Is your Mac a friend or foe of the environment?

Would you have bought your precious iBook if you knew Apple was one of the worst performers when it came to addressing and reversing climate change?

According to Climate Counts, a climate conscious consumer organization, when it comes to action on climate change, Apple ranks the lowest among 12 leading producers of electronics. IBM and Toshiba actually take the top spots.

Climate Counts is a collaborative effort to bring consumers and companies together in the fight against global climate change. Each year, Climate Counts “scores” companies based on their measured climate footprint, their impact on global warming, their support (or lack) for progressive climate legislation, and their publicly disclosed actions.

Spend a little time on their website and you’ll be surprised (as I was) by the companies that are truly making strides against climate change. For instance – Nike has one of the highest scores of the almost 100 companies scored by Climate Counts.

Ideally, people would use a company’s score to influence where they spend their consumer dollars. As an environmentally conscious consumer, my McDonald’s hamburger tastes a little better because I know McDonald’s is striving higher than Wendy’s when it comes to climate change.

I am happy to report (as are other Mac users) that Apple's score increased from a 2/100 to a 11/100 from 2007 to 2008. While, a score of 11 still pales in comparison to IBM's 77, a quick visit to Apple's website verifies Apple should see a significant increase in their score in 2009. In the past year, Apple has taken significant strides to improve their climate consciousness.

Power to make significant progress in the climate battle exists in our wallets, purses, and piggy banks. If we seek to support companies who support the environment, we can raise awareness, change behavior and move markets to promote sound solutions to the climate crisis.

East and West working together to understand the mind

One of the more intriguing collaborations that I have found is between neuroscientists and monks. I first heard about this partnership when reading The Art of Happiness by the Dalia Lama. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddism and one could argue for all Budhhists in the world, has chosen to embrace the science community. He became one of the cofounders of the Mind and Life Institute in 1987, along with a neuroscientist and entrepreneur. The organization's purpose is to promote dialogue and collaborative research between science and Buddhism.

The Dalai Lama has actively encouraged monks and scientists to work together to study meditation. Neuroscientists have been interested in understanding what happens to the brain during meditation and how the brains of monks, who meditate on average 10 hours a day, may differ from those of non-monks. Many studies have shown that training the mind through meditation can in fact change the brain (i.e. neuroplasticity). Click here and here for some articles that discuss some of these findings.

In his book, The Universe in a Single Atom, the Dalai Lama looks at how scientific inquiry and Buddhism both have the objective to understand the nature of reality through critical investigation. While there are some central disagreements such as science's rejection of reincarnation and the Dalai Lama's rejection that consciousness is a combination of chemical reactions, the Dalai Lama seems unthreatened. In fact, he even goes as far to say that if science disproves Buddhism, then Buddhists must accept the findings. Listen to or read this this NPR piece on about the controversy over Dalai Lama, a nonscientist, addressing neuroscientists about the neuroscience of meditation.

Do you think these two worldviews be combined/united? Ultimately, I think both models show a strong overlap but use a different language and framework to describe the world. In any case, it is nice for a change to see religion and science, two diametrically opposed fields, taking a moment to learn from one another.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - Who Cares?

Let's be honest, sometimes there's nothing more annoying than carrying around a plastic food bin leaking spaghetti sauce inside your already stuffed backpack.

So, what's the harm in throwing it into your nearest trash can? Or just leaving it next to a bench in the park or on the ocean-side boardwalk? The problem is gone.

Or so it appears.

In the meantime, places around the world are becoming plastic garbage dumps. According to Charles Moore, an American oceanographer, there are about 100 million tons of plastic garbage circulating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch". The patch is filled with an assortment of durable plastic items such as water bottles, toys, and other debris.

Plastic debris items such as these might seem relatively harmless at first. However, the U.N. Environment Programme has stated that plastic debris in the world's oceans are responsible for the death of approximately 100,000 marine mammals and more than 1 million seabirds every year.

Charles Moore also warns that over the next 10 years, this toxic “plastic stew” will double in size unless consumers cut back on their use of disposable plastics.

So, the next time you're debating whether or not to throw out a plastic food container, please consider the following questions: Is this container recyclable? Can I rinse it out and and reuse it? Are there any other available options such as ceramic plates?

Overall, we can all take part in those three famous R's (reduce, reuse, recycle), because every little bit can add up to make a big difference.

Conversing with the Fringe

Have you read The Travels of a Tee Shirt in a Global Economy by Pietra Rivoli? Whether or not you have, you would’ve enjoyed a presentation given by Rivoli on February 24 at Fuqua School of Business. The author, a business professor at Georgetown University, spoke about free trade after following a tee-shirt from the cotton farms in Lubbock, TX, to Shanghai, China, to Washington, DC, to New York, NY, and finally to Tanzania.

While Rivoli doesn't believe free trade is necessarily a good thing, she points out that Americans have tended to view it favorably. In 2002, at the height of the globalization debate, 78% of Americans believed that international trade was very good or somewhat good for the country.

That statistic has dropped, however. More and more Americans believe that international trade is a “story of destruction”, creating systems that breed inequality and perpetuate hardship in developing countries. People struggling to survive will work for unfair wages or under harsh and unhealthy conditions just to get by.

Rivoli claims that the people who view trade unfavorably are both the “fringe” and now mainstream Americans who had previously turned a deaf ear to the problems of international trade. She argues that we should never dismiss “fringe” sentiments because they are one of the best “crystal balls”. They predict the world in 10 years and their ideas, seen as crazy today, will become standard practice. If you need convincing, look at the World Bank and IMF protestors who called attention to the pitfalls of globalization. Or look at the groups who pressured corporations like GAP and NIKE to change their supply chain management. “Fringe” demands are now the norm.

As an environmentalist who has felt like the “fringe” when arguing for the benefits of recycling or green building, I believe that the environmental message is a “crystal ball”. Environmentalists have recently made large strides in pushing some issues, like energy conservation and climate change, to the forefront of the public agenda.

