Urban Ecoist

As I was watching the CNN yesterday, I couldn’t help but notice that President Barack Obama drinks bottled water. Here is video coverage of the President’s town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin June 11, 2009.

The swig in question takes place later in the meeting during the Q & A portion, but you can clearly see the bottle at about 5:22 into the clip.

So, there I was, jiving on the President’s thoughts about health care reform (which should have happened in the 1990’s, if not sooner — thanks, GOP!), and I was a little taken aback when I saw Mr. Obama take a swig from a clear plastic water bottle without a label. And that struck me as funny, too. His press appearances are like TV shows in that they will not show a brand name — unless the company making the brand pays for it.

And I wasn’t taken aback like I was shocked or offended because I am so granola and self-righteous about it…but more taken aback because I am surprised that no one has gotten to him yet about bottled water. I understand that the man travels a lot, and maybe it is easier on his system if he drinks only one kind of water, but then again, water is water and bottled water comes from all kinds of sources, so I kinda doubt that he insists on drinking only one “brand” of water. And hi, he’s a smoker, so it’s not like it’s a taste thing.

I guess it’s more of a situation where a subtle difference may make a larger impact due to the person making the difference. If Barack Obama showed up in Green Bay with his own water bottle (BPA Free, of course), that would make a subtle statement. A statement not only to the people attending that Town Hall meetin’, but also to anyone watching the coverage. He doesn’t have to pose with a fancy-schmancy stainless steel reusable water bottle or take a long dramatic drink from it, either, though that would be funny if done in the right way.

But of course, much like Michelle Obama’s White House garden, I’m sure that some bottled water industry group would start throwing a fit about how tap water is endangering the safety of nation’s water supply…

Need a water bottle yourself? Check out Gardenaut’s extensive review, and I like that site, so I’m linking to it.

Barack Obama, water, bottled water, tap water, reusable water bottle, BPA free, Michelle Obama, garden, Green Bay, Wisconsin, town hall, tv coverage, president

I know, I know, everybody is talking about eating local and seasonal so as to lower your carbon footprint — in that your food doesn’t travel thousands of miles by carbon dioxide spewing trucks because it comes from within 100 miles or so, among many, many other reasons.

But are you drinking local?

Check this out. National Geographic has a one-pager on the carbon emissions from the transport of wine around the world. Another blogger (who says we are all a bunch of hacks?) Dr. Vino Tyler Coleman and Pablo Paster, a sustainability engineer, put together some numbers and Nat Geo put together a rather telling graphic.

The gist of it is that if you are really serious about how many natural resources it takes to put food and drink in your belly, you should not be choosing you wine based on what’s trendy or highly-rated, but instead choose wine (and spirits) from a more local source or if you do have a thing for foreign wine, choose wine from the country that can ship it to you via ocean trade routes.

For instance, according to the map, Napa Valley wines are big emitters due to the lengthy road journeys from California to the East Coast markets. But those same California Cabernets are shipped via boat to Asia and Australia, and thus the cargo ship shipping lowers those per bottle emissions. So, you must figure out where your wine is from, and then figure out a better way to get a buzz.

I happen to live in Oregon, so I am one of those lucky imbibers that lives close to three pretty top-notch wine regions. But I happen to love French and Spanish wine. I could either give up my love affairs with Gigondas and Piorat, or I could move to the East Coast of the US (given that I would remain in the US). This graphic and the idea behind it gives me extra motivation to drink more Pinot Noir. But what about that poor oenophile in Iowa City?

Now, I grew up in Michigan, so I can relate to land-locked winos. And for those of you that don’t live near a coastal port or within a few hundred miles of such ports, there is local wine everywhere. I learned to love Gewurztraminers and Reislings living in Michigan, as those are the grapes that grow well there. I have tried sparkling wines from New York’s Finger Lakes region that were equally tasty. The Chardonelle I tried in Misssouri — not so good, but they did have other varietals. I have even had some Petite Syrah from Mexico.

Use this topic as a challenge to not only find local wine, but local beer and spirits. You may just like what you taste. If not, have a few more drinks, and you will.

wine, transportation, carbon footprint, wine industry, carbon emissions, cargo ships, trucks, New York State wine, Michigan wine, Missouri wine, Oregon wine, French wine, Spanish wine, eat local, local foods, seasonal foods, beer, spirits

Seems the companies that are supposedly making the world safer for your child are not really all that concerned about the next generation after all.

Climate Counts recently released its findings as it pertains to responsible climate-centered action on the part of the toy making and children’s equipment industry, and let’s just say if it really were a Lego World, it wouldn’t be headed for a healthy future.

