According to the National Retail Federation, Americans planned on spending almost $2 billion last V-Day just on flowers, proof of a powerful industry with serious economic influence, and it has been this way for a long time. In the 17^th century, the price of tulip bulbs rose drastically and then suddenly collapsed, leading to a wide scale economic downturn. It’s evident that even markets that sell frivolous objects can have intense effects on our economy and it stands to follow that the flower industry has enormous impact on our environment, too.

Today, 80% of roses in the US are imported from South America, most coming from Colombia and Ecuador where, thanks to relaxed environmental regulations, they’re able to use more pesticides like DDT and methyl bromide, which impact local wildlife as well as the ozone layer. These pesticides also pollute waterways, rendering many local water sources toxic. 20% of the pesticides used in Ecuador have been restricted or outlawed in the US and Europe, yet we continue to import their products. The Department of Agriculture doesn’t regulate or require permits for cut flowers.

In countries like Ecuador and Colombia that rely heavily upon the cut flower industry for capital, we have seen deforestation and loss of biodiversity, to make room for more cultivation.

And it’s not just the environment that is impacted. Insecticides like DDT also have extremely serious health affects for the workers on flower farms. Pesticides have been linked to neurological defects, infertility and respiratory problems. In addition to health consequences, floriculturists in developing nations are often extremely underpaid, and almost always non-unionized.

If you’re in Europe, it’s likely that your valentine will give you roses that originate in Kenya. While floriculture has meant a major economic upswing for the ailing country, it has also contributed to the degradation of some of the country’s most beautiful natural sites. Lake Naivasha, known for its flamingos, has seen falling water levels due to the flower industry’s overconsumption of water. In addition, runoff from fertilizer has disrupted the natural ecosystem of the lake, harming fish and birds that live there.

Countries like Ecuador and Colombia have seen the demand for their products rise, so they have continued to clear land to make room for more rose farms. In countries like these that rely heavily upon the cut flower industry for capital, we have seen deforestation and loss of biodiversity, so that the land can be better used for cultivation.

So, after the roses are grown and cut, how do they get to your local florist? Every day, 40,000 boxes of flowers arrive at Miami International Airport. According to the US Floriculture Industry, over 1.3 billion roses came through Miami in 2011, from Colombia and Ecuador alone. Of course, carbon emissions reflect this import obsession. Every Valentine’s Day, the roughly 100 million roses sold produce about 9,000 metric tons of carbon emissions.

While greener is often more expensive, a price check revealed that a dozen red roses from 1(800)Flowers costs $54.99, while at Red Carpet Florist, a VeriFlora certified company, the same product is $47.95.

The ecological impacts of floriculture are undeniably negative. There are greener options, however. Most importantly: buy local. This not only eliminates the CO₂ emissions from transporting flowers from South America, but also supports small-scale farmers. Check out our Eat Well Guide for locations of farmers’ markets and stores that sell locally grown products near you!

You can also buy sustainably. VeriFlora, a new certification program, labels sustainably grown flowers for consumer awareness. To achieve certification, a farm must be both environmentally and socially responsible. And while greener is often more expensive, a quick price check revealed that a dozen red roses in a vase from 1-800-Flowers costs $54.99, while at Red Carpet Florist, a VeriFlora certified company, the same product is $47.95. The numbers say it all.

Arguably the best option—especially if your loved one has a green thumb—is giving live plants or even seeds. Spending time together planting (even just a windowbox) is much more romantic than getting a bouquet from some random bodega. The Hudson Valley Seed Library is a fantastic resource. They have their own farm in the Hudson Valley, where they grow, save and pack their seeds, all by hand, and their beautiful artisan packs “celebrate the beauty inherent in heirloom gardening.”  Sweet, right?

Remember too, that flowers aren’t the only game in town. Organic wine, eco-friendly (and fair trade) chocolates and homemade Valentines (on recycled paper, naturally) all make great gifts. Whatever you do, show your loved one how much you care,  about them and the environment. (We know where you can get some adorable e-cards!)

Sarah Zimmerman is an undergraduate at Columbia University studying Sustainable Development and Human Rights. She’s interested in the intersection between the two disciplines, and their roles in development practice. Originally from Philadelphia, Sarah is personally committed to GRACE’s mission of creating more transparency in the food system.

Known at the Texas Capitol and around the state as the “Queen of Water Conservation,” Carole Baker was the 2011 recipient of the Gregg A. Cooke Memorial Award for Exceptional Environmental Excellence. For more than fifteen years she has worked to persuade Texas leaders to make water conservation a priority. Carole is the recently retired Director of Intergovernmental Relations for the Harris Galveston Subsidence District; Chair of the National Alliance for Water Efficiency; Director of the Board of the Texas Water Conservation Association; Director of the Board of the Texas Water Foundation; and a founding member and director of the Texas WaterWise Council.

I first heard Carole speak about water conservation and education at the UN International Water Forum. We spoke recently about the drought in Texas and how she came to play such a central role in water politics. Below is an excerpt from the interview. Listen to the 33-minute interview by clicking on the audio player (above left), download the podcast or read a PDF transcript of the interview.

***

When I heard you speak at the UN International Water Forum, you spoke about a ‘Know Your Watershed Program.’ Can you talk about that?

Yes. We were tasked by the Senate; they formed a Water Conservation Implementation Task Force about six years ago and the Senate charged us with several things. But one of the things that you heard me speak about was the fact that they asked us if we would look at whether the state of Texas needed a water conservation campaign. And so we went ahead and raised money on a private basis to do the research – that happened over a few months. And the results were very, very interesting.

No other country wastes water like we do. We seem to feel very entitled to all the water and energy we want to use, because “by golly, it’s ours and we can do that.” But I think the Africa experience, when you see people, their whole day is spent just going to collect some water to come bring back to their mud hut that they live in…when people talk about water is life; we do that pretty casually over here, but over there that is absolutely true.

What we found out very quickly was, it wasn’t a water conservation campaign that we needed, it was actually a water campaign that we needed, just to educate people about the water issues. Because one of the main things, and what I had spoken about there, was the fact that people did not know the source of their water. Less than 20 percent of the people, interviewed statewide, and this was focus groups and telephone surveying and meetings, less than 20 percent knew where their water came from.

And the research showed us that the reason that was so important is because with all the other questions they got asked, we realized that the people who knew the source of their water, that small percentage, were the ones who were actually conserving and who were concerned about their water supply. The other 80 percent, they just did not—they just weren’t worried about it and even when asked about what their top environmental concerns were, water quantity never made it onto the list at all. So we came back to the legislature and said, “Yes, we do need a campaign, but it needs to be a water-education campaign.” And we had developed the brand of ‘Water IQs: Know Your Water.’ And the reason everybody seemed to like that was because people asked the question, “What do I need to know?” and that’s what we wanted them to ask. We wanted them to understand some of the water issues and, of course, that was all before we had been in this extreme drought that we’re in right now.

Can you explain the difference between conservation and efficiency, where conservation is something like turning off the tap when you brush your teeth?  What exactly is water efficiency?

That’s probably one of the toughest questions you could ask me. This comes up a lot and I think there’s a whole lot of different ways to define it, because you can efficiently use water and you might not actually be conserving it, but you might efficiently be using it.

So I’m not sure. That’s an age-old question that I’m not sure I really have an answer to. We did, in the national organization, want to go with the words Alliance for Water Efficiency, I think, because we wanted to look at a lot of different areas where we felt like if water could be more efficient we would be more conserving. And frankly, sometimes ‘conservation’…the word is not as sexy as some of the other things: energy efficiency is a much more interesting subject because you can save a lot of dollars there.

With the fact that we’ve always kept our water rates so low, it has not really been a real big priority. And we’ve done research in the past that showed us that not only do people not really understand where their water is coming from, but they don’t even understand why we’re asking them to conserve, because they just feel like there’s an endless supply.

We’re sort of looking at that in Texas right now. We’ve got 98 percent of our state right now that’s in exceptional and extreme drought and that’s a first. And I feel like people say to me, “Well, Carole, we’re not going to run out of water. The state will find water for us.”  So I think that’s just the feeling of people having taken it for granted like they do.

How do you bring that kind of awareness into your family life? Because I know with my roommate or my family members, my friends even, they’ll turn on water, leave it running and then they’ll look over at me and I’m staring at them and they quietly turn it back off.

Yeah, we do come up with this evil-eye look, those kinds of things. But I will tell you that, I guess, for me, when I first got started in it and I thought it was really important and I thought, well, it sounds good, we’ll work on this. I made my first visit over to Africa where my daughter and her husband had been living in Botswana for quite a few years. I just hadn’t worked up the courage to go over to see them as they were living with no electricity or running water at the time.

But then I did go within the first couple of years to visit with them. And my grandson came out when we got the farm and said, “Okay, Gran, here’s your bucket of water.” That was my gallon and they explained to me how to use that gallon of water to bathe and flush toilets and wash your clothes in and it’s not something I would want to do all the time, but I can promise you, on all my subsequent trips over there that–even though now they do have running water, but it’s not water you can drink–but watching people there was, I guess the thing just fired up my passion over this issue and made me realize how much we do waste here.

No other country wastes water like we do. We seem to feel very entitled to all the water and energy we want to use, because “by golly, it’s ours and we can do that.” But I think the Africa experience, when you see people, their whole day is spent just going to collect some water to come bring back to their mud hut that they live in. I think that, as I said at the UN, when people talk about water is life; we do that pretty casually over here, but over there that is absolutely true.

So I think I just—I don’t know, I started looking at those issues and would like for us to be, at least a lot more conscious about how we are using it so we protect if for our grandchildren who will come here and go to college. READ MORE

Most Valentine’s Day gifts aren’t created with sustainability in mind. Valentine’s Day is second behind Christmas in card sending, close to a billion globally. Those heart shaped cardboard boxes filled with chocolates number in the tens of millions. The chocolate, flowers, jewelry and even fancy dinners contribute to more waste, toxins and bad labor practices – more in the spirit of the martyrdom that sparked the holiday than the modern love-in we associate with it these days.

It doesn’t have to be this way! With a little sustainable forethought, some DIY spirit and a bit of extra time (did you know that almost all Valentine’s gifts and cards are bought just hours before the 14th?), we can turn this day into the true love fest that it should be.

Gifts like organic flowers, farmers’ market cookies, recycled cards, responsible jewelry and farm-to-table dinners  will bring love not only to your special someone, but also to the people who helped make your gift possible.

OK, OK – let’s be realistic. Of those who participate in Valentine’s Day, it is said that 70% give cards. We don’t all have the time to turn that old magazine, some yarn and dry pasta into a card capable of winning over our Valentine’s heart. But there are options and we have some good choices for you right here. Send an environmentally friendly Valentine’s Day e-card to your sweetheart – professing your love for them AND Mother Earth.

Send an e-card to your Valentine now!

For decades, cutting-edge renewable energy companies have been experimenting with the best ways to tap the massive power of tides and waves, and now it looks like the industry is finally set to have its first mainstream success in the United States.

Two weeks ago, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission awarded the first commercial license for tidal power in the United States to Verdant Power.  The company wants to expand the number of its tidal turbines in New York City’s East River over the next ten years, ultimately generating about 1 megawatt of electricity, enough to power 9,500 New York homes.  Last year we covered Verdant’s East River project as it was wrapping up five years of turbine design testing in the tidal strait’s notorious currents.  After a few snapped blades and, impressively, not a single injured fish, the company is ready to expand to 30 turbines by 2015.

FERC agrees, issuing a first-of-its-kind pilot project license created by the agency in 2008 to allow marine renewable energy developers a chance to run small-scale tests of their technologies.

While Verdant may be the first tidal project to gain approval, there is momentum building behind the wave and tidal power industry overall.  FERC reports that there are 32 ocean energy projects in the works, not to mention another 69 projects that will similarly tap the energy of flowing rivers (all of these projects are classified as “hydrokinetic”).

The estimated 5,700 megawatts of electricity that could be generated by the proposed tidal and wave projects represent just a fraction of the United States’ marine renewable energy potential.  Recently the Department of Energy released two reports concluding that the nation’s waves and tides could provide up to 15 percent of America’s electricity.  Of course actually harnessing all of that energy in such a harsh environment is not entirely realistic.  But since most major coastal cities – and their significant electricity demand – are built near potentially excellent sites for tidal and wave energy, location alone is enticing enough to earn a lot of private and federal investment.

In his recent State of the Union, President Obama promised that he would “double down” on the nation’s clean energy future.  Well, that future will be increasingly self-reliant: cities and towns taking advantage of local resources, be they wind, solar, geothermal, or energy efficiency and conservation.  Consider waves, tides and other hydrokinetic sources as yet one more option in development, and a highly dependable option at that.

Currently, responsibilities for food safety (including regulation, inspection, enforcement and more) are split among a whopping 15 government agencies, with at least 30 different laws used to govern the system. Though the FDA oversees about 80 percent of the food supply, other agencies also play essential roles: the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for tracking foreign foods and enforcing county-of-origin labeling (COOL), the Federal Trade Commission oversees product claims in food marketing and the Department of Commerce issues patents on foods and seeds.

A single food safety agency could help alleviate some issues with funding and policy enforcement. Dr. Marion Nestle notes that the “USDA gets about three quarters of the total appropriation for food safety (for roughly one quarter of the food supply) whereas FDA gets one quarter of the appropriation for three quarters of the food supply.”

This web of regulation can lead to unnecessary overlap and dangerous lack of oversight. With eggs, for example, the FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of whole, “shell” eggs, but producers can also volunteer to have shell eggs graded by the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service then monitors eggs processed into egg products; which includes eggs that may appear to be fresh in your favorite restaurant entree. In addition, the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) ensures that egg laying hens are healthy at birth, while the FDA monitors the safety of their feed.

“The existing food system, like many other federal programs and policies, evolved piecemeal, typically in response to particular health threats or economic crises” observes the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). In their first annual report to Congress, GAO called for a “detailed analysis of alternative food safety organizational structures,” highlighting a single food safety agency as a possible solution. The GAO has been reporting on the fragmented nature of our food safety system for over a decade: more recently, the President’s Council on Food Safety and the National Academy of Science joined them in recommending a consolidated approach.

A single food safety agency could help alleviate some issues with funding and policy enforcement. New York University professor and food activist Dr. Marion Nestle notes that the “USDA gets about three quarters of the total appropriation for food safety (for roughly one quarter of the food supply) whereas FDA gets one quarter of the appropriation for three quarters of the food supply.” This discrepancy could be reduced if all food safety funding went to one agency. A unified system could also cut down on future costs. In 2008, the Farm Bill assigned the USDA jurisdiction over catfish, despite the fact that the FDA presides over all other seafood. The USDA estimates that it will now need an additional $30 million for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 in order to enforce this congressionally-mandated program.

The GAO also points to the success of other nations in making the case for a single agency: “our work on seven other countries’ experiences between 1997 and 2004 in consolidating their food systems found… that the countries experienced benefits, such as improved public confidence in their food safety systems.”

Opponents of the recommendation say we need to do more to streamline food safety before bringing it under one roof. “Let’s make some progress in stopping food poisoning and then later pick out the new stationary,” quips food safety lawyer Bill Marler. Former Undersecretary for Food Safety Dr. Richard Raymond told Food Safety News that many problems could be alleviated by simply reevaluating jurisdictions, noting that “it does not take a single food safety system to place all eggs under the USDA.”

The GAO admits that more work is needed. “While the [government’s] Food Safety Working Group has taken steps to increase interagency collaboration on food safety, it has not developed a government wide performance plan that provides a comprehensive picture of the federal government’s food safety efforts.” Such a plan would be able to serve as a blueprint for decision makers, helping them see what a restructured food safety system might look like. In addition, a merger might take years of trial and error before it was streamlined, and “a detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages and the potential challenges that could arise if implemented has yet to be conducted.”

Thankfully, there is still time to weigh the pros and cons of restructuring. If Obama does plan to unite food safety agencies, he must first obtain “consolidation authority,” or the ability to bring together agencies to make the government more efficient. This power has not been granted since Ronald Regan’s presidency and currently awaits Congressional approval.

Thanks to a fantastic new photo exhibit by J. Henry Fair at the Forward Thinking Museum, you don’t have to imagine it. You can actually see the devastation and get a true sense of the magnitude of mountain top removal mining. Fair flies in a plane over these (and other) industrial sites to shoot photos of the destruction inflicted on the planet below. “What I’m focused on is making these compelling images on a given subject that make people stop and think about their involvement,” says Fair of his environmental photography, which is, oddly, as beautiful as it is compelling. Henry’s camera of choice while shooting from the air is a Canon 1Ds Mark III with 70-200-mm and 100-400-mm Leica normal and wide-angle lenses.

I caught up with Henry–just as he was leaving the country for a month of shooting in Europe. An excerpt from our discussion is below. Click on the [PDF] to read the entire interview. Several of his photos are in the gallery above, but please, check out the online exhibition and, when you’re looking at the photos–especially those that feature trucks literally moving mountains–stop and think for a moment about the scale. Think about how small the humans driving those trucks are and let the enormity sink in. Also, while you’re visiting the Forward Thinking Museum, check out some of their other exhibits, all of which are offered “in virtual space, with hopes that images will transcend the divisions that language brings.”

***

Why did you start shooting environmental photos?

I’ve always been really concerned about the environment, what we’re doing to our own life support systems and what we’re going to then pass on to our progenitors. I’ve always tried to figure out, “Okay, how can I do something to get across to the common person who is mired in fear?” I mean, let’s face it, in America people live in terror and that’s, of course, perpetuated by the media, etc. But people are in terror of their jobs, of being eaten up by health insurance, of paying the monthly bills. It’s very hard for people to stop and think, “Okay, wait a minute, do I really want to buy that paper cup? And what toilet paper should I buy?”

I make art that makes people stop for a second and think about those things, and of course, you’ve got to entertain people. People learn when they’re entertained, not when they’re preached at.

You focus on the beauty of environmental scars as much as the scarring itself. How did you get to that?

I focus on making compelling images, not so much on, “Oh, look at how beautiful this shit is.” I mean, as a photographer, you could make a cube of ice beautiful. Anything should be photographable for a good photographer to make a great photograph. But really what I’m focused on is making these compelling images on a given subject that make people stop and think about their involvement.

So I wanted to make a series of images that really got people to think about those issues more than actually vilifying a given company (which I prefer not to do) because they’re bad actors. As a society we need to demand these things.

Again, toilet paper is such a perfect example. The most important decision you can make in a day is which toilet paper to buy. I’m trying to show people consequences, because the consequences of these purchase decisions that we make are obscured from us. Producers don’t want you to know that if you buy that nice poufy white toilet paper you’re destroying the habitat for the nice wolves and the bears you love to watch on the nature channel and causing climate change and air pollution and water pollution and water depletion. I mean paper is one of the worst things we do to the planet. And who thinks about it? Who thinks about the lawyer who sends reams of paper printed on white, which means bleach, which means dioxin?

So I wanted to make a series of images that really got people to think about those issues more than actually vilifying a given company (which I prefer not to do) because they’re bad actors. As a society we need to demand these things. It’s abundantly clear that our rule makers–our legislators–answer to the hands that feed them; they do not answer to the people who don’t vote for them. To whine about how our representatives are not doing anything well, we allowed the system to come into place.

The producers have very cleverly cast environmentalists as yet another special interest group on the same footing as the producers; it’s entirely false. So the burden of proof is on us to prove harm where it should be on the producers to prove no harm, which is very interesting.

That’s really the focus of my work.  And it’s a long game, and it’s complex, but it works. I mean Kleenex is the perfect example. Kimberly Clark is changing their behavior because of work that I did in conjunction with Greenpeace and NRDC. So it works. It’s a long process.

What gave you the idea to shoot from the air? The photos are tremendous. The scale is mind-blowing for me.

I started the project 15 years ago, sneaking around refineries and whatnot and getting into trouble and playing the switch the film trick. I got some interesting pictures, but not, “Oh my God, look at that picture!” I needed pictures that were going to get people to stop in their tracks.

I was on a red-eye flight one morning from California and looked down and there was this giant power plant enshrouded in fog and steam and I thought, “Ah, that’s it. You just get a plane and fly over it.” Then it became a logistical issue–where do I want to go, and then I’ve got to find the plane. Then it became rather simple. [READ MORE]

Can you tell us the history of Sapsquatch Sugarbush and how you came to the maple syrup business? Is your family involved?

Sapsquatch has been in existence since the late winter of 2008, so this will be our 5^th year in business.  Sapsquatch arose out of a long-running family debate.  My wife’s uncle and I had been having a discussion about agriculture, he from a business perspective and me from a deep sustainability ethic.  After more than a year of debating, he basically told me to put my money where my mouth is and convinced me to start sugaring on his property outside Ithaca.
The first season was totally bare bones; just me and the evaporator out in the woods, a tank to catch the sap and some used sap lines scavenged from a sugarbush in Norwich, New York. Thanks to incredible community support and a few dedicated individuals, we constructed a sugarshack in the woods.  This year, we will be launching an Indiegogo campaign to put walls on the shack, upgrade equipment and construct a kitchen to make the whole operation a bit more friendly to visitors and create a space for education and community events.  My brother and I currently run the operation.  I didn’t know this when I started this venture, but my great-Grandfather Fox used to make maple syrup back in North Cohocton, near where my parents grew up, and Grandma Fox would finish it up in the kitchen.  She passed away on April 1, 1979 in the kitchen after just having finished canning the last of that year’s maple.  So it has become a bit of a spiritual thing for me and a way to honor my ancestors.

What is a typical day at Sapsquatch during the harvesting season?

A sugaring day typically involves a trip out to Enfield on the bus (so I can leave my wife with the car) and a ½ mile walk out to the bush.  I live downtown [Ithaca] and feel really lucky to have a place to call home out in the woods.  I boil when the tanks are as close to full as possible to get the most out of my time and my wood.

Want to learn more about climate change and maple syrup? Check out articles from Tom Philpott and Tales from the Sugarbush, Josh Dolan’s blog.

It’s more efficient to boil 800 gallons of sap at one time than to light two or three separate fires and boil as it runs.  I try to get the fire lit as soon after I arrive as possible, because I know I’ll be boiling all night anyway.  After the fire is lit, I have a window before the boil really picks up when I can walk the lines, collect sap from hanging buckets and maybe chop some wood.  In about two to three hours, I’m ready to start drawing off syrup.

When syrup has been drawn, I alternate between feeding the fire, catching up on chores, fixing some food and generally trying to keep busy.  It’s a long drawn out process and I have ADD, so it helps if I have lots of little tasks to take care of throughout the day.  If in doubt, I cut, chop and stack wood.  I try to finish and bottle as much syrup as possible while boiling, but it can be a challenge on my own, keeping an eye on evaporator and finishing unit at one time.  You can never have enough wood put away for next season.

When night rolls around, I settle in and wait to see who might turn up to keep me company. Sometimes it’s just me and my brother-in-law, but most boiling nights we tend to attract a crowd of maple enthusiasts, friends and curiosity seekers.  If it’s a weekend, we usually try to have a boiling party.  The longer we can keep people hanging out, the less time we have to try to stay awake alone.  A boil will usually run 30+ hours, so if I light the fire at 10am Saturday, I’ll be done around 4pm on Sunday.  I catch about 4 hours of sleep while the in-law keeps an eye on things, but otherwise, that is time spent on my feet.

What have you noticed firsthand to be the effect of climate change on maple syrup production?