But it seems that these accomplishments have only been possible in the past several years because conservationists have begun talking to diverse groups of people, namely the business community, which has historically rejected pairing economic growth with conservation.

So perhaps Rivoli’s belief in talking with a diverse set of people is actually a two-way street. It takes initiative from both groups, the business community and the “fringe” to tackle important issues. The environmental movement has certainly benefited from doing this.

The Price Appalachia Pays

“Out of sight, out of mind” is why most Americans do not know what mountaintop removal coal mining is or that it is one of our country’s greatest environmental and human rights tragedies.

In order to quickly and easily access the seems of coal in the Appalachian mountains, mining companies first strip away the forests and topsoil, then use explosives-up to 100 times as strong as those used in the Oklahoma City federal building bombing-to blast up to 1,000 feet off of the mountaintops and expose the coal. Anything that isn’t coal, or the “overburden,” is dumped into adjacent valleys, in some places up to a depth of 600 feet. To date, this process has flattened at least a million acres and buried over 1,200 miles of biologically crucial Appalachian springs and creeks.

The environmental and community impacts of mountaintop removal mining are devastating, affecting everything from coalfield employment and flash floods to chemical fumes and “flyrock.” How is this allowed to happen? It’s all about profits. Mountaintop mines recover almost 100% of the coal in the ground and require far fewer workers. Also at fault is a 2002 rule change orchestrated by the Bush Administration.

A court victory was won in 2007 when a federal judge ordered greater environmental review of permits for mountaintop removal in West Virginia. Unfortunately, that decision was just overturned on February 13th by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, and the mining companies are ready to go.

As big of a setback as this decision is, there is legislative progress occurring. On the federal level, The Clean Water Protection Act was introduced last year with 153 co-sponsors, and will likely be re-introduced in the 111th Congress. Here in North Carolina, the Appalachian Mountains Preservation Act was just introduced in the house and senate this week. The legislation would phase out state utility purchases of coal from mountaintop removal mines.

Chances are the power you use every day is connected to mountaintop removal mining. Want to be sure? Check out the cool widget on the homepage of iLoveMountains.org’s website. You just enter your zip code and you’ll find out if your utility company is part of the problem. If they are, visit their website and let them know how you feel about this destructive practice.

Why a ‘fart tax’ might be just a load of hot air

In recent months rumors have been circulating that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a ‘fart tax’ for livestock as part of their new plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions. A similar proposal has outraged farmers in both New Zealand and Australia.

Why do we care about such obscure taxes becoming a reality? Is it possible that these 'fart taxes' are just a load of hot air? (See this blog for more)

Many years ago, I was up late watching the news and saw a story about a herd of sheep fitted with contraptions consisting of plastic trousers on their behinds and tubes in their mouths, among other things. It was a hilarious sight and I couldn’t help but wonder why these sheep were hooked up to these pieces of equipment. Not being a complete novice to the science surrounding climate change, the explanation was in fact quite plausible. They were using these devices to measure their methane emissions.

According to this article from the BBC, farting and burping by these farm animals are responsible for:

• 90% of the methane emissions in New Zealand,
• 70% of the methane emissions in Australia, and
• 15% of methane emissions worldwide.

So, you might be wondering why the sudden shift to talking about methane?

• Methane has 21 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide (EPA).

Why is this important?

In agrarian countries like New Zealand, it is estimated that over half the country’s greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the methane emitted by farm animals. This means that something like a ‘fart tax’ on farm animals could, in theory, help NZ meet their Kyoto Protocol targets. But, this is just in theory…

In reality, a ‘fart tax’ would do very little to curb emissions. The actual result of such a tax would be a huge loss in revenue for farmers while the overall emissions in the atmosphere would not be reduced unless farmers cut back on the numbers of sheep, cows, and hogs. Ultimately, we would just see dairy and meat prices rise to meet growing costs. In the current economic climate, adding financial pressure to farmers, especially in NZ whose economy depends on agriculture, does not seem to be the answer to curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Luckily, the proposal was shot down in Australia, NZ, and the United States --- but not before widespread hysteria erupted among farmers.

Why do we regulate emissions using taxes and permits? To reduce emissions.

That being said, a ‘fart tax’ is not going to get the job done. The gas produced by these animals is a result of natural processes and is not going to be reduced by taxing farmers.

What is the solution then?

Methane gas emissions still need to be regulated and some scientists in Australia are now turning away from the old “plastic trousers” mechanism and are hooking sheep up to gas masks to measure their methane emissions from belching. It is supposedly much more effective and less cumbersome than previous methods --- though I can’t say that it would look any less ridiculous!

Other efforts to reduce methane emissions from farm animals include research on less “gassy” feed– a way to reduce emissions without reducing animal numbers. Or, maybe it is our own diets that need to change; kangaroo anyone?

Costa Rica Revisted

Its now been ten years. Ten years since I last stepped foot on Costa Rican soil. Fresh out of high school and still trying to find my way in life I somehow drifted down to our continental isthmus. Into a world strange but not unkind.

In one week I'll be heading back down to that lush country, and I could not help but reminisce a little. I admit that I was young and naive when I first found myself in Costa Rica, but that only made my experiences more important. In Costa Rica I learned many life lessons: That I had been a sheltered child, a privileged child, and a child that other people would want to rob, and did. I learned that a human cannot out run a bull. That friends need not speak the same language, and are not permanent. And that Central America has an amazing array of cultural and biological diversity.

I learned these things by leaving behind what I had known and embracing difference, by speaking another language, and absorbing some cultural history found in what we eat.

Being young I traveled the rougher paths, and stayed in the cheaper hostels, and sometimes flirted with danger by drinking... tap water. And rather than other Americans joining me in these enterprises my companions were from Denmark or the British Isles, Korea or Japan. Less often did I meet fellow Americans, and less often did I want to.