The big winner (and in that I mean the best of the very sad bunch) is Hasbro with a whopping 40. Woo-hoo. That puts them one point better than Kraft, a company that exploits the stupidity of the American Public with every single-serving snack pak of Corn Nuts. That 40 places Hasbro well above Sara Lee (13) and ConAgra (21). By contrast, the highest-scoring company rated by Climate Counts (I’ll detail the criteria below) is…ta dah…Nike.

Nike? Really? Isn’t Nike exploiting cheap labor in Southeast Asia to make $100+ basketball shoes? I thought I wasn’t supposed to support Nike.

That is exactly the issue I have with Climate Counts. Sure, it rates a company on 4 categories encompassing 22 criteria, and that marks the end of their purpose. But in the case of highly-rated Nike and Coca Cola, there are other issues to look at before deciding to buy a company’s products (as Climate Counts suggests). But that is yet another topic for another day, urban ecoists.

Oh, yeah, the four categories…

* MEASURED their climate “footprint”
* REDUCED their impact on global warming
* SUPPORTED (or suggest intent to block) progressive climate legislation
* Publicly DISCLOSED their climate actions clearly and comprehensively

So, you see, labor practices or safety is not taken into consideration when it comes to Climate Counts, but the point is to simply draw attention to how large corporations are dealing (or not) with climate change.

And returning to today’s topic, it seems that children’s products manufacturers are definitely not leading the Corporate Social Responsibility arena. In fact, the only industry that doesn’t beat Hasbro’s 40 is the airline industry (top airline Northwest rated a 39). And the hotel industry tied with Marriott’s 40. But there is no reason for the Toy/Kid Stuff industry to pat itself on its lead-painted back. No other industry had 62% (8 out of 13) of its major companies score a big fat Zero.

toy makers, childrens equipment, industry, Hasbro, Lego, Kraft, ConAgra, Sara Lee, Climate Counts, climate change, social responsibility, CSR, Nike, Coca Cola, children, environment

I had originally planned on starting this thread in Early April, but a family thing had me effectively offline all month. So I’ll try to pick up the pieces of my failed planned to keep you all abreast of the developments in my garden and *ahem* plow ahead.

A little background on not only my garden, but also why I have decided to focus on the small garden plots in my yard. I begin with the latter. I do not in any way profess to be an expert gardener, in fact far from it. I am however an eager student and an effective researcher. I am also proving to be a cautionary example of what not to do.

For example, this is what I did to a Spanish lavender bush in my yard.

Yeah, don’t do this at home.

Gardening has become rather fashionable as of late, and in so much that maybe you are starting out in your own garden or starting to think about starting, maybe you can glean some value from reading about my own trials and tribulations in the ol’ victory garden.

Now the former…Perhaps overly ambitious, I began gardening with a bang. I was renting a farm house at the time, and hey, it’s a farm. That first garden became a beast, and ultimately led to a lot of mistakes on my part and on the part of bad luck. My next garden was an easy-to-manage raised bed of 24 square feet. If you take one piece of advice from all of this self-indulgence, start small.

Last year was my first season in Portland, Oregon. I live in a funky yard with a lot of different sun-shade patterns that I clearly did not know before planting. Not only that, but ravenous insects were also a major issue (especially cutworms). I definitely learned a lot from that first year. Also, I should mention that I rent my home (as do many urbanites) , so I am limited in what kind of garden improvements I can make.

That said, I did spend a good part of last season composting for this season. Success in that, and I bought a lot of compost last season and dug it in everywhere I could to try and break up all that effing clay that we have here in Oregon. I was a little underfunded last year, so I couldn’t go crazy with soil testing and the fancier soil amendments. I figured that compost was good as an all-around soil amendment, so I settled on composting as a cheap, effective action I could take for future use.

Also, last year I put in peas — lots of peas. I love peas, and they are seriously the easiest veggie to grow. Not only that, but pea plants fix nitrogen into the soil and if you dig the spent plants into the ground after your harvest, they break down into “green manure.” So, really, if you cannot do anything else this year, put in some peas.

My efforts last year included putting in some herbs. Fresh herbs are so super awesome to have around if you like to cook, or if you just want to impress people (if you are that gardener). I put in sage, chives, flat-leaf parsley, rosemary, and thyme.

Oh, yeah, and I put in twelve strawberry plants. A June-bearing variety (Mount Hood) and an ever-bearing. I read that you shouldn’t let your berry plants produce fruit the first year, which is so hard to do, but I trimmed off all flower heads to prevent fruiting. I am expecting some huge rewards for my herculean test of patience.

