Sustaining Us

As if we didn’t have enough of a reason to go sustainable…now food prices are rising. The Omnivore’s Dilemma was written by Michael Pollan more than two years ago, but its message then was that human beings reside at the top of the food chain, and consuming meat requires a great deal of lower-food-chain resources. What does this mean to us? Essentially, if I choose to eat 1 pound of steak, I am foregoing 7 pounds of corn, rice, or other grain. Think about how many bowls of rice that is. For a cow to pack on another pound of body mass, it needs to consume 8 lbs. of grain. If the average bowl of rice uses 8 oz. We’re talking about sixteen bowls of white rice for one 16 oz. porterhouse.

For much of American history, this wasn’t a problem. Corn, our staple crop, has produced surpluses, and the Trojan Horse that is genetically modified corn, has only furthered corn as the multipurpose staple of our food economy. Bountiful harvests of corn were quite cheap. So cheap in fact, that cattle farmers could feed dozens, sometimes hundreds of animals, pounds and pounds of food every day at a cost that is as cheap as cafeteria lunches in America’s schools.

The result has been the fallacy that meat is cheap, bountiful, and a main-stay of any diet. While in fact, meat throughout history, has been a luxury of sorts. Diets in the far east have always been lauded for their high fiber and lean protein characteristics. That meant rice, soy, and fish were always on the menu and were all cheap in price and resources. Contrast that with an American diet of red-meat, simple sugars, and fat. Meat and fat reside close to the top of the food chain. Compare the two diets, and you’ll find that throughout history, a modern American diet is resource expensive compared to an Asian-Pacific diet or any other diet in the world. American settlers roughing their way through settlements weren’t about to fork over bushels of grain to farm animals when they barely made it through the winter themselves.

Thus, the problem here lies with food supply. As the American dollar slips, American’s are seeing the international community buy American crops at a steep discount. We no longer have cheap food for ourselves. Unfortunately, America supplied large amounts of surplus grain to third-world countries, now those countries are seeing shortages as well. As emerging developing countries gain wealth, they emulate American lifestyles and consumer greater quantities of meat, compounding the problem.

  With food prices naturally rising with the dollar’s demise, ethanol is gaining in popularity. In a twist of irony, ethanol is meant to combat global warming. While everyone is debating the existence of global warming, the effects of global warming are being seen and predicted. Like the debate on global warming, there is debate about whether or not crop yields will increase or decrease with the change in climates. No matter which side of the fence you reside, the fact is, crops that have grown successfully in certain regions for decades will cease to do so because of higher temperatures and less precipitation. Will other areas see increased precipitation and more ideal temperatures, yes, but the transition of land in those areas will be neither cheap nor quick nor environmentally friendly. Ethanol is now demanding not just surplus corn, but the food supply itself. Federal and statutory mandates now require ethanol as part of the fuel mix. The combination of changing climate and  ethanol conversion means even less supply to fulfill demand, result…higher prices.   

Americans are facing a precarious world. Food is becoming expensive for a variety of reasons that seem more and more likely to persist. For most, the meat first philosophy is finely ingrained in our culture. Barbecues, steak dinners, Big Macs, “Where’s the beef?” This paradigm will need to change. The prices of bread, beer, and other “staples” are rising. The problem with rising farm commodity prices (think wheat, orange juice, barley, corn) is that these are raw materials, low food chain items, meaning they’re effect is felt throughout the food chain. A mad cow scare affects the top of the food chain, leaving the produce aisle unscathed. But rising commodity prices are scary. You will see the price of Frito’s rise in price as fast as your burger. Cheaper substitutes become harder to find. The poorest will not be able to afford any level of sustenance. The cheap. nutrition devoid foods, that have plagued the poor with health problems will also disappear, leaving the poor not just malnurished, but also starved.

What advice is available? Eating lower on the food chain to relieve the pressure meat puts on food supplies is a good start. Local farmer’s markets are the best and most effective solution. These farmers bring a variety of native or adapted crops to the community and are usually more nutritious then processed foods. Recycling your hard earned money in your local community has its benefits as well, see the trickle effect of economics. So keep in mind, when you go to the store. Food choices that have been historically cheaper than your farmers markets are now becoming comparable if not a better deal. Take Fritos for example. A corn product, transported thousands of miles, and processed using large amounts of electricity. Corn prices are rising, oil prices are sky high, and electricity costs are outpacing inflation. Compare that to your local farmer’s produce. He travels shorter distances with a greater variety of produce requiring less processing and greater nutrition. The local movement is the answer, the speed of the paradigm shift is the question.

One of my more hopeful pursuits is a place in the minds of my (few) readers; to facilitate our ability to challenge the unconscious, the status quo, and lift the veil hovering over the wealth of unknown possibilities. Water conservation is a good choice for such a goal. Water is unique in its own right.

First, water has a slightly negative, slightly positive charge making it versatile. Water’s allure includes its dirt busting abilities in the kitchen sink and it’s ever so fragile surface-tension, allowing water to rise over the lip of a glass or an insect to walk across a pond. Second, water’s density decreases as it gets cooler, a peculiar trait in the word of physics. Ice is genius! If ever anyone had a reason to believe in divine intervention ice is evidence. Ice floats in our beverages combatting the heat conveyor (heat rises, see convection). Water’s quirkiness is nothing short of miraculous. Without such an abundance we wouldn’t be here.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, wrote, “Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink.” Singularly, this quote embodies the dilemma we face in the near future, a water conundrum. We’ve polluted our fresh water sources and drained the remaining potable reserves. In most municipalities, our water use is beyond what is naturally replaced. Seven states reached a landmark agreement to split what’s left of the Colorado River and its dam-born reservoirs. Once a river that stretched from the Rockeis to the Pacific, the river no longer reaches the ocean shore.

I have tremendous faith in America’s ingenuity, ingenuity that will be forced to unlock the secrets of desalinization (removing salt) if we wish to solve our water demand without compromise. In the near term, it’s important to live within our means. We mustn’t depend on tomorrow’s discoveries to save our butts today. Water conservation is a sore subject for many. We envision shorter showers(at least I do), annoying water-saving sinks, and drought-induced prohibitions. Although those measures are often most tangible and easily captured, they aren’t the only ones. Bottled water is an excellent example. Wikipedia mentions that in order to manufacture one liter of bottled water, three to five liters are used in processing (much less is used to clean it every few days in a dishwasher). A standard reusable water bottle can save plenty of water in the long term. Using recycled paper anyone? Synthesizing new paper requires more water than recylced, think 7,000 gallons more per ton. By reducing your waste, you can limit the amount of water needed to move the manufacturing process. There are even more interesting solutions like dual flush and flushless urinals aimed(pun intended) to reduce waste, water waste that is. So challenge the way you consume and you’ll find that you can reduce your water use.

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.

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?