Most Americans relish comfort, and it is my fear that when Americans travel in too much comfort, in too much familiarity, that they fail at traveling. Because being in another country should be to push your comfort zone, to rub abrasively against a new language and culture, and in doing so learn something about yourself and the world. Cancun is not traveling. Tijuana is not traveling. Acapulco is not traveling. Resorts, comfort, and familiarity are vacations. Americans need more travel.

Americans are poor global citizens, but I think if we can get out there and meet what's across the border that will change. The next time you travel abroad, push those boundaries, knot your tongue around another language, and I promise I'll do the same. So bring on Costa Rica Round 2. After a ten year hiatus there's nothing I could look forward to more.

Choose Both

Would you rather…

You know the game, right? I hate it. But here I am, asking the question. So get ready. Squirm. Giggle. Feel awkward. Be nervous (really nervous). You can do whatever you want, but ultimately, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, there is no choice but to play.

Don’t worry. This time the question has nothin’ to do with eating gross things or kissing a hoary librarian. If you were responsible for solving the world's environmental woes would you start at the global scale and work your way down to local communities or would you rather start on the ground and work your way up?

Does the question sound familiar? I hear references to it a lot; its pretty engrained in the conservation community. There are a lot of folks, including myself, who feel pretty strongly one way or the other. But maybe we need to stop thinking about it in such polarized terms. Does the debate really have to be modeled after a game intended to humor forth graders?

Sure, large-scale conservation, touted by TNC et al, certainly has appeal. Who doesn’t want to “preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive”? But the large-scale approach isn't flawless. A lot of resources have been poured into lofty initiatives and reports like the Millennium Goals and the Ocean Blueprint. And the intent is great (amazing actually). But have these visions translated into results? Have they concluded anything that we didn't already know?

On the other end of the spectrum is small-scale, local conservation. Community conservation, at its best, is about empowerment and diversity and creativity. It centers on the conviction that everyone has a role and if we all take ownership, global problems will be resolved. I’ll admit, I’m a sucker for small-scale.

I love the concept of grassroots organizing and the idea that we're in charge of our world. But it’s a bit naïve to ignore the obvious. Small-scale often equates to disorganization, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness. And obviously if we're too focused on small-scale we might outright miss the big picture all together.

So where does that leave us? What would you rather?

A year ago, maybe less, I would have said small-scale is the key. But it's not so black-and-white. Small-scale action is embedded in the large-scale context. They can't be separated, and maybe we shouldn't try. There's no reason we can't choose both.

The China Syndrome: One (or Two) Babies, Please!

Most people are aware of China’s population policy permitting each couple to have only one child in order to control the population explosion.

Recently, Jonathon Porritt, who chairs Great Britain’s Sustainable Development Commission suggested to a London Newspaper, “Curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.” Porritt also mentioned that he thinks we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible.

Without a doubt, the contemporary clash of worldviews regarding children, contraception, abortion, and now the environment comes quickly to mind.

Albert Mohler, a conservative, Christain radio talk-show host reacted to Porritt saying, “Christians must be reminded that we do bear responsibility as stewards of God's creation. But we cannot be faithful in that stewardship if we adopt the logic of the Culture of Death. Human beings cannot be reduced to any cold economic or ecological value. Each human being is made in God's image, and each can be part of the fulfillment of our stewardship.”

As a religious conservative, I do not support the idea of including abortion as a population tool in any kind of policy. I also understand the crudeness of putting an economical or ecological value on a life. However, before all of my conservative counterparts quickly agree with Mohler’s statement, I’d like to take this opportunity to raise some valid points about population. A real concern does exist over the relationship between population growth and resource depletion. When we talk about population’s effect on the environment, we are not necessarily talking about the birds and the trees and the abstract environment. We are mostly referring to the environmental resources that our lives depend on every day, like clean water and clean air.

Just like we learned in high school biology, the supportable population of an organism, given the available food, habitat, and water within an environment is known as the carrying capacity for that organism. For the human population, more complex variables such as sanitation and medical care are sometimes considered as part of the necessary infrastructure. If the carrying capacity is exceeded, the quality of life for the entire population will decline. If our population continues to grow at our current rate, we will have a hard time coming up with the natural resources our lives depend on. We may not feel it in the United States the way other developing countries will (and already do.)

In Great Britain, the country at issue in Proitt's remarks, population density is the issue. Increased population density puts added stress on infrastructure such as sewers and water distribution systems. While the world may not need regulated family planning, people should be mindful of their consumption and realize that our resources are not endless. Some will argue that by considering population limits, economic prosperity and a high standard of living are being valued more than life. This argument is crude because most people want to avoid putting a monetary or physical value on a life, but the truth is, exploding populations will create for those on the margins of society (most commonly the rural poor) a decrease in standard of living so severe that it actually threatens the standards which are necessary to live.

Goats are on the Front Lines in the Battle Against Invasive Plants

A particularly rampant invasive plant species in the southern U.S. is Kudzu (Pueraria montana), a vine introduced from Asia and widely planted to combat soil erosion. Unfortunately, it now covers 7 million acres and has buried native vegetation under a thick coat of vines, choking off much-needed sunlight.

So what’s the newest way people are combating the spread of Kudzu?

The answer: Goats.

Goat herds have been brought in to eat the pesky kudzu in several southern states, including Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia. In addition to removing the vine without the cost or risk of pesticides, the goats will eventually help fulfill the growing demand for goat meat. The profitability of the enterprise has even led a former Wall Street businessman to make goat farming a fulltime job.

Of course he wasn’t the only one to recognize the business potential here; even in the Triangle area you can hire a goat herd to take care of the weed problem in your backyard.

