Ecotopia

10/12/2010

Tonight we’ll be talking about the upcoming “This Way to Sustainability Conference” to be held on the Chico State and Butte Community College campuses on November 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th. We’ll talk with two students who coordinators of the conference– Ciara  Meanes from Chico State and Lisa Dayoan from Butte College. And we’ll talk about the whole concept of sustainability.

Listen to the show.

Background: The Sustainability Concept

We want to start by looking at some perspectives on sustainability and at the history of the concept. “The Sustainability Report”–which is affiliated with the Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability in Canada—provides a brief history of “sustainable development.”  Their definition of sustainability

 sees human activities as part of and dependent upon the natural world. . . . [T]he human ecosystem, including the communities we build, is a subset of the larger ecosystem of the Earth. . . . Most definitions stress that sustainability requires making decisions that recognize the connections between actions and effects in the environment, economy and society.”

Here’s the history “The Sustainability Report” provides:

“The sustainability idea as we know it emerged in a series of meetings and reports during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1972, the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment marked the first great international meeting on how human activities were harming the environment and putting humans at risk.

[We want to note editorially that the first Earth Day also occurred in 1972, so there is even more evidence of global awakening.] 

The “Sustainability Report” continues:

The 1980 World Conservation Strategy, prepared by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature along with the UN Environment Program and the World Wildlife Fund, promoted the idea of environmental protection in the self-interest of the human species.

In 1987, the UN-sponsored Brundtland Commission released Our Common Future, a report that captured widespread concerns about the environment and poverty in many parts of the world.

The Brundtland report said that economic development cannot stop, but it must change course to fit within the planet’s ecological limits. It also popularized the term sustainable development, which it defined as development that meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

World attention on sustainability peaked at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, in Rio de Janeiro. It brought together the heads or senior officials of 179 governments, and included the Earth Summit, the largest-ever meeting of world leaders. Rio produced two international agreements, two statements of principles and a major action agenda on worldwide sustainable development.

 The “Sustainability Report” notes that:

The interest in sustainability that flourished during that period was spurred by a series of incidents and discoveries, including the leak of poisonous gas from a chemical plant at Bhopal, India, the explosion and radioactive release from Chernobyl, Ukraine, the hole in the Antarctic ozone layer, leaking toxic chemical dumps, such as Love Canal, general fears about chemical contamination and conflicts over decreasing natural resources such as forests and fisheries.

 “The Brundtland report”—sponsored by the UN in 1987—“captured many of those concerns when it said:”

 Major, unintended changes are occurring in the atmosphere, in soils, in waters, among plants and animals. Nature is bountiful but it is also fragile and finely balanced. There are thresholds that cannot be crossed without endangering the basic integrity of the system. Today we are close to many of those thresholds.

 Again, that from the Sustainability Report, from the Canadian Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability: http://www.sustreport.org/background/history.html

 In planning and developing communities, the issue of sustainability is very complex indeed. Trying to weigh everything that must be considered to make a community/a town/a city sustainable requires understanding many interdependent factors. “Sustainable Measures,” a private consulting firm in Connecticut dedicated to promoting sustainable communities describes what has to be taken into consideration when working toward a sustainable community. They note:

[T]he economy exists entirely within society, because all parts of the human economy require interaction among people. However, society is much more than just the economy. Friends and families, music and art, religion and ethics are important elements of society, but are not primarily based on exchanging goods and services.

Society, in turn, exists entirely within the environment. Our basic requirements — air, food and water — come from the environment, as do the energy and raw materials for housing, transportation and the products we depend on.

 Finally, the environment surrounds society. At an earlier point in human history, the environment largely determined the shape of society. Today the opposite is true: human activity is reshaping the environment at an ever-increasing rate. The parts of the environment unaffected by human activity are getting smaller all the time. However, because people need food, water and air to survive, society can never be larger than the environment.

Sustainability requires managing all households — individual, community, national, and global — in ways that ensure that our economy and society can continue to exist without destroying the natural environment on which we all depend. Sustainable communities acknowledge that there are limits to the natural, social and built systems upon which we depend. Key questions asked in a sustainable community include: ‘Are we using this resource faster than it can be renewed’ and ‘Are we enhancing the social and human capital upon which our community depends?

That description from the Sustainable Measures consulting firm in Connecticut.

The City of Chico is working on this whole complex issue through the Sustainability Task Force, a committee of the Chico City Council. Initiated in 2007, the purpose of the Task Force was to develop “initiatives to implement the US Conference of Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while simultaneously meeting environmental, economic, and community needs now and in the future.”  Part of the work has involved creating a Climate Action Plan that includes—among other things–water and air quality. The Task Force has also worked on sustainability measures to be included the City’s General Plan Update. This has involved developing measurable sustainability indicators. Those indicators include things like Land Use, Community Design, Transportation, Economic Development, Noise, Parks and Open Space.