I personally haven’t been involved in sugaring long enough to know the difference between a great season and a terrible one.  Every year is different when it comes to the weather.  This year has been a big wake-up for a lot of folks in the northern states as temperatures have been up to 40 or even 50 degrees warmer than normal in January.  I’m guessing this year is going to be a short sugaring season, and from what I’ve read, this will have the affect of weakening the sugar content of sap, meaning more boiling time and more wood burned.  I guess we can only wait and see.

You’re very involved with Occupy Ithaca and the fight against hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in New York State. Can you give us an update on this progress and its potential effect on your business?

The anti-fracktivists (as we’ve been calling ourselves) have been able to tie this up in New York for over three years now and raised the debate to a level in the state where you would have to be living under a rock to not know about fracking. The rise of Occupy Wall Street has given me hope that the people of this state are now too savvy and too angry to be fleeced by either the gas companies or the state government.  If it comes down to it, I have faith that there will be a environmental defense campaign of a scale we have not seen in the US, complete with tree sits, road blockades and massive protests in the state capital.  Governor Cuomo didn’t even mention fracking in his state of the state (of the union) address, the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is reviewing the massive amount of comments submitted about flaws in the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) and there has been a concerted effort to strike fear into the hearts of all of our state politicians.  I think we have achance to win now that folks down in New York City are getting involved, especially high profile folks like Mark Ruffalo and Mario Batali.

If fracking does happen, it will be a disaster for the Upstate economy.  Our wine industry is one of the cornerstones of our tourism, linked to the incredible scenic beauty of the Finger Lakes.  The organic farming industry centered around Ithaca is also dependant on both tourism and the conscious consumers who have relocated here.  There will be a mass exodus from the area if it becomes industrialized by fracking.  Tourists will stop coming and the emerging markets in NYC will dry up as consumer confidence in our agriculture disappears.  I’ll be brushing up on my French and trying to sneak my evaporator across the Canadian border into Quebec.

Why did you decide to use the CSA model to sell your maple syrup?

I’m a community-minded guy and this is a new model for selling syrup.  I am an innovator and I want to blaze new territory with everything that I’m involved in.  Especially now in an era when we don’t know the future of sugaring, it is highly important for the community to support farmers, especially sugarmakers, who are like the polar bear of farmers, a dying breed.  This model enables me to build relationships with consumers and offer educations and sugaring culture to the uninitiated.  It’s a win-win.

Is there anything else you would like us to know about climate change, fracking or how to bring more awareness of the importance of domestic maple syrup production in the US?

NY used to be the number one syrup producing state in the number one syrup producing country, and we could be again.  We have only tapped 2% of our tap-ready maples here, so there is tremendous potential to increase production at a time when there is a resurgence of interest in this industry and our beloved product and a chronic shortage.  Maple production could also be linked with energy production in the form of biogas/biomass.  In China, there are great examples of home, farm and community scale energy production using wood and crop residues as fuel.  Investing in this industry known for innovation, with a mandate to also produce energy, could kick start the stagnant economy of the Northeast, generate huge amounts of tourism and engage a whole new generation in this ancient art.  Fracking and climate change are putting our future at risk, but maple syrup could become the lynchpin issue that finally convinces people to turn this ship around.

Do you have a favorite maple syrup recipe or a favorite way to eat maple syrup?

I’m a traditionalist and stick with Grandma Fox’s pancakes and maple syrup.  I use it most in my coffee, though, as I’ve been trying to substitute maple for cane sugar.  I also make a mean maple tamari dressing.  My philosophy is that almost everything is better with maple.

We have been having a friendly debate in the office about which is tastiest according to the US maple syrup grading system (Grade A Light Amber,Grade A Medium Amber, Grade A Dark Amber, Grade B). Do you have a preference?

Grade B; maximum nutrition, maximum flavor.

Over the years, what has surprised you about the maple syrup business?

I’m surprised I’m still at it…it’s addictive.  It’s really demanding physically, spiritually, emotionally, it’s hard on the family with me being away so much.  But this is how I get my exercise in the winter, when everybody else is getting flabby, I’m getting fit.  Being outdoors in February is a great way for me to stay sane and keep from getting the winter blues.  It’s also surprising how much work goes into each drop.  From felling, cutting, gathering, chopping and stacking wood, to boiling and bottling to hustling, it takes a lot of work.  On a small scale, it’s hard to make a profit.  I don’t think people realize what goes into it.

Can you talk about the importance of real maple syrup (as opposed to commercial brands that are completely made of additives such as corn syrup and artificial flavoring?)

Table syrup is a sick joke.  It’s full of GMOs, bad sugar, and it tastes like crap (I won’t even get into how racist Aunt Jemima is).  Maple syrup comes from a tree and is guilt-free.  There’s no question about whether there are some poor farmers working in slave-like conditions working in the cane fields of the Dominican Republic.  In fact, maple got its first big boost from the abolitionists who would did not want to support British plantation sugar.  You know that sugarmakers are doing it for the love of it.  You also know that sugarmakers are probably taking pretty good care of their woods, because if they didn’t, they would be out of business.  Health-wise, maple syrup is health wise.  It is full of vitamins, minerals and amino-acids.  There are over 50 beneficial compounds found in maple syrup, it has been used in anti-cancer treatments, dieting, and it’s ok for diabetics.  I can’t think of another food with so much going for it!

We couldn’t agree more! You can count on us to support sustainable sugarmakers. For more information and pricing of the Sapsquatch CSA, go here.

ACEEE Director of Economic and Social Analysis John A. “Skip” Laitner said: “The U.S. would prosper more if investments in new energy were not crowding out needed investments in energy efficiency… [L]arge-scale energy efficiency advances are by far the smartest investment for America.”

If you live in a building with five or more units, you and your neighbors could save between 15 and 30 percent on utility bills. The report notes that utilities and building owners need to work together to develop effective energy efficiency policies.

“[T]he economy will benefit from a net energy bill savings that ranges from 12 to 16 trillion dollars cumulatively from 2012 through 2050. In other words, the energy efficiency scenarios outlined in our report will spur an annual net energy bill savings that might range up to about $2600 per household …” said ACEEE Executive Director Steven Nadel. That savings is on the scale of the annual U.S. economy.

The major efficiency investments will come from all sectors of the economy. Targets of efficiency investments in the report’s analysis are in the electric power industry, transportation, buildings and the industrial sector. Investing in efficiency will produce less waste, optimize production, advance technologies and save money.

In a more targeted approach, ACEEE teamed up with CNT Energy to look at efficiency in apartment buildings in another report released last week. Energy efficiency upgrades could total in $3.4 billion in savings for building owners and residents (San Diego runs on a budget that’s less than that).”Maximizing energy efficiency is a win-win for apartment residents, building owners, energy utilities and our energy infrastructure,” said Doug Bibby, President of the National Multi Housing Council. “This report offers excellent ideas that we hope spur further cooperation between multifamily owners and utilities to create a more efficient partnership.”

If you live in a building with five or more units, you and your neighbors could save between 15 and 30 percent on utility bills. The report notes that utilities and building owners need to work together to develop effective energy efficiency policies.

Efficiency initiatives abound and can be both small and large in scope. ACEEE’s prolific work on the topic goes a long way in supporting their mission in advancing energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies, investments, and behaviors. These reports demonstrate that big investments in energy efficiency provide not only vast energy savings, but also an opportunity for saving consumers money and providing a vehicle for job creation.

For more on Energy Efficiency see NNEC’s primer on the topic here.

The case underscores one of the major problems with CAFOs, which is the massive amount of manure they produce and the manners by which operators dispose of it, which have major environmental implications. According to the EPA, “a single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day,” which is “equivalent to that of 20-40 people.” The quantity of manure produced by one dairy cow can be multiplied on a CAFO by hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of heads. This higher concentration of CAFO animals leads to a higher concentration of animal waste, a problem that holds true for all types of livestock raised in these operations. As CARE describes the scale of the waste problem:

Operations like the Nelson Faria Dairy produce as much waste as a city of over 200,000 people. Unlike cities, however, which treat their wastes, the dairy industry applies manure to agricultural fields primarily to get rid of it.

In moderation, manure is a great soil fertilizer, but the sheer amount (and concentration) of untreated waste generated by CAFOs is a serious liability. When too much manure is spread out over fields for soil to properly absorb it, or when manure lagoons leak, overflow or rupture, rain and stormwater runoff can carry the waste into groundwater and nearby waterways. This over-application or discharge of CAFO animal waste is an egregious example of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, where the source(s) is diffuse and can have a wide distribution area. Untreated animal waste is a hazard for both public health and ecosystems because it can contain harmful quantities of nutrients, pathogens and heavy metals. (Ecocentric has covered the problems associated with large amounts of untreated CAFO animal waste.)

The case of the improper handling of manure on the Nelson Faria Dairy is typical of the CAFO industry. While state and federal animal waste rules exist, their enforcement is lax at best. As CARE President, Helen Reddout, explained:

The Washington Department of Agriculture had recently inspected the dairy and found that it was doing an excellent job managing its manure. Nothing could be further from the truth…It is now time for the agencies who are supposed to be protecting our health to follow the precedent set by this Order. Our state and federal laws were aimed at protecting people and now it’s time for the agencies responsible for safeguarding public health to do just that.

Reddout goes on to explain the reality of state agency CAFO inspections:

Washington Departments of Ecology and Agriculture (WSDA) are supposed to monitor and regulate the dairy industry to ensure that operations do not harm public health or the environment. Unfortunately, inspections often involve nothing more than cursory visits by WSDA staff. If problems are found, dairy owners receive only a slap on the wrist, at best.

The hope is that this court victory against CAFO manure handling and pollution – little mentioned in the media – will help set a precedent toward better practices, regulation and enforcement of the CAFO industry. Reddout acknowledges that this court victory is one small step, albeit an important one, that shows that CAFOs aren’t above the law and puts them on notice for pollution practices, a particularly big deal for the economically (and thus politically) strong Yakima Valley dairy industry. Based on the compelling evidence of agricultural water contamination in the Lower Yakima Valley, and bolstered by the recent ruling, the EPA selected the area for inclusion in a study monitoring nitrate pollution in groundwater. Reddout expects the EPA report to be released in late Spring 2012.

CARE and their allies in the Royal City area deserve our congratulations for this major legal victory that may ultimately inspire a regulatory approach to CAFOs capable of safeguarding human and ecological health. Government agencies must acknowledge the great harm cased by CAFO pollution and hold the industry accountable for the true costs CAFOs impose upon the public.

As expressed by CARE’s lead attorney, Charlie Tebbutt, “Citizens have once again proven that the CAFO industry is a huge polluter. It is time for the state agencies to step up.”

To find out how many CAFOs are in your area, check out Food & Water Watch’s Factory Farm Map:

http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/

**********

Legal Documents

Memorandum of Decision (PDF)

Order of Decision (PDF)

Background and Resources

Hidden Wells, Dirty Waters (Yakima Herald online resource that includes a contaminated well  map and various investigative reports on the issue.)

“Farmers Put up Stink Over Stench” (background article from Seattle Times, Wednesday, July 7, 2004)

Socially Responsible Agricultural Project – Washington

This post was written by Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, NRDC Director International Program, Washington, D.C. It originally appeared on NRDC’s Switchboard.

On January 24th, hundreds of “referees” gathered on Capitol Hill and blew the whistle on the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Those referees were back in action on the 25th at the House energy subcommittee hearing on a proposal by Representative Terry to approve the already rejected Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Red flags were waved as some members mischaracterized Keystone XL as a necessary project. And hands raised in goal signs as some members made the very valid point that a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline should not be rushed. Many members noted that Congress had not given the State Department enough time to reach a thorough decision on Keystone XL, especially as we do not even know the path that the pipeline would take through Nebraska. This is true and whether Congress tries to hide behind the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in mandating approval of Keystone XL or just does the job directly, energy projects need a thorough review with the opportunity for public input. Americans don’t want to see Congress in the business of issuing permits for what Representative Waxman called a “pet project” that would be rushed to approval and exempted from environmental laws to benefit the oil industry.

The last thing we want is for Keystone XL to spill and have it be the taxpayers, farmers and all those who use the water from the river or aquifer to bear the burden instead of TransCanada.

In his testimony, Jeffrey Wright, the FERC Director of the Office of Energy Projects which oversees interstate natural gas pipelines made it clear that this was a bill that did not give FERC any ability to get public comments, do an assessment or have any oversight.

Even more outrageous than Congress taking on permitting of a complex pipeline project, is allowing a foreign company to build a pipeline that would be exempt from the U.S. environmental laws that our domestic pipelines need to follow. The Terry bill is a pretty messy piece of legislation, but it seems to do just that. The Terry bill says that the permit will be the only legal authority aside from a few Department of Transportation and FERC requirements. Where does this leave us on the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and the rules on cultural preservation, rivers and wetlands?

These water laws are critical for protecting our health and safety from tar sands pipelines. I often hear people say that this is just another oil pipeline. But that is not the case. Keystone XL would carry raw tar sands – bitumen that has been diluted to make it liquid enough to flow through a pipe at high pressure.

We don’t have a lot of experience with this type of pipeline in the United States and what experience we do have has not been good. TransCanada’s first Keystone pipeline was supposed to have state of the art safety standards in place and only have 1.4 spills a decade. In its first year of operation, it leaked 14 times and at one point had to be shut-down as a threat to public safety – making it the newest pipeline to be subjected to such an action by federal regulators. And TransCanada may be cutting safety corners. A safety inspector on that pipeline said that he witnessed many bad practices from a safety perspective while working on the first Keystone tar sands pipeline. We also know that tar sands is harder to clean up. The spill of almost 1 million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan is still being cleaned up one and a half years later.

The last thing we want is for Keystone XL to spill and have it be the taxpayers, farmers and all those who use the water from the river or aquifer to bear the burden instead of TransCanada.

Bottomline? Congress is not a permitting agency and should not be in the business of approving projects – especially not projects that are meant to benefit Big Oil and not the American people.

So how much energy is required to grow food? According to Webber, about 10 percent of the U.S. energy budget is associated with “producing, distributing, processing, preparing and preserving the plant and animal matter we consume.” And what’s the rate of return on that investment of energy? Unfortunately, it’s not very good. “The energy used to make food is vastly greater than the amount of energy we get out of it,” writes Webber. In the United States, it takes about 10 units of fossil energy to produce one unit of food energy.

This ratio is not sustainable! Americans need to find ways to reduce it if there’s any hope of decreasing our own food-energy consumption, and so does the rest of the world, especially as the population is projected to top nine billion by 2050.

So how can we nibble away at that harsh ratio?

In a statement that is bound to generate much discussion, Webber suggests that what we at GRACE – and many others – have promoted as a solution to some of the many social and ecological problems associated with our food system – i.e. eating local – may in fact be inefficient when compared to large-scale industrialized agriculture.

[M]any people have latched onto the local-food movement, billing themselves “locavores,” as an antidote to the energy used to transport food long distances and the energy intensity of large-scale industrialized agriculture… Strangely enough, shipping food thousands of miles can sometimes require less energy, emit less carbon dioxide and do less environmental damage.

Webber’s article is primarily looking at the food system from the energy standpoint. Of course there are many ways to look at this issue; there’s much to be said about the negative externalities associated with industrial agriculture because, as he notes, food production “exacerbate[s] global warming, river and ocean pollution, and a host of other ills.” When talking about the food system, GRACE believes it is imperative to keep in mind these “other ills” while examining this system through the energy lens (or for that matter, the energy system through the water lens).  The efficiency of industrial agriculture is a topic that Ecocentric has covered. In my colleague Chris Hunt’s post, he explains:

Industrial foods benefit from certain efficiencies afforded by the highly developed nature of Big Ag’s distribution networks…But there’s no reason that local distribution networks can’t be rebuilt to improve transportation efficiency… In any case, efficient distribution networks for non-industrial foods won’t be reestablished if local farmers don’t have consumer support in the interim – purchasing locally produced foods is a good way to provide this support to ensure that local networks will be improved.

We may not be in agreement with Webber when he compares the established (oh, and highly-subsidized) industrial agriculture with the growing but still small movement of local farmers, but we are on the same page with him when it comes to the issue of food waste. Reducing food waste is another opportunity for consumers to make a difference, a point that Webber raises later in his article. He explains:

An egregious 25 percent or more of the food grown is wasted annually. That massive amount represents 2.5 percent of annual U.S. energy consumption—more energy than all the ethanol produced in 2011 in the U.S. and more than the energy that will be produced in 2030 from lifting drilling restrictions today on the outer continental shelf. Simply decreasing the amount of food we throw away might reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions more over the next decade or two than many of the expensive or controversial energy supply policies that have been proposed. [Emphasis ours]

Webber, in his article, also provides some excellent insights into innovative farming techniques like drip irrigation, which yields “more crop per drop” and in the process, conserves water and the energy required to pump it.

The conventional approach—the center-pivot sprinklers that create alienlike green crop circles in the middle of brown deserts (easily visible when flying overhead)—is extremely wasteful, spraying water into the air where a major fraction evaporates… In a typical drip-irrigation setup, long sections of narrow tubing laid at the bottom of plants sown in a row deliver water directly to the roots.  Researchers at Iowa State University estimate that corn farmers in that state would use 40 percent less water and lower their energy bills by 15 percent with drip irrigation.

Making the food system more energy efficient won’t be easy, but with smarter consumer choices, innovative techniques and more sensible policies we can easily get our food-to-energy ratio down to, say, five-to-one.

****

AUTHOR’S NOTE:

Other Ecocentric posts that cover the food-energy nexus include these:

• A Pipeline Runs Through It: Keystone XL and the Food-Water-Energy Nexus
• Farming and Fracking Don’t Mix: A Farmer Speaks Out

Perdue couldn’t stand Carole.  I liked her immediately.

It was clear to me from the start that Carole wasn’t a follow-the-crowd sort of person; indeed, she demonstrates the classic characteristics that make the American farmer great: fierce independence combined with a strong dedication to community, a steadfast commitment to justice and the unwavering resolve to voice her beliefs.

In 2008, Carole was featured prominently in Food, Inc. In it, she described her experience as a contract poultry producer, telling one of the most compelling – and heart-wrenching – stories included in the landmark film.  The same year, Perdue terminated the Morisons’ contract, leaving them with empty single-purpose industrial poultry barns in which they’d already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The American farmer has always been known for the ability to solve problems through prudence, resourcefulness and innovation – and Carole Morison is no exception.  Ultimately, she and her husband repurposed one of their old industrial chicken barns and transitioned the facility into a humane, sustainable farm for laying hens.

But the American farmer has always been known for ingenuity and the ability to solve problems through prudence, resourcefulness and innovation – and Carole Morison is no exception.  Ultimately, she and her husband repurposed one of their old industrial chicken barns and transitioned the facility into a humane, sustainable farm for laying hens.  The fruit of their labor, Bird’s Eye View Farm, was recently certified as the first Animal Welfare Approved farm on the Delmarva Peninsula.

An effective shift from the industrial food system of the past to the sustainable model of the future will require widespread implementation of exactly this sort of agricultural transition. Ultimately, Carole’s is a story of hope and triumph, not just for the Morisons and sustainable food advocates, but for all of us.

In this Our Heroes podcast, Carole discusses her own transition to sustainable agriculture, the challenges currently facing other industrial producers hoping to make similar transitions, the impact of her involvement in Food, Inc. and the joys of raising Rhode Island Red hens.

Listen to the 34-minute interview by clicking on the audio player (above left), download as a podcast or read a PDF transcript. Find an excerpt from the interview below.

You can learn more about Carole’s transition to sustainable egg production (along with her outstanding insights into the food system) by reading her blog, Food for Thought.

Q: For those who are unfamiliar with the poultry industry and with your involvement in it, can you give us some background?

We raised chickens under contract for an international corporation for 23 years.  It was industrial production… I married into it. When I first started, I was under the impression that that’s the only way you raise chickens. Throughout the adventure of raising the chickens under contract, it became more and more evident that there were a lot of things wrong with the whole system of industrial production. And that kind of led me to speak out about the industry practices… I didn’t like what we were doing, and chickens were like a number. We just counted flock after flock of chickens.

So that led me to speak out about things: environmental issues, public health issues, worker issues. I mean, the industry is just rampant with all kinds of issues and it’s a system that I finally came to understand is not sustainable. I think the biggest problem is that there is no care about how the animals are raised, how they go to market, just as long as we mass produce. There is no concern for the farmers, or the workers, or their welfare; they’re just another cog in the wheel that’s going to move these chickens to market… And to me, it’s driven by greed. The corporations that dominate the industry, their bottom line is the dollar, and nothing else matters… There were really no scruples or morals within when it pertained to anything. I think that’s what bothered me the most, was the lack of care for anything.

Q: How did you make the transition from industrial farming to sustainable?

Between 2010 and 2011, I had the opportunity to see a lot of different ways of farming. And you know, it started giving me ideas. Well, maybe we could do this on the farm, or maybe we could do that on the farm. We wanted to do meat – chicken, pasture raised. However, the infrastructure here on the Delmarva Peninsula doesn’t exist to support independent production; everything is owned by industry… So then we came up with the idea of laying hens. There is not a lot to the processing; we do everything right here on the farm. And transportation – we’re working that out now; we’re going to piggyback with someone who is hauling another load to where our market is. And that way we can cut down on costs.

We were able to retool one of the chicken houses using some of the equipment that was already in there. The major thing was taking off the curtains that were on the sides; they were what they call “dark-out curtains,” which made everything inside really dark. So we took them off and put clear on so the chickens have fresh sunlight and air all the time, unless it’s really cold out. But they still have the sunlight with the clear curtains, which I love.

And we cut access doors so that the chickens could roam in and out freely as they want to during the day. We do put them up at night for predator control; we have a lot of foxes here. So yeah; it was fairly simple. First I kind of looked at it as a real daunting task, but it was fairly simple to do.

Q: Do you get the sense that there are many other industrial producers who would like to make a similar transition?

Definitely…We’ve already had farmers come to visit individually and take a look at what we’re doing. Yes, there’re definitely farmers out there who would like to get out of the system they’re in. And right now they’re stuck simply because, like I mentioned earlier, there’s no infrastructure to help the independent farmer or that the independent farmer can use. There’re no government programs that the farmer can go through to get up and running, and there’re just a whole lot of roadblocks there.

Q: How did the experience of being featured in Food, Inc. affect you and your work?

I think it made me seek out answers instead of always pointing out the problems. For a long time, even before Food, Inc., I worked on problems within the poultry industry, whether they were environmental, worker related, public health, whatever. However, after Food, Inc. and being in touch with so many different people around the country, it was kind of like, well, yeah, there’re problems there; they are not going away. But let’s see if we can’t find some solutions that will give both farmers and consumers choices, instead of being stuck in one system of producing food.

Q: What can people do to support sustainable chicken production and sustainable egg production in the US?

I think the biggest thing that people can do is to support their local farmer – your small farmer who is producing locally… And when you’re in the grocery store, if they are not carrying a product, talk to the manager in the grocery store and ask, “Why not?” Or say you’d like to see that product on the shelf. Consumer demand is what’s going to be the ultimate drive…  And without the support from the community and the consumers, it’s not going to happen. That’s just point blank the way I see it…

The biggest thing that I’m hearing from potential buyers is that the supply can’t meet the demand. They need more farmers; they need more people producing food to be able to carry the local foods. So we need to find farmers. And I think there’re more and more people who are doing it, getting into it on a smaller basis. You can produce a lot on five acres, believe it or not. It doesn’t take hundreds or thousands of acres to be able to do it. So I just think that we’re going to see it moving forward, rapidly.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration just released an analysis of the nation’s annual energy-related carbon emissions between 2000 and 2009.  Over this period, total emissions dropped by 7.4 percent while per capita emissions fell 15 percent to an average of 17.6 metric tons per person (#1 among the world’s top economies).