It isn’t often that the solution to a serious environmental threat is such a win-win situation. And it begs the question: Are there other creative, beneficial solutions to environmental problems out there just waiting to be discovered?

This is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that breeds new innovation in science. Rather than trying to fully eradicate invasives, perhaps we should work to identify their benefits and then exploit them. In fact, fostering this kind of entrepreneurial thinking may the best way to deal with many of our biggest environmental challenges.

How do we reach the people who have been mauled by shrews?

Ever stepped on a yellow jacket nest? You should try it!

No, really, you shouldn't. For your convenience, I present the things you should avoid in bold (excepting, of course, the word "bold").

Yellow jackets love to build their nests in forest detritus, such as leaf piles and rotten logs (so watch it). They are incredibly touchy, getting upset over the least little things, like a human coming along and flattening their home.

My story:

A friend and I had decided to do some trailblazing on a fine summer day. We started at a rocky bluff (see picture) and moved downhill. It was a hot day on a steep slope.

I stopped to catch my breath and admire the view. I would have taken a picture of said view had I not stopped to catch my breath whilst standing on a yellow jacket nest.

Having already experienced a yellow jacket swarm once before, I wanted to curl up in a ball and weep uncontrollably (no bold; weeping is perfectly acceptable).

Fortunately, adrenaline kicked in. I became strangely calm, almost detached from the situation. That lasted for almost a full second before the first sting came. Then I started shrieking.

My friend and I enjoyed a frantic scramble back up the steep slope, in the hot Pennsylvania summer, getting repeatedly stung by irate yellow jackets.

They chased us a good half mile. My friend made out alright with only 6 stings. I had 15. I still occasionally have nightmares about that day.

So, here's a question: what do we do with people who are legitimately afraid of nature because, say, they were once attacked by badgers, and so they wouldn't mind seeing a few more acres of forest get bulldozed? Has anyone had an experience in nature that was so awful that they won't ever go back? What do we do with them?

I loved hiking too much to give it up after the attack, but I never go trailblazing anymore except in the dead of winter. So we might start with gentle coaxing. Take the traumatized person for a walk along a well-maintained trail in a busy park where the risk of badger attacks remains low. Choose a trail that includes a waterfall or something equally spectacular. Try to slowly rekindle the capacity in that person to love nature.

Either that or get them right back into the saddle by dropping them out of a helicopter in front of a buffalo stampede (the "sink or swim" method).

More Blogging Tips

Some things to note as you blog:

1. Remember that hotlinks should go within the body of your post, highlighting particular words in your sentences, not listed separately at the end. You can list additional references at the end, of course. Also, mix up your links. The best links are ones that support your claim or serve as precise reference for a specific concept. General info links (like Wikipedia entries) are okay, but don't work well if you link to some huge page explaning, say, "energy" in general.
   
2. Another hotlink practice to try is to link to other blog posts/news, aka backlinking (example here, backlinking to GG). Backlinking starts the "you-scratch...I scratch-yours" cycle that places you within the blogosphere community, and can start some rather friendly (or unfriendly) debates if you are writing a rebuttal to someone else!
   
3. Keep posts short! Obviously, the fun of blogging is that it takes many forms and sizes. But try practicing at least one post within the 250-word limit. Instead of explaining some common concepts, use hotlinks to a reputable source ("the reasons for buying sustainable seafood are well known...").
   
4. Don't forget to use labels/tags. These help categorize your post within the blog, making your post searchable. Try to pick labels that already have been used -- if someone already used "climate change", use that instead of making a new label of "global warming". Keep labels to keywords or timely lingo that readers could be attracted to. Use esoteric or specific terms as last resort.
5. Pictures are awesome.
   
6. Let your voice come through. Yes, our initial tipsheet is more for a "professional/corporate blog" -- as if you blogged on behalf of your NGO or agency. This can be a bit bland sometimes. But there may come a time when you are the focus: if you start a personal blog, or you're the star blogger for your org (à la Green Grok), or you're simply given free rein by your bosses to be more unconventional. You'll then have to let your personality come through, while being mindful of your audience (age, political affiliation, etc.). How would you say something in everyday conversation -- your figures of speech, humor, pop references? Blogging has its origins on online diaries and op-ed columns -- follow those roots, and creat your personality!
   

In all, great work on Blog #1. Great job on the tone and level of depth. There are some great hooks/ledes/headlines out there, as well as some good current events and commentary pieces. Check your posts for our comments, and we encourage all to read and comment on posts outside of your groups.

Live blogging at Sustainable Foods Seminar

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/people/students/orgs-farmhand-seminar.html

• Yay Deb Gallagher, oh matron saint of ENV 301.25! (Deb co-advises the seminar with UNC partners)
  
• Kudos to Nicholas MEM's Cassie Ann and Gretchen
  

7:00PM - SEED (Durham, NC) - Kavanah Ramsier

• They campaigned to allow chickens in the City of Durham!
• DIG encourages local youth to get into the whole of food process, from encouraging peer education on planting science, managing gardens, marketing produce, and ecology of farming. Big emphasis on pollination, beekeeping.
  
• Weekly meals with the food they grow!
• On food justice:

  "It's appealing to kids that 50 cent or Beyoncé drink Coke."

• "We need to be thinking of ways to turn more consumers into producers of food."

7:20pm - Carrboro Farmers Market (Carrboro, NC) - Sarah Blacklin, Manager

• Chapel Hill area had a ton of markets (at churches, etc.) back in the 70's!
• North Carolina Agricultural Marketing Project forms the Carrboro Farmers Market in 1979 (Ken Dawson).
  
• Farmer-run, farmer-owned; farmers form 7-member board.
• All farmers live within 50 mile radius - reduces fuel cost.
  
• They even work with food stamps and cost programs.
• Brewmasters: they do hops!
• Buffalo jerky! Liverwurst! Kimchi! Gluten-free pies!
• Rule: farmers must grow their own. No reselling.
• Farmers are mandated to be within 50-miles of market.
• Unique Rule: Require farmers to be at market -- they can't send reps or farmhands.