We plan to devote an entire show to the Sustainability Task Force in the near future. Meanwhile, to learn more about its work you can go to the Sustainability Task Force’s website on the City Council site.

http://www.chico.ca.us/government/minutes_agendas/sustainability_task_force.asp

Our Discussion with Ciara Meanes and Lisa Dayoan

With us now in the studio are Ciara Meanes from Chico State and Lisa Dayoan from Butte College, student coordinators of “This Way to Sustainability, “ a conference sponsored by Chico State and Butte College.

1.   What is the purpose of “This Way to Sustainability Conference” coming up on November 4-6.

2.  How did Chico State and Butte College begin this collaboration? How long have you been doing this and how has it developed over the years?

3.  There are events going on at both the Butte College campus and the CSU campus. Can you explain those arrangements?

4.  Tell us about some of the major speakers who will be presenting.

5.  Who do you hope will come to the conference?

6. One thing we really like about the conference is the various strands of the conference directed to different communities. Can you tell us something about that?

[Some notes from the web site: The theme for this year’s conference is Connecting Communities and we are taking that theme deep into the structure of the conference. In the past we have established “tracks” and invited some people to make presentations, and invited other people to come listen. This year we are establishing five communities – learning, building, business, biotic, and advocacy- and we are asking people involved or interested in those sectors of our larger, global community to come together to propose a set of presentations and other interactions that they, and thus others, would want to attend. While the communities will develop organically, we do have a few thoughts on each:

Learning Community ~ Education is the engine of change. Teachers, students, parents, and administrators need to work together to incorporate sustainability into all levels of the educational system.

Building/Facilities Community ~ Even in Northern California, we are an urban people. All of us live, study, and work in buildings, and we all have an interest in building a more sustainable community.

Business Community ~ Many of our most fundamental relationships are also business transactions and no sector of society has a greater reach in spreading sustainability in production, employment and consumption.

Living Community ~ Humans share the earth with many beings and we express that connection in many ways; in our ethics and our art, in our inspirations and our meditations.

Advocacy Community ~ Sustainability is about envisioning a better world, and then acquiring and employing the tools of change needed to make the vision a reality.

Community Center Expo ~ This year’s sustainability conference will include a Community Center Expo! This expo will provide space for vendors and exhibitors to display sustainable products and ideas in the main Auditorium of the Bell Memorial Union Thursday and/or Friday during the conference. The Community Center Expo will allow for exhibitor display areas in addition to a demonstration stage and workshop are.]

7.  Tell us how you went about organizing such a big event? What got your involved in this effort?

8.  The conference itself also makes a real effort to be “green.” What are some of the efforts to create a small footprint for the event?

9.  What other aspects of the conference would you like to highlight? What are you most looking forward to or excited about?

10. Could you again give us the details of the conference? When and where is it? How can people register?

 Playlist for Eco #107: Sustainability Now

1. Will There Be Enough Water?        6:20     The Dead Weather     Horehound     

2. Clear Blue Skies (LP Version)        3:07     Crosby, Still, Nash & Young   American Dream       

3. Mother Earth (Natural Anthem)      5:11     Neil Young      Ragged Glory

4. Supernova  4:42     Liquid Blue      Supernova     

5. Nature’s Way          2:40     Spirit    Twelve Dreams Of Dr. Sardonicus   

6. Weave Me the Sunshine    4:28     Peter, Paul And Mary The Very Best of Peter, Paul and Mary        

7. Teach Your Children           3:02     Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young Four Way Street [Disc 1] [Live]         

8. Worldwide Connected        5:06     The Herbaliser            Something Wicked This Way Comes           

9. In A Future Age       2:57     Wilco   Summerteeth  Country

No Comments »

5 October 2010

Tonight our show is called “Green Baby,” and we’ll be talking about raising babies sustainably. Our guest is Cyndi Pereira, Manager of The Green Baby Expo, being held on October 16 at the Redding Convention Center.   www.GreenBabyExpo.com

Background: Gettin’ Down and Dirty

 We’ll start with a little exploration into one of the controversial topics in green baby world. The diaper. First, let’s start with a little history

 According to HubPages:

 ‘Those old diapers worn in ancient times weren’t all that bad! Cattails, when they ripen puff out with some very soft fibers that would be quite absorbent. Also used were mounds of moss and leaves in those first fancy diapers of old!

Other than the warmer climates where infants and children were usually kept naked, the diaper has been in existence for thousands of years.

 The first fancy diapers were moss or leaves wrapped in animal skins.”

 Rabbit is said to be particularly soft. 

http://hubpages.com/hub/Fancy-Diapers

 According to the Diaper Jungle, “Elizabethan times allowed for a cloth type of diaper, however, it was changed so infrequently that several days worth of waste accumulated.”

