the American government was involved to protect and support farmers. Unfortunately, government was involved for so long, farmers forgot about when it wasn’t. While the rest of the country simply goes out of business or changes their business model, American farmers get paid.

Today in the NYT, Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, wrote about the legislative process of farm subsidies. Much like President Clinton’s fight against welfare and subsequent reform, farm subsidies are hotly debated. With America getting fatter and sustainable issues coming to the forefront in America’s political debate, it’s not a surprise that the Farm Bill, is under scrutiny. A poster child for pork barrel politics, farm subsidies are no longer about tax revenue allocation or free trade, it’s about America’s dietary requirements. Early in this post, I referred to government’s purpose and responsibility to protect us. Corn is America’s staple crop, and has only become more profitable to grow with ethanol’s popularity. Demand is high and supply isn’t going to keep up, thus prices will rise (think high fructose corn syrup and it’s prevalence in everything you eat), yet many corn farmers receive funding. American’s don’t eat enough fruits and vegetables. Why should they? A bottle of water out of a vending machine is always the same price as a Coca-Cola. Why choose water when a Coca-Cola is the same price. For a high schooler the choice is much more obvious. Nutritious options arent’ available because its price is that much greater.

The tired debate about farm subsidies is about to wake up to some very real issues. America’s capitalist roots yield greatest dividends to those who create efficient solutions and great products at cheap prices. When the system fails, government has deep pockets to balance the playing field. In the 1970’s when prices were spiraling higher, the government promoted cheap corn to temper prices of the multitude of products composed of high fructose corn syrup. Now with America fat and farming unsustainable, the government has a real opportunity to foster an era of better farming practices by subsidizing fruits, vegetables, and sustainable practices. It seems like the legislative process may just work out. Middle American senators with committee seats, dominating the debate, are being challenged by all sides of the country. The San Francisco Chronicle has a great article from this Friday. There is hope yet.