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.

In fact, in its current form, the technology can produce around seven watts, enough to power almost a dozen cell phones. The same way a hybrid car produces energy while stopping, these knee pads (with hydraulic technology) use the bending of our joints. When we walk our body performs a delicate balancing act. Quads and hamstrings work together to stabilize the leg. Now imagine that there’s an “air pump” type contraption that aids the knee in slowing, the final kick in our step.

In this scenario, producing energy doesn’t need to burn extra calories, it “parasites” the energy we’d normally lose walking. The article appeared in this week’s Economist, citing the journal Science. Imagine walking to work and recharging your phone at the same time, maybe you can power a fan on a hot summer day, or convert that electricity to heated gloves during the winter? Whatever you choose, this version of going green keeps going and going and going.

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.

The book is profound in its application. The best part of his writing by far is the appreciation he has for our animalistic tendency. We are part of a massive chain of events in nature, and the way we behave and experience the world is in large part a manifestation of our evolution. No matter how much we’ve civilized ourselves over the past millennia, we cannot escape some of the hardwiring we already have. Imagine trying to run Windows XP on a PC from ’93. Our civilized software can only run on our hardwired circuitry. The analogy is supposed to imply that we reach for a higher moral order from a ladder built on survival in a larger food chain.

Removing ourselves from the animal world without recognizing how the two area inextricably related isn’t right.

Pollan’s book is largely about the choices we must make as people everyday. Do we opt out of the industrial food chain? Do we choose organic, or do we choose sustainable? The latter in the last question is a harder more cumbersome question, because it seems near impossible to sustainably feed 6 billion people. Have we passed the point of no return or do we have to start looking at the human population as we would a population of wild animal? Can the ecosystem support an overabundance of lion? Will they thin the gazelle population to a point where lion begin to die of hunger? Human beings are remarkably adaptable and can show to be unforgiving in their survival. When does the ecosystem reject us?

The questions and insights posed by the book are more than moral, they appeal to our survival and deep seeded tendencies.

I can’t help but keep thinking that our mind works on a different plane than our hard wired unconscious. We as the “civilized and superior” are predisposed to certain self-damaging behavior that the “natural and inferior” world cannot keep in check.

Can we really be sustainable?

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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 >>