 “[But] The history of diapers began a major evolution in the early 1800s. At this time cloth diapers were used, however they were rarely washed but just dried before reapplying. However, individuals started to realize the importance of diapers in protecting furniture, and more importantly, their baby’s skin. Soon, cloth diapers began improving somewhat, as well as the hygiene.”

 http://www.diaperjungle.com/history-of-diapers.html

 According to Wikipedia,  “Cloth diapers were first mass produced in 1887 by Maria Allen in the United States.” These diapers were held in place by a safety pin. Then:

“In the 20th century, the disposable diaper gradually evolved through the inventions of several different people. In 1942, a Swedish paper company known as Pauliström created the first disposable diaper using sheets of tissue placed inside rubber pants. Four years later Marion Donovan, an American housewife from Westport, Connecticut, developed a waterproof diaper cover known as the “Boater” using a sheet of plastic from a shower curtain; she was granted four patents for her invention, including the use of plastic snaps as opposed to safety pins.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaper 

In the 1950’s, there was another big change in the diaper. Mrs. Hellerman – owner of a diaper service in Milwaukee – went to the Kendall Company, which made Curity’s  brand diapers, with a new invention. It was a fold that put extra cotton layers in the center of the diaper and made it the right size for most babies. The fold was sewn shut, and the prefolded diaper was born.”

http://www.diaperjungle.com/history-of-diapers.html

However, it was the disposable diaper that created the big revolution in diapering:

In 1947, a man named George M. Schroder invented the first diaper with disposable nonwoven fabric. Disposable diapers were introduced to the US in 1949 by Johnson & Johnson. . . . During the 1950s, companies such as Kendall, Parke-Davis, Playtex, and Molnlycke entered the disposable diaper market.” In the 1960s and the 1970s, the disposable diaper market really began to heat up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaper

 Today, there are even more permutations of the cloth/disposable diaper, and any choice a parent makes is controversial.  We went to WebMD to get one medical opinion on which is better—in terms of both the environment and baby’s comfort and health.

 Here’s what WebMD says about environmental impact:

“Research has suggested that both disposable and cloth diapers affect the environment negatively — just in different ways. For example, disposable diapers require more raw materials to manufacture. And they generate more landfill solid waste that can take an extremely long time to degrade. But cloth diapers use up large amounts of electricity and water for washing and drying. Plus, commercial diaper service delivery trucks consume fuel and create air pollution.

Nebraska pediatrician Laura A. Jana, MD, FAAP, agrees that there’s no clear winner in the diaper debate. She researched the controversy while co-writing the American Academy of Pediatrics book, Heading Home with Your Newborn: From Birth to Reality.

“When we were writing the book, we tried to get to the bottom of [the debate]. And — with a sort of pun intended — it kind of came out a wash,” Jana says. “More power to parents who are trying to do the right thing,” she adds. “But I’m not convinced from an environmental standpoint that there’s a huge benefit to cloth diapers.”

Ultimately, parents are left to make their own personal choice. The American Academy of Pediatrics takes no position on cloth vs. disposable diapers.

Nor does the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While proponents of cloth diapers worry that germs in disposable diapers might leach from landfills to contaminate ground water, an EPA spokesperson told WebMD in an email that the agency didn’t consider them a hazard: “Disposable diapers fall under the category of municipal solid waste, which means the material is safe to be disposed of in a U.S. municipal solid waste landfill. In the U.S., modern landfills are well-engineered facilities that are located, designed, operated, and monitored to ensure compliance with federal regulations which aim to protect the environment from contaminants which may be present in the solid waste stream.”

Despite the lack of consensus, parents can still go green. Some buy a flushable hybrid diaper. The soiled, biodegradable liner is flushed down the toilet into the sewage system, rather than sending yet another diaper to the landfill. Then parents insert a new liner into the reusable cloth pants.

 Others parents prefer chlorine-free disposable diapers, which cut down on toxic dioxin. Dioxin is the result of using chlorine to bleach disposables white. Parents can also buy organic cotton diapers. Organic cotton uses no pesticides during growing.

Another concern is whether the chemicals in disposable diapers pose a health risk. WebMD reports that there is no conclusive evidence of harm. They claim:

    “* Sodium polyacrylate crystals, the superabsorbent ingredient in disposables, were linked to toxic shock among tampon users about three decades ago. But tampons enter the body, while diapers remain outside. According to the Green Guide Institute, a later study suggested that tampon habits, rather than materials, caused toxic shock.

    * A 2000 German study of 48 boys found that those who wore disposable diapers had higher scrotum temperatures than those in cloth diapers. That raised a theoretical risk of lower sperm count. But a 2002 study found scrotal temperatures to be the same, regardless of whether boys wore disposables or cotton diapers with covers.

It’s important to pay attention to research that points out potential harm, [Pediatritian Laura] Jana says. . . .

A third concern is which diaper best presents diaper rash. WebMD says that

“Diaper rash can stem from several causes: friction, moisture, urine, and feces. Sometimes, the culprit is infection from yeast, such as Candida albicans.

Again, there’s no consensus on whether disposable or cloth diapers are best for reducing risk of diaper rash. But according to Tanya Remer Altmann, MD, FAAP, “Most pediatricians do feel that disposable diapers prevent irritation diaper rashes. That’s because they keep the baby’s bottom drier

 Altmann, editor-in-chief of The American Academy of Pediatric book, The Wonder Years, tells WebMD that parents that . . . “If you’re good about changing your baby’s diaper very frequently, as we recommend that parents do, you can prevent diaper rash with both types of diapers.