  "The best way to learn about your food is from your buyers."

• Obesity program, giving families a plot to grow own produce.
• Starting a new organization called Friends of the Market, to do more community outreach and farmer support. Goals: access for minorities; CSA's for families in need; Spanish translation; group health insurance plan for farmers! Also catastrophe relief fund for farmers; scholarships for minority/farmer families in need.

7:36pm - Chatham Marketplace (Pittsboro, NC) - Mary DeMare, General Manager

• A young co-op, founded in 2003
• Counts local as 250-mile radius, to include coast; majority of local food comes from within 50-miles.
  
• 120 local producers; works with Eastern Carolina Organics
• Local rice! (204 miles, just into SC border :))
• $2.6 million in sales last year!

(dah... battery running out... cutting off any moment!)

7:42pm - Open Questions

• Concern over buyers assuming that local farms = organic. Sarah Blacklin: "Some farmers get defensive, but we encourage farmers to say, 'ask me about my produce' to get more clarity and detail. But farm practices really change from year to year -- it's not that clear cut. And every shopper has unique preferences on organics/spraying etc. I would love suggestions on better communication of practices."
  
• How do you enter the market... of the farmer's market? Sarah Blacklin: "Mid-week test to see if they are viable. Seniority is set for someone who does at least 17 weeks, to prevent fair-weather friends. There is also limits on crafts booths, to prevent it from becoming a flea market. But we have recently allowed farmers to take sabbaticals -- without losing seniority."
  
• How does a cash-based market deal with debit and credit society? Kavanah/Sarah: Carrboro has applied for a EBT machine to accept food stamps... but complicated situation dealing with LeafLife(?)...also complicated to have one machine for market, having someone manage the machine, and having a swipe/token exchange.
• Decrease in African-American farmers? Kavanah: That's certainly a focus of DIG is to encourage more urban families to learn about farming and food. All three panelists: we want to bring in and support minority farmers, but don't have/know a specific strategy for African-American farmers specifically.
  
• Better consumer education? (sorry... tuned out...)
  
• Most pressing concern for sustainable local food systems? Collectively: wow, tough questions... um, everything? Cost for consumers; cost/time for farmers to produce for market and make profit to sustain farm; young farmers face high start-up costs; and more...
• Where will supply come from with increasing demand? What are incentives for farmers to stay/start farming? Sarah: Young farmers are crucial. Eastern NC and mountain NC are suffering though, being far from markets like Durham/Raleigh. Triangle/Piedmont benefits from being close to markets, and small farms are growing!
  
• Promo for Real Food, Real Medicine conference.
  

(Reception time... nummy foods.... Peace!)
8:20pm

Come In, We're Closed

As students of the environment, we are bonded by trying to solve the largest problems of our world. But lurking in our midst, adjacent to our Nicholas School home in the Levine Science Research Center (LSRC), hides a problem of serious waste so easy but yet so difficult to fix: the perpetually shining lights at the Blue Express cafeteria.

Certainly you’ve noticed. Have you been fooled as I have, running to grab a late afternoon bite before class, desperately pulling on the cafeteria door, only to realize that no, it's CLOSED? But wait! That doesn’t make sense! The lights are on!

It is true- the lighting never varies in the Blue Express. Even if you stumble across it at midnight, you would think that it’s open (unless you are me and have learned the hard way). The cafeteria wastes thousands of dollars and contributes to more pollutants into the air by lighting a completely empty space when its closed for business, 16 hours every day. But neither you, nor I, nor anyone can turn the lights off—ever.

What can we do about this frustrating, age-old problem that still seems to plague so many spaces? If a building like the cafeteria can't use conventional light switches, then the space should use automatic motion sensors to control the lights. Bathrooms in the LSRC use motion sensors so that after several minutes of inactivity, lights will automatically turn off. Is there any reason that Duke couldn’t install these in the Blue Express? Do you have an idea that has worked in other cafeterias or open spaces?

Duke’s campus has made great strides in conservation before. The campus has reduced its water consumption through dual-flush toilets in many buildings, allowing people to use less than half the amount of water as a conventional toilet. Let’s push Duke to conserve on basic energy use, too. After all, nobody likes to be fooled by the lights.

The Issue of Liberal Fundamentalists

The post by the green eyed monster entitled "Defending Science from the Scientists" brought me back to my undergraduate curriculum in religion and environmental sicence and encouraged me to once again go down the dangerous road of Religion v. Science, God v. Evolution, and of course Richard Dawkins v. Anyone who will challenge him.

Richard Dawkins, the well known scientist, atheist, and author of The God Delusion, claims that belief in a supernatural creator qualifies as a delusion. This is an absurd claim for a scientist to make, since it is of course science that claims only physical observations can be observed or "proven." To imply that the physical sciences are capable of disproving the existence of an admittedly non-physical Being, seems to me unfounded. Dawkins should not use his position as an esteemed scientist to venture into the realm of things he has only superficially studied and try to influence the susceptible masses with flawed logic. This essay addresses Dawkins's argument more fully.

Dawkins sometimes comes across like the bully on the playground: he is usually the one who needs to reaffirm his position by beating up on those around him. Dawkins seems to believe that religion actually creates miserable people, wars, and damaging fundamentalist ideologies. While there are many historical examples that he can use (see the Crusades), I don't believe he has thought through the implications of his pseudo-logic. Much of what we do on a daily basis flies in the face of what scientific literalism tells us. For example, modern medicine's motto perhaps ought to be: keeping the unfit alive to reproduce and combat evolutionary theory since (insert year).