Of course, there’s a little more to the story because the greatest drop in emissions was seen in 2009, just when the recession was in full effect.  But as one economist from the EIA explained, the recession isn’t the only reason for the overall drop in emissions.   “We’re moving away from the industry-heavy economy to more information-based economy,” he said. “So our energy consumption per dollar of GDP is going down.”

Before we take a look at some of the report’s highlights, it’s important to point out that the EIA calculated emissions based on the location where the fossil fuels were used, not where the resulting electricity was consumed.

To illustrate, consider a few important questions for one of America’s coal-baskets, Wyoming (coming in at a whopping 117 tons of CO2 per capita):

How large is the population? The smallest in the country.
Is the economy based on industry or is it more commercial? Oh, it’s industrial.
Is state a net exporter or importer of electricity? According to the EIA report, it’s a large exporter of coal-generated electricity.

All of these factors make Wyoming appear as if its emissions impact is much greater than its neighboring states, even though much of its electricity is in fact consumed in those same neighboring states.  In other words, don’t get too smug about your low CO2 emissions, Idaho.

On to the highlights:

Total State Emission Levels (in 2009)
Greatest Total Emissions: Texas (605 million metric tons). You know the drill: everything’s bigger in Texas and so on.  The Lone Star State did have the greatest absolute drop in emissions over ten years, however, at 52 million metric tons. Texas forever!

Per Capita CO2 Emissions
Lowest: New York (9 metric tons per capita). Lots of mass transit, lots of apartments and high electricity rates tend to inspire energy efficiency.
Highest: Wyoming (117 metric tons per capita). The second-largest energy producer in U.S., smallest population in the country, really cold winters.

Emissions by Fuel
Highest Share of CO2 Emissions from Coal: West Virginia (79 percent). Coal country, of course.
Highest Share of CO2 Emissions from Petroleum: Vermont (93 percent). But Vermont also emits the least amount of CO2 at 6.3 metric tons per year. So the Green Mountain State gets a pass.
Highest Share of CO2 Emissions from Natural Gas: Alaska (48 percent).  Lots of energy production in Alaska. Maybe a new natural gas pipeline, too?

Emissions by Sector
Lowest Residential CO2 Emissions: Hawaii (0.1 million metric tons). The dominant share of energy emissions comes from petroleum, but there’s not much need for heating oil in the 50th State.
Largest Transportation CO2 Emissions: California (218 million metric tons). You might be familiar with California’s freeway traffic?
Largest Commercial CO2 Emissions: New York (26 million metric tons). A big information-based economy (all that downloading, streaming and Tweeting relies on data centers that eat up to a lot of megawatts).

Carbon Intensity of Energy Supply (the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy produced)
Highest Carbon Intensity: West Virginia.  Them again?  Yes, and number two is, of course, Wyoming.  Those states where coal is the dominant fuel tend to have high carbon intensity.
Lowest Carbon Intensity: Vermont again, this time because it depends a lot on nuclear and hydroelectric sources. Oregon and Washington aren’t far behind thanks to their dependence on hydropower.

What might affect United States energy-related carbon emissions in the next ten years?  Keep your eye on the economy (Will there be a rebound soon? Will the industrial economy continue to fade?), greenhouse gas legislation (No, not federal, but some states are active) and the momentum shift away from coal and petroleum towards natural gas and renewables (and the nuclear wild card).

The slimmer carbon profile is certainly a good thing, but once the economy gets going again Americans will have to actively pursue a clean energy economy to keep dropping millions more metric tons.

Barring any cataclysmic events, we at Ecocentric would like to share a humble list of predicted trends for 2012 in the areas we follow closely: namely, Food, Water and Energy (Fwenergy, if you will). And while there are no doomsday scenarios, not everything looks rosy for 2012.

That being said, here are 12 trends we see in ’12 (with baker’s dozen megatrend thrown in for good luck):

Food

Water

Energy

Baker’s Dozen Megatrend

The buzz around the Food-Water-Energy Nexus is growing as the world gets more complex and interconnected. Integrated thinking and ways forward are offered by three experts in this blog post from the Nexus-themed Bonn2011 Conference blog. (Note that one of the experts is our own Water and Energy Director, Kyle Rabin.)

By Jamie Henn, Co-founder and Communications Director of 350.org. Originally published at Huffington Post.

The Martin Luther King Jr. memorial dedication was canceled last August 22 because of Hurricane Irene, a storm that grazed D.C. on its way to causing devastation in parts of northern New England. While the dedication events down by the Lincoln Memorial were put on hold, another sort of celebration of Dr. King’s legacy was taking place at the other end of the mall. That Monday morning, over 100 people walked across Pennsylvania Avenue and started the second week of sit-ins at the White House to push President Obama to deny the permit for Keystone XL, a 1,700 mile pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. By the end of August, exactly 1,253 people would be arrested during the protest.

At the time, Keystone XL was just gaining prominence as a national issue. Now, five months later, the pipeline has become the highest profile energy and environmental fight in the nation. Big Oil front groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are spending millions of dollars on TV ads promoting the project. Republicans in Congress are using legislative tricks to pressure President Obama on the issue. And the mainstream media is increasingly mentioning the pipeline as a key election issue in 2012.

As Keystone XL gets pulled into the center of the political battlefield, it’s worth remembering how the pipeline became a national issue and the tactics and strategies that delivered the first significant victory in a fight to stop what writer Bill McKibben has called “a fuse to the largest carbon bomb in North America.” The campaign against Keystone XL was not, after all, a traditional political lobbying effort or online petition drive, but something much more in the spirit of Dr. King’s tactics of “creative nonviolence.”

What better inspiration could we ask for than Martin Luther King, Jr., a leader who fundamentally understood the importance of an inside and outside game. Someone who was just as comfortable lobbying for Civil Rights legislation in the White House as he was leading a sit-in or bus-boycott.

The fight against Keystone XL has its roots in the resistance to the Canadian tar sands led in large part by indigenous communities in Alberta and across western Canada. As news about the dangers of the pipeline spread along its proposed route, ranchers and farmers in states like Nebraska and Texas joined in the fight. National environmental groups and some progressive unions stepped in with additional resources to help the effort. The struggle against the pipeline remained a mostly regional effort until this summer, however, when a new coalition effort called Tar Sands Action sprung onto the scene to coordinate the August sit-ins against the project.

From the very beginning, Tar Sands Action was a distinctly grassroots effort. The website was hacked together on a Word Press platform with minimal design. The emails from the campaign were distinctly honest and straight to the point: we want you to come get arrested, because this is a time when online petitions just won’t cut it. And the organizing was fast and furious: it was only a few weeks after the campaign’s launch that people started getting pulled away from the White House in handcuffs.

The effort was also deeply grounded in the need for collaboration amongst environmental groups. While Tar Sands Action formed a progressive, action oriented edge for the campaign, groups like NRDC perfected policy arguments and lobbied on the Hill, online campaigns like CREDO sent tens of thousands of emails and phone calls to the White House, BOLD Nebraska led a strategy to block the pipeline on the ground in their state, Friends of the Earth focused on a conflict of interest scandal over the pipeline at the State Department, the Indigenous Environmental Network united native communities across North America, the Transit Workers Union and other labor groups came out against the project, the Energy Action Coalition organized young people, and many, many others stepped in with their unique contributions. We likened the approach to a “swarm,” a team effort that was light on formal processes and meetings and dedicated above all to speed, efficiency, and an ambitious plan of attack.

By the end of August, the sit-ins had successfully launched the Keystone XL campaign into its second phase: nationwide protest. For the next two months, President Obama was met by protesters at nearly every public campaign stop. In Colorado, he was interrupted by a person in the crowd who demanded the president stop the pipeline. “I hear your concerns,” he responded. “We’re looking very closely at the issue.” The next stop the president made, yet another group was there to make sure he was staying true to his word.

The coalition knew that it was going to take an even larger action to push the White House to make the right decision. So, on November 6, Tar Sands Action coordinated another massive protest at the White House, this time encircling the property with nearly 15,000 people a giant, blow-up pipeline that marched around the perimeter. The protest set off a chain reaction of comments from the State Department and White House, culminating in the announcement on November 10 that the administration would be delaying the permit for a year to consider a new route in Nebraska and take into better account the health, safety and climate concerns associated with the project.

The announcement was as major victory and one of the largest wins for the climate movement in recent history. It was also the validation of the coalition’s new approach to campaigning. Keystone XL was not won because of massive spending on TV ads, highly polished talking points developed by consultants, or inside the beltway compromises and back-room deals. Instead, the campaign was successful because of its focus on grassroots mobilization, including the use of nonviolent civil disobedience, genuine and straight-forward communication with the public, a distinctly coalition approach, and a sharp political strategy that consistently turned up the pressure on President Obama.

The coalition’s victory, of course, was a temporary one. This December, Republicans in Congress managed to pass a rider on the payroll tax-cut extension that forces President Obama to make a final decision on the pipeline by the end of February or find a way to further delay the permitting process. If the president does delay the project again, Republicans are promising to continue to bring bills to pressure the White House. Either way, the pipeline will surely be a Republican and Big Oil talking point for the rest of the election.

With the political stakes increasing, it would be tempting to try and “win the win” on Keystone XL by falling back on traditional campaign strategies, the massive ad buys, slick talking points, and consultant driven campaigns that both sides use to battle out the latest hot button issues. This would be a mistake. Needless to say, some hard-hitting ads in swing states that tie pro-pipeline members of Congress to the dirty money they receive from Big Oil would be helpful, but in order to defeat Keystone XL once-and-for-all and use the win to build momentum for even more important victories in the future, we pipeline protesters need to remain bold, grassroots risk-takers. This January 23, we’ll be taking the first step in this direction with another big, creative demonstration on Capitol Hill, with 500 referees “blowing the whistle” on oil money in Congress (you can sign up here).

What better inspiration could we ask for than Martin Luther King, Jr., a leader who fundamentally understood the importance of an inside and outside game. Someone who was just as comfortable lobbying for Civil Rights legislation in the White House as he was leading a sit-in or bus-boycott. As we enter the next phase of the Keystone XL pipeline fight, we can look to King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail for guidance. In the letter to his more mainstream detractors, King wrote:

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.

There’s surely going to be some tension ahead for those of us working on Keystone XL. As a movement, we’ll need to continue to find ways to work together as a swarm, each group and individual finding his or her unique way to make a contribution. And we’ll need to be prepared for some brutal attacks from the other side: the American Petroleum Institute has already promised “major electoral consequences” if President Obama further delays or denies the pipeline. But this sort of tension is exactly what movements are about. So, as we enter the next phase of the fight to stop Keystone XL and finally confront the climate crisis, we can only straighten our backs, look to some elders like King for guidance, and say, in the words of a certain young senator from Illinois, “Yes We Can.”

Here we are again; January brings its annual practice of New Year’s Resolutions, and none too soon, as many of us enter it repentantly, still full from a holiday season of gift giving and feasting. After all those year-end indulgences, getting fit, saving money and living more sustainably are likely to be right at the top of many Americans’ lists this year.

Are these three goals at odds with one another? Local/sustainable food has been largely painted as overly expensive and even “elitist” over the last few years, and healthier whole foods can take a toll on the pocket book. Veganism, done right, is one way to eat healthfully and while it may  not be the only way, most Americans could stand to eat less meat. I personally don’t eat any animal products, and many of my friends have told me they would like to try veganism on for size but think it’s too expensive. Luckily, there are pioneers out there like Ellen Jaffe Jones, whose new book, Eat Vegan on $4 a Day, shows how a plant-based diet can be sustainable, delicious and economical.

The key to Jaffe’s plan is just that, a plan, and as a cash-strapped vegan myself, I found Eat Vegan Meals on $4 a Day extremely useful. This year, I’m following Jaffe’s advice and taking a little extra time to plan before heading out to go food shopping.

While her cookbook focuses mainly on the economic and health issues surrounding veganism, I wanted to ask Jones about the benefits of a vegan diet for our planet, as the environmental toll of industrial agriculture represents an external costs for all. In response, Jones quoted the UN report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which states that the meat industry is “one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems.” Jones went on to say that, “In comparison to other meat-consuming diets, a healthy vegan diet depletes less of the precious and fragile dwindling supplies of land, and more importantly, available water needed for supporting a constantly burgeoning world population.” Anyone looking to reduce his or her environmental impact this coming year should consider cutting down on animal products, and this book shows how to do that, cheaply and deliciously.

But Eat Vegan on $4 a Day is more than just a cookbook, it’s a game plan. An award-winning investigative journalist and financial consultant, Jaffe is extremely adept at concisely laying out the facts and figures. She teaches her main money-saving strategies, which involve buying in bulk, stocking your pantry with dried beans, grains and greens, and cooking from scratch. Jaffe also explains how consumers can save money by buying direct from local farms and community supported agriculture (CSA) programs. Jaffe’s experiences shopping on a budget led her to to ten incredibly useful “Money Saving Tips,”  including the best way to navigate a grocery store (shop the circumference of the store and look beyond eye-level on the shelves),  how to buy in bulk (think eight-pound bags of dried beans) and how to keep track of food prices (she even includes a nifty chart you can use!).

Jaffe argues that a healthful vegan diet not only saves you money in the short term, but also in healthcare costs down the line. “If you’re wondering why I started eating a vegan whole-foods diet,” she explains, “it’s simple: I wanted to cheat death.” When several of Jaffe’s close relatives died of cancer, heart disease and diabetes, Jaffe began researching nutrition and the treatment of livestock on factory farms. Jones explains that “a healthful diet based on unprocessed plant-based foods can protect you against disease…and (help) avoid costly trips to the doctor.”

Jaffe further explores the intersecting issues of health, finances and agriculture, including the relationship between animal products, advertisements, lobbying and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). “A great number of government policies favor the promotion of animal-based foods, such as meat and dairy, over vegan foods, such as beans, fruits and vegetables and whole grains” Jaffe explains. “The USDA sets advertising budgets for agricultural products based on how much money is collected for them, and by far the greatest funding goes to marketing animal-based foods.”

The key to Jaffe’s plan is just that, a plan, and as a cash-strapped vegan myself, I found Eat Vegan Meals on $4 a Day extremely useful. This year, I’m following Jaffe’s advice and taking a little extra time to plan before heading out to go food shopping. Her diverse array of recipes include breakfast foods, soups, salads, entrees, spreads, sides, desserts and snacks, with easy to understand instructions and clever names, and she even calculates how much each serving costs (sometimes as low as $.25!)  I’ve already tried two of her recipes and I’m thrilled to report they were delicious! Check out the slideshow to see pictures from my adventures in cooking “Pot-of-Gold Rainbow Stew” and “Carrot Cake to Live For.”

So  next time someone tells you eating consciously is too expensive, refer them to this excellent cookbook, and  tell them “healthy, wealthy and wise” just requires a little planning.

Walmart sells $129 billion worth of food (a whopping 25% of grocery sales throughout the US, and much more in some areas) each year, making it the most powerful food retailer in the world. If Walmart agreed to not stock GE sweet corn, it is highly likely that other retailers would follow their lead.

In a campaign reminiscent of the Starbucks rBGH campaign, (which ultimately culminated not only in a pledge by the java giant not to sell dairy from cows treated with rBGH, but also created a domino effect, causing most large retailers to make the same agreement) , Food and Water Watch has initiated a national campaign to pressure Walmart to do the right thing and to live up to their sustainability claims. Just last week, Walmart launched a brand new website called The Green Room to exhibit their green credentials. Over the past couple of years they’ve run public relations campaigns touting their support of local farming, healthier eating and providing oases in food deserts.

Walmart sells $129 billion worth of food (taking a whopping 25% of grocery sales throughout the US, and much more in some areas) each year, making it the most powerful food retailer in the world. If Walmart agreed to not stock GE sweet corn, it is highly likely that other retailers would follow their lead. It would also relieve farmers of the economic pressure to plant the biotech seeds.

If you’re in the know about GMOs, you know there’s a lot we don’t know—and a lot to be wary of.  We don’t know the long term effects of GMOs on humans and a new study suggests there is reason to worry. The potential environmental risks are many, including the rise of superweeds and resistant pests, the threat to biodiversity and the inevitability of crop contamination.  There are also the ethical and economic concerns associated with patenting of living organisms and the ownership of our food supply by corporations like Monsanto.

Since last fall, Food and Water Watch and their partners at the Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, CREDO Action and Food Democracy Now! have been asking consumers to sign a petition saying that they would refuse to buy GE sweet corn and are asking retailers and food processors not to sell it. As of now, that petition has over a quarter million signatures.  Walmart is powerful, but consumers hold the ultimate power: all great social change starts from the bottom. Join the movement today.

To learn more about the health, environmental and ethical implications of GE technology, read Food and Water Watch’s outstanding report, Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview.

New York is among the leaders but not really at the head of the pack, but that might be about to change. In his State of the State speech, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo outlined his support for solar power in New York State:

New York is fortunate to have abundant water, wind, biomass, and solar resources. Over the decades, we have aggressively developed our hydroelectric resources and are making great progress in tapping our land-based wind resources. Now it is time to focus more attention on exploiting our solar potential.

…

By 2013, we estimate that NY-Sun will quadruple the 2011 capacity. We will continue to establish New York’s technology leadership in this important emerging market while balancing investments in other renewable resources and protecting the taxpayer. This approach will create jobs, expand solar power, and protect ratepayers — a win, win, win.

In reaction to the speech, Carol Murphy, Executive Director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACENY) said, “Clean energy and energy efficiency both present significant environmental and economic opportunities that will benefit all New Yorkers. We commend the Governor for his ongoing commitment to the state’s clean energy goals and look forward to working with him and members of the Legislature to see those goals met and expanded in the near future.”

Given high electricity prices, solar resources and its population density, the solar industry is focused on the northeast for its substantial market potential. In particular, New York is relatively untapped as compared to the large quantity of solar installed in New Jersey [pdf].

The Solar Alliance, along with ACENY and other groups, has been working with the Governor to make New York a bigger solar state. Now, in order to “present a unified solar industry voice in all advocacy efforts at the state level,” the Solar Energy Industries Associations (SEIA) and the Solar Alliance officially merged on January 3^rd. Joining operations, SEIA now will operate in Washington D.C. and at the state level to forward their “goal of installing 10 gigawatts of solar annually by 2015.” New York will remain a key state.

While SEIA will still press ahead with the goal of federal support, state level efforts will be important to the organization in 2012. Governor Cuomo seems eager to do his part in aiding SEIA in the northeast.

FoodCorps is a national non-profit that addresses our nation’s painful and costly childhood obesity epidemic using a three recipe ingredient for change: hands-on nutrition education, growing and tending school gardens, and getting healthy local food onto school cafeteria trays.

Recruitment for next year’s class of service members begins this week. If reading Daniel and Jill’s stories of how they spend their days as service member in Iowa and Arkansas piques your interest, you can read more on the FoodCorps website: www.foodcorps.org, or watch their recruitment video (produced by Ian Cheney, co-creator of King Corn!).

The deadline for applications is March 25th.

A day in the life of Daniel Schultz, serving in Iowa

1. Wake up and put on my FoodCorps gear.

2. Bike to the NCAT office.

3. Make worksheets and activities for future nutrition classes.

4. Bike to one of my Des Moines Public Schools

5. Put on apple costume

6. Teach kids about “eating the rainbow” of fruits & vegetables, the benefits eating apples and hand out a local apple tasting.

7. Bike to one of our community partners to teach an after school cooking program with fourth graders.

8. Bike back home and end with a nice relaxing run around Des Moines.

9. End the day with a home cooked meal with ingredients from the Des Moines Farmers Market.

A day in the life of Jill Zartman, serving in Arkansas

1. Rise and shine at 6am

2. Jam out to Nappy Roots “Good Day” en route to Harrisburg Middle School

3. Walk-through of the garden. Do a garden jig over the sunflowers that have bloomed

4. Heat up the skillet, chop arcadia broccoli and cheddar cauliflower from the garden, and sautee to perfection

5. Run to 1st period (hopefully without getting trampled by a 6th grader)

6. Co-teach a physical science lesson on elements and molecules

7. Conduct a soil test on the garden beds with the students and discuss elements in the soil

8. Teach the students how to wobble

9. Let the students have a taste test

10. Repeat until heart’s content

11. Return home and look forward to another good day tomorrow

If you would like more details, please read FoodCorps’ January 10th press release, “FoodCorps Recruitment Begins Today – FoodCorps Opens Applications for its Next Class of School Food Changemaker.”

“Oh we don’t take those anymore. Just flush them down the toilet,” said the pharmacist (with a completely straight face).

I was horrified! Toilets are not garbage cans, and wastewater treatment systems are not designed to handle all the crap stuff we try to put through them. With some effort, I unclenched my jaw, collected my bag of drugs and left. I have since taken my pharmacological needs elsewhere.

I checked the website for the city of New York (where I live) and found it instructs people not to flush prescription drugs down the toilet or drain unless the patient information instructs them to. The site encouragingly offers that “there is no way to completely eliminate the use of pharmaceuticals and personal care products; however when you do use them follow directions and use them sparingly to reduce the amount that goes unused and eventually ends up in the environment.”

“What’s the big deal? This is how I’ve always handled my unused meds,” you might be saying to yourself. The big deal is that emerging contaminants aren’t regulated and we don’t know how long-term, low-level exposure will impact us or the critters who depend on surface waters for their survival.

Pharmaceuticals, personal care products and a whole host of other compounds, which are lumped together and classified as ‘emerging contaminants,’ are increasingly being detected in surface water, and they could be problematic. According to the Product Stewardship Institute, “Waste pharmaceuticals pose four types of potential threats: they can enter the environment and impact aquatic organisms and potentially drinking water, and they can contribute to accidental poisonings and drug abuse.”

Good reasons to find another way to get rid of your unused meds.

The Government Accountability Office has even recommended that “the Administrator of [the Environmental Protection Agency] establish a workgroup or other formal mechanism to coordinate research on pharmaceuticals and other contaminants in drinking water.” In addition, many states have recognized the need to address unused meds (and other emerging contaminants). In New York State, for example, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has a plan of action that includes:

• Combining efforts with other states;
• Continuing to study the environmental impacts;
• Participating in a national system for the management of unwanted pharmaceuticals; and
• Beginning a public education and awareness campaign.

On DEC’s website they offer dates for household drug collection, information about the National Drug Take Back Day and locations (by county) for medication drop offs. Your disposal options will vary by state and even by county or town and there is no one national source of information that covers all of these entities, so check with your local or state government websites to learn about drop off locations or collection dates in your area. You may even have a collection center in your community.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, if there is no Take Back program in your area, unused chemicals should be mixed into something unpalatable, like kitty litter or used coffee grounds, placed into a plastic bag and put into the garbage. The site has a list of substances, like Percocet and Oxycodone, that are actually okay to flush (to avoid overdose by children or pets or abuse).

Anyway, back to that bag of drugs I was trying to get rid of. The unfortunate ending to this story is that I had the bag near some recycling and my roommate scooped it all up and put it in the recycling bin. I think there was an almost full prescription of Percocet in there from some long ago surgery. I hope it didn’t fall into the wrong hands. I hope someone took some responsibility and looked up how to properly dispose of everything in that bag. Seems as though I should have flushed them after all.

Brian Perusse, Director of Business Development for AES Energy Storage, recently took time to tell us more about this innovative technology.

Below are some excerpts from the conversation. You can read the interview in its entirety here.

What is energy storage and how is it different than energy generation?

By providing power to the system when it is most needed via an emissions-free process, advanced energy storage projects help to keep clean energy sources clean through their integration into the power grid.