A 2005 study published in Pediatrics found that some babies can develop rash as an allergic reaction to dyes in colorful diapers. Parents can switch to dye-free diapers to remedy the problem.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/diapering-a-baby-9/diaper-choices?page=2

 Our Coversation with Cyndi Pereira

In th studio with is now is Cyndi Pereira. She is the Manager of the Green Baby Expo: Sustaining their Future.

www.GreenBabyExpo.com

1. First of all, can you tell us when and where the Green Baby Expo will be held?

2. What is the purpose of the Green Baby Expo?

3. Tell us a little about the history of the Green Baby Expo.

4. What sorts of events will be going on at the Expo?

5. Will there be some speakers at the Expo? Who will be speaking?

6. Are there some special activities that you would like to highlight?

7. Who will some of the exhibitors be?

8. Are there products or services that are new in the world of eco-friendly child rearing that you’re especially excited about?

9. What do you think people can gain or learn by coming to the Green Baby Expo?

10. Again, can you remind us again when and where the Expo will be held?

Additional Resources

New parents might wish for some help in looking for resources for babies that are both green and economical, and the Green Baby Guide—both the website and the book—is a bit help. Edited and written by Joy Hatch and Rebecca Kelly, mothers who began their collaboration when they wanted their questions about green baby care answered, the website’s three-year archive offers help on everything from baby food to laundry to holidays to organic gardening and much more. In addition, the editors seem to make a real effort to make sure claims of greenness can be backed up.

http://greenbabyguide.com/

PlanetGreen.com also offers information on products and services aimed at the green baby market. They highlight organic, nontoxic, and sustainably produced clothes, toys, furniture and care products on their website.

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/go-green/green-baby/green-baby-archives.html

GreenMuze.Com provides a number of resources for raising a healthy baby in a toxic environment. They provide sources focusing on air quality for babies, pesticides, plastics, and toxins, in addition to the usual advice on a green nursery and green diapers. We’ve posted a few of their links on our website.

Better Air For Baby: http://betterairforbaby.com/

Beyond Pesticides: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/

Clean Earth, Happy Baby: http://www.cleanearthhappybaby.org/

Life Without Plastic: http://www.lifewithoutplastic.com

Toxic Free Legacy Coalition: http://www.toxicfreelegacy.org/

http://www.greenmuze.com/green-your/kids/347-sustainable-baby.html

Of course, everyone wants to get on the Green bandwagon these days, so we want to be a little cautious when we’re making green baby choices. We’ve talked about Greenwashing on Ecotopia in the past, and not surprisingly, baby care items are among the products that make claims about their greenness without full disclosure about what that “greenness” consists of. A report from TerraChoice Environmental Marketing asserts that 98% of the products that claim to be sustainable are not being entirely honest, leading to TerraChoices listing of the 7 Sins of Greenwashing. 11% of those products are baby care products (the top “sinners” are Health and Beauty, Office, Home, and Cleaning Products).

These are the 7 Sins of Greenwashing:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: If a product claims to be green in one sense, but ignores other significant impacts, the marketers sin. According to TerraChoice: “Paper, for example, is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from a sustainably-harvested forest. Other important environmental issues in the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.”

2. Sin of No Proof: If you can’t prove it with reputable third-party verification, you can’t claim it, according to TerraChoice: “Common examples are facial or toilet tissue products that claim various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing any evidence.”

3. Sin of Vagueness: Terms such as “all-natural,” “environmentally friendly” and other vague or unregulated descriptors can mislead consumers. TerraChoice points out: “Arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are all naturally occurring, and poisonous. ‘All natural’ isn’t necessarily ‘green’.”

4. The (new) Sin of Worshiping False Labels: Often, a product has an official-looking seal, but the seal is meaningless because it is dreamed up by the product marketers themselves, without any application of third-party standards’

5. Sin of Irrelevance: If a claim is true, but doesn’t distinguish the product in any meaningful way, marketers have sinned. According to TerraChoice: “‘CFC-free’ is a common example, since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CFCs (that’s chlorofluorocarbons — the chemical that depletes the ozone layer) are banned by law.”

6. Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils: Even if a green marketing claim is true — the cigarette is organic, or the SUV has a hybrid engine — it fails this TerraChoice test if the claim fails to recognize the overall harm caused by the product. The SUV may get better mileage than others in its class, but still achieve dismal fuel economy when compared to other vehicles; the cigarette, however organic, still causes lung cancer.

7. Sin of Fibbing: Simple. It’s a lie. Some companies will go as far as claiming to be certified organic or Energy Star-certified, but cannot back up the certification.

To help you make better green choices, TerraChoice provides a list of 11 eco-labels you can trust to give an accurate account of a product’s sustainability.

# Forest Stewardship Council

# Green Guard

# Green Seal

# Sustainable Forestry Initiative

# EPA’s Design for Environment

# Ecocert

# Energy Star

# EPEAT

# USDA Organic

# EPA’s WaterSense

# EcoLogo

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/six-sins-greenwashing-44072508

No Comments »

28 September 2010

This installment of Ecotopia takes a look at factory farming, particularly production of meat. 