And somewhere I read that garlic should go into the ground in the fall, so I put in some garlic bulbs from my kitchen that were starting to grow little crowns. I try to only buy organic garlic, so I hope they were okay to stick in the ground. What’s the worse that can happen, right?

The baby on the right is Carlitos. You can read more about him and other children affected by pesticides here.

victory garden, garden, kitchen garden, urban garden, gardening, home gardening, peas, herbs, soil amendment, composting, strawberry, garlic

Maybe a year or two ago, I ran across a show on maybe Science Channel or National Geographic about this company in New Jersey that made organic fertilizer and packaged it in “reclaimed” milk jugs. I thought to myself, “Now that’s using your noggin’!”

Well, methinks that the show was on National Geographic, because starting tonight National Geographic Channel premieres Garbage Moguls, a show about that same company. And on Earth Day, now that is foresight!

I happened to receive some info on Garbage Moguls, thanks to the good people at NatGeo. Truthfully, I would prefer an ongoing series, to witness and share the dizzying highs and terrifying lows of the company called TerraCycle , run by a Princeton drop-out (why is that everyone that thinks outside the box and goes to a top private school drops out?) and his merry band of eco- and cash-minded cohorts, but then again, how exciting can garbage or a Princeton drop-out really be?

Despite my misgivings about the show due NatGeo’s tendency toward repetition after commercial breaks (like we cannot remember two minutes ago, give your viewers some credit NG!) and to the press release for Garbage Moguls, which says things like it’s a “real-life Generation ‘Y’ dramedy in the vein of ‘The Office.’”, I’m hoping Garbage Moguls will be interesting and informative enough to inspire viewers to also think outside the box in terms of what you are throwing away around the house. As I mentioned before, I’ve seen TerraCycle featured on a television program before tonight (9pm EST/6pm PST with additional airings Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and next Wednesday — check out NatGeo for times) and as I still remember it, it must have been pretty good.

Also, and I’m just putting this out there, but I’m a little confused as to why Terracycle has to preserve the overt branding involved in the original materials. Maybe by removing the brand name labels from the plastics used by TerraCycle would dimish the quality and integrity of the materials, but I have to say that having a kite made from Oreo packaging with the word OREO splashed all over is not all that appealing to a girl like me that doesn’t like advertising all over her stuff. Maybe it’s because these particular kites are destined for Wal-Mart (yet another no-no in my eyes).

In addition to info about Garbage Moguls, I noticed that the website has some DIY projects using trash. Click on the “MORE” option on the site and you can learn how to make things yourself with something that you’d be throwing away. These beads made from cookie wrappers look good in a digital image, but I have to wonder how they look up close. Only one way to find out…

National Geographic, Garbage Moguls, NatGeo, television, Earth Day, TerraCycle, New Jersey, garbage, trash, landfill, reclaimed, recycled, DIY, projects

Ok, so a little insight into me…I like watching cooking competition shows. You know, like Top Chef or Iron Chef. And I really like watching shows that pit restaurant against restaurant, like last year’s Last Restaurant Standing on BBC or this year’s The Chopping Block.

Anyhoo, while watching The Chopping Block last night, there was quite a little to-do over Chilean Sea Bass. The restaurant’s client did not approve of serving Chilean Sea Bass as it is severely over-fished (thanks to a brilliant marketing decision to rename the Patagonian Toothfish). The “chefs”, and I use that term loosely in this case, had already ordered 25 pounds of the Chilean Sea Bass. They quickly tried to get a different fish, halibut, but that did not last the night. When a lady’s order for halibut could not be made, the kitchen suggested the Chilean Sea Bass. The client actually went into the kitchen to express that she did not want Chilean Sea Bass served…at all. Bravo to you, Nicole Miller. But alas, the “kitchen” (now that is loose too) sent out farmed-raised salmon. Another no-no.

And on top of that a few days ago, I found out about a campaign to stop the unregulated swordfish trade. Which makes me cringe as I wrote my very first newspaper-published article back in 1997 about how swordfish were being overfished and responsible chefs were taking off their menus. Sigh.

Which leads me to my topic today. Do you know what fish is safe and responsible to eat?

I know there are some people out there that think that if a restaurant has it on the menu, it must be okay to eat. Wrong. You see, the thing about Chilean sea bass is that is brings in a really good price due to its growing scarcity. Same with tuna. Same with swordfish. And if something brings in enough money, it doesn’t matter if it is harvested in a responsible manner or not. Think of fish as the tar sands of wild foods. It may still make money for people, but at what cost?