Energy storage is an emissions-free capacity resource that is fast, highly flexible, and always on and ready to provide power services to the grid.  It is different from other energy generators as it uses the electric power grid as a “fuel” and can either deliver or withdraw power from the grid depending on what is needed and when it’s most valuable.  The unique ability to both supply power and store power on command makes the grid more efficient and more reliable.

Describe AES’s energy storage technologies. How do they compare to other energy storage technologies?

AES Energy Storage delivers storage-as-a-service, eliminating the need for pilot testing, system integration work and technology selection risk. It is not possible to simply buy a battery today and just plug it into the grid, like you might a replacement cell phone battery. AES will perform all of the work necessary to permit, design, engineer, procure, construct and operate an energy storage facility to meet a specific need of the utility. More importantly, AES has developed a control platform that will optimize the performance of the energy storage system for each specific customer.

How did AES get into the energy storage business?

AES Corporation, the parent company of AES Energy Storage, is one of the largest power producers in the world and has a thirty-year history of being an innovator in the power sector. This started with the use of Circulating Fluidized Bed boilers and continued through the financing of advanced combined cycle gas turbine technology, new wind turbines and the latest thin-film solar technologies, such as cadmium telluride.  AES Energy Storage was founded in 2007 to focus on the commercial development and operations of grid-scale energy storage. AES Energy Storage believes that energy storage is ready to play a key role in the clean-energy equation, providing an emissions-free, flexible power resource to improve the grid today and prepare for growing renewable generation in the future.

Does AES have energy storage projects/systems in operation?

Energy storage essentially stores energy from the cheapest and most efficient resources and delivers it at a time when more expensive resources would traditionally be utilized.

We currently have 72 megawatts (MW) in commercial operation or construction and have a growing pipeline of over 500 MW of projects in near-term development.  We currently operate commercial energy storage facilities in West Virginia, New York and Northern Chile.  In developing our business, we have worked with leading power system operators including the New York ISO, PJM Interconnection, ERCOT in Texas, California ISO and SING in Chile.   We are pleased to have recently announced the commercial operation of a 32 MW storage project participating in the PJM Interconnection, the largest regional transmission organization in the world.

How does energy storage fit into the traditional electricity market model in the United States?

Energy storage can fit into any number of market models and we have deployed commercial facilities that are being paid for power services the same as other generators providing the same services today.   Going forward, we expect that larger facilities will be contracted under Power Purchase Agreements, just the same way that we see wind, solar and traditional power plants developed and procured.

Does energy storage compete with or compliment initiatives in renewable energy and efficiency? How so?

Emissions-free capacity complements renewable resources to help policy makers, utilities and ISOs achieve clean energy goals.  By providing power to the system when it is most needed via an emissions-free process, advanced energy storage projects help to keep clean energy sources clean through their integration into the power grid.

What effect does electric storage have on electricity prices?

Energy storage essentially stores energy from the cheapest and most efficient resources and delivers it at a time when more expensive resources would traditionally be utilized.  In addition to delivering cheaper energy than a peaking-gas plant, energy storage can provide a number of other benefits to the system, such as deferring transmission investments and reducing the risk of relying on any one-fuel commodity.

Farm Fresh World and Fusion

There are tons of New American and soul food restaurants – and we love them, but it’s exciting to see farm fresh ingredients used in more exotic fare.

Ngon, St. Paul, MN Jim Harkness, President of IATP told us about a Vietnamese restaurant owned by locals, “Ngon is very cool, and very St Paul. It’s a Vietnamese restaurant (owned by locals: St Paul has a very large Indochinese community and was serving kickass SE Asian food long before New Yorkers started mispronouncing pho.) with a strong commitment to local sourcing, and a great, all-MN beer list. (Fortunately, their wine list is more cosmopolitan.)”

Southern-Inspired

Buttermilk Channel, Brooklyn NY Buttermilk Channel is nostalgically named for the time when the tidal strait between Brooklyn and Governor’s Island was used by dairy farmers to bring their milk into the city, which some say was churned into butter when it was taken across the choppy channel. It has become well-known for southern farm-to-table delights like buttermilk fried chicken and cheddar waffles. Ecocentric blogger Jennifer Bunin says, “Buttermilk Channel is my go-to place for a classy meal with a down-home feel. The fare is an innovative take on soul food and, best of all, they have a separate and extensive vegetarian menu that, just like the other menus, changes seasonally. It’s perfect for dates, because while Buttermilk Channel enjoyably lacks pretension, the food is delicious and exhibits the transparency locavores are drawn to.”

Best Transparency of Sources

Husk, Charleston, SC A college friend sent me a note about Husk in Charleston South Carolina,  which has the by far the most impressive list of suppliers I have seen in my four years of working at Eat Well Guide.

Sea Change –  Pushing the Sustainability Envelope

Bamboo Sushi, Portland, OR Caroline Silver, a former Eat Well Guide intern now working with Mercy Corps, told us about Bamboo Sushi in Portland, Oregon. They are the only certified sustainable sushi restaurant in the world. All of the fish comes from sustainable populations. In addition, their meat is all grass-fed and comes from local ranches in Oregon and Idaho.

Pizza

American Flatbread, Waitsfield, VT Dan Stein, a Sustainable Table Facebook fan, wrote to us about American Flatbread.  “Hands down, one of the MOST sustainable restaurants in the country is (American Flatbread), located in Waitsfield, VT. I believe 70% of their food is sourced locally, if not directly from the farmer. They have their own farm on the land, with solar panels and compost piles, etc.”

Budget-Friendly

Elevation Burger (locations across US) Local, sustainable restaurants have a reputation for being expensive, which is well-earned by some higher and mid-end joints, but there are lots of down-home eateries, too. Elevation Burger was submitted to us via Twitter after we wrote about Sustainable Burger joints here. The chain has locations across the US and is quite affordable.

Food Truck

Green Truck, San Diego & Los Angeles, CA Sustainable food trucks are popping up all over the country, and we were thrilled to add this trendy new category to Eat Well Guide. We are recent fans of the strict certified organic ingredients in burgers, salads, wraps and more from the Green Truck in San Diego and Los Angeles.

Farmer Vote

John J. Jeffries, Lancaster, PA We received the following email from Sweet Stem Farm, who recommended John J. Jeffries, a local restaurant that buys meat from them:

Sweet Stem Farm would like to nominate John J. Jeffries of Lancaster, PA as the Best Sustainable Restaurant of the Year.  We can say first hand that John J. Jeffries has made sustainability its true mission.  Not only do they buy their produce locally, they also purchase meat locally and sustainably – which seems to be much more difficult for many restaurants.  John J. Jeffries purchases pork from our farm, and what is really impressive is how they make use of the whole animal. Not a single part of the pig goes to waste.

For a livestock farm, it is extremely important to find a home for all the parts of an animal…even some of those less popular cuts.  Having a restaurant like John J. Jeffries consistently buying whole animals from our farm is not only beneficial to our business, but their nose-to-tail philosophy is inspiring and beneficial to the community and a mindset which we should all follow!

We received so many great recommendations from our foodie colleagues. Here is the remainder of that list, organized geographically:

Northeast

Scottish Bakehouse, MA Ali Berlow, editor of Edible Vineyard told us about an affordable locally minded restaurant on Martha’s Vineyard (yes it exists!): “I suggest the Scottish Bakehouse. Daniele Dominick has worked with farmers the whole way and has developed strong community relationships and great menu items because of it. It’s essentially a take-out. Price-points are really reasonable for anywhere (not just the Vineyard). She’s introduced Brazilian menu items and included the Brazilian immigrant population. Great gluten-free baked goods and the best local egg sandwich. She buys local meat and chicken and makes it work in an affordable way. And you can get a lamb burger at 7am if you want.”

The Farmhouse, Burlington, VT Greg Plotkin, from American Farmland Trust said, “There are obviously lots of good ones, but best story is the Farmhouse in Burlington, VT. The city actually ran a McDonalds out of the space and replaced it with a farm-to-table restaurant. Beautiful space and great food/drink.”

Fore Street, Portland, ME Megan Saynisch of Brooklyn Farmhouse says, “I love Fore Street in Portland, Maine — Farm to table-y AND sea to table to boot – Maine is the bomb.” Just a note: the lovely carrot photo shown above was taken at Fore Street by FoodieMommy.

Le Farm, Westport, CT Sherri Brooks Vinton, author of the Real Food Revival, keyed us into a restaurant with its growers prominently and proudly listed on their site. “We have an off-the-charts local/seasonal restaurant here in CT called Le Farm in Westport. Bill Taibe is the chef. It is warm, cozy, relaxed and the food is absolutely mind-blowing.”

Van Leeuwen, New York, NY One of my favorites – Van Leeuwen – is an ice cream truck that parks in various locations in New York City and uses locally sourced dairy to create many delicious flavors. My personal favorite is peppermint and chip which uses organic peppermint from Oregon and organic dark chocolate.

Juventino, Brooklyn, NY Brooklyn’s Juventino Brooklyn creates locally sourced dishes with a Mexican flair. The huevos rancheros are my personal favorite: organic eggs and heirloom beans, homemade tortilla and salsa. Juventino received a Snail of Approval from Slow Food NYC. A friend and a fellow regular at Juventino told me why she loves it: “Because their pancakes are amazing. I always feel like time stops for me there. Plus, Juventino himself always makes you feel welcome.”

Sun in Bloom, Brooklyn, NY My first time at Sun in Bloom was a recent crisp autumn morning en route to the office. I was greeted by the owner and promptly handed a pumpkin muffin fresh out of the oven. It proved to be a warm, seasonal treat that was the perfect start to my day. I’ve become fond of another notable specialty: the sprouted vegan burger. I would choose it over a burger any day. Well, maybe.  I dig this unassuming vegan bakery for the transparency with which they disclose their ingredients and the innovative ways to they’ve found to replace dairy in delicious muffins, breads, sandwiches and more.

Mid-Atlantic

Vimala’s Curryblossom Café, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Allison Bland, a friend of mine, sent a glowing recommendation for Vimala’s Curryblossom Café in Chapel Hill. Vimala uses produce and meat from local family farms ingredients to create tasty Indian dishes.

Grano, Baltimore, MD Ecocentric editor Leslie Hatfield spent a two-year stint in Baltimore and has a soft spot for the Charm City’s Grano. “I’ve never even been to the flagship restaurant, only to the adorably tiny and authentic Pasta Bar. The sauces are incredible and I was so excited to find meatballs from pasture-raised beef. It’s been two years since I’ve been there and my mouth is watering just thinking about it.”

Soupergirl, Washington, DC Facebook fan Danielle Tergis keyed us in to budget-friendly locale in the capital area, “Check out Soupergirl. Sources from local farmers, very eco-savvy.”

Midwest

Motley Cow, Iowa City, IA Wendy Wasserman of USDA tells us “When it comes to Iowa City I’m a bigger fan of the Mötley Cow. Creative menu, open space and do so much locally sourced food for so long that they can’t keep track anymore. They have great relations with the local farmers, especially the small guys, and they do their food gracefully and with respect.”

Greenhouse Tavern, Cleveland, OH Meredith Modzelewski of Brooklyn, NY says: “Greenhouse Tavern in Cleveland! They source locally and sustainably, plus they have a rooftop garden. They have great relationships with local farmers and incredible food. The chef Jonathon Sawyer has been recognized by Food & Wine and I believe James Beard.”

Cottonwood Bistro, Brookings, SD Steph Larsen from Center for Rural Affairs suggests, “Cottonwood Bistro in Brookings, South Dakota. Can’t be beat.”

West

Nelle’s, Paonia, CO Stephanie Ogburn from High Country News said, “In Paonia (the middle of nowhere, Colorado), we have a little burrito place in town called Nelle’s. It is so awesome and delicious and they buy quite a bit of their stuff from local farmers. It’s a great hangout, too, and the walls are posted over with happenings in local entertainment and politics, so it’s a good place to get your news too, and catch up with neighbors.”

Biga Pizza, Missoula, MT My sister Shannon, a former resident of Missoula, Montana, tells us, “Biga Pizza has the best artisan pizza in Montana. With such pizzas as flathead cherry pizza (with local flathead cherries from one hour away) and sweet potato, bacon and maple chipotle (in the fall and winter of course!) how can you go wrong? The prices are pretty unbeatable as well.”

California:

The Sidecar Restaurant, Ventura, CA: Rose Hayden-Smith of Santa Barbara, CA said, “One place that is wonderful is The Sidecar Restaurant, housed in a 1910 Pullman dining car that somehow ended up in my neighborhood.  They source locally and utilize things from their own garden. Chef Tim Kilcoyne is creative and keeps things fresh and fun.  It’s an unexpected treasure in midtown Ventura, behind a carwash and on the old Ventura Highway (U.S. 101), where the motor lodges now house those with marginal housing opportunities in this expensive seaside town.  An up and comer in a transitional neighborhood.”

Flea Street Café, Menlo Park, CA: California native and fellow Ecocentric blogger Dawn Brighid, shared with me one of her favorite spots in the bay area, Flea Street Café. “Being in Menlo Park, California makes sourcing seasonally and locally easier than in some areas, but Flea St. Café also makes it more delicious than most! I have never been disappointed eating at this off-the-beaten-path and cozy restaurant – and the service is impeccable, but in a really down to earth and friendly way. They have always sourced not only the food, but also the wine regionally and sustainably. Being a vegetarian has never been a problem there either; they always have a vegetarian tasting entrée that is out of this world. I love it here!”

Peter Lowell’s, Sebastopol, CA Leslie Hatfield dished her NorCal favorite: “I was in Sonoma County last fall and good food advocate Naomi Starkman (who wrote about it for the San Francisco Chronicle) took me to Peter Lowell’s, where the service is casual but attentive, the food is ‘hyperlocal’ and the cheese plate will blow your mind.”

Our Eat Well Guide lists thousands of restaurants like those featured here — with a commitment to locally sourced, sustainably produced food — so we know we’re sure to have missed some of your favorites. Don’t be shy — share them with us in the comments section!

It’s proven true that wherever fracking goes (in the United States or abroad), controversy follows, but in NYS the fracking debate fervor has really peaked. Recent statewide DEC hearings were overwhelmingly attended by constituents against the practice, but a significant portion of the population, especially in economically-stressed Upstate communities, are eager for its potential benefits: income for landowners with natural gas leases, creation of gas drilling jobs and new sources of tax revenues, as well as the belief that, with fracking, comes energy independence from foreign energy. Statewide polling shows a near split on fracking as currently proposed.

As the fracking rush sweeps the globe, New York’s actions will have important implications for the national (and possibly the international) debate. Here are a few reasons why:

• Parts of NYS could be sitting on a lot of natural gas. The state’s southern tier overlays the expansive Marcellus Shale formation, which reaches through Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Tennessee, and which holds plenty of natural shale gas. How much? No one knows for sure, but the USGS estimate of the entire Marcellus Shale gives the almost incomprehensible figure of 84 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of technically recoverable natural gas, however uncertainty with all shale-gas estimates remains. (More on the problematic nature of shale-gas estimates in the final point).

• NYS is the most prominent shale-gas state to impose a fracking moratorium to determine rules and regulations before drilling. Other states like North Carolina, Maryland and New Jersey have either official or de facto fracking moratoriums in place which are tied to further studies in some cases, but no other state poised to exploit such a massive shale play has actually restrained the oil and gas industry.

With drilling a possibility near the New York City watershed – the United States’ largest unfiltered water supply which serves the Nation’s most densely populated region and the world’s largest media center – a sleeping giant of activity was awakened around this issue.

• New Yorkers have witnessed but not experienced the potential effects of widespread fracking. New York residents have been given time to scrutinize the extraction technique and have learned about environmental and health related problems linked to it, particularly those involving water contamination. Resistance has grown with the release of the 2010 documentary Gasland. The safety, environmental and regulatory difficulties experienced by neighboring Pennsylvania, in the middle of its own natural gas rush, has raised major concerns for New Yorkers. With drilling a possibility near the New York City watershed – the United States’ largest unfiltered water supply which serves the Nation’s most densely populated region and the world’s largest media center – a sleeping giant of activity was awakened around this issue.

• NYS doesn’t have a long history or culture of large-scale “extraction industries.” For decades New York has had small-scale, conventional oil and gas drilling, but unlike Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Pennsylvania, fossil fuel extraction has had minimal impact on the state’s landscape and economy. The specter of drill rigs, compressor stations, heavy trucks and short-term workers industrializing lands has unsurprisingly caused some anxiety, especially for those who value the bucolic surroundings and lifestyle of New York’s rural lands. People who don’t want to be involved in drilling don’t want it to affect their way of life.

• The debate could limit the directions that future economies can take in depressed Upstate communities. Who gets to decide how much – and what kind – of the much-needed economic development in Upstate New York will occur? The people who live there or the political heavyweights in New York City-centric Downstate? After years of deindustrialization, globalization and Big Ag’s farm consolidation both Upstate and around the country, most industries, from manufacturing to family farming have been gutted, leaving few opportunities behind. Many local pro-frackers look towards natural gas leasing and related job creation as a tremendous economic boon that would also serve to drive down natural gas prices with domestic production (energy security, cowboy!). The drilling industry has profits in its sites and is willing to spend big money to lobby in Albany and run a down-home media campaign to get fracking done on their terms. Others note that fracking has the potential to spoil other proximate industries rooted in the ground or dependent on clean water, like working farms, tourism and recreation, vintners and brewers.

• The debate has huge implications for the energy future of NYS (and the United States). Natural gas is touted as the “greener” fossil fuel with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, a “bridge fuel” to a renewable energy future. But for many clean and renewable energy advocates, natural gas is actually an excuse to extend the life of the fossil fuel economy. Why not start building towards a clean energy future in Upstate now instead of in some indefinite golden future? In addition, estimates of the demonstrable shale gas reserves in the United States are at best iffy and most likely not the “100-year supply” boosters claim.

Whatever direction NYS takes on fracking, the state will act as a bellwether for other states, because the Federal government assiduously avoids any kind of energy planning.

Unlike Governor Cuomo in his speech, you might want your voice to be heard on this issue. Whatever your opinion, visit the DEC website to submit your comments before the period ends on Wednesday the 11th, 2012.

**********

AUTHOR’S NOTE:

To learn more about hydraulic fracturing, go to the Ecocentric Hydraulic Fracturing series and the Network for New Energy Choices Natural Gas Fracking minisite.

To be fair, Victor Gilinsky doesn’t have warm, fuzzy feelings for the NRC. Last year he referred to the agency as “a wholly owned subsidiary of the nuclear power industry.”

But his primary point couldn’t be any more on target given the plant’s potential implications for the nation’s most densely populated region. In a published letter to the editor of the Times, I concurred with Gilinsky’s recommendation that the consequences of land contamination must be considered in any decision to re-license Indian Point’s two operating units for the additional 20 years Entergy would like to run them. As I wrote in my letter:

Mr. Gilinsky’s recommendation is particularly relevant given the lasting impact that contamination can have on New York City’s water supply. Long-term contamination is also an issue for a state that ranks among the nation’s biggest producers of dairy goods, wine, apples, corn and cabbage.

The same local food economy that is becoming increasingly important to New Yorkers could be adversely affected by a sizable release of radioactive material.

Of course, Gilinsky’s recommendation has application beyond the Indian Point plant. As he says in his op-ed:

The lack of attention to possible land contamination is a major gap in the American system of nuclear safety regulation. After Fukushima, it should be the main safety concern — and one that is not addressed by evacuation, no matter how efficient.

We’re fortunate that Victor Gilinsky is weighing in on this issue of relevance for tens of millions of Americans. Thank you, Victor Gilinsky, for saying what needed to be said.

Even more distressing is that new chemical compounds are constantly entering the marketplace. Here’s the scorecard: there are over 80,000 known chemicals on the market, the EPA has required full toxicity testing for only 200 of them, and just five are regulated by the agency. At least when it comes to the nation’s water resources, some scientists are beginning to take a chemical inventory.

Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA creates water quality criteria based on uses like swimming, fishing or drinking.  If  the levels of a particular pollutant are too high for you or me to go into a river that’s been designated as “swimmable,” then the sources of those pollutants have to be found and addressed so that we can safely enjoy a refreshing dip.  These levels, often based on individual contaminants, comprise what the EPA calls the “ambient water quality criteria.”  There are particular sets of criteria to protect fish and other aquatic life called, appropriately enough, “aquatic life criteria.”  These criteria exist for better-known contaminants like MTBE, lead and arsenic, but with the chemical and pharmaceutical industries furiously cranking out new compounds for the market, it’s hard for regulators to keep up.

The danger of emerging contaminants in our waters isn’t from inadvertently wading into a hypothetical glob of chemical compounds, but rather it’s the unknown impacts of persistent, low level and multiple exposures.  As most fish lovers are aware by now, toxins work their way up the food chain – like mercury in top-level predators such as tuna.  The big unknown here is how low levels of exposure to emerging contaminants might impact base-level fish species, and whether these contaminants will bioaccumulate and reach us apex-level predators as we dig into our favorite freshwater or saltwater fish.

Several recent studies have shed a little light on the new chemicals that are washing off farms, out of industrial plants, down our toilets and into our waters, and the results are troubling.

Rainer Lohman, a chemical oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island, tested for three different emerging contaminants at sites throughout Narragansett Bay and found them…everywhere. So now we know that a major American estuary is being injected with triclosan, alkylphenols and PDBEs (found in flame retardants) – all of which pose risks to humans and wildlife, and all of which are poorly regulated.

As Lohman explains, those three contaminants are just the beginning: “We know there are hundreds more out there. The totality of all those compounds together is what may be worrisome.”

Each of the three contaminants were detected at low levels, certainly not enough to raise alarms about swimming in or eating fish from Narragansett Bay.  But as Lohman indicates, the cumulative effect of hundreds of different synthetic compounds entering water bodies is alarming.

The concern is shared for the Great Lakes, the drinking water source for 40 million people.  Unlike coastal waters that are “flushed” by tides and currents, some of the Great Lakes can take a century or more to flush away persistent contaminants.  That makes a recent Alliance for the Great Lakes review of emerging contaminant data particularly troubling. Just as in Narragansett Bay, studies have found numerous poorly-understood contaminants including flame retardants, pesticides, triclosan, DEET and BPA throughout the Great Lakes.  Again, many of these contaminants have documented impacts on aquatic life, and few are regulated.

The danger of emerging contaminants in our waters isn’t from inadvertently wading into a hypothetical glob of chemical compounds, but rather it’s the unknown impacts of persistent, low level and multiple exposures.  As most fish lovers are aware by now, toxins work their way up the food chain – like mercury in top-level predators such as tuna.  The big unknown here is how low levels of exposure to emerging contaminants might impact base-level fish species, and whether these contaminants will bioaccumulate and reach us apex-level predators as we dig into our favorite freshwater or saltwater fish.

In fact there are few studies that have looked into the potential relationship between emerging contaminants, human health issues and impacts on fish and other aquatic organisms.  We might understand how some individual chemicals impact aquatic life in controlled lab experiments, but we don’t fully understand how these different chemical compounds might interact with each other in the environment, how they might break down over time or even how they might affect humans or wildlife over the long term.

The good news is that the USGS is sponsoring research into emerging contaminants, and the EPA and the states are beefing up their monitoring programs.  The bad news is that, perhaps predictably, some members of the current Congress have labeled additional research into chemical toxicity a “job killer.”  And, to be honest, we still struggle to properly regulate the exposure to humans of well-understood toxins like mercury and PCBs in fish.