We talk first with Daniel Imhoff, author of an impressive book of essays by major environmentalists with dramatic photographs showing “the tragedy of industrial animal factories.” CAFO: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.  Earth Aware, 2010.

Then we speak with David Murphy of Food Democracy Now! about his efforts to protect consumers from factory farming, especially the indiscriminate use of antibiotics on animals that are basically healthy.

Some Background on Factory Farming of Animals

From an essay by Wendell Berry, called “Stupidity in Concentration”:

 The principle of confinement in so-called animal science is derived from the industrial version of efficiency. The designers of animal factories appear to have had in mind the example of concentration camps or prisons, the aim of which is to house and feed the greatest numbers in the smallest space at the least expense of money, labor, and attention. To subject innocent creatures to such treatment has long been recognized as heartless. Animal factories make an economic virtue of heartlessness toward domestic animals, to which we humans owe instead a large debt of respect and gratitude.

 From Edward Abbey in “Down the River:

We are slaves in the sense that we depend for our daily survival upon an expand-or-expire agro-industrial empire—a crackpot machine—that specialists cannot comprehend and the managers cannot manage.  Which is, furthermore, devouring world resources at an exponential rate.

 Daniel Imhoff  writes of “The Loss of Individual Farms”:

In the United States, and increasingly in other parts of the world, livestock production has changed dramatically from family-based, small-scale, relatively independent farms to larger industrial operations more tightly aligned across the production and distribution chains.

 The problem with applying the industrial economic model to agriculture is the nature of farming itself.  Farms are not factories.  Farms are embedded within biological systems.  A healthy farm has natural diversity rather than factory-like precision and specialization. A healthy farm exhibits complex communities of plant and animal species instead of oversimplified monocultures.  And finally, a healthy farm is scaled according to what the land can resiliently sustain, not drawing too excessively from local water supplies, or overwhelming the surrounding area with wastes that can’t be safely applied as fertilizers or tolerated by neighbors.

And Daniel Imhoff cites the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has identified seven factors that have contributed to the rapid expansion of the factory food industry.

1. subsidy programs that have allowed large producers to lower operating costs by buying discounted grains;
2. innovations in breeding that produce animals tailored to harsh confinement conditions;
3. increasing use of antibiotics to thwart disease;
4. avoiding the costs of safe manure handling and treatment;
5. lack of enforcement of existing anti-trust and environmental regulations;
6. the domination of markets through contracts and ownership; and disregard of the negative effects of concentrated production on people living near the facilities. (109)

Our Questions for Daniel Imhoff.   Daniel Imhoff  is both editor of and a contributor to a new book titled CAFO The Tragedy of Industrial Animal.  Factories. The book has a distinguished list of contributors that includes Michael Pollan, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Anna Lapé, and Joel Salatin.

• Your title, CAFO,  is an acronym.  It sounds industrial or corporate.  What does it stand for and why did you choose it for the title of your book?
• This is a large book, coffee table size, lavishly  designed and illustrated with hundreds of disturbing color photos of factory farming operations and abuses.  Why did you choose to do the book this way?
• Could you give us a rough indication of the size and scope of CAFOs—in the U.S. and/or globally?  How much of the world’s food comes from these operations?  (What is “vertical integration”?)
• You and your authors expose a number of myths about Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.  Perhaps we could explore a few of these:
  • CAFOs are necessary to feed the world’s population.
  • They are “farms.”
  • The food they produce is healthy, good for us.
  • They are not harmful to the environment.
  • In your introduction, you note: “How a society functions can best be understood by studying  its food system.”  What’s the basis for that claim?  What do you conclude about how our society is functioning?
  • You also raise the question, “What are our ethical responsibilities as eaters, citizens, and producers in reforming a system that is so clearly in need of change?”  What’s your personal response to that question?
    • You suggest that consumers “vote with your fork.”  Can that realistically have an effect on the food industry?
    • What (if anything) are the CAFO producers doing to clean their own nest?
    • What do you recommend that policy makers do? which policy makers? Can we expect to dent the farm lobby?
    • Can we expect or hope that CAFOs will—as you and your writers propse—be dismantled or “put out to pasture”?

What else can concerned listeners do?  Your book is an incredible resource, but are there also other organizations that people should know about or join?

The book is CAFO: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories.  As we’ve said, it’s a work of art as a book, and it’s published by Earth Aware.  We have a pledge drive coming up in a couple of weeks, and we will offer our copy of the book as a special premium in exchange for a good pledge.  If you’d like to get your copy now, send us an e-mail, make an early pledge, and we’ll get this important book to you. 

Our Discussion with David Murphy

David Murphy is founder and director of Food Democracy Now!, an activist group that is campaigning for a number of reforms in the food industry. He has worked as a food policy lobbyist, media strategist, and was successful in 2007 in getting presidential candidates to pledge support for sustainable family farms. 