And unfortunately, with fish, there are fewer and fewer good choices out there. I’m pretty nerdy about this kind of thing, and yet, I even have a hard time keeping up with what’s ok to eat. I pop by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch website (click here to go) a few times a year to check out their handy guides (paper or mobile) about not only which fish are overfished or unsustainably harvested, but which fish tend to carry heavier burden of ocean pollution (i.e. mercury and other heavy metals) and pass them onto their devourer in a sort of poetic justice.

I know what a a pain it can be to be picky about the species of fish you will and won’t eat. But trust me, all chefs are total whores for your approval. The kitchen may make fun of you for bitching about farm-raised salmon, but not for long. They will know that you are right, and I bet they’ll change that menu as soon as they run out of the product.

The Chopping Block, farm-raised salmon, chilean sea bass, overfished, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Seafood Watch, seafood, fish, restaurant, pollution, mercury, responsible fishing, sustainable fishing, unregulated fishing, swordfish, tuna, patagonian toothfish

I ran across an excellent article today on AlterNet (alternet.org). Usually, I am not one to simply phone it in and copy and paste an article onto this site, and I won’t do that, but I will paraphrase the article a bit and urge you to click here to go to the source article.

The writer, Andrea Whitfill, is a kindred spirit in that she also reads lots of labels to see whence our consumer products come (wow, not often I get to correctly use whence in a sentence). This annoying habit has plagued me for years. So much so, that my boyfriend won’t buy toilet tissue without checking with me about the producer and whether “we” support them or not.

However, sometimes there are no good choices.

Ms. Whitfill decided to look beyond the labels, as many a label is downright misleading, to see who was really behind some of those “crunchy” eco-sustainable-green brands that we (suckers) have come to love and support religiously (but in an atheistic way). And for many of us that think of ourselves as Earth-lovers, we may not want to met the “man behind the curtain.”

In summary, so as to encourage you to read the source, almost every company that you like to think of as “small” or “family-owned” or “natural and organic” is in reality a small subsidiary of a much, much larger corporation.

Clorox owns the Burt’s Bees brand. Tom’s of Maine is owned by Colgate-Palmolive. Coca-Cola bought Odwalla (also HonesTea) and Pepsi owns Naked. And there’s more in the article, and in the graphic below. Click here to see larger version.

The only upside to Big Corporations owning those specialty brands is that yes, those brands can now reach a bigger stage in the major grocery chains, so maybe more people will make the choice to go organic or natural (if those brands are still organic and natural — I have a hard time trusting that a major corporation wouldn’t tweak a “natural” brand to cut costs).

And maybe I am too much of a Pollyanna here, but maybe the parent corporations will learn something from their granola-lovin’ stepchildren…eh, probably not.

AlterNet, organic food, sustainable agriculture, food processors, natural food, health food brands, Clorox, Burt’s Bees, Tom’s of Maine, Colgate-Palmolive, Coca-Cola, Odwalla, HonesTea, Pepsi, Naked juices, major corporations

“Smart Grid” is quickly becoming a buzzword among politicians, environmentalists, and utility companies. But what exactly is a Smart Grid and how it is going to save the planet?

The “smart grid” is not a single thing, but rather a whole host of technologies that can be used to create or upgrade an electric grid using digital devices to keep track of usage and monitor peak usage as well as controlling the usage within a home or building to ensure that high-energy devices are switching on during off-peak times when possible. A smart grid may include monitors within buildings that allow users to better manage their energy usage. Smart grids will also become necessary to allow individual sources of energy, like home solar panels or geothermal systems, to upload to and feed the grid. And electric cars that you plug in at home? Yeah, those will need smart grid technology to work.

It’s not like a Smart Grid will solve all of our problems, but it may help us use energy more efficiently, and that is something that is becoming extremely important as the world’s thirst for cheap power grows. Even a small percentage of efficiency in a major city’s electrical grid means big savings in terms of carbon emissions. The US’s electricity grid was first developed and built in the early part of the 20th century, so yeah, that’s not outdated or anything.

Leave it to the Dutch to take the lead in converting the first major city to full smart grid technology. The city of Amsterdam may provide us with a useful case study on how a large city can install and benefit from a smart grid. Amsterdam is currently restructuring its energy infrastructure to be “smart” and hopes to have it all done in the next few years.