But even a rapidly growing list of potentially harmful chemical pollutants is not an unsolvable problem.  For example, the Alliance for the Great Lakes has a clear three-point call-to-arms: more chemical research, new technology to remove more contaminants via wastewater treatment and marketplace behavioral changes and policy reforms.  Some of these ideas are already being implemented, like pharmaceutical take back programs and water and wastewater treatment plants that are able to remove several different emerging contaminants.  By combining a better understanding of what’s entering our waters with green chemistry efforts to keep the toxicity of new chemical compounds in check, maybe we can stop treating our waters as part of a grand chemistry experiment gone awry.

Climate scientists warn us that with increasing global temperatures wet places will get wetter, dry places will get drier and storms could get much more intense. This translates into more droughts, wildfires, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. Good times. Science skeptics aside, there’s no denying that lately we’ve been experiencing that increased intensity.

The year was filled with headlines about “historic snow packs,” “record-setting high temperatures” and “historic droughts.” In news report after news report, someone affected by a recent wildfire or flood was quoted as saying, “I’ve never seen it like this before.” As early as June, NOAA scientists were calling 2011 “one of the most extreme years on record.”

In the 1990s, there was an average 46 federal disasters declared annually; last year, there were 81; this year there were 98.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, “Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems.” According to Climate Communication, “All weather events are now influenced by climate change because all weather now develops in a different environment than before…climate change has shifted the odds and changed the natural limits, making certain types of extreme weather more frequent and more intense.”

One entity that is particularly impacted by all the crazy weather (and the lack of future predictability) is the insurance industry, and you’d better believe the industry is embracing the concept of climate change. Check out this Market Watch story to see a sampling of quotes about climate change from major insurance companies. They are all reading the (scientific) writing on the wall and drawing the same conclusions: climate change is not a hoax, it’s real and it’s going to cost everyone a lot of money.

A March 2008 study by Ernst & Young lists climate change as the number one risk to the insurance industry, describing climate change as “long-term, far-reaching and with significant impact on the industry.” So, how does the industry interpret “significant impact”? According to Peter Hoppe, head of Munich Re’s corporate climate center, “If we [the industry] know the risk, then climate change is no problem for our business model.” By “no problem” they, of course, mean that they will be passing that risk on to customers in the form of raised rates, exclusions on coverage or outright denial of coverage.

Take Alabama, a state ravaged by devastating tornadoes last spring. Rates have risen in the state by as much as eight or nine percent this year; however, those rates were already on the rise before the April 27 tornado outbreak that devastated Montgomery. That’s because home insurance rates aren’t set to recoup losses from damage caused by current disasters but are set to cover predicted future losses, and the models that incorporate climate change are predicting big increases in future losses.

A 2007 Environmental Defense Fund report found that, after Hurricane Katrina, homeowners insurance rates increased nationally between 20-100 percent. In some states rates doubled, tripled or more. In Florida, the situation has been labeled “The Insurance Crisis” and the state legislature now regularly considers measures that would produce a friendlier business climate for insurance companies (of course, making it more expensive and exclusive for property owners). Yikes!

Recent weather-related natural disasters have driven home the point that insurance companies don’t cover flood damage. Homeowners seeking flood insurance must turn to the National Flood Insurance Program, part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for flood insurance. In order to qualify for this insurance you have to live in a flood zone in a community that participates in the program.

While this may seem like a sure bet for coverage in flood-related disasters, FEMA constantly juggles the needs of past and current disasters and the funding isn’t always there. This past year, a budget shortfall threatened to shut down disaster recovery projects in numerous states throughout the country. This will become increasingly troublesome as people who live in flood-prone areas face continual flood threats and turn to the government to bail them out, and especially when people brazenly tempt the fates by building homes in areas that are almost sure to flood (Dakota Dunes, anyone?).

Unfortunately, the insurance industry is finding new ways to manage their business model by widening exclusions. Some companies have stopped covering mold damage because of the explosive growth in this type of damage. Guess what increased precipitation and humidity brings with it? That’s right – increased mold damage.

Insurance companies have also started excluding coverage for damage from windstorms, and by “windstorms” they mean hurricanes, tornadoes and hailstorms (and how many of us don’t live in an area prone to windstorms?). If you live in large swaths of the United States you may find yourself having to purchase separate windstorm coverage that could more than double the cost of homeowners insurance. I think they call that a “gotcha.”

Some insurance companies have stopped providing coverage altogether in areas most affected by climate change. In 2007 Allstate said that climate change had prompted it to cancel or not renew policies in many Gulf Coast states. Soon after, State Farm and Farmer’s followed suit, and now some coverage is denied or limited even in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states (who knew Vermont could get hurricane damage?).

Time to rethink buying that cute little beach bungalow.

Whether or not you believe in climate change doesn’t really matter where insurance is concerned because insurance companies sure do believe, and that belief could impact your ability to insure your investment. You buy insurance to protect against disasters that could threaten your investment. Insurance companies write policies that are, in the long run, designed to make them money. It’s idealistic to think that they are there through thick and thin – like a good neighbor!  – but ultimately, companies don’t think twice about passing the costs of climate change on to you, or if you become too much of a risk, dropping you altogether. As you buy a new home or look for new coverage, these are just a few of the things you’ll need to consider.

Just a little something to ponder as you watch the 24/7 disaster news feed and contemplate your own risk.

As I listened to the various speakers, what struck me was the partnership that had been forged after Friends of the Bay, the Town of Oyster Bay and other governmental entities, stakeholder groups and the general public worked closely together to plan for the future of the bay. All recognized the central need to protect and restore conditions throughout the watershed and the estuary using a watershed-based approach.

All levels of government continue to experience belt tightening during these tough economic times, so Watershed Action Plans and the partnerships behind them have become increasingly important. Environmental agencies in particular are looking to non-government groups and citizens to help protect the nation’s invaluable environmental resources. In this respect, Friends of the Bay’s Watershed Action Plan – and for that matter their State of the Watershed Report – can serve as an example for other groups and communities.

According to Mark Tedesco, director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Office:

“The key to success of any watershed action plan is the commitment and teamwork of local government, citizen organizations, and community members, with federal and state governments working in partnership to provide technical and financial assistance. The Oyster Bay/Cold Spring Harbor Watershed Action Plan developed by Friends of the Bay is a model of how it can be done.”

As Tedesco points out, the local community is a crucial ingredient in the Watershed Action Plan partnership, and Friends of the Bay has found a strong partner in area residents and businesses. Pat Aitken, executive director of Friends of the Bay, was impressed by the degree of community involvement in the Watershed Action Plan process. “There were three public meetings and all were well attended and I am confident the community will remain engaged and active as we implement the programs and initiatives of the Watershed Action Plan,” said Aitken.

While Aitken was impressed, she was not surprised by the enthusiastic response given the past civic history of this community: some decades ago citizens had stood up against the likes of Robert Moses, the notorious master builder (aka Power Broker) who was extremely influential behind the scenes in shaping NYC’s boroughs and beyond from the 30’s through the 60s.

Moses, who once famously said “those who can, build; those who can’t, criticize” was determined to build a bridge that would span the Long Island Sound, connecting Oyster Bay to Rye in Westchester County. Moses – not known for his diplomacy when it came to public and community engagement – thought he would get his way as he had on so many other projects, but the community and its elected representatives fought back, citing such concerns as negative environmental impacts on the estuary. Ultimately, then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller had no choice but to cancel the controversial project for fear that a public backlash would hinder his re-election bid.

Indeed, Oyster Bay/Cold Spring Harbor Estuary is a special place and had that bridge been built, this area, which boasts a thriving local shellfish industry, would have been forever changed. The waters of Oyster Bay – home to the famous “Pine Island” oysters, farmed since 1887 by Frank M. Flower and Sons – produce up to 90 percent of oysters and 40 percent of hard clams harvested in all of New York State.

Of course the estuary and watershed continue to face a variety of threats, including stormwater runoff, a primary channel through which pollution (including pathogens) can travel through the watershed and into the estuary. Polluted stormwater runoff is one of the main threats to the ecology and water quality of the watershed and the estuary as well as to drinking water supplies and the local shellfish industry.

In this regard, Pat Aitken of Friends of the Bay agrees: while the weather was a bit gloomy and wet that fall day, it was perfect conditions to herald their watershed action plan.

****

AUTHOR’S NOTE:

Want to take action to protect your watershed? Check out the U.S. EPA’s “Ten Things You Can Do to Make a Difference in Your Watershed”. Some other online EPA resources:

• Surf Your Watershed
• Watershed Central
• “After the Storm” Video and Brochure

Watershed Facts:

• A watershed is the area of land that drains to a common body of water, such as a stream, lake, estuary, wetland, reservoir, aquifer or even the ocean.
• A watershed can be as small as a human footprint or enormous like the 64,000 square miles which comprise the multistate area that drains into the Chesapeake Bay. (FYI: The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is at the center of the debate over the controversial natural gas drilling process, hydraulic fracturing. See here and here.)
• Watersheds play many essential roles: they supply drinking water, provide critical habitat for many plant and animal species, offer recreational opportunities, and sustain all life.
• Watersheds possess significant economic value. More than $450 billion in food and fiber, manufactured goods, and tourism depends on clean water and healthy watersheds.

My CSA share was organized through Hazon; the produce came from Monkshood Nursery and Gardens in Stuyvesant, New York, which is managed by farmers David and Melinda Rowley. Monkshood was directly in the path of Hurricane Irene. After assessing the damage, David and Melinda sent an email to all of their CSA members with photos of the fields before and after the storm. Images of flooded fields full of ripe or nearly ripe pumpkins, beans and summer squash made it clear how much destruction had occurred in just a few days (check out the slideshow). It was devastating to see the work of a whole season destroyed in mere days.  The tenuous livelihood of a farmer was driven home, hard. Farming is hard work, and that hard work is always subject to elements completely outside our control. The Rowleys quoted a friend of a friend, who summed up the concerns that face every farmer: “A dry year will scare you and a wet one will kill you”.

Monkshood Nursery was certainly not the only farm to be devastated by the storm. A few weeks after the storm, we created a map on Ecocentric to demonstrate just how many farms in the Northeast were affected by Hurricane Irene.

I had joined a CSA for a few reasons: a direct relationship with sustainable farmer, the opportunity to support my local foodshed, and the camaraderie of sharing food with friends. Joining a CSA means sharing some risk, and supporting your farmer through thick and thin.

I’d split the season’s share with two other Ecocentric bloggers and the weeks leading up to the hurricane were filled with a bounty of fresh and tasty vegetables. We took photos of each week’s share (you can see them here and here) and divided the responsibility of the cost and the weekly pickup.  The division of the harvest was a fun weekly ritual, one that led me to seek new and creative ways to prepare my share. I had joined a CSA for a few reasons: a direct relationship with sustainable farmer, the opportunity to support my local foodshed and the camaraderie of sharing food with friends. CSAs have gained popularity in recent years, and offer a chance to get farm fresh vegetables every week for about five months of the year, depending on the farm and its regional climate.

When I explained to a friend that my CSA share was cancelled for the rest of the season, she asked, “Well, do you get the money back?” It was a legitimate question and one that gave me the opportunity to explain what being a CSA member means. I gave my money in the beginning of the season as a lump sum investment directly to the farm.  The money from CSA programs helps the farmer at the beginning of the season, when s/he needs it most and which sees them through the rest of the growing season. Of course I was disappointed to miss out on beautiful produce, especially at the height of the harvest season, but I was also glad to have helped our farmers through this difficult time.

The Hazon CSA ran from June 2^nd to October 27^th (a total of 22 weeks, minus the final 7 weeks) and the total cost was $600, so split among three people my share was $200. On average, per week we received approximately seven to ten different items in our full share (kale, tomatoes, beans, garlic, squash, onions etc). The missing shares didn’t hurt me too badly for a couple of reasons: I was sharing the cost with two other people, so the financial loss didn’t affect me nearly as much if I had bought it on my own. I was also supplementing my share with veggies from the market, which lessened the blow.

Such a loss could take a larger toll on someone who budgeted for the CSA veggies to complete their meals each week, and  making the entire payment upfront at the beginning of the season can be difficult, too. Getting local, sustainable vegetables to lower income communities is an issue that farmers are aware of, and some models offer weekly payment options for those who can’t pay it all upfront. CSA might not work for everyone, but when it does, it’s wonderful, and many small and medium size farmers sell their produce through the CSA model because it provides them with better financial stability. (The CSA model has kept many a farmer in business, including the famous John Peterson of Angelic Organics, and a recent Hero, Sue Ujcic of Helsing Junction Farm.)

After our shares were canceled, I was on the lookout for new CSA possibilities and ways to support farmers in the winter. Recently, I happened upon a beautiful postcard in a local shop that read, to my delight: “Cricket Creek Farm Winter Cheese CSA: artisanal cheese from the Berkshires to Brooklyn.” I snagged it immediately off the table and brought it into the office to share with my fellow cheese-loving coworkers. Three others gleefully agreed to split a share.  This is our fifth week – we’ve received delightful cheeses. The first week we immediately had a taste test and I used it in scrambled eggs that following weekend to give them a tangy savory flavor.

If you’re looking for a CSA share this winter, you can always search Eat Well Guide. If you’re in the New York area, check out  Prince George , The Piggery and Just Food’s list of Winter CSA shares . Buying clubs are another good option, offering people the ability to order local food and provide farmers with a steady income through the winter months.

Even though I missed those last nine weeks, I would absolutely sign up for another CSA (and will, come spring 2012). I really believe in the community it creates and hear from farmer friends that they value the stability and convenience it provides, as well as the direct feedback they receive that they don’t get when people buy their produce from a store. You can count on me to be a CSA member for life.

I recently spoke with Melinda Rowley for an update on Monkshood Nursery. She was excited to tell me that they are almost recovered and have already begun soliciting members for their 2012 CSA shares. Immediately after the storm, people asked how they could help and the donations poured in. Melinda and David had to take out $10,000 from their line of credit in September and are still paying this off. However, they have been able to pay their bills successfully on time for the past four months. Additionally, Monkshood Nursery received a $500 holiday gift from Farm Credit East and was one of 62 farms chosen to receive $2000 donation from the NYC Greenmarkets. Currently they are selling salad greens grown in their greenhouse at local winter farmers’ markets and beginning in January, they will begin selling at the highly coveted Saturday market in Union Square.

Reuther, a former university and high school teacher of dramatic arts originally from Dayton, Ohio, didn’t even see the ocean until she was 27. Now, water and boating are central to her life.  After spending a year in the Caribbean living on her sailboat along with her husband, David DiQuinzio and their son, Michael, Reuther now lives blocks away from the Eastport Marina, where she keeps her sailboat as well as an electric propulsion boat called Energetic. Reuther began selling electric marine motors in an effort to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay, the health of which has been on a steady decline since the mid-1900s. Reuther says when they moved to Eastport they were cautioned about letting their dogs swim in the Bay because the water is so polluted: “That just amazed me. Here we are on a beautiful body of water, and we can’t use it, people can’t swim in it.”

Learn about the history of Chesapeake Bay aquatic life.

Runoff and effluent from farm fertilizers, sewage systems and impervious surfaces have made swimming often risky and, combined with overfishing, have decimated marine life in the Bay, once a bountiful and rich estuary.  Since the 1600s, the Bay has lost half of its forested shorelines, over half of its wetlands, over 5 million acres to development, nearly 80 percent of its underwater grasses and more than 98 percent of its oysters. Gone are the mountainous oyster reefs that often made sailing treacherous, but that served as mini-water filtration systems, pulling silt out of the water and creating such clarity that early settlers could see to a depth of twenty feet in some places. Today, you’re lucky if you can see a foot below the surface.

Getting all the stakeholders on board to uphold and complete a clean-up plan established by EPA in 1983 has been a slow and difficult process, although a new study released in November indicates that conditions are improving. Nevertheless, the area has lost many of its fisheries and is losing a water-centric way of life that goes back many generations.

Along with all the runoff that is regularly dumped into the Bay, there is the added burden of pollutants from diesel marine engines. Reuther hopes to change this. “Part of the reason we got into this business with electric motors,” she says, “is because of our love for the water. And what we see happening every day in the Bay is it’s getting dirtier and dirtier.” Boating that uses diesel fuel isn’t helping.

Check out the health of the Chesapeake Bay in this Report Card.

According to the Maryland Boat Registry, there are 193,259 motorized boats registered in the state and all those that have diesel engines give off emissions. The EPA regulates diesel marine engines, which are “among the highest contributors of hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions in many areas of the country,” adding to both air and water pollution. In fact, nitrogen oxides that result from fossil-fuel burning are considered to be a major source of nitrogen-based nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay, contributing an estimated one-third of the total amount of nitrogen that enters the estuary each year.” In addition, “hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide contribute to ground-level ozone pollution in the summertime.”

Reuther hopes the concept of electric marine motors will catch on and will help reduce diesel emissions. Far from a new concept, electric propulsion has been around since the 1800s and was even used in boats at the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893. The first submarine purchased by the U.S. Navy in 1900 had an electric motor. Today, many cruise liners operate with hybrid diesel-electric engines.

Reuther says she and DiQuinzio got into electric motors because they got tired of dealing with the problems they were having with the diesel motor on their sailboat. As an electrical engineer, the electric motor technology came naturally to DiQuinzio. Reuther says she likes how quiet the motor is; however, the real reason they started the business was because of their love of the Bay: “As we started learning more about this, we started learning more about what really happens with a diesel motor. That [water] exhaust that comes out of the back end of your boat – that’s not just water coming out of there, that’s unburned fuel, [and] that’s going right into our waterways.”

In 2010, the couple started Annapolis Hybrid Marine (Reuther is CEO, DiQuinzio CTO), where they sell Thoosa motor systems manufactured by ASMO Marine in Copenhagen, Denmark. Energetic, their demo boat, is a 21-foot converted diesel skiff outfitted with a 5-kilowatt, inboard electric motor that runs off of four 12-Volt batteries (Reuther says the worst part about the conversion was cleaning up the diesel fuel buildup from the diesel motor). There is a controller unit that tells the batteries, the motor and the battery monitor what to do. The battery monitor acts like a fuel gauge, indicating how much time is left on the batteries. The amount of time the batteries last depends upon the speed at which the boat is operated. For example, at Energetic’s maximum speed of 6 knots per hour (kph), the batteries would last about three quarters of an hour before they would run down to 30 percent and need to be recharged, whereas, a lower speed of 3 kph would provide five or six hours of cruising time.

“That [water] exhaust that comes out of the back end of your boat – that’s not just water coming out of there, that’s unburned fuel, [and] that’s going right into our waterways.”

The batteries charge just like any other rechargeable battery, by being plugged into the local grid and they can be charged with solar panels and wind turbines. For longer cruises that rely more on motoring than sailing, the batteries can be charged with diesel generators. Although there is still diesel fuel use, diesel generators burn fuel more efficiently than diesel boat motors, which are especially inefficient when used at slower speeds such as when going in and out of marinas or for trawling.

Electric motors are appropriate for boats that aren’t intended to sustain high speeds for long periods, so sailboats are excellent candidates. Reuther sells motors as big as 66 horsepower, which will easily propel a 60-foot sailboat. The motors are perfect for small launches and trawler powerboats up to 32 feet. Environmental monitoring and polluter patrol organizations would find them useful because they’re so quiet, it’s possible to hear everyone on board talking, even those who might be below deck, and the motors don’t disturb nature. The Annapolis Harbor Patrol runs a 26-foot aluminum patrol boat that was recently retrofitted with a diesel-electric hybrid motor. Harbormaster J.P. Walters said, “You couldn’t get the smile off my face with a chisel,” when asked how he liked the quiet, new hybrid engine. According to Reuther, “With an electric motor you’re not impeding on nature, you’re part of nature.”

Reuther says that electric motors are not necessarily appropriate for powerboats that go 15-25 kph because the battery technology is not yet capable of providing sustained higher speeds, although a Swiss company sells boats that they say go as fast as 60 kph using a big 162-horsepower (120 kilowatt) engine and lighter weight, lithium-polymer batteries from a military outfitter.

Another major benefit to electric marine motors is that the boats don’t have to be winterized like diesel-powered boats, so they can be used any time of the year. Funnily enough, Energetic brought Santa Claus into the Annapolis Parade of Lights (a Christmas boat parade) this year because many of the conventional boats were in winter storage and “we were the only ones in the marina that could bring him in by boat.” Even Santa’s into clean energy.

“With an electric motor you’re not impeding on nature, you’re part of nature.”

Reuther says a major part of the business at this point is educating the public about electric propulsion. They attend boat shows and talk to people about how it can make boating more enjoyable and cleaner, and they’ve found that interest in and knowledge about electric propulsion is growing. While Reuther recognizes that electric motors may never completely replace diesel because of all the power that diesel fuel produces, she says, “We’re making electric propulsion an option so we have fuel where it needs to be and other options where they need to be; we’re cleaning everything up, making it a better place for us to live and for our kids to live.” She’s come a long way from that sunken raft in Kentucky, and it’s a cruise she’s been proud to take.

Consumers overwhelmingly indicate that they will support (aka consume) a product associated with a cause. Knowing this, marketers are pushing elaborate messages to seduce (and sometimes deceive) you. Although this means you must be extra vigilant not to fall prey to greenwashing, it also means you wield consumer power. Use it.

In the spirit of evolving holiday habits — from office parties and their regifting opportunities, to gifts of selfless service — here are our top 10 last-minute gifting game-plans.

1 Support global visions of a better world.

Ashoka supports social entrepreneurs and networks of changemakers with business tools and knowledge, social financing and nurturing partnerships. TerraCycle converts crowdsource-collected waste into a wide variety of products and materials. Charity: Water helps bring clean and safe drinking water to people in developing nations.

EcoTrust offers numerous ways to pursue sustainable investing. Or how about investing in good new ideas? Homegrown.org has curated a list of great new projects looking for support.

Check out Mercy Corps, Kiva and CommonThreads, all groups working to alleviate suffering, poverty and oppression by helping people build secure, productive and just communities.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

2 Think (and give) local.

Maybe you want to give to your neighborhood or community. You could start a neighborhood tool share program. Or team up with your neighbors and Solar Mosaic or One Block off the Grid to get solar panels up on rooftops throughout your community.

Rally your neighbors to make your neighborhood greener; Urban Compost, Seed and Cycle, SNAP Gardens and Yes to Carrots can all help you do so.

And don’t forget how easily you can find local organizations by searching online. (How great is Miami’s Up Lab’s Compost Mobile?!)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

3 Do-it-yourself gifts.

Make gifts. Our friends at TreeHugger have a nifty selection of energy-saving crafting ideas. And the web is filled with DIY gadget vendors; some are quite green. How about giving a little hands-on solar experience with a DIY solar charger kit?

Or give a certificate to someone you think would love to get time in a nearby creative studio or a class. In the New York area, 3rd Ward takes a fresh approach, offering unique classes and workspaces (including photo, metal and woodworking studios). Ask around to see what studio and creative workspaces your community offers. (Or if you’re web-savvy, the world needs a DIY network. Build it for us all.)

And of course you can’t get any more DIY than gardening (even window gardening!) and composting.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

4 Upcycle!

Upcycling is getting plenty of press this year. It basically means taking ‘waste materials’ to their next level of utility, often to surprising beauty.

For example, you can recycle old tools. Engineering A Better World Blog has a great resource list with practical ideas for waste-to-wow gifts. And Instructables is the go-to site for diy inspired brilliance. Need inspiration? Check out designer Bao-Khang Luu‘s six-pack rings morphed into elegant pendant lamps.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

5 Regift – with pride!

Regifters are coming out of the closet this year. NY Stuff Exchange is organized by one of the world’s largest municipalities. Google to find a similar one near you. Consignment shops are another way to regift… but keep in mind how the consignment shop’s politics impact others and the environment. You can always just stay at home and host a “yankee swap.”