• Please tell us about Food Democracy Now!  When and why did you create it? (Who provides your funding?)
• You have written, “Our food system is fundamentally broken”  What does that mean?  What are the symptoms and consequences of this breakdown?
• We talked earlier in the program with Dan Imhoff about Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.  One of the big objections to CAFOs is indiscriminate use of antibiotics to (over)compensate for unhealthy living conditions for animals.  What is Food Democracy Now! doing about this issue?
  • We’ve read one of your documents on “Legislation on Antibiotic Use,” and found it the issue to be extraordinarily complex. We seem to have a patchwork of laws and regulations issued by various agencies  (e.g., HR 1549, Minor Species Act, FDA, CDC, the farm bill). Is there any hope for comprehensive or systematic reform of antibiotics regulation? Or more broadly, systematic reform of factory farming?
• You’ve also been active investigating the recent salmonella infestation of eggs from Wright County and Hillendale Farms.  Please tell us what you’ve learned and what you advocate.  And tell us about your success in getting some food chains not to buy from those sources.
• As time permits, please tell us about some of your other campaigns and interests:
  • GMO salmon
  • GMO alfalfa
  • The Russian Seed bank
• Please tell listeners how they can get involved in the work of Food Democracy Now!.  Are there other organizations that we should know about as well?

 Food Democracy Now has an excellent web site and makes it easy for people to sign petitions and otherwise weigh in of food issues. Be sure to visit them at fooddemocracynow.org.

Playlist for Ecotopia #105: Factory Animal Farming

1. Factory Farms        3:40        Trouser        Factory Farm Songs       
2. Industrial Disease        5:50        Dire Straits        Love Over Gold                               
3. Rain On The Scarecrow        3:46        John Mellencamp        Scarecrow       
4. Farm        2:57        Imagination Movers        Juice Box Heroes       
5. Weave Me the Sunshine        4:28        Peter, Paul And Mary        The Very Best of  Peter, Paul and Mary       
6. Farm Animals        3:20        Spook Less        Trail Riding Edition       
7. Cows        2:51        The Seldom Herd        Philadelphia Chickens 

 

No Comments »

21 September 2010

Tonight we will be talking about the greening of the paper industry, the attempts environmental and industry groups are making to cut down on pollution within the industry and to cut down on the amount of paper we use in business and our personal lives. We’ll talk first with Shannon Binns of the Green Press Initiative and then with Pam Blackledge of the Environmental Paper Network.

Listen to the program.

Background on Paper Pollution

To give us some background on the paper industry, we’ll read some information prepared by Halimah Collingwood of the Mainstream Media Project in Arcata, a group that makes people available for interviews on key environmental and political topics.  Halimah arranged our interviews tonight with Shannon Binns and Pam Blackledge.  Halimah’s background piece is entitled, Turning Over a New Sheaf in the Paper Industry.

The pressure is on at every level of the paper supply chain to create more sustainable business practices, from pulp mills and paper manufacturers, down to big-box and local office supply stores. Through the dedication of organizations such as the Environmental Paper Network (representing 100+ organizations focused on accelerating social and environmental transformation in the pulp and paper industry) some real progress is being made.  However, while Staples’ Copy Centers made the switch to 50 and 100% post-consumer paper as a standard offering, many other companies are guilty of “greenwashing” by marketing an eco-friendly appearance without addressing their environmentally damaging practices.

 Successes and Setbabks in the Greening of Paper Manufacturing [include the handling of] Black liquor –a byproduct of the paper manufacturing process– [which] has been burned to power paper manufacturing plants for the last 75 years. In 2009, paper companies who use the viscous substance, in a mix with diesel fuel, pounced on a 50 cent-per-gallon tax credit that was meant to stimulate innovations in biofuels. Rather than develop something new and sustainable, the paper industry found a way to cash in on a practice they had been doing for decades. Now the IRS is allowing paper companies to amend their 2009 tax returns to take advantage of $1.01-per-gallon credit previously intended for vehicle fuels. The $6 billion in tax credit that the paper industry has already received could, by some estimates, become $25 billion of additional tax benefits over the remaining time period that Congress never intended.

Meanwhile, paper manufacturers in Canada are given incentives from their government to “green up” the manufacturing process in order to stay competitive with their American counterparts receiving the IRS credit. The “Wheat Sheet,” a wheat straw-based paper has been developed in a partnership between Canadian researchers, printers, manufacturers, and magazine publishers, and is the first coated magazine paper made from agricultural waste in North America. Around the world, straw-based paper manufacturing can be found as a standard practice.

And from the website of the Green Paper Initiative, comes this description of the environmental dangers of the paper industry:The entire paper industry, when accounting for forest carbon loss, emits nearly 750 million tons of C02 equivalent annually – nearly 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This is equivalent to the annual emissions of over 136 million cars. The U.S. book and newspaper industries combined require the harvest of 125 million trees each year and emit over 40 million metric tons of CO2 annually; equivalent to the annual CO2 emissions of 7.3 million cars.

 

Each year the U.S book industry uses approximately 30 million trees, and the U.S. newspaper industry consumes 95 million trees. Many of these trees are from old growth and endangered forests, and the demand for paper is encouraging the practice of converting natural forests into single species tree plantations that support only a fraction of the biodiversity.