All told, the municipality, energy outfits, and private companies are expected to invest more than $1 billion over the next three years. That figure includes a $383 million investment by local electricity network operator Alliander in so-called “smart grid” technology that uses network sensors and improved domestic energy monitoring to trim electricity use. Also part of the plan: up to $255 million to be spent by local housing cooperatives on boosting household energy efficiency, and $383 million from companies including Phillips (PHG) and Dutch utility Nuon to be invested in other energy-efficient technology.

“In the next year and a half, we expect to be the leading smart city in Europe,” says Ger Baron, senior project manager at the Amsterdam Innovation Motor, a public-private joint venture that is overseeing the project. “We’re in the right place at the right time.”

The focus on cutting cities’ emissions could have a major impact on the battle against global warming. As of 2006, more people now live in urban areas than in the countryside, and the sprawl surrounding megacities such as Mumbai and Saõ Paolo is only likely to increase. Consultancy Accenture (ACN) reckons cities produce almost two-thirds of total global carbon dioxide emissions through a combination of car fumes, household energy use, and industrial manufacturing. In the coming years, policy shifts from the U.S. and elsewhere will put even more pressure on controlling carbon output.

“Until now, there’s been an underemphasis on what cities can do to cut emissions,” says Mark Spelman, Accenture’s global head of strategy. –Business Week

Global technology companies like IBM and Cisco are also getting in on Amsterdam’s plans to change the way the city uses energy. And Dutch banks are going to provide small loans to homeowners to purchase and install green improvements around the house, with the intention that the costs saved from energy efficiency will pay for the cost of the loans.

The Business Week article also mentions that Xcel Energy is working in the city of Boulder, Colorado to connect 60,000 homes to a smart grid.

Considering that in most cases, smart grids are being pushed by energy companies and that is a positive move. Whether it is just to make more money or not, moving forward in innovation is what this world needs, rather than trying to squeeze more money from the planet’s dwindling resources.

Smart Grid, electricity, energy, Amsterdam, technology, efficiency, homes, usage, solar panel, geothermal, electric car, IBM, Cisco, Xcel Energy, Boulder, Colorado

Within days of getting my email from the Great Sunflower Project asking me to confirm my mailing address for my free sunflower seeds, I also get news that the Natural Resources Defense Council is campaigning to get the EPA to suspend use of and review its approval of the pesticide imidacloprid, a “moderately” toxic pesticide that works on the neurotransmitters in insects.

If you are a regular reader, you know that I often lambaste the EPA for its shortsightedness when it comes to approving chemicals for use in industry and agriculture (and pharmaceuticals and consumer use) without any true long-term testing. And in the case of imidacloprid, the NRDC is asking that something as simple as multi-generational studies on how this pesticide affects honey bees.

Imidacloprid was first patented and put into use in the late 1980’s. The pesticide is a neonicotinoid, which is based on the chemical makeup of nicotine. Imidacloprid works on a an insect’s nervous system, after the insect ingests the chemical after feeding on a plant’s sweet juices. A neonicotinoid blocks a receptor in the brain and causes an excess amount of acetylcholine. The excess creates paralysis and then death in the victim.

France has banned imidacloprid, sold thereunder the name Gaucho, for use on sunflowers since 1999 after one-third of all the country’s honeybees dies after a season of wide-spread usage. The French further banned the chemical on sweet corn, and last year, decided not to approve its use at all. Germany banned imidacloprid and its 8 neonicitinoid cousins last year after a huge die-off of honeybees following an application of the pesticide, clothianidin. Furthermore, imidacloprid’s maker, Bayer, is being sued by various groups, from farmers to local and national environmental groups.

What you can do

You can write to the EPA calling for action. Click here for the NDRC action site to send a pre-written letter to the Office of Pesticide Programs.

Also, buy organic produce and support farmers that eschew chemical pesticides.

EPA, pesticide, agriculture, imidacloprid, neonicotinoid, honeybees, colony collapse disorder, bees, toxicity, chemicals, organic, France, US, Gaucho, corn, farming, Germany, banned, Europe, clothianidin, acetylcholine, brain, nervous system, insects, plants

This is just like the whole Clean Coal ad campaign of which I am a big fan. You can read some of my odes here and here.

Now, let me tell you something, Smart Black Lady who is ironically more at risk for the disease that high fructose corn syrup is known to cause — Diabetes.

A little history on the corn industry — think again, if you think it’s all just quaint little family farms growing corn on their daddy and granddaddy’s land. Too often, those who live in the cities have a very naive view of farming and where their food really comes from. Those little guys were bought out years ago, and now huge corporations are farming a big percentage of America’s farmland. And due to some crazy farm laws, corn growers get subsidized to grow corn. That’s right. Big corporate farms make money just to grow corn on top of what they sell it for, and then they get tax breaks that mean they make more on selling their product. And gee, I wonder how you can make even more money from this magical crop?