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

6 Give service gifts.

One of the most time-tested ways to give is to skip the credit card (and carbon footprint) and give of your time. The Obama Administration’s ambitious service programs have grown to impact millions of Americans economically and environmentally. Check out America Serves, All for Good and Hands on Network.

Google is also your friend: search “neighborhood support programs” and your nearest municipality, then grab your calendar and pick up the phone. Or turn off your computer altogether: befriend a senior neighbor and invite them for scheduled regular walks, help in their kitchen, record their great stories.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

7 When buying something feels like the thing to do.

Here are some ideas: Blissmo‘s organic & eco products (we like Back to Roots’ Easy-to-Grow Mushroom Gardens), ebay’s World of Good and Boston-based Preserve, which makes a range of stylish, high performance, eco-friendly products. Danielle Gould at Food+Tech Direct has carefully combed for unique foodie treat suggestions.

For garments, Nau is a trendy Portand, OR outfitter that donates to humanitarian and environmental initiatives – and Pants for Poverty is the place for (alas, expensive) undies… Looptworks repurposes abandoned materials into meaningful, long-lasting and limited-edition products. Get cozy with Smartwool, Ibex and Icebreaker (their ‘baaah’ code enables you to trace your garment to the herd of sheep that work to keep you warm). (BTW, have you seen outfitter Patagonia’s expensive ad urging shoppers to think twice before buying their products? Some of the folks at Ecocentric thought this was pretty impressive.)

To give light, or life: SolarTown has a bunch of mid-priced (and money-saving) gifts while groups like Hudson Valley Seed Library offer amazing heirloom seeds (a Facebook “like” will give seeds to school gardens just by clicking!) Clicktivism abounds.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

8 Wish lists can inspire consuming choices.

If you know you’re going to receive ye olde obligatory gifts from family, why not point them to a list of options that shares shopping ideas (and your values). It’s like a marriage registry – you’re more likely to get what you’d like AND encourage your loved ones to vote with their wallet. Several sites enable you to create a wish list for yourself… and Ethical Ocean’s Holiday Helper Elf is a whimsical way to get and suggest sustainable gift ideas for others.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

9 Buy stuff from the organizations facilitating change.

Still didn’t find the perfect gift? Check out more suggestions from a couple of our friends:

Rescue Gifts offers ways to fund community gardens, and provides clean water and even a goat or small flock of chickens to help a farmer recover from a natural disaster.

Environmental Working Group includes their researchers’ smart gift ideas and gift card options (…through Amazon…) Or make a tax-deductible donation to EWG (you get cool stocking stuffers for donating).

Whatever orgs you like, they are almost sure to have created opportunities for you to give a gift in a loved one’s name, or even to buy gifts associated with them. (Note: we are rapidly approaching the deadline for tax write-offs.)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

10 Feed your loved ones.

Great sustainable dinner parties are fabulous. Feast on the wide range of recipes Joey Lee has amassed at Meatless Monday, or check out these outstanding sites: Gojee, Cookstr, Herbivoracious, Happy Herbivore and Tastespotting… Find your best local food producers at EatWellGuide. You can give one heaping helping of health, memories and sustainability.

Wishing you an inspired holiday season!

By 8:30 am on Dec. 4, 2011, my colleagues Destin Joy Layne and Chris Hunt and I were being fair-trade, artisanal-ly caffeinated at the airy Cookstr workspace, while being introduced to the day’s format by Food+Tech Connect’s tireless Danielle Gould and Beth Hoffman and our co-hosts at Gojee.

Easy enough to put your head around the schedule: each attendee would pick from one of 12 previously submitted ideas for how to visualize a particular aspect of the Farm Bill. Then we’d assemble with others who chose the same topic, and begin to strategize how we would – by day’s end – turn a question or some data into an online application, widget, tool, graphic or something else that would effectively communicate about the farm bill. And then came the hard part: figuring out how to collaborate with five people who’d never met: a media company CEO, a graphic designer, a doctoral student, a Google developer and myself, creative lead for food programs at GRACE.

The topic we latched on to? Environmental Working Group and Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF) had proposed “Major Imbalance and Misplaced Priorities in National Farm Bill Spending: Commodity Crops (and Meats) Vs Fruits, Nuts and Vegetables.”

The bill is one of the defining governmental policies of our lives, affecting not only Americans, but the global population.

Kari Hamerschlag (and the EWG team) and Rebecca Klein (and CLF) had distilled some impressive (and outrageous) facts: only 1% of US children are getting their recommended allowance of fruits, nuts and vegetables; if we shifted just 10% of the funding out of the commodity subsidies into fruit and vegetable procurement programs, we could pay for doubling fruits and veggies in the entire national school lunch program and meet the new USDA proposed school lunch guidelines for fruit and vegetables. Important stuff! And we wouldn’t settle for a dry snoozer of a white paper at the end of the day – one of the key reasons for the hackathon was that the very mention of the farm bill tends to put a glaze on the face of anyone in earshot. But the bill is one of the defining governmental policies of our lives, affecting not only Americans, but the global population. CLF’s in-depth Farm Bill Budget Visualizer rewards a patient reader with a deep well of info about the bill’s allocated spending, but it’s not short attention span communication; it’s an interactive presentation of exhaustive research data.

I hope you’ll check out Food + Tech Connect’s detailed descriptions of the other groups and their efforts. But to give you an idea: other teams assembled to take on corporate control of the ‘grocery meat case’ and the consolidation’s impact on farmers’ share of the consumer food dollar (proposed by F&WW and us at GRACE; GRACE also proposed to leverage the growing number of people interested in Meatless Mondays through a crowdsourcing project, which came in second place). The Glynwood Institute for Sustainable Food and Farming proposed a visualization of how much government money is available for new farmers. Another team worked on how to connect agricultural consolidation to food miles. Still another worked (with Oxfam), asked how the farm bill contributes to poverty and helps drive global food insecurity (and earned the third-place prize). A visualizer was suggested to expose hunger in America; a mobile app about cider production; a visual showing how to track one’s influence on the bill, and finally, a tool to open up a credit tab with a local farm (which took fourth place).

Heady stuff.

The team I was collaborating with, undaunted by complex factoids, decided to take a familiar path by developing a narrative – in of all technical platforms – Powerpoint. Even as we recognized Powerpoint may not be perceived as ‘cutting edge technology’, we decided this was the best technical platform to present what we wanted to convey – and to maximize easy access to educators and other concerned citizens. (We are now developing a version in the animated online presentation platform Prezi and as an infographic poster). We all combed the facts, with Illya Bomash and Henry Lau researching how we might support arguments. Trey Shelton and I developed a narrative, while Peter Krohmer and I sketched and designed to give the piece a desirable look and feel. With onsite support from CLF’s Rebecca Klein and offsite input of Kari Hamerschlag of EWG, we hammered away on our piece right up until it was time to present to the judges, balancing facts and figures and illustrating why they matter.

I don’t think any of us imagined that the judges (Ashley Tyson of Food Republic, Sara Farmer, of UN Global Pulse, Danielle Gould of Food+Tech Connect and Michael LaValle of Gojee) would vote our work, ‘Clean BILL of Health‘ as the best of the all the fine projects. And to have Marion Nestle describe our work as “the terrific winning entry” was surprising, too – and gratifying).

Destin Layne, our director of food programs at GRACE described the day eloquently:

It was thrilling to experience a new convergence in food consciousness among a variety of constituencies, both through live and viral collaboration; and moreover, many participants unfamiliar with the pressing issues of sustainable and industrial agriculture used this event, and the expert presentations, to start to uncover the hidden truth of our conventional food system.

But the farm bill needs you. Your turn for some ‘hacking.’ Pick your favorite farm bill hack and post it on your Facebook page, blog or send some links to a news outlet…

Their program, the first to regularly test Hudson River water quality, makes the data publicly available within days. In this slideshow produced by Dulce Fernandes, Riverkeeper Patrol Boat Captain John Lipscomb and Carol Knudson from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University discuss the threats to the Hudson, their findings and much more during a recent monitoring run.

****

AUTHOR’S NOTE:

Riverkeeper’s Water Quality program hit a milestone this year with the publication of How Is the Water? Sewage Contamination in the Hudson River Estuary 2006-2010.You now have access to five years of data on sewage contamination at dozens of sites throughout the tidal Hudson.

Riverkeeper’s testing reveals that while the Hudson River has enjoyed great improvements in water quality over the past several decades (since the passage of the Clean Water Act), sewage contamination remains a problem.  Of Riverkeeper’s water quality samples collected from 2006 through 2010, 21% failed EPA guidelines for primary contact.

And be sure to read about this year’s patrol/testing season; it was a remarkable one!

But a new report just released by NERC detailing the organization’s forecast for grid reliability unfortunately draws conclusions about proposed EPA air and water regulations that have gotten some members of Congress – those who swear by the questionable equation that “EPA + Regulation = Job Killing” – indefensibly excited.  There have been other great overviews of why NERC’s new report in fact doesn’t support the knee-jerk reaction that environmental goals can’t be met without compromising electric reliability.  Instead, we’re going to focus here on one of our favorite topics that just so happens to be a big part of NERC’s analysis: regulating power plant cooling water withdrawals and the resulting impacts on fish and other aquatic life.

And, well, some of NERC’s conclusions are off-base.

To start off, it’s important to understand that the draft cooling water rule the EPA released this summer was weak.  Really weak.  In essence, the EPA provided no national standard for cooling systems at existing power plants.   So those plants that still rely on outdated once-through cooling have little reason to upgrade to closed-cycle cooling, which reduces water withdrawals and fish kills by 95 to 98 percent.  Instead the EPA said it’s up to the states and their understaffed and overstretched agencies to review power plant water withdrawal permits on a case-by-case basis, much as they do now.  That means the endless cycle of permits and litigation will continue, and the nation’s bodies of water remain essentially unprotected.

One would think this weak rule would mean that few power plant owners would be forced to spend any money upgrading their plants’ cooling systems.  NERC, oddly, finds otherwise, and there are two big flaws in their analysis that help explain why.

First, NERC overestimated how many plants would actually be required to install closed-cycle cooling systems.  The report claims that NERC analyzed a “full spectrum” of potential outcomes from the cooling water rule, but in fact it only examined scenarios where 75 to 100 percent of power plants would install cooling towers.  Um, no.  That is far beyond what EPA is actually requiring because the agency’s draft rule is very clear about not mandating closed-cycle cooling at all plants.  So unless the power industry is going to install cooling towers at all 670 power plants subject to this new rule because they think it’s a fabulous idea, NERC describing its analysis as “full spectrum” is just a fantasy.

Second, for some reason FERC seems to thinks EPA is giving power plant owners too much time to comply with the proposed cooling water rule.  Why else would they use 2018 as the deadline in its analysis?  EPA’s phased-in deadline is much more industry-friendly, giving fossil fuel plants between 2018-2022, and nuclear plants 2023-2027, in which to fall in line.

As a result of these two miscalculations, NERC overestimates how many power plant owners would choose to shut their facility down rather than spend the money to install cooling towers.  Curiously, if you look back at NERC’s 2010 analysis, the organization estimated that up to 36 gigawatts of electricity generation would be retired because of the cooling water rule.  But after EPA’s decidedly weaker-than-expected cooling water rule was released, NERC ‘s 2011 report estimates that up to 39 gigawatts could be retired.  So a weaker rule means the same if not more power plants might shut down?  That doesn’t add up.

So what might the impact of EPA’s rule really be?  The agency itself estimates that between 1.05 and 17.1 gigawatts of electricity generation could be retired, the latter number based on the strictest possible scenario (which the EPA has made clear it will not pursue).

We don’t blame NERC for being a little apprehensive about the impacts of new power plant regulations, but the organization’s report reads more like an analytical anxiety attack.  Maybe they need to take a deep breath and revisit the actual requirements of the proposed EPA rule before they freak everyone else out.

Word on the street is that you have been discontinued, again. Is it true? I’ve been trying to avoid you, but you are on TV, blogs, websites, newspapers… everywhere. I am a healthy eater, so I’m not interested in you; in fact I’m very afraid of your processed pork-like, rib-shaped patty. People love you and I don’t understand why. You have an astronomical 70 ingredients, a far cry from Micheal Pollan’s rule – “Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can’t pronounce.” You were created in 1981 and discontinued only a few years later due to bad sales, but now… people are rioting for your return! You are a hot topic on Twitter #McRib, not just a hashtag, but people (or marketers?) have dedicated handles to you: @McRibWatch and @McRibLocator (of the McRib Locator website)! And while your McRib farewell tours started back in 2005, Ask.com predicts your permanent return to the menu in 2012 (say it isn’t so!).

McRib, you are made from pork from Smithfield, which was awarded a “supplier sustainability award” in 2008 by McDonald’s themselves. But the Humane Society still strongly disagrees with the award, going so far as to file a legal complaint (PDF) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission this year, accusing Smithfield of misleading consumers about its welfare practices. But your fans don’t seem to care. They also don’t seem to care about what your rib-less rib patty is actually made from. McDonald’s lists the ingredients of the actual patty as, “Pork, water, salt, dextrose, preservatives (BHA, propyl gallate, citric acid),” but there is speculation about what parts of the “pork” are included – mostly offal (internal organs and entrails, and I’ve read some worse accusations).  Even the bun and sauce are full of things that every human should avoid: high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oils, ammonium sulfate, soy flour, dough conditioners (sodium stearoyl lactylate, datem, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, mono- and diglycerides, ethoxylated mono- and diglycerides, monocalcium phosphate, enzymes, guar gum, calcium peroxide) – and the list goes on. All of these below par ingredients add up to 450 (some say 500) calories, 24 grams of fat, 890 mg of sodium, not the most healthy meal around.

Everyone is talking about you McRib (whether good or bad) – you have a lengthy wikipedia page and have been mentioned in USA Today, LA Times, Huffington Post, The Week, Fox News, NPR, Freakonomics and The Washington Post among many more. McRib, you were only supposed to be available this year until November 14th, but there are still spottings of you around the country. Your frozen patties must be running out, but not as fast as predicted (maybe this is all just McHype?). Please, please run out so that we can all just eat more kale.

Sincerely, Dawn

Yes. It’s no joke—although this move by Congress has been mocked extensively by critics, including SNL’s Seth Meyers and Kermit the Frog. Congress’ decision to place pizza sauce among the ranks of broccoli and spinach came on the heels of the USDA’s new healthy school lunch proposals, which predictably drew criticism from the food industry lobby. Among the controversial changes proposed were:

• Limits on starchy vegetables to two servings a week. However, at the behest of the potato lobby, the Senate passed an amendment to the USDA’s appropriations bill to block any restrictions on potatoes.
• Preventing tomato paste on pizza from counting as a vegetable.

I guess we’ll skip the semantics (tomatoes are actually fruits, but in arguments this ridiculous it’s wise to pick your battles). But pizza is mostly cheese and white flour, not tomato sauce, and tomato sauce is hardly tomatoes and in fact tends to include shockingly high concentrations of sodium and sugar. The leap of faith required to label pizza a vegetable is totally illogical and downright dangerous to the health of our children.

Back in the Reagan days, the administration got tomatoes tossed in its face by Congress for proposing something so clearly not in the best interest of school children. So what’s with today’s Congress undermining the Obama administration’s efforts to improve school lunch? The bottom line: dollar signs and the frozen pizza lobby. It’s ok to laugh a little at this—yes, there is a frozen pizza lobby. Unfortunately they carry enough weight (ahem, money) with Congress that our representatives can turn a blind eye to the fact that the percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to 18% over the same period. This has contributed to the skyrocketing number of children with pre-diabetes or diabetes, and conditions later in life such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer and osteoarthritis. Now, one third of children in the US are overweight or obese—and most of these children receive 40 percent of their daily calories from school lunches.

Given the situation, what kind of person could lobby against healthier school lunches? We at Ecocentric are not in the business of figuring out what makes junk food lobbyists tick, but however these guys manage to sleep at night, the food industry spent $5.6 million lobbying against the new rules. As part of their campaign, they preyed on the fears of school officials, especially the ones in big cities, who were concerned about how the changes might affect their ability to feed impoverished students. The changes were expected to increase the costs of school lunch by 14 cents, which isn’t a huge amount when one takes the long view, because in the end, the medical bills of an obese generation will end up costing the taxpayer more.

Lobbyist groups, disregarding this logic, claimed that the changes would infringe on “choice,” saying the federal government shouldn’t have the right to tell schools what they serve in cafeterias (apparently, this job falls to industrial food companies with dollar signs in their eyes). And here’s an irritating reminder for all you outraged parents and taxpaying citizens—we’re footing the bill for these programs!

In addition, healthier kids fed more nutritional lunches are better prepared to learn – so it stands to reason that kids fed less nutritious meals will do poorly in school and maybe too undereducated to get a decent job with benefits like healthcare, thus costing taxpayers more in the future, too.  This is clearly an issue with deeper repercussions than kids not being given the “choice” (bear in mind that the USDA was not even seeking to ban pizza from school lunch – even we think that would be pretty radical – just to keep it classified as what it is, mostly starch and fat) to eat unhealthy lunches, and one that parents and educators alike can get behind. Together, as concerned citizens, we make up a large and potentially quite powerful interest group, and maybe we can pry Congress away from the stale, greasy grasp of the frozen pizza lobby and get them back on the side of the children they vowed to protect.

Most newsworthy was the DRBC approval of a proposal put forth by New York State to prohibit water withdrawals for fracking by not accepting permits in its Delaware River headwaters until New York State finalizes its formal draft regulation process. The timeline on final regulations are unclear because the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is in the midst of its Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS ), having just extended the comment period due to a huge outpouring of over 13,000 public comments, all of which must be addressed in the final GEIS. New York residents have shown great opposition to fracking, as evidenced by polling and recent public hearings around the state, where the preponderance of testimony came out largely against the controversial practice.

What this fracking water withdrawal exclusion means for New York’s intensively fracked neighbor Pennsylvania has yet to be seen.

The DRBC also gave an anticipated status report on Draft Natural Gas Development Regulations. As if to say, “don’t read anything into this,” the Commissioners offered a noncommittal written statement maintaining that they are still “talking through the issues” and haven’t come to any decisions on next steps.

The backstory to this December 8th DRBC meeting is itself noteworthy, since the much-anticipated  November 21st meeting was canceled even as the Commission was set to vote on new fracking rules that would allow up to 20,000 natural gas wells in the basin. Great public scrutiny was cast on that meeting (which saw an anti-fracking rally staged outside of the building), one that drew hundreds of people despite the cancellation and was claimed as a victory by fracktivists who felt the DRBC didn’t have the votes to pass the regulations.

Much more to come.

(h/t Maya van Rossum and Gasland Facebook)

This past Sunday I joined some of our country’s hardest workers in answering the clarion call to Occupy Wall Street for a “Farmers’ March.” Organized by the OWS Food Justice working group and Food Democracy Now! (which just celebrated its third year), the event united farmers, community gardeners, advocates and occupiers in addressing the corporate stranglehold on our food system. The lively march and subsequent assembly in Liberty Plaza helped put names and faces to those victimized by the abuses of our food system, and helped foster important feelings of solidarity between the urban and rural communities present. There was a great feeling of hope among the spirited crowd.

The writing is on the…Wall! Some of the march’s best handwritten signage, below

The crowd gathered in La Plaza Cultural Community Garden, where fiddlers and drummers filled the air with music and colorful “I am the 99%” shirts hung from pine trees.  Before marching, overall-clad farmers and seasoned activists sat side by side in the Alphabet City community garden to hear from those at the helm of the food justice fight. Jim Gerritsen, a farmer from Maine and president of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, smiled as he addressed the crowd, admitting that this was his first time in New York City: “I had no good reason to come until today.” Gerritsen is leading the fight opposing corporate control and genetically engineered (GE) crops with his lawsuit against agri-business giant Monsanto, signed by 83 other plaintiffs. The suit, filed last winter, deals with the GE seed contamination. Historically, Monsanto and its powerful legal team have subjected small farmers to patent infringement litigation when Monsanto’s GE seeds blew onto their fields, contaminating non-GE crops. Now the farmers are fighting back with their own lawsuit, and theirs isn’t the only one. Coloradan rancher Mike Callicrate also addressed the crowd and told us about his fight in the courts as the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against Tyson for violating anti-competition laws.

“Civilization was built on agriculture, not a trading floor.”

And food advocates are looking to address problems and create solutions outside the courts, as well. Many who marched through the East Village had brought their own signs, with original messages about our food system and how to fix it. “Prune the top 1%, Feed the Roots” one boldly declared. Another, very apropos for the march, declared “Urban-Rural Solidarity.” The popular rhetoric of the OWS movement was invoked with, “Family Farmers are the 99%” and “Occupy Farmland.” Another sign reminded us that “Civilization was built on agriculture, not a trading floor.”

“Family Farmers are the 99%”

I spoke to some fellow marchers to get a deeper sense of what brought us all together and everyone echoed a deep concern for our future, but also a great hope inspired by the occupy movement. Gigi Chew from getdirtynyc.org told me “The basis of life is to be able to sustain oneself.” As a self-described “permy” (or urban permaculture enthusiast), Chew maintains the dire importance of agriculture for city-dwellers, “Communities often feel they don’t have control over their lives and their choices. Strong community hands around farming helps the people to get their power back.” Tusha Yakovleva from the Hudson Valley Seed Library told me “Occupy links to all the broken systems and the food system is an incredible example.”

After marching through the East Village, we all gathered in the birthplace and home of OWS, Liberty Square (aka Zuccotti Park), for an assembly and seed swap. Decidedly sparser since the police raid a few weeks ago, the public park was outfitted with glittering Christmas lights and an energetic drum circle sounded in the near distance.

“Prune the top 1%, Feed the Roots”

Jim Goodman, an organic dairy farmer from Wisconsin, did his first “mic check” on the people’s mic, where he called out his message, and we all echoed it back. “ We learned in the sixties” (“We learned in the sixties”) “that there comes a time” (“that there comes a time”) “when the machinery becomes so odious and sick” (“when the machinery becomes so odious and sick”) “that we must throw ourselves at it to make it stop!”  His message was met by cheers and fingers twinkling upward in approval. He asked us to “let the world feed itself and let me feed you.” He recommended pushing our government to enact a financial transaction tax to address some of the financial games that are being played in congress and on Wall Street.

We were all gathered around a plot of dirt that Scott, a young man who had helped tend the flower beds in Liberty Plaza, told had once housed kale, rosemary, cabbage, mint and herbs. The garden had since been destroyed, but Scott was vigilant. “We found earthworms this big! This soil is fertile! Plant something and see what comes up in the spring. I say, lets grow everywhere and anywhere! ”

“Occupy Farmland.”

“Tear up your lawns and plant food!” Ann, a visiting farmer, suggested to suburban attendees.  “Seeds are a gift from our ancestors!” she said, holding up a bag of seeds that she had brought from her mother’s ancestral village in Italy.

Joel Morton, an Iowa farmer associated with FarmAid, read from the OWS General Assembly Declaration, addressing the injustices perpetrated by the 1%, “They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.” He told us how “the 1% have forced families off of land and drained wealth and vitality from rural America through corporate greed and corporate control.” Looking out over the crowd of urban activists, rural farmers, “permys,” drifters and dreamers he declared, “Family farmers are a source of hope and grassroots groups and farmers across this country are making a better food system.”

This blog post was written by Margaret Riche, our Hunter College Public Service Scholar.