The unquestioned faith in anything claiming to be scientific that dominates most of the world's universities is explored in the recent documentary, Expelled. In this film, Ben Stein does a good job of exploring the current state of affairs in academia (and the "educated" world at large) regarding intellectual freedom, or lack thereof. In reality, popular academia is often controlled by scientific fundamentalists, who adopt the complete opposite, yet no less outlandish, perspectives associated with religious fundamentalism.

Scapegoating and ridiculing those who believe in God in the name of science is just an immature adults' game of "mine is bigger than yours."

An Elephant and the Environment

There’s a story about seeing an elephant. It goes something like this…

In the early days hundreds, perhaps thousands, of families loaded into canvas covered wagons and set out for the west. Can you imagine their sense of anticipation? Can you imagine their sense of discovery and potential? It must have been amazing. Amazing and epic.

The epicness is where the elephant comes into the story. It’s a long way from Jamestown to the Pacific. Anticipation, prospect, and hope can certainly fuel movement, but not forever. The slog westward was draining.

Of course some (the brave, the strong, the crazy) made it to the other side. But a lot of folks didn’t. At some point they paused and looked out across the infinite horizon and were overcome by the magnitude of their journey. They were swallowed by the vastness. And so they stopped; overcome by the endlessness of their journey. This, they said, was "seeing the elephant."

I’ve been thinking about this elephant recently.

What can we, as conservationists, learn from this story? To what extent does the elephant pose a problem today, as an obstacle to conservation and change?

Our scientific and technological capacity to analyze, model, measure, and quantify the world has expanded our understanding of the environment and environmental problems. And as a result we are more aware of the enormity of the problems we face then ever before.

Understanding is obviously important. We need to understand the science behind things like climate change. But our new awareness is a double-edged sword. Who hasn’t heard someone say, “It’s too late now,” or “We’re all screwed anyways"? Is this the same reaction some early settlers had?

This isn't the time to stop.

“I’M NO TREE-HUGGER”: PERSISTING STEREOTYPES PREVENT THE FULL-ON ‘GREENING’ OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC

What comes to mind when someone says ‘environmentalist,’ or the oft synonymous word ‘tree-hugger?’ For many, these words conjure up a particular stereotype that has been traditionally associated with fringe groups. This has the unfortunate effect of marginalizing the idea of a ‘green’ way of life, and creating a perception among some groups in society that environmentalism is only for certain types of people.

But in this day and age, environmental problems exist on scales never before seen (e.g. climate change) and solving them will require that everyone adopt the ethos of the ‘hippie environmentalist,’ to some degree – a philosophy of harmony with nature and a low impact lifestyle. Regrettably, some major media outlets continue to perpetuate this stereotype, even as ‘going green’ becomes the new trend in American society.

Environmental issues have moved to being discussed in the sectors of business and finance, and the door has opened for a new type of environmental consciousness in the form of so-called ‘green consumerism’ – still the American consumer we know and love, but with a mind to making environmentally responsible choices with their purchasing power.

But the real challenge isn’t in getting people to buy ‘green,’ it’s in getting them to think ‘green.’

The question is: How do you go about changing people's perspectives?

The way to bring about large-scale, lasting change is to make environmental consciousness a truly mainstream phenomenon. When it becomes the norm for everyone to ‘think like an environmentalist,’ all sectors of society will change fundamentally...

...and we might finally see that being 'green' should be for everyone.

Defending Science from “Scientists”

Mankind's discoveries through the years of scientific exploration simply blow my mind. Although a comprehensive list of the most important scientific achievements goes well beyond the scope of a blog post, some of the most memorable moments in the history of science include:

• Identifying the double-helix sequencing of DNA
• Demonstrating that God doesn’t exist
• Describing the basic force of plate tectonics
• Harnessing electricity
• ...wait, what?

My list has been influenced by a recent ad campaign featured on the sides of London buses. The message on the ads is simple: "There's probably no God. So stop worrying and enjoy life."

The ads came about in large part from the support of Richard Dawkins, a professor of Biology at Oxford University and a world-renowned atheist. Dawkins has expressed many times in interviews and debates (like this one from his website and this one from the Technology, Entertainment, and Design (TED) conference) a sentiment along the lines of: "I believe that the existence of a supreme being, a supernatural God, is a scientific hypothesis just like any other."

Far be it for me to contradict an esteemed Oxford professor, but as a student of science I think he's missing the mark. Environmentalists understand only too well the trouble of misrepresented science. Contentious political issues like global warming seem to encourage the misuse of scientific explanations:

• A cold winter day proves that global warming doesn't exist


• Earth history shows that the planet has warmed before, therefore humans are not causing the Earth to warm now


• A 10 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot possibly do any harm, since 10 is a small number and 1,000,000 is a big number

And, in all fairness, atheist scientists must not receive all of the blame for muddling good science and faith to the detriment of both.

We scientists (and here I mean any student of the scientific process) must fight to protect the legitimacy of the scientific method (and, if we have any time left over, we should still try to discover things). Science deals with all things observable, all things part of nature; in other words, all things natural.

Science cannot see God, whether or not God is there to be seen. So to address the question of God in scientific terms harms scientific integrity. Every time someone tries to back up a non-scientific idea with science, no matter the argument or the purity of their intentions, they harm the credibility of truly scientific explorations.

We, as human beings, have a staggering amount of ideas and opinions. But we must always distinguish between what we have shown to be true and what we believe to be True, no matter how well founded we believe our ideas to be.

Earth, Wind, and Fire: Creating True Multi-Use Landscapes

Despite recent winter congestion in my head, ideas about wind have been passing through on a regular basis. A proven technology with potential for exponential growth, wind power is an unobtrusive, clean energy source. And possibly a way to get more than just reductions in CO2 emissions.

Opponents of wind power have argued that it kills birds (true but unsubstantial, here, here, and here), degrades landscapes (a matter of opinion), or results in health problems like wind turbine syndrome (a possible reason for creating federal residential setback standards?). However, it seems increasingly clear that the benefits of wind power far outweigh its negatives. These many benefits and wind power’s increasing competitiveness with other forms of energy have led me to believe that on top of leading the charge of green energy, wind power will sustain it.