The paper industry is the fourth largest industrial source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and books and newspapers release greenhouse gases thought their lifecycles. Globally, scientist estimate that deforestation is responsible for 25% of human caused greenhouse gases. When trees are cut to make paper, not only do they cease to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, but greenhouse gases are released to the atmosphere when plant material not used makes paper decays or is burned as a source of power at the mill. As a result of these emissions and those associated with soil disturbances at the site of harvest, even  trees are replanted, it can take up to 25 years for a newly planted forest to stop being a net emitter of greenhouse gases, and hundreds of years before they store the same amount of carbon as an undisturbed forest.

In Canada, Indonesia, Brazil and many other countries throughout the world, people who rely on forests for their livelihood have been severely impacted by the paper industry.  From the destruction of forests needed to survive to some being forced from their land, the paper industry has disrupted the way of life for these communities.

Miscellaneous Paper Facts

No doubt you know of the evolution of paper from Egyptian papyrus.  But many of the problems associated with paper pollution come about after the industrial revolution.  Here from www.historyforkids.org are a few facts about how machines made paper and paper products easy and cheap.

Newsprint  Charles Fenerty of Halifax made the first newsprint in 1838. He was helping a local paper mill maintain an adequate supply of rags to make paper, when he succeeded in making paper from wood pulp. He neglected to patent his invention and others did patent papermaking processes based on wood fiber.

Corrugated Papermaking – Cardboard

In 1856, Englishmen, Healey and Allen, received a patent for the first corrugated or pleated paper. The paper was used to line men’s tall hats.

American, Robert Gair promptly invented the corrugated cardboard box in 1870. These were pre-cut flat pieces manufactured in bulk that opened up and folded into boxes.

On December 20, 1871, Albert Jones of New York NY, patented a stronger corrugated paper (cardboard) used as a shipping material for bottles and glass lanterns.

In 1874, G. Smyth built the first single sided corrugated board-making machine. Also in 1874, Oliver Long improved upon the Jones patent and invented a lined corrugated cardboard.

Paper Bags

The first recorded historical reference to grocery paper bags was made in 1630. The use of paper sacks only really started to take off during the Industrial Revolution: between 1700 and 1800.

Margaret Knight (1838-1914) was an employee in a paper bag factory when she invented a new machine part to make square bottoms for paper bags. Paper bags had been more like envelopes before. Knight can be considered the mother of the grocery bag, she founded the Eastern Paper Bag Company in 1870.

On February 20, 1872, Luther Crowell also patented a machine that manufactured paper bags.

Paper Plates

Paper foodservice disposables products were first made at the beginning of the 20th century. The paper plate was the first single-use foodservice product invented in 1904.

Dixie Cups

Hugh Moore was an inventor who owned a paper cup factory, located next door to the Dixie Doll Company. The word Dixie was printed on the doll company’s front door. Moore saw the word every day, which reminded him of “dixies,” the ten dollar bank notes from a New Orleans’ bank that had the French word “dix’ printed on the face of the bill. The bank had a great reputation in the early 1800s. Moore decided that “dixies” was a great name. After getting permission from his neighbor to use the name, he renamed his paper cups “Dixie Cups”. It should be mentioned that Moore’s paper cups first invented in 1908 were originally called health cups and replaced the single repeat-use metal cup that had been used with water fountains. 

 

Our Questions for Shannon Binns

 Shannon Binns is Program Manager for the Green Press Initiative.  Shannon has also served on Nature Conservancy team that worked with Congress to develop science-based climate change legislation and organized the Earth Institute Global Roundtable on Climate Change. 

• Please tell us a little about the Green Press Initiative.  What are its goals and major projects? (Where does your funding come from?)
• We were interested to see that your educational background includes work in Industrial Engineering and in administration of Environmental Science and Policy.  Please tell us how these fields merge in your work.
• Earlier in the program, we read a brief description of “Black Liquor” being used to fuel paper plants.  Could you tell us more about this and what GPI and the industry are doing to control it?
• We learned from your site that the paper industry is the fourth largest producer of industrial greenhouse gases, and that deforestation creates as much as a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.  How is GPI working on these interlocking problems?
• You’ve worked with the Forest Stewardship Council, which has certification standards for paper manufacturers.  Could you tell us about that process? What percentage of paper manufacturers have or are seeking FSC certification?
• What is the Lacey Act and how does it work?
• One of the goals of the Green Press Initiative is to reduce impact on indigenous communities. What are your projects and accomplishments in this area?
• In closing, can you suggest other ways in which our listeners can become better informed about the issues we’ve discussed tonight?

The Green Press Initiative is online at http://www.greenpressinitiative.org.

Our Discussion with Pam Blackledge

Pam Blackledge is RePaper Project Coordinator for the Environmental Paper Network. She has degrees in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology and in Environmental Studies, and she has spent the last fifteen years working on a range of environmental and social issues. 