Yes, find more uses for corn. I mean, come on, who can eat corn for every meal, right? So, let’s process that corn and strip it down to its basic components, namely the glucose. Add an enzyme and you can make fructose. Blend that fructose with the right ratio of sucrose, and viola, you get HFCS, a fine substitute for expensive cane or beet sugar. But the problem is that by “watering down” the sucrose, you are creating a larger problem within your body. You see, it’s sucrose that helps you feel satisfied, and studies are indicating that your body does not process fructose in a way is regulated. Sucrose needs sucrase to break it down, and your body only produces so much of it. Think of sucrose like wheat bread with fibre, and fructose as white bread. Fibre helps you feel full, which in turn helps you stop eating. And Americans don’t stop eating…

Anyway, the corporate farmers figured that if they can convince American food processors to use more HFCS in place of sugars, then that is a whole new market in which to make billions. Real sugar is more expensive than sugar, so food processors and soft drink makers were more than happy to use a ready-to-mix liquid that can save them money. And guess what? The same corporations that own the farms also own the companies that make the processed food. So essentially, corporations like Cargill and ArcherDanielsMidland, grow corn to make into HFCS and then use that cheaper HFCS to make the foods we all know and love, foods that are sold with mascots and big advertising campaigns. And it’s all making us fat and unhealthy, which in turn makes us spend more on health costs, which in turn means that American pharmaceutical and insurance companies are making money.

Do you ever get the feeling that the US Government has really sold us out?

And long-term testing…what long term testing? We see it all around us. Americans not only drink the stuff in soft drinks, but with more and more people using packaged, processed ready-to-eat meals (made by the same corporations that grow the corn and make the HFCS remember), and, well, the hens are coming home to roost.

Mmm…chicken.

Don’t get me started on the Chicken Industry.

high fructose corn syrup, corn, obesity, diabetes, disease, health, American diet, soft drinks, sucrose, sucrase, enzyme, processed foods, industry, corporate farms, farming, government, subsidies, chicken, Cargill, ArcherDanielsMidland, HFCS

Americans don’t seem all that keen on their fruits and veggies, or at least not as keen as they should be, unless we are talking potatoes. And especially when they eat out, Americans are more concerned about proteins and starches, relegating the veggies to mere side dishes, if included in the meal at all.

And then, add the seasonality of fresh fruits and veggies, and we can see that sometimes eating fresh produce is hard to do, especially if you are on a budget or if you don’t want to purchase imported produce that requires fuel and produced more carbon emissions to ship to your local grocery chain. Also, keep in mind that so-called fresh produce was most likely picked unripe (which means that it did not spend enough time “on the vine” to develop all its healthy nutrients) and has been traveling for a week or more before it even gets to your store.

What’s an urban ecoist to do?

Two options are canned or frozen vegetables and fruits. But which is better?

The canning process involves heating, which will kill any microorganisms that may be living on or in vegetables and fruit. It is very rare that a canned product will carry food-borne illness (which has become a problem with fresh produce lately). However, some nutrients withstand the canning process better than others. Vitamin C and folate are two such nutrients that can be lost during canning.

Frozen produce may be a better choice for most fruits and veggies. Produce undergoes freezing soon after it is picked, so there are less nutrients lost due to age, which may make frozen produce better than some imported “fresh” produce.

Of course, we wouldn’t be very responsible ecoists if we didn’t take some other things into consideration, such as packaging. Cans are highly recyclable and can be reprocessed almost infinitely, but more and more cans are lined with a plastic that contains Bisphenol-A (BPA), which more and more research is showing to leach into foods (especially acidic ones, like tomatoes). Scientists are finding evidence that BPA may cause developmental damage in humans. The EPA is working with some manufacturers to voluntarily reduce BPA use in cans, but I can forecast a day soon when you will be looking for a “no BPA” label on canned goods.

Frozen produce are usually packaged in plastic bags, and the plastic, usually HDPE (#2), used is not as easily recyclable and rarely included in curbside recycling programs. Unfortunately, even the cardboard packaging used with frozen produce is lined with plastic, which also makes it harder to recycle.

Another consideration is where those canned and frozen fruits and vegetables are coming from, and usually that’s a factory farm. Depending on where you live, that can of peas may have traveled thousands of miles to get to your grocery store shelves.