My mind conjures up images of a flat barren ground, wind whistling through the air, with turbine upon turbine stretching out over the horizon, supplying millions of kilowatts of clean energy. But recently I've realized that the barren ground in my vision could hold as much potential as the slow slinging blades above.

To get enough energy with wind power to meet growing demand will require the installation of large scale wind farms that cover vast areas. Many people have championed the idea that these wind farms be located in marginal areas, thus avoiding damage to sensitive ecosystems. That is smart planning, but can’t we do more? Even marginal lands can be used for more than just turbine installation sites.

A couple of potential land-use combinations spring to mind:

1) Biofuels and Wind - Much has been made about the potential to grow switchgrass, a source of cellulosic ethanol, on marginal lands. Why not combine wind and switchgrass production and get a two for one energy source?

2) Grazing and Wind - Picture vast herds of livestock under vast rows of wind turbines. Need I say more?

3) Prairies and Wind - Many conservationists have decried the loss of what were once two of the largest ecosystems in North America, native tall and short grass prairies. At first a marriage between wind farms and prairie restoration may seem like a stretch, but I think that with proper planning it holds a lot of potential.

4) Prairies, Bison, and Wind - Think idea number 2, but this time with herds of bison roaming through long stretches of restored native prairie. Food, biodiversity, and energy, all in one place.

So the next you think about wind energy, try to think beyond just the turbine.

Giant Hissing Cockroach - friend or foe?

My presentations with the Madagascan Giant Hissing Cockroaches at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry typically resulted in numerous shrieks from visitors.

But, many guests were also surprised to learn that these non-biting insects are highly social and oftentimes hiss to attract mates or defend their territory.

So, what is it about these creatures that makes them initially appear threatening? Is it their spiky legs or bushy antennae? Or, is the problem more deeply rooted in our cultural or evolutionary past?

According to Dr. Phillip Weinstein, a psychologist and professor at the University of Otago, entomophobia (the fear of insects, spiders, and mites) is:

1. a reasonable fear based on knowledge or experience (i.e. wasp or bee sting)
2. an unreasonable but culturally understandable repulsion, or
3. a misplaced fear resulting from inadequate information

To reduce the misplaced fears of visitors at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, my fellow educators and I emphasized the fact that the Madagascan Giant Hissing Cockroaches do not bite or attack. Instead, they make "hissing" noises that help them to attract potential mates, communicate with their young, or defend their territory from predators or other cockroaches.

As these visitors learned to empathize with a variety of organisms, they also began to learn the values of biodiversity and environmental conservation. Several previously apprehensive visitors even thanked us for helping them “overcome their fear” of Madagascan Giant Hissing Cockroaches and other insects.

So, the next time you see a "scary-looking" creature, what will you think: friend or foe?

What's on your dinner plate?

Which is worse for global warming-the fork or the SUV? To many the answer seems obvious—we all know how fuel efficient those Dodge Durango and GMC Yukons are.

But the answer is actually the fork, at least when that fork is being used to eat a big slab of meat. Our meat-heavy western diet is heating up our climate in a big way. A 2006 United Nations report that received little media attention, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” examined how the industry impacted land use, water pollution, air pollution, and biodiversity loss.

It concluded that worldwide livestock farming accounts for 18% of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 13% from all the planet’s cars, trains, planes and boats combined. The majority of emissions come from deforestation, since the constantly increasing demand for meat means clearing land to create pastures or farmland for growing animal feed.

In addition, every day factory farmed animals produce 130 times as much excrement as the entire human population of the U.S.—87,000 lbs. of waste per second! Much of this ends up in giant pits in the ground or on crops, which eventually pollutes the air and groundwater.

So now we know what comes out of this industry, but what goes in? According to an E Magazine article “The Case Against Meat,” 4.8 pounds of grain is needed to produce 1 pound of beef. With so many starving people in the world, is it ethical to feed our growing desire for meat instead of feeding people? The article’s author says that the next time you sit down for an 8 oz. steak, think about “the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of you.” Overly dramatic? Maybe. But perhaps we need some dramatic imagery these days.

Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that if the U.S. reduced its meat production by just 10%, it would free up enough grain to feed 60 million people. And what do meat producing companies respond to? Customer demand.

So my question is why more environmental organizations aren’t advocating vegetarianism or even reduced meat consumption as an environmental solution to everything from local water pollution to global warming. Hopefully this will change soon. Even the head of the U.N.’s Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, recently urged the world to cut back on meat in order to combat climate change.

I encourage you to start thinking more about what you’re eating and where it comes from. Even if you don’t give up meat completely, you can start by cutting out one or two meat meals a week. And next time you get a mailing or email from a major environmental organization, by all means support them, but also send them a note asking them why they’re missing out on such a huge opportunity to make a difference.

Is the Renewable Fuel Mandate Reasonable?

Given the well-documented energy price increases in 2008 and our very uncertain energy future, the Renewable Fuel Mandate, passed by Congress as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 needs to be reconsidered. This legislation requires a gradual ramping up of ethanol production, from the current 10 billion gallons to a total of 31 billion gallons by 2022, in an effort to achieve greater energy independence. This number includes 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol and 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol.

The negative consequences of corn ethanol’s life cycle in terms of soil erosion, water quality, and energy balance have been well documented, so there has recently been greater attention given to cellulosic ethanol. The problem is that technology and land use plans are lagging behind on the cellulosic ethanol front. The Billion Ton Study, produced by the Department of Energy and the United States Department of Agriculture in 2005, estimates that there are 1.3 billion tons of biomass available annually for the production of cellulosic ethanol. While a careful reading of this report doesn’t give away any glaring flaws in the assessment, sustainably harvesting this biomass and converting it into ethanol with little or no environmental degradation and in a cost effective way is clearly a gargantuan task.