It’s no secret that the number of people on Earth is exponentially growing, while the size of our planet remains the same. More than half of all humans now live in urban areas and these numbers will inevitably continue to grow.  If we are to survive and thrive, it’s critical that a holistic and sustainable-minded approach be at the heart of urban development and community advocacy. Luckily, there are groups like Groundwork Somerville looking out for the welfare of the planet and city-dwellers alike. Other environmentalists, community advocates and urban planners should take note.

Groundwork Somerville is a non-profit organization located in Somerville, Massachusetts, one of the most densely populated and ethnically diverse cities in the country. What makes GS’s work unique is its multi-faceted approach to environmentalism. The organization’s programs, aimed at achieving “sustained regeneration,” range from youth education, to hands-on gardening, to land use advocacy. Thanks in no small part to the efforts of this dedicated crew, the community has undergone a great transformation; once derided as “Slumerville,” Somerville was declared the “best-run city in Massachusetts” by the Boston Globe in 2006.

“If we’re going to be putting in a garden, we’re not just going to show up and say ‘here’s a garden.’ We want to engage people who are going to be looking at it, or potentially growing things in it.”

Groundwork Somerville’s philosophy is that community engagement is at the heart of sustained regeneration. GS (like Ecocentric!) understands that humanity exists as a part of the ecosystem, rather than outside or above it.  “Our main thrust as an organization,” says Executive Director Chris Mancini, “is that we don’t do this work just for the sake of the environment. We want to do it for the people who are engaging, interacting and living in that environment.” GS works tirelessly to engage the community in its own improvement. Mancini told us, “If we’re going to be putting in a garden, we’re not just going to show up and say ‘here’s a garden.’ We want to engage people who are going to be looking at it, or potentially growing things in it.”

A quick look at GS’s gardening program illustrates how multiple community issues can be engaged simultaneously through this kind of environmental work.  This extensive five-year program has ensured that every elementary and middle school has a garden planted by the tiny hands of its students. The children are taught about how ecosystems work. Middle schoolers are taught about the critical connection between agricultural practices and the food supply, as well as the importance of buying local. These programs are often are carried out by the Groundwork Somerville Green Team, a youth-oriented jobs program designed to provide meaningful employment opportunities to students. Mancini recounted the experience of one Garden Youth Crew member whose family was  food-insecure and lacked access to fresh, healthful foods. Through her work as part of the Green Team, she was not only able to earn the money for healthier purchases, she also had access to the fresh produce that she helped grow in the garden. Through her dedicated work and the efforts of GS, the young woman was able to transition from unemployed and eating food she knew was unhealthy, to employed and eating fresh, self-grown produce.

Community-driven, efficient use of land is also at the heart of GS’s mission. Land preservation is not only critical for environmental reasons; green and open spaces  play a large role in the quality of life of urban dwellers. GS advocates for local parks, trails and farmers’ markets, as well as offering free consultations to locals on how to grow their own community gardens. GS has also engaged the community in the campaign to extend the Green Line railway, a move that will take a projected 25,000 cars off the road. The fight for this extension dates back to the 1920s, and it is a transportation equity issue which has left the city of Somerville with all the particulate emissions of the Massachusetts railway, and none of the transportation benefits. Now the state is legally obligated to extend the Green Line through Somerville and GS has galvanized residents to take part in the land use planning process.  Their community-created design for a new station was recently accepted by the state.  In regards to their organizing around the Green Line issue, the stated goal of GS has been to “engage the community with a focus on youth, immigrants and low-income residents in making recommendations.”

Groundwork Somerville’s work is uniquely broad-minded. Their advocacy demonstrates an important understanding of the relationship between quality of life, community issues and the efficient and sustainable use of our planet’s resources. Somerville now has a youth population equipped with  the knowledge of how to grow its own food and a community engaged politically in land use issues. The city’s efforts demonstrate that local sustainable food systems, efficient and community-minded urban development and environmental education can transform cities to ensure a thriving future.

So while all the cool kids enjoyed the super-awesome-funtime breakfasts aggressively promoted by Captain Crunch, Toucan Sam, Lucky the Leprechaun, Ice Cream Jones (mascot of Ice Cream Cones cereal {yeah; it really existed}) and the Gotta-Have-My-Pops brats, my sisters and I were stuck eating boring healthful cereals with intentionally unhip packaging and a conspicuous lack of super-awesomeness.  Sometimes, my mother would unapologetically up the uncool factor by adding slices of fresh fruit.  Insufferable!

In retrospect, of course, this was among the many situations in which my mother knew better than I.  This was because mom recognized – even during the dark days of information obfuscation that existed before the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act mandated meaningful labeling in the 90s – that the cereals being marketed to kids were mostly crap.

According to a report released today by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), not much has changed.  After assessing 84 popular children’s breakfast cereals, EWG determined that only one in four meets the voluntary dietary guidelines proposed by the federal Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children (more about these guidelines later).  The biggest problem: too much sugar.  Or, more accurately, WAY too much sugar; 56 of the assessed cereals contained more than 24 percent sugar by volume, and 44 contain more sugar per cup than three Chips Ahoy! cookies (11 grams).  The worst offender was Kellogg’s Honey Smacks – at almost 56 percent sugar by weight, this mediocre dessert popular breakfast cereal contains more sugar than a Hostess Twinkie!

“Now hold on a moment,” you might protest, “what’s wrong with feeding kids a handful or five of sugar for breakfast?”  Well, Tony the Tiger, widespread consumption of an overwhelming excess of empty calories is currently contributing to the alarming epidemic of childhood obesity (which has equally alarming implications for future rates of adult overweight and obesity).  Furthermore, as described within the report:

Studies suggest that children who eat high-sugar breakfasts have more problems at school. They become more frustrated and have a harder time working independently than kids who eat lower-sugar breakfasts. By lunchtime they have less energy, are hungrier, show attention deficits and make more mistakes on their work. (Warren 2003, Ingwersen 2007, Benton 2007).

Laboratory studies suggest that sugar is habit-forming, stimulating the same brain responses as opiates (Avena 2008). A case can be made that sugar acts as a drug, enticing kids to eat more and more.

Certainly not a desirable outcome.  “Well, hey, shouldn’t someone be doing something about this?!”  Of course.  And in fact, Congress finally stepped up and created the federal Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, a team of nutrition scientists and marketing experts tasked with developing nutritional guidelines for cereals and other foods marketed to kids.  Earlier this year, the group issued proposed guidelines, which, while not exactly as ambitious as most advocates would hope (e.g., they allow kids’ cereal to contain as much as 26 percent sugar by weight), would certainly improve the status quo.

Needless to say, cereal manufacturers and other players in the kids’ food industry weren’t wild about the prospect of adhering to even these modest guidelines.  So they employed the classic, pull-together-some-junk-science-and-set-your-own-standards technique!  In this case, industry launched the Better Business Bureau’s Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, which developed voluntary nutritional guidelines for foods marketed to kids.  It should come as no surprise that these guidelines were much less stringent than those proposed by the Interagency Working Group (for instance, the industry supported standards allow almost 50 percent more sugar than IWG’s proposed standards).

Infuriating.  As were some of the other findings presented in EWG’s report; for instance, it turns out that high sugar content isn’t the only way that kids’ cereals are out of step with the proposed federal nutritional guidelines; 71 cereals contained more than 140 mg of sodium, 26 cereals were not predominantly whole grain and seven cereals had more than one gram of saturated fat.

You can find a complete analysis of all 84 children’s cereals in the report (see below for a list of the best and worst cereals).  EWG also includes tips for picking more nutritious cereals, along with healthful non-cereal breakfast alternatives. Good info for smart parents who hope to emulate my mom’s forward-thinking approach to the most important meal of the day.  And don’t worry – your kids will thank you later.

10 Worst Children’s Cereals
Based on percent sugar by weight.

1. Kellogg’s Honey Smacks 55.6%
2. Post Golden Crisp 51.9%
3. Kellogg’s Froot Loops Marshmallow 48.3%
4. Quaker Oats Cap’n Crunch’s OOPS! All Berries 46.9%
5. Quaker Oats Cap’n Crunch Original 44.4%
6. Quaker Oats Oh!s 44.4%
7. Kellogg’s Smorz 43.3%
8. Kellogg’s Apple Jacks 42.9%
9. Quaker Oats Cap’n Crunch’s Crunch Berries 42.3%
10. Kellogg’s Froot Loops Original 41.4%

Best and Good Cereals
These cereals pass the proposed federal guidelines on sugar, sodium, fat and whole-grain content. They are free of artificial flavors, colors and artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.

20 Best Cereals
These cereals are also free of pesticides and genetically modified ingredients.
Ambrosia Granola: Athenian Harvest Muesli
Go Raw: Live Granola, Live Chocolate Granola and Simple Granola
Grandy Oats: Mainely Maple Granola, Cashew Raisin Granola and Swiss Style Muesli
Kaia Foods: Buckwheat Granola Dates & Spices and Buckwheat Granola Raisin Cinnamon
Laughing Giraffe: Cranberry Orange Granola
Lydia’s Organics: Apricot Sun, Berry Good, Grainless Apple, Sprouted Cinnamon and Vanilla Crunch
Nature’s Path Organic: Optimum Banana Almond, Optimum Cranberry Ginger, Corn Puffs, Millet Puffs and Rice Puffs

6 Good Big-Brand Children’s Cereals
Kellogg’s Mini-Wheats
–Unfrosted Bite-Size
–Frosted Big Bite
–Frosted Bite-Size
–Frosted Little Bite
General Mills Cheerios Original
General Mills Kix Original

A scary thing happened to me about a year or two back. Having led over 15 years of research on how to utilize NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission to track water storage changes and freshwater availability around the world, I came to the following conclusion. We are, on many levels, completely and totally hosed. And here’s why.

First, groundwater depletion has emerged as a global phenomenon, to the point where water security will ultimately rival energy security for dominance on the geopolitical landscape. The GRACE data now make that abundantly clear.  Our team has already used them to quantify current rates of groundwater depletion in California’s Central Valley, in the High Plains aquifer system of the Midwestern U. S., in northwestern India and in the Middle East.

Sure, we already knew that groundwater was being used at a rapid clip in these and other regions.  For example, the Central Valley has literally been sinking for decades, as the groundwater beneath its surface, which helps prop up the soil and landscape above it, continues to be removed.  In the meantime, more and more wells have been running dry each year in the Central Valley and in aquifers all over the world.

However, we’ve never before been able to see, so clearly,  the widespread nature of the depletion. From China, India, the Middle East, northern Africa, and Argentina, to the southeastern U. S., the High Plains and the Central Valley, groundwater is being ripped from beneath every continent except Antarctica (which has its own problems) at a frenzied pace.

Nor have we previously been able to estimate the rates of depletion, simultaneously, over all of the world’s large aquifer systems.  A lack of ground-based monitoring, in particular in the developing world, combined with the ubiquitous reluctance to share available data across major political boundaries (for fear of very real socioeconomic, political and security consequences) have conspired to make this, until now, an impossible task.

I won’t sugar coat it. It’s not pretty. Stay tuned as our community continues to work diligently on mapping out these alarming rates of groundwater depletion across the globe.

The second reason we’re hosed is that the water cycle is changing.  Computer simulation models predict, and observations, including the GRACE data, are beginning to confirm, that the water cycle is becoming more variable.  This change is being realized in a couple of different, but related, ways.

Find out how the GRACE (no relationship) satellite works in this video from the American Museum of Natural History site.

As global temperatures climb, evaporation and precipitation are increasing, because the atmosphere can hold more water as it warms.  It was Sir Isaac Newton who told us ‘what goes up must come down.’ Very literally then, we’ll be experiencing more ups and downs in the water cycle as more evaporation (the ups) will fuel more precipitation (the downs).

Since more of the sun’s energy is required to drive the increasing evaporation, more energy will be released when the water vapor condenses to form rainfall somewhere downwind.  The result: rainfall will be delivered in more energetic bursts, that is, in more severe storms and floods; while drought will become more prolonged and intense, driven by more powerful drying from strengthening evaporation.  In short, we will, and may already, be experiencing more extreme extremes.

Not only will rainfall be more variable in time, but it is changing spatially as well.  Global patterns of precipitation are shifting with changes in climate. The wet areas in the tropics and the high Arctic are receiving more rainfall, but the already drier mid-latitudes are receiving less.  In other words, the wet areas are getting wetter while the dry areas are getting drier.  Which could be problematic for the wet regions if further wetting leads to additional flooding.

And is unquestionably problematic as perennial drought becomes the new reality for the already parched, arid and semi-arid regions of the world. These areas already rely on an overstressed, dwindling groundwater supply to meet their domestic, agricultural and industrial water needs.   Further drying means even less replenishment of the extracted water in the future, likely pushing an already tenuous situation over the edge, especially after population growth is factored into the equation.  Consequently, we should fully expect that rates of groundwater depletion will accelerate significantly in the coming decades.

The full implications of our changing water cycle and freshwater availability are so profoundly compelling that they could make the average noggin spin a full 360 degrees. Repeatedly.

Increasing flood risk will exert greater pressure on existing infrastructure, which in most instances has not been designed to accommodate the new extremes.  Municipal water systems will become more vulnerable, subjecting human health to greater risk.  Water management, the primary goal of which is to minimize variability in order to provide a reliable supply of freshwater, will face unprecedented challenges in adapting to the ‘new normal.’

The developing world may well see regular waves of displaced flood and drought refugees, who once scattered, are difficult to care for and govern. Cultural intricacies, especially those tied to seasonal cycles, will be thrown off-kilter, threatening livelihood systems.  National plans for economic growth will be complicated by the need to deal with costly emergencies and reconstruction.

As groundwater supplies in the arid and semi-arid regions of the world approach depletion, access to available water will undeniably be more contentious than today.  Will there be enough water to grow sufficient amounts of food to nourish our ever-expanding population?  Let’s face it. Thirsty and hungry people get seriously grumpy, which spells C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T.  Expect more water wars in the future.

If this strikes you as a bunch of science fiction, all I can say is that, I wish it were. But the reality is, the water landscape of our future will be defined by the need to move water from where it is in abundance to where it is in short supply, and by the need to most efficiently use and reuse water locally.  And the only way that will ever happen is if we begin, now, to implement the technological, civil, policy and legal infrastructure required to peaceably and efficiently share and trade water across political boundaries.

Can we get unhosed?  Doubtful. But I believe that we can manage the hosing and keep it to within tolerable limits.  What can be done?  Several steps can be taken now, but first and foremost, inaction is not an option.

Pass the data please. The need for transparency of water data has never been more pressing. Critical research and effective management absolutely depends on it.  Collaborative, transboundary water policy dictates it, while the ability of satellites to assess the state of international water resources renders data denial policies nearly obsolete anyway.  Sharing key datasets across political boundaries will form the foundation for new, modern-era water management strategies that consider both climate change and population growth in order to allocate limited resources amongst humans, the environment, and towards economic growth.

How much did you withdraw? Enhanced monitoring of water use, and in particular, of groundwater levels or pumping rates, is an essential step towards sustaining the life expectancy of groundwater supplies, especially in the drying mid-latitudes.  In the developed world, this missing cornerstone amounts to gross negligence. How would you feel about a country where banks were not required to keep track of withdrawals and changing balances?  Insane, right?  Well guess what? That’s what we do with water, and we do it all over the world.  My suggestion: let’s stop screwing around and get down to some fundamental accounting.

You want me to do what? What will make this all work? The Global Water Police? Hardly. A Global Water Policy?  Sounds much better.  Clearly, calling on our existing institutions to require collection of key measurements and sharing of key datasets is a step in the right direction.  The UN, the WMO, the UNFCCC and other institutions and conventions are already in place.  The trick now is to figure out how to use them to keep an already difficult situation from degrading into an explosive one.  Do they have the will (and the teeth) to make it happen?  I honestly do not know.

Consider this my global water challenge. If we don’t start getting our acts together on this today, I truly believe that we will see the emergence of hydropolitics on the world scene as a driving force behind new strategic alliances, economic realignment, and as a key determinant of international security.

Let’s start now to build the required international environmental policy and legal infrastructure to make our global water future unifying and sustainable, rather than divisive and short-sighted. Let’s plan for the next several decades rather than for the short term.  And let’s apply what we now know about how the water cycle works when devising our new strategies, rather than continue to be saddled with centuries-old policies that were enacted long before we understood what we do today.

***

Gallery Image Captions

1. The GRACE twin satellites.
2. USGS scientist, Joe Poland shows subsidence between 1925 and 1977 due to fluid withdrawel and soil consolidation.
3. Monthly (A) global freshwater discharge, (B) global-ocean evaporation and (C) global-ocean precipitation. Trends for the periods of 199412–200611 (broken red line), 199412– 199906 (solid blue line), and 199907–200611 (solid blue line). From Syed et al., (2010), PNAS.
4. Groundwater depletion (mm) in California’s Central Valley from GRACE, October 2003 to March 2010. From the GRL paper by Famiglietti et al. (2011).
5. A monthly groundwater depletion map for the India-Pakistan region from GRACE. From the paper by Rodell et al. (2009), Nature.

*****

I thank Kate Voss and Richard Matthew for discussion and their input on policy and security issues.

Jay Famiglietti is a Professor of Earth System Science and Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Irvine. He is the founding director of the UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling (UCCHM), a UC systemwide center that focuses on water issues in California and the western United States.

After co-hosting our first (very fun!) Twitter Chat with Grist, we are happy to announce we are doing it again, this time with Good Guide and good food guru, Pooja Mottl. We hope that you will join us on Twitter, December 7^th at 4pm Eastern, using the hashtag  #SustainableMeals to chat about seasonal ingredients, recipes, home cooking, holiday indulgences, the health benefits of sustainable food and more! Follow the conversation in this special party chat room that GoodGuide set up for us. And did I mention there will be prizes?

Get all the details in this fabulous post by Mia Gralla originally posted over at GoodGuide:

Feel Good About Holiday Indulgences

Not sure how indulging in ham, pie and other holiday favorites can actually make you feel good? Well, if the meal is cooked with an eye towards sustainability, you’re more likely to make a positive impact on your local community, the earth and your body while chowing down. To help you create this meal (and feel less guilty about gluttonous holiday food), GoodGuide is throwing a “Sustainable Holiday Meals” chat party on Wednesday, December 7th at 1pm PST/ 4pm EST.

Joining us will be Sustainable Table (@EatSustainable), an organization dedicated to educating people about the importance (and ease) of sustainable eating. We will also have healthy living expert Pooja Mottl (@PoojaMottl) on hand to advise on delicious and easy recipes. Follow the hash tag #SustainableMeals or use this special chat room to join in! We will chat about everything from what seasonal ingredients to use to prep tips that will get meals on the table faster.

An added bonus: we have prizes! One lucky winner will receive an eco-friendly skillet from Xtrema, which has a safe ceramic glaze instead of the harmful PFOA coating like most other popular non-stick cookware. We also be giving away an assortment of healthy ingredients from Lucini (organic olive oils/vinegars) and Alter Eco (cocoa, heritage rices and grains) for use in holiday culinary experiments, as well as a gift pack full of great reads on sustainable food systems.

Twitter Party Rules: Beginning 12/7/11 at 1:00 p.m. PT and ending 12/7/11 at 2:00 p.m. PT, participants must use the hashtag #SustainableMeals in order to qualify to win a prize.  The first people to answer each question will be qualified to win. They also must have commented on blog to be eligible. (NOTE: winner must be participating in chat and not just retweeting).  Winners must be over 18 and residents of the USA. Neither the party sponsors @GoodGuide @PoojaMottle or @EatSustainable are responsible for misdirected or undeliverable Twitter updates, including those from private Twitter accounts.

More than 50 speakers made statements overwhelmingly in opposition to fracking (and a few “lone frackers” – fracking advocates, as characterized by gas drilling opponent), receiving strong support from the crowd. Below is an overview of the major happenings, themes and memes that permeated the hearing.

Check out a photo slideshow of the event! (Photos by Robin Madel.)

More Comments: The biggest news of the day was that the comment period for New York State’s proposed gas drilling guidance has been extended to January 11th due to the incredible volume of comments, although this is still fewer than the 180 days that many environmentalists and public officials demanded.  Already, about 10,000 comments have been submitted to the DEC.  To further highlight the growing interest in fracking, one speaker brought in another 2,000 letters and, to great effect, placed the giant stack in the small mailbox at the front of the stage.  The message was clear: DEC is going to be pouring over a lot of mail come January 11th.

Making Noise: The hearing audience was told repeatedly not to yell or clap while speakers made their comments, a request that was honored to some degree, but it was clear some speakers had come prepared to use the crowd in attendance to their own advantage.  Dave Publow of United for Action distributed his comments to many in the crowd beforehand and invited everyone to recite his comments as one.  Alex Greenleaf got the audience to join him in a call-and-response sing-along about clean water.  And in a polite workaround of the respectful silence rule, there was a lot of silent finger wagging a la Occupy Wall Street to show agreement or disagreement with speakers.

Buffers: A common question: What good is a 1,000 foot buffer between a drilling site and a drinking water supply or water infrastructure if horizontal drilling can extend 3,000 feet from a drill site?  Mayor Bloomberg wants at least a 7-mile buffer.

Fracking supporters?  Hellooo?: Out of over 50 speakers made use of their three minutes during the day’s first hearing session, and only two spoke in support of fracking. Every city, state and federal official who weighed in at the hearing was critical of the DEC’s plans.  However a van-full of industry-supporting Energy in Depth staffers were at least present in the theater.  Not a peep from them during the hearing, although a few of us chatted with one of them outside in between hearings.

Fracking and Food: Another theme of the day was the potential impact of fracking on New York’s farmers. Louise Johnson of SkyHill Farm talked about the highly vulnerable aquifers in her region, Wenonah Hauter of Food & Water Watch said that sustainable farming is the future of Upstate New York, not extractive drilling, and Hilary Baum of Chefs for the Marcellus pointed out that farms could be stigmatized if fracking operations move in nearby.

Quakin’: Obscure seismic activity maps were in the spotlight, with speakers saying that the maps used by DEC to determine earthquake dangers were outdated. Paul Rush of NYC’s Water Commission said that even if earthquakes were not strong enough to cause structural damage on the surface, minor seismic activity could impact underground equipment used in fracking. This issue has gained more prominence of late because of a recently released UK report states that fracking “likely caused” tremors in Lancashire, England, and just on its heels, a report from the Oklahoma Geological Survey also linked fracking to seismic events.

Better Choice – Renewables: Some of the more memorable commenters, Mark Ruffalo and Catherine Skopik in particular, focused not just on fracking’s potential dangers, but on the alternative to natural gas: renewable energy, energy conservation and efficiency.  Not only is the clean energy industry, well, cleaner, but it also generates long-term jobs in contrast to fossil fuels’ boom and bust model.

Wrong Question: One particularly powerful theme was that the entire premise of the DEC’s process is flawed.  As Josh Fox, director of Gasland, first proposed, it’s not a question of how we should drill for natural gas, but whether natural gas fracking should be allowed at all.

Dimock, PA: On the minds of many at the hearing was the plight of Dimock, PA, where that very same day, Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. was scheduled to end its three-year agreement to deliver potable water for 11 families whose wells were tainted because of the company’s faulty gas drilling.  The families are now on their own to find drinking and bathing water.

Cumulative Effects: “Cumulative” was the word of the day, with speakers accusing the DEC of not accounting for the cumulative effects of exposure to the hundreds of chemicals involved in fracking, nor of the cumulative impact of the anticipated tens of thousands of natural gas wells over the first 30 years of drilling in the state. For some, it would at least make sense to wait for the completion of the more comprehensive EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study before proceeding.