Geez, it’s not easy being green…but if you are serious about it, you may want to can or freeze your own veggies and fruits. When you are at your local farmers market or farm stand this summer, buy larger quantities of fresh produce and process them yourself for winter consumption. Start out freezing fruits like berries, which are easy, and as you become more comfortable and savvy, try your hand at tomatoes.

I remember the cellar at my great-grandfather’s house in Dearborn, Michigan and the shelves stocked with mason jars full of stuff like tomatoes and pickles. He grew everything in his own urban backyard. It’s too bad that as a society, we have become more and more reliant on grocery stores to bring us our produce, when really we could be providing our own — saving money and nutrients at the same time.

fruits, vegetables, healthy eating, nutrition, frozen, canned, produce, carbon emissions, seasonality, BPA, Bisphenol-A, plastics, HDPE, recycling, home canning, factory farm, farmers market, fresh produce, imported produce, EPA, vitamin C, folate

For the time being, let’s hope so.

First, a little backstory…The Arctic is melting. Whether you want to blame man for that or not, it is happening. Summer of 2007 saw the lowest “minimum”* of sea ice since, well, the last Ice Age. 2008’s figures are not any better, though not as minimum as ‘07.

*sea ice minimum refers to the point in the summer season in which the ice cap melts to it’s lowest level. Conversely, the “maximum” is the point during the winter in which there is the most ice. Simple enough.

So, with Arctic ice sheets abating, that means that the Arctic Ocean is becoming more and more navigable to ships and fishing boats. Also, it seems that some species of fish that prefer colder water may be moving into Arctic waters. If the fish go to the Arctic Sea, so will the fishing boats.

Or so it would seem. But somehow the North Pacific Fishery Management Council are becoming a more forward-thinking government agency, and fishing boats may not be allowed in Arctic waters off of Alaska. The NPFMC is meeting in early February to make the final determination on whether or not to create legal fisheries in the Arctic Ocean.

To get a little more detailed, the NPFMC may one day allow fishing in the Arctic, but not until proper studies of the region and its ecosystem can be conducted. The fish populations should be studied first and maybe fished second if the populations can withstand harvest.

You can do your part (besides making sure the fish you consume is sustainably harvested) in this decision making process by writing the NPFMC and letting them know that you support the decision to make an environmental survey of the Arctic fish stocks (and future immigrant populations fleeing warming waters in more southern seas) before allowing commercial fishing concerns to pillage and plunder in order to make more fish sticks.

Click on this sentence to go to the PEW Environmental Group’s website to send an email (save paper) to the Chairman of the NPFMC asking him to close off Arctic waters to commercial fishing.

Arctic, Arctic Ocean, fisheries, fishing, commercial fishing, Alaska, ice, global warming, climate change, fish, populations, stocks, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, sustainably harvested

So today I got an email from Corporate Accountability International asking me to send off an email to my state’s governor asking him to cancel state contracts for bottled water service. Good idea, right? I thought so, too, and sent the email. It is amazing what a little bitching can do…

But then I thought about bottled water. And how bottled water is more often than not, bottled city tap water. While staying at my aunt’s in Brighton, Michigan (around the same area as Hell, Michigan — no lie), I drank bottled water. It’s what you do in unenlightened areas of the country — oh, gee, that makes me sound really smug, doesn’t it?

Ok, it is not fair to call people who drink bottled water unenlightened. You see, my aunt spent 14 years in Southern California, and everyone was forced to buy bottled water as the LA Megasprawl’s water sucks. She is a creature of habit, and after moving to Michigan against her will, she did what she always did. She signed up with a bottled water distributor that brings those big bluish bottles to her house. She inverts the bottle in a stand and viola, she has drinking water.

However, while staying with her over the holidays, I changed one of those bottles. I read the little tiny label that peels off when you open the bottle. It said “City of Cleveland” and municipal drinking water. My aunt is buying Cleveland city water.

I brought this interesting little tidbit up to her, and she was not aware that the water came from Cleveland, which may be highly ranked for its sustainability due to its water source being Lake Erie, but does not rank highly when it comes to water quality. She said she didn’t care. She answered that it was better than well water.

Is it though?

I did not have the heart to ask her how much she pays for Cleveland water.

If you do buy bottled water, read the label. Find the source. You may be paying for water that is lower quality than the water that comes from your tap.

Corporate Accountability International, water, quality, bottled water, tap water, Cleveland, Brighton, Hell, Michigan, sustainability

Cows fart.  Cows fart a lot. Cows fart methane, and methane is twenty times more effective at trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. So are cows to blame for global warming?