This task is made even more difficult by the fact that different regions of the country are better adapted for different sorts of feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol production. For example, the south has a plethora of forest products while the heartland has agricultural residues like corn stover and the potential for large-scale growth of perennial grasses.

There are many obstacles to the efficient production of 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. The most prominent on the front end are the harvest, transportation, and storage of millions of tons of feedstocks. On the back end, the conversion processes are different than the already well-established corn ethanol facilities, so the infrastructure and technology development that must occur will be extremely expensive.

At the end of the day, this Congressional mandate promotes a good idea: produce renewable fuels to help the United States become more energy independent. If it is to be seen as a lofty goal to provide a sense of urgency, I applaud Congress’s chutzpa. However, if the requirement remains set in stone regardless of the land use changes, water quality degradation, increased erosion patterns, and habitat loss that could ensue, future generations might look back and wonder what we were thinking.

The Future of Oz: Wildfires, heat waves, and climate change

During the 18 years I spent growing up in Perth, Western Australia, I never experienced Christmas with a “real” Christmas tree. We used a plastic tree (as did many other families) for fear that our house would catch on fire in the intense summer heat.

That fear has become a reality for many in recent months after Australia’s latest wildfires – the worst in the nation’s history - killed over 180 people. Almost 500,000 acres and over 700 homes were destroyed by the fires that spread throughout Victoria, a state in south-eastern Australia.

Just a week ago I was reading about the worst heat wave on record in this very same state. Temperatures soared up to 115 degrees Fahrenheit – the hottest on record. Unprecedented droughts in the region combined with extreme heat created the perfect fuel for this blistering inferno. Experts are saying that this is only the beginning of the effects of climate change that Australia will face in coming years.

Fires have been a part of the Australian landscape for millions of years. The natural ecosystems have evolved; the plants have adapted. But, add people to this vast and relatively empty continent and fire becomes a terrifying prospect.

All it takes is a single spark from a cigarette or a lightning strike, and the grasses will light up, the dried bush will catch on fire, and then the wind comes…. Before too long, you have a glowing river of flames expanding across the landscape. You would have to search very hard to find an Australian who is not afraid of wildfires. We all know someone who has been affected.

These recent fires are the worst in Australia’s history since the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983 and the Black Friday fires of 1939 that devastated south-east Australia. This region is considered to be one of the most fire-prone areas in the world, along with southern California. Both regions are predicted to be at greater risk of wildfires as a result of climate change.

According to a World Bank Report (see here), Australia increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 38% between 1994 and 2004 making it the sixth highest per capita emitter in the world -- mostly as a result of their dependence on coal-fired power. So, what is Australia's response to climate change? Their current target is only a pitiful 5% reduction by 2020. This is not enough if we want to avoid a repeat of these fires (see this link for recommended actions).

Luckily this most recent fire did not reach the state’s most populated areas, but what about next time? My own hope is that we can find better solutions to wildfire management in Australia before we need to resort to living in fire proof homes below the scorched surface.

If you want to encourage Australian politicians to take action on climate change, check out TheBigSwitch.org.au. This organization is working to encourage Australians to talk to their local politicians to take action.

Is Environmentalism a Religious Issue?

Is Environmentalism a Religious Issue?

Recently I had a revelation when watching a documentary about how various religions are becoming more environmentally minded. Surely if all the religious leaders of the world began to preach about the responsibility of people to care for the Earth, there would be huge positive implications for the environmental movement.

Many Americans have never thought about how religion relates to environmentalism. Have you? Well it does – in a big way! And in fact many of the arguments for and against the protection of nature and biodiversity stem from religious teachings.

As a result of my recent revelation I jumped at the chance to take a course this semester at the Nicholas School about Spirituality and Ecology. Through the class we’ve been introduced to a Communications Handbook entitled Ethics for a Small Planet produced by The Biodiversity Project. In it, world religions are grouped into three broad categories based on their thoughts about biodiversity and the natural world. This is an extremely simplistic version of religious-environmental views, but interesting none the less. They are:

• Earth-based, Animistic, and Pantheistic Religions: humans relationship with nature is one of kinship as opposed to management or oversight and it is based on harmony with nature across generations
• Asian and Eastern Religions: humans living in harmony with nature and showing respect for all living beings has great significance
• Monotheistic Religions: humans have the responsibility of being stewards of the Earth, but they may also be viewed as dominators of the Earth

No matter if you practice Christianity or Buddhism, Zoroastrianism or Shinto, are atheist or agnostic, your religious, cultural and/or spiritual beliefs have influenced the way you treat nature. The Bible, other sacred texts, and oral spiritual traditions passed down over generations make thousands of references to the environment. The interpretation of these texts and words continuously shape views about human being’s relationship with the Earth and other living creatures. While some religious views put humans on a pedestal giving them the right to exploit the Earth’s resources, other views see humans as caretakers of a sacred Earth and on an equal level with all living things.

One interesting attempt by the Sierra Club, the USA Human Society and the National Council of Churches to get the word out about the relationship between environmentalism and the environment is The Green Bible. This "new" version of the Bible highlights over 1,000 references to the Earth using green text. Their hope is that The Green Bible will "equip and encourage people to see God's vision for creation and help them engage in the work of healing and sustaining it.”

I can’t hope that green words alone will inspire people to action. I can hope, however, that environmentalists and religious leaders alike will help to open up a wider dialogue about how environmentalism is a religious issue – and hopefully that will open a subsequent dialogue about the role that religious and spiritual people inherently have in dealing with environmental issues.

So the next time you pray, or go to the synagogue, or find yourself in a spiritual moment, stop and take some time to think about how your religious or spiritual views have shaped your environmental ethic. You may be surprised at what you find!

photo from: www.jerryrussell.com/pages/RelignCovr.htm