The Numbers Don’t Add Up: The DEC’s socioeconomic report was at the receiving end of much criticism, with speakers accusing the report of using fuzzy math when calculating job growth, not showing how the risk associated with fracking is passed along from oil and gas companies to homeowners (drilling activity isn’t covered by homeowner’s insurance and may cause mortgage holders to go into default) and not illustrating the true economic impact of rapid industrialization on real estate values, farming and tourism.

Health Impacts: Several speakers raised the important point that the state’s evaluation failed to adequately address fracking’s impact on human health, a concern supported by health professionals across the state.  As one health professional noted, the state failed to evaluate “the kinds of health consequences that have already been observed in affected communities in those states where hydraulic fracturing is taking place.”

Hit the Brakes: For those who didn’t call for an outright ban on fracking, the odd review process taken by DEC was a matter of concern. Specifically, why conduct an environmental review process at the same time as developing regulations?  Shouldn’t the state figure out the economic and environmental costs and benefits of fracking before even considering regulating the practice? And why hasn’t there been a similar review and report procedure by other agencies that have a direct interest in fracking, like the Departments of Transportation, Health and Agriculture?

The Last Word: In a day full of memorable quotes, this might be our favorite: “Like my periodontist always says, there’s a slam-dunk case against fracking.” Indeed.

But maybe the farm bill isn’t actually all that complicated.  Maybe it just needs to be presented in a non-totally-insane/incomprehensible-technobabble sort of way.  Maybe someone should do exactly this…

Somebody is!

This Saturday (December 3), Food + Tech Connect and GoJee are hosting the Farm Bill Hackathon in New York City.*  Organized as part of the International Open Data Hackathon, the event will bring together food/ag experts, technologists, designers, policy makers and data specialists to develop tools and visualizations that can be used to help better understand how the farm bill impacts our lives.

Throughout the day, event participants will engage in a sort of benevolent hacking, using publically available (but often complex, disparate and/or user-unfriendly) data to convey important information about the farm bill in a comprehensive and compelling manner.  (To learn more about hacking for the greater good – and to read about some inspirational food-systems applications – see an outstanding post about last year’s Food + Tech Hackathon by Ecocentric’s resident technophile, Jamie Leo.)

Ultimately, the Hackathon will produce tools and graphics capable of demonstrating to the public that the farm bill affects what we eat, how it’s produced, how much it costs and how it’s distributed.  In other words, it will show that we should all care about the farm bill – and should make sure our elected officials do, too.  This is the sort of farm bill activism in which all members of the food movement can engage – not just the hardcore policy nerds.

Hack It!!
Want to get involved?  You can still register to attend the event in NYC (it’s free!!), or participate virtually (just visit the Farm Bill Hackathon Wiki and email beth[at]foodtechconnect.com to let the organizers know you’ll be joining.)  You can also suggest potential farm bill issues for the hackers to tackle – list your idea and its corresponding data on the Wiki under “Project Ideas.”

Keep Posted!!
Curious about what the hackers will produce?  Look for a follow-up post on Ecocentric after the event, or sign up for our newsletter to read our recap.

* Full disclosure: GRACE is a proud sponsor of the Farm Bill Hackathon!  If you attend, keep an eye out for me and my colleagues; we’d love to meet you!

Yes, universities. As a society, we’ve been slow to recognize that because they invest sizable endowments, many institutions of higher education function as important players in global financial markets. Unfortunately, university investment decisions are often based strictly on profit maximization without concern for the environmental damage, human rights violations or other adverse impacts caused by the entities or activities that these investments fund.

You may remember one of the most prominent social movements of our time—the pressuring of universities to divest from South Africa over apartheid. Now, university investments are once again perpetuating injustice in Africa. Major American universities – including Harvard and Vanderbilt – are working through British hedge funds and European financial speculators to buy or lease huge tracts of African farmland in deals that will likely result in displacement of small farmers, environmental devastation, water loss and the further impoverishment and political destabilization of these developing nations.

Here’s how it works: Investors buy up land from African governments (at ridiculously low prices, as low as 25 cents an acre) with the purpose of growing commodity crops—often genetically modified and often for biofuel—primarily for export to Western countries. These investment companies often claim to be investing sustainably and even improving food security. However, a growing body of research debunks those claims and even suggests that these investments are making the global food crisis worse. While investors claim to be setting up businesses and creating jobs on unused parcels of land, these deals often force large numbers of people to relocate, including small farmers who rely on the land to feed their families and local communities. Though it flies in the face of agribiz’s self-serving contentions, converting small farms and forests into natural-asset-based, high-return investments drives up food prices and increases the risk of climate change.

I spoke with Martin Bourqui of the Responsible Endowments Coalition, a nonprofit group that fosters social and environmental justice by transforming the way universities invest by empowering students, administrators, trustees and alumni to help their institutions of higher education invest more responsibly. Below, Martin explains how the system works—and how you can change it.

For an extensive report on the reality of African land grabs, read the Oakland Institute’s Special Investigation: Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa.

So land grabs—what are they?

Unsurprisingly, according to the Oakland Institute’s new report, it seems that buying huge tracts of the best land in very poor countries and forcing people to move so that the rich can profit off of it may be just as bad an idea as the title of ‘land grab’ would indicate.

I think a precise definition is less important than looking at the situation holistically, since one person’s land grab is apparently just another business deal for many of the people who manage large sums of money. We have London-based asset managers investing in some of the most fertile, choice land in parts of Africa, and then making a profit off of that land. U.S. universities are investing in these funds and in doing so are also making a profit – or perhaps I should say, “making returns on their endowment,” since universities are actually still considered not-for-profit, taxpayer-subsidized institutions. Considering that these investors are making 25% returns, it’s no surprise that they’re eager to label this as an investment handled “responsibly.” Unsurprisingly, according to the Oakland Institute’s new report, it seems that buying huge tracts of the best land in very poor countries and forcing people to move so that the rich can profit off of it may be just as bad an idea as the title of ‘land grab’ would indicate.

What are the dangers of land grabs?

I do not purport to speak for those who are affected most by this – the farmers and landowners on the ground – and I believe strongly that theirs are the voices that should be lifted up in this discourse.

I will say that there are clearly problems with this sort of way of making a dollar. This touches on a number of problems inherent in our globalized marketplace and the way in which those with the least are exploited the most. The dimension of neocolonialism alone is disturbing. Are we really watching, more than half a century after the African independence movement, London-based businessmen taking land from African farmers? Does the mind not rebel at any point in the process, that this can be “business as usual” in the 21st century?

There is also a more fundamental set of issues relating to self-determination and the rights of people to take power over their local economies. For people half a world away to be determining how land is used – what is farmed, how the land is treated, who oversees the process, how it is mapped out – it will inevitably have enormous political, societal and ecological ramifications.

How many universities do this—and do we even know?

The outrageous truth of university finance is that most of our institutions of higher education are invested in almost everything, including in the worst of the worst.

The vast majority of colleges and universities in the U.S. – and investors in general – invest purely for maximum returns, with no environmental, social or governance (ESG) factors taken into account. Investment officers at major institutions deny responsibility, citing that the larger systems of investment finance dictate that they have to make their goals, or “benchmarks,” of how much money they are required to make. Our Boards of Trustees that make up the highest rungs of university decision-making are, for the most part, similarly unwilling to realize that the financial system as it stands is unsustainable. They earned their credentials in the pro-deregulation, “Greed is Good” culture of the 1980s and 1990s, and many of them see no cognitive dissonance in Harvard, Yale, Stanford and virtually all (yes, virtually all) of the rest invested in companies that practice slave labor conditions, that own private prisons, that practice environmental destruction in the tar sands of Alberta, you name it.

If you care, and you attend or attended college, it is your responsibility as a student or alum to speak up and say that you care. If enough of us do so, they will listen!

Are any universities taking actions to divest from these land grabs?

Unfortunately not. Almost all universities are invested in outrageous things like this, and just consider it part of doing business. Most are too afraid to even speak up and say they’re doing anything about it even if they want to, because they’re afraid it’ll just attract more attention to the fact that our schools hold a collective $350 billion and nobody knows where any of it is going. But it’s about time we blew the lid off of this story!

We are at the very early stages of beginning to see a cultural shift. There are leaders like the University of Louisville in Kentucky where the administration is actually trying to do the right thing without the students having to organize and petition and deal with intentionally constructed roadblocks (like byzantine committee structures) just to have a conversation about these issues. We’re beginning to see some forward-thinking administrations and schools actually willing to take action, and that’s encouraging.

If my university is a nonprofit institution, being subsidized heavily by taxpayers, and its endowment is made up of alumni gifts, then I see the endowment as very much something that all students, alumni and taxpaying community members have a stake in.

Most schools, however, are falling far behind, and major problems of transparency and accountability are front and center. Why do universities not reveal much of anything about where they’re invested? They claim it’s because if they reveal their investments, their special investment “strategies” will be poached by their competitors. This is, quite simply, a fantasy. Most universities of similar statures and wealth are invested in the exact same stuff. The real reason why universities don’t open the books is because students and alumni will have to face the fact that they’re invested in the worst of the worst – when they simply don’t have to be – and they don’t want that controversy damaging their sterling reputations. This debate also intersects with the question of “ownership” of the endowment and whom the university is accountable to. If my university is a nonprofit institution, being subsidized heavily by taxpayers, and its endowment is made up of alumni gifts, then I see the endowment as very much something that all students, alumni and taxpaying community members have a stake in.

What can students do to get involved?

There is so much that each and every one of us can do! The biggest misconception people have is that you need to have sophisticated knowledge of finance to engage on these issues. You don’t. Students can and must feel empowered to say that our universities should be reflecting our values — it’s not their job to be experts in finance. Don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

Broadly speaking, students need to constantly hold their universities accountable to their mission statements, the values of the community (inclusiveness, sustainability, diversity, respect for different cultures) and to the concerns of the current and future alumni whose donations are the lifeblood of the school. There is so much good work to be done everywhere. This can and must happen both within existing power structures, if they exist, and outside of them. This can mean setting up and serving on committees on investor responsibility (CIRs), raising awareness, petitioning, getting alumni, prospective students and parents involved, you name it.

The Responsible Endowments Coalition was founded by five undergraduates working to change the way their universities invest, and we’ve been supporting students and other university community members doing this important work since 2003. We have a wide variety of resources available to help students get involved, and my full-time job is giving advice, support and feedback to students!

If you’re an alum, there’s plenty you can do, too. Write to your schools and explain why you don’t feel comfortable giving when you don’t know whether the money is going to things like these land grabs. Get five of your friends to do the same. Speak up about it at your local alum fundraiser — you don’t have to crash the party, but you most certainly have a right to voice your concerns. Schools live for alumni giving – if alumni speak up, the schools will be forced to adapt to their wishes.

Why is student activism important?

At my alma mater, Tufts University, there’s a framed photograph of a student protest against the school’s investment in South Africa in the 1980s hanging in our library. They’re celebrating that divestment now, but I’ll bet you all the money in my pocket that the school resisted those efforts as long as it could back then. Those who will be regarded as the moral leaders twenty years from now are those who are pushing back against the existing power structures today. It’s never too late to get involved.

I’ve studied the history of investment-related activism in higher education, and here’s the simple truth: universities will not change their investment policies unless their community demands that they do so. Universities didn’t divest from apartheid South Africa because some college president thought it would be a good idea, or because some benevolent investment officer read something in the New Yorker that made them think. (Although I’m sure they did, and failed to believe they could act on it.) No. Schools divested because students organized, and were visible, and said, “Hey, this stuff flies in the face of our values and the values of our schools.” And the schools, in turn, realized that their reputations – their ultimate currency – were at stake. Only then did they do the right thing. It was exactly the same with the divestment movement from the Sudanese genocide in the early-to-mid 2000s. We all want our schools, which claim to be “a light to the world” and “fostering global citizenship” and all of that, to wake up and realize that they have a role to play. But unfortunately, our schools must be held accountable, time and time again, or the change we need to see won’t happen. And believe me, it will take more than asking nicely.

It really is students that make it happen, much more so than other constituencies. Faculty are silenced and fearful for the stability of the scarce jobs that exist. Low- and mid-level staff members at most universities are no longer unionized and don’t feel like they have a voice either. Alumni hold a huge amount of power as the donors to the school, but they are far-flung, busy and harder to organize. At the end of the day, it’s the students who will get this done — the ones who have the power and the privilege to be able to speak up, to be visible, to say, “We will make this happen, and we will not leave until you make this change.”

If you can be brave and vulnerable enough to take action in the face of uncertainty and complexity, that’s real leadership. This is the future of finance, and it’s about time we brought our universities up to speed.

For students and alumni who want information on how to get involved at your university, contact the Responsible Endowments Coalition.

For more information on land grabs and what you can do, visit Oxfam International.

We’re in the midst of the holiday season, which is also the height of community spirit, family gatherings and, of course, gift-giving. A few months ago my wife gave me a home brewing kit. Home brewing is a fun activity and something I’ve done with greater (and lesser) success over the years. While I do enjoy it, I also drink more beer than I brew, so I tend to sample my share of beers made by others.

And there’s a lot of different beer being brewed, as other Ecocentric bloggers have explained (here and here). Domestically-produced American beers, called craft beer or microbrews, have started a revolution in terms of quality, variety and flavor. Art, science and the marketplace have combined to make better beers blissfully commonplace on store shelves around the country. And the proof is showing up in bottom lines—in spite of the overall shrinking of the beer market, the craft beer segment has thrived. What’s more, this better beer movement challenges decades of perception (and reality) of the lowly American beer.

And this change in American beer starts at home, or nearly so, as craft beer really is a “local beer” phenomenon. This shift in consumer preferences and support for local craft beer is perfectly representing in a nanobrewery start-up called Community Beer Works (CBW) in Buffalo, NY. The CBW founders are using Kickstarter, social media and other fund raising techniques to make their brewery

an integral part of our city and the neighborhood our brewery is located in. We are planning partnerships with local urban farmers and gardeners to create a network of hop gardens that can be used in specialty beers as well as to dispose of our grain in ecologically friendly, mutually beneficial manner. Our goal is to foster a sense of community and place, enriching our hometown through the production of damn good beer.

What is “new to us” about this project is the clear articulation of its goal – strengthening local community through microbrewing. And CBW is not alone. This powerful message is resonant with the good food movement and underscores the values that foodies and craft beer adherents share, especially over the return to local. Below are some characteristics (most of which also apply to the good food movement) of the better beer movement, particularly as it concerns local production and consumption.

Ingredients

One of beer’s greatest attributes is the amazing variety of flavor that can be derived from four ingredients: grain malt (typically barley), hops, yeast and water. Even given this simplicity, microbrewers and enthusiasts – like their locavore cousins – are eager to have locally-sourced ingredients in the product. Such is the case for the recently released BSA Harvest from Notch Sessions Brewery, which features New England-raised grains. The same is true further south in Durham, NC, where Fullsteam puts out a seasonal craft beer employing many local ingredients, from persimmons to sweet potatoes. In Fullsteam’s endeavor to promote “radical, farm-focused brewing,” a nearby farmer has set aside one acre dedicated to hop cultivation.

Owing to my environmental specialty, I can’t resist pointing out that virtually all brewers, large to small, use one local ingredient: water. The importance of water is openly acknowledged by Cathy Erway, Communications Director for Brooklyn-based, Sixpoint Craft Ales.

New York City tap water is among the best drinking water in the country, and we proudly use it in our beer. It’s one of the reasons we chose this city to open the brewery in.

Clean water that is not inundated with chemicals and has a balanced level of TDS that provide good texture and taste is equally as important as the other flashier ingredients. So the next time you tip one back, don’t forget a toast to your local water provider and watershed manager for a (hopefully) job well done. (And for you hopheads out there, don’t hesitate to quaff my favorite Sixpointer, the Bengali Tiger.)

Sustainability

In many cases, microbrewers are eco-leaders in their communities, proving that sustainability is more a matter of practice than a trendy buzzword. The list of breweries that incorporate sustainability into their products and operations is long and getting longer.

Many craft brewers and drinkers are strong supporters of sustainable and organic farming practices and reflect that in their beer. Organic beer, still a small segment of the market, got a shot in the arm when the USDA required organic hops in order to label a brew organic (this seems obvious, but let’s just move on). This requirement, coupled with growing demand for organic beer, means that organic hops farming is expanding in the United States, potentially overtaking New Zealand as the world’s leading grower.

Beyond ingredients, craft breweries are demonstrating sustainable business practices in other aspects of production, too. Alaskan Brewing Company’s was the first craft brewery to recycle naturally occurring CO2 from the fermentation process, offsetting 1.5 millions gallons of fuel-oil with spent grain heating, and using proceeds to found an ocean health nonprofit organization, Coastal Code, among other activities. For another sustainable use of spent brewing grain (not to mention farm-to-table menus), look no further than Triumph Brewing and its three PA and NJ locations, where they share the spent grain with local farmers for livestock feed. And California’s well known Sierra Nevada Brewery has an entire sustainability program complete with real-time power generation reporting for their large solar power arrays, and natural/biogas fuel cells. And big ups to Central Waters Brewing Company in Amherst, WI for maintaining the state’s first solar-hot water system complete with radiant floor heating, estimated to save $1.4 to $1.5 million in energy costs over its lifetime.

Tradition and Innovation

As defined by the Brewers Association , the foremost microbrew experts, an “American craft brewer is small, independent and traditional.” Under this definition, almost 98 percent of the over 1,700 breweries in the United States meet that criteria, although craft breweries have captured less than seven percent of total market sales. Still, the sheer number of smaller-sized breweries not owned by Industro-Brewers is impressive. It also means that the brewing techniques used to brew the flagship beers are “malt-based” and don’t contain as many “adjuncts” (added rice, corn, etc.) as their industrial counterparts do, which often result in weak-tasting beer. (To sip a pint of tradition, head to Circle Brewing Company in Austin, TX for beer that conforms to the German purity code dating from 1516 that permits only the customary foursome of malt, hops, yeast and water.)

While craft brewing stays committed to traditional artisanship, innovation is strongly encouraged. Many never-before-experienced flavor profiles have been created using different ingredients from varietal malt to chocolate to chilies, not to mention the most common method: adding tons of hops. (Take a look at the unique selections that Clipper City Brewing Co. is producing in Baltimore.) Innovation extends outside of unusual taste sensations to unusual business models. For Northern California’s Bison Brewery, the formation of a streamlined, vertically-integrated farm-to-brewery structure guarantees the flow of organic ingredients from local and regional farmers, thereby lowering the cost of their organic beers to the cost of most non-organic craft beers.

Culture and Community

In the beginning there was beer. Rather, there was beer as soon as there was agriculture, as evidenced by ancient Sumerian brewing that occurred about 6,000 years ago. Over the centuries and across many cultures, beer was almost literally considered to be daily bread. Skip several thousand years to pre-Colonial America and you’ll find that the Pilgrims craved beer so much that the Mayflower was outfitted to carry a precious supply of suds. George Washington was a noted beer lover and home brewer (check out his recipe). In America, the flow of beer and the flow of immigration took the same multitude of routes, with small breweries springing up everywhere linking new homesteads with old, culturally-distinctive styles.

Then Prohibition struck. America’s post-Prohibition brewing culture and history is sadly fallow not only because of Prohibition, but what happened after. Just as with Big Ag, Industro-Brew companies wiped out smaller, domestic beer competition through consolidation and turned the beer industry into a monoculture of taste and culture. The last remnants of beer diversity in the late 20th century were the regional breweries that provided a sense of cultural identity and independence apart from the homogenized. With people proudly rallying around them, regional brewers like Washington State’s Olympia and Baltimore’s National Bohemian fought to survive, but eventually were gulped up by the Pabst/Metropoulos Co., which is actually an equity firm. Even though the two beers are brewed far away, they remain “community symbols” bound up in local identity. Witness the 2011 marriage of long-time National Bohemian mascot, Natty Boh boy, to another Mid-Atlantic cultural icon, the Utz potato chip girl.

Like any product, beer consumers want quality, choice and the opportunity to connect with local communities, making the better beer movement both similar and complementary to the food movement. As Sixpoint’s Cathy Erway states:

We appreciate craft beer and the important role it’s played in numerous societies throughout time, as well as new waves in the last few decades in the U.S. What we’re doing is an example of what brewers did in cities and towns all over, which is use the best of our creativity, resources and community to create great beers – and continue to innovate with new techniques and ingredients.

Being informed by the past and innovating for the future, all while drawing on the local character and flavors, are major reasons for craft beer’s success. No doubt the Community Beer Works crew has figured this out and hopes to promote not only their local brews, but also the distinctive character of their city, with their conscious attention to local ringing true for many other microbrewers around the country. And just like with food, conscientious consumers are willing to pay a little more for better quality and for the local connection. Microbrewers use these advantageous attributes to encourage strong and vibrant communities, keeping customers coming back for more. In fact, it seems that in today’s uncertain and flagging America, one sign of community prosperity and revitalization is a microbrewery or brewpub in town. So one small way to encourage an economic recovery while holding to your values is to say cheers to local, sustainable beers!

But as a recent Clean Energy Connections event highlighted, only recently has biomimicry been embraced by the clean energy industry.  A panel of four entrepreneurs, investors and biomimetic designers recently met to discuss how clean technologies are incorporating the rapidly expanding science.

Biomimicry gives us a whole new way to view not just how nature can help to solve human problems, but also a new way to understand and appreciate nature.

Just as renewable energy has had its share of run-ins with technological and political barriers, biomimicry designers are in a constant tug-of-war between the natural world (Sustainability! Efficiency!) and the human world (Capital? Business plan?).  One of the panelists, Pat Sapinsley, a Venture Partner at venture capital fund Good Energies, was clear in pointing out that many biomimetic technologies have fascinating promise, but ultimately designers must focus on the business side of the equation to lure investors.  Sam Cochran, co-founder of SMIT, which has designed small solar panels that behave like ivy, explained that it takes a lot to get from idea to commercialized product, although there’s a big difference between tweaking an existing product with biomimetic concepts and creating a whole new product altogether.

Take InterfaceFLOR, which took its existing modular carpets and tweaked the designs based on the randomness of “floors” found in nature; the goal being to reduce waste and extend the life of the carpets.  Or consider WhalePower, a corporation that used the bumps found on humpback whale flippers to design more efficient industrial fans and wind turbine blades.

“Design” is the key word in both examples as Chris Garvin, partner at sustainable design firm Terrapin Bright Green, explained at the panel event.  FLOR’s carpet squares and Whalepower’s turbine blades, for all their benefits, are focused on form – they’re really “biomorphic.”   Ideally, biomimicry goes a step beyond form and influences the processes and materials necessary to create a product.  Garvin described his vision of a regional web of industries that feed off of each other’s by-products and wastes.  Simple examples exist today, like co-generation power plants that use their waste heat to generate energy to heat and cool homes, or in a particularly popular example given that evening, the Brooklyn Brewery sharing its waste for livestock feed or energy generation.  Nature wastes not, so biomimetic designers must strive to do the same.

Biomimicry gives us a whole new way to view not just how nature can help to solve human problems, but also a new way to understand and appreciate nature.  In addition to the standard biological classification of genus and species, why not order biology by function, like the abilities to generate energy or change color or move large volumes?  Ultimately, as Biomimicry 3.8 consulting scientist Mark Dorfman said, biomimicry “shows the beauty of nature’s functionality.”  With a little bit of business acumen to speed the process, humans could be on their way to borrow just a few of the natural world’s limitless ideas for a cleaner energy future.

Through a stroke of internet luck, I happened upon the Starvation Alley Facebook fan page late last week when I friended Jared’s sister Tiffany, so I sent an email and made contact with Jared’s girlfriend and partner, Jessika Tantisook, then gave them a call to catch up with my childhood friend and hear about their extraordinary endeavor.

Given the lack of respect with which