Way back in high school debate class, a friend and I were debating global warming (yes, way back then in 1993 — this argument is nothing new, people). She was flying through the negative side of the argument and blithely read a piece of evidence that read something along the lines of cows are to blame for global warming and humans have nothing to do with it. It was kind of besides the point in the argument, and anyone who participated in high school-level debate knows that most of what you do is read quotes from articles and scientific journals as fast as you can in hopes that your opponent doesn’t have time to refute it. I didn’t even catch this little tidbit of silliness, until Mrs. Gillespie (shout out!) pointed out the cow fart argument. Luckily, Lori brought it up in a rebuttal, so I didn’t have to refute it — and yes, I won, but as always I am digressing. Kind of.

Cows and their flatulence have been the focus of some global warming nay-sayers for years, but those farts are also a valid contributor to rising methane levels. But hardly can anyone point the finger at cows without also pointing four fingers back at ourselves?

Do cows live in the wild? Yes, they do. The San Diego Zoo website can tell you all about it if you click on this link. But how many cows live on this planet simply because we like to eat them and drink their milk?

There is approximately one cow per 4 people on this planet, or 1.5 billion cows. Ironically, India has the most cows, despite the fact that they don’t eat them. In the US, we have about 100 million head of cattle, or one cow per 3 people, slightly higher than the world’s average. That’s a whole lotta fartin’ goin’ on.

You may run across the whole issue of cow farts in the news here and there, as the US Environmental Protection Agency had proposed putting a tax on cows in an attempt to curb greenhouse gases and curb global warming. Of course, the cattle industry went berserk, and the EPA said, just kidding, we were only saying that to see what the cattle industry would say.

Huh? Actually, double huh, because I am not sure how effective a tax on cattle would be in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Yeah, taxes on cows would increase beef prices to consumers and then maybe consumers would give up beef, but if you think of the scope of how much beef is consumed in the US alone, by way of fast food, golly, would Americans really be able to give up red meat?

Methinks that the fast food industry would find some way to “water down” beef with more fillers to keep people hooked.

But for those of us that can see the forest for the trees, it is hard to deny that if we did in fact reduce the amount of beef consumed, maybe that could have a real impact on the amount of methane pumped into the atmosphere. Granted, it may not make a tremendous difference once that permafrost melts and all that methane trapped under ice and frozen soil comes bubbling up, but we urban ecoists try to make individual efforts in hopes of creating a larger change.

And I have written in the past about how much water it takes to raise cattle. Giving up beef could help out this planet in more ways than just in terms of methane. Cows drink a lot of water and eat a lot of grain, which also needs water. Processing beef also required water. And water is something we ain’t got to spare anymore.

cows, fart, flatulence, methane, tax, global warming, water, beef, fast food, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, India, US, cattle industry,

My boyfriend and I have developed a division of labor in our house. He drinks the beer and I recycle the bottles. Alright, that is a simplified version of our organizational structure, but it is true that I am the consummate recycler in our “family.”

And recycle I do. I cut out the spouts in the tetrapaks, I am careful not to mix my plastics, and anything that cannot go out curbside goes into a small “pantry” space in our small, but big enough for two people post-WWII house. Anything that I can reuse is cleaned and awaits dried herbs or seeds for my garden.

I learned to be a good recycler from my grandparents, by whom I was raised. Back then, you had to clean out tins and remove the labels, soak glass jars so the glue would release those labels, and you even had to bundle your newspapers up with string. It was a lot of work, but it seemed important. As recycling has become easier, more and more items are recyclable and my pantry fills up quite quickly, necessitating more trips to a local recycler that handles whatever my curbside service doesn’t.

To be perfectly honest, however, I am starting to question my commitment to recycling. Perhaps other urban ecoists are starting to feel the same way. I am starting to become more and more pessimistic about the state of the world and where it is headed, but despite my doubt over whether or not my recyclables are really going to make a difference, I still find that I just cannot toss plastic in the trash.

And then, I start seeing reports that the recycled materials market is bottoming out.

In West Virginia, an official of Kanawha County, which includes Charleston, the state capital, has called on residents to stockpile their own plastic and metals, which the county mostly stopped taking on Friday. In eastern Pennsylvania, the small town of Frackville recently suspended its recycling program when it became cheaper to dump than to recycle. In Montana, a recycler near Yellowstone National Park no longer takes anything but cardboard.

There are no signs yet of a nationwide abandonment of recycling programs. But industry executives say that after years of growth, the whole system is facing an abrupt slowdown.

Sigh.

recycling, recycle, recyclables, recycled materials, economic downturn, slowdown, economy, glass, plastic, newspaper