• Let’s start with the work you do now.  What is the Environmental Paper Network and its RePaper Project? (Who are some of the major sponsors and funders of your project?)
• We’re greatly impressed by the list of member organizations listed on your website, http://www.environmentalpaper.org/ –by rough count seventy from all over the world. How do members contribute to or gain from your project?
• What is their/your Common Vision?
• We’d really like to go into detail about the RePaper project so our listeners can learn how best to cut down on paper pollution.
  • Please tell us about “What’s in your paper” [whatsinyour paper.com] and “The Paper Steps.”
  • Can you give us some examples of how businesses have cut down on office paper and packaging?
  • Your web site mentions “tissue” as a big polluter.  What kind of tissue? How can we reduce its use?
  • Junk mail.  How much is there and how can we get rid of it?
  • Electronics—Are computers (and attached printers), cell phones, text messaging, twitter, etc. cutting down on paper use?  What about Kindle and other paperless readers?

• How can individuals best get their used paper into the recycling stream?
• We didn’t see anything about composting on your site—is composting a legitimate form of paper recycling?
• When you buy paper, either blank or in magazines and newspapers, how can you tell whether it comes from a green source?  How can you tell if you are being greenwashed?
• As we close, please tell our listeners about where they can go to learn more about (especially) individual paper use.

 The RePaper Project.  [http://www.environmentalpaper.org/] 

No Comments »

14 September 2010

Tonight we’ll be taking a close look at Proposition 23 on the November California Ballot; it would suspend 2006 historic climate change legislation, arguing that cutting down on pollution is costing jobs in the Golden State. Our guest will be Jessica Allen of Vote Down Proposition 23.  She has been leading the opposition here in the Northstate.  We’ll also look at the background of this issue—the 2006 climate-change bill that would be suspended by Prop 23, and we’ll review the arguments that are being made by Prop 23s sponsors and proponents.

Listen to the program.

Background on Proposition 23

To help us understand the proposition more fully, we want to roll back the clock a few years to this press release by Governor Schwarzenegger, dated September 27, 2006.  Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Landmark Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emission. It reads:

Joined by national and international dignitaries who have been leaders in the fight against global climate change, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed AB 32 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez (D-Los Angeles), California’s landmark bill that establishes a first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.

“When I campaigned for governor three years ago, I said I wanted to make California No. 1 in the fight against global warming. This is something we owe our children and our grandchildren,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger at signing ceremonies in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

“Some have challenged whether[the] AB 32 [climate change bill] is good for businesses. I say unquestionably it is good for businesses. Not only large, well-established businesses, but small businesses that will harness their entrepreneurial spirit to help us achieve our climate goals.

“Using market-based incentives, we will reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. That’s a 25 percent reduction.  And by 2050, we will reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it’s too late.”

 The Núñez bill required the California Air Resources Board (CARB):

to develop regulations and market mechanisms that would ultimately reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. Mandatory caps will begin in 2012 for significant sources and ratchet down to meet the 2020 goals. 

The bill also provided the Governor with the ability to

invoke a safety valve and to suspend the emissions caps for up to one year in the case of an emergency or significant economic harm.

If you want to learn more about the 2006 climate control bill, AB 32, check out these two links:

http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/4111/

http://www.ess-home.com/regs/ca-ab32.aspx

 Though he has the power to suspend AB 32. Governor Schwarzenegger has refused to do that in the current recessession, arguing that the climate legislation is vital to the environment and is promoting green jobs in the state.

 Opponents then created a petition drive, led in part by Northstate Assemblyman Dan Logue, which was successful in putting Proposition 23 on the ballot.  We’ll read from the ballot summary as provided by the Secretary of State’s office.  Proposition 23:

Suspends State laws requiring reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until California’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. [It] Requires [the] State to abandon implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension is lifted’

[A] “Summary of estimate” by […the State] Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government [identifies]: Potential positive, short-term impacts on state and local government revenues from the suspension of regulatory activity, with uncertain longer-run impacts. Potential foregone state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations. [emphasis added]

We note editorially that the financial impact statement does not take into account green jobs that would be lost or never created if Prop 23 is enacted.

Proponents of Prop 23 argue—and here we quote the Secretary of State’s ballot summary that:

 Yes on 23 saves jobs, prevents energy tax increases, and helps families, while preserving California’s clean air and water laws. California can’t afford self-imposed energy costs that don’t reduce global warming. 2.3 million Californians are unemployed; Proposition 23 will save over a million jobs that would be otherwise be destroyed.

The opponents argue that:

Texas oil companies designed 23 to kill clean energy and air pollution standards in California. 23 threatens public health with more air pollution, increases dependence on costly oil, and kills competition from job-creating California wind and solar companies.

In a September 9 editorial, the San Jose Mercury News wrote:

Proponents — primarily oil companies who have donated millions to the campaign — say that when it’s implemented through a cap-and-trade system, AB 32 will raise energy prices so much that businesses will be forced to lay off workers or move out of state. (That assertion [says the Mercury News] is very much in question.) With more than 2 million Californians unemployed, they argue that it’s the wrong time to implement it.

The Mercury News editorial continues, however, by pointing out how Prop 23 would eviscerate California’s clean energy business.  They continue:

… [I]t would be an absolute calamity to turn off the magnet that’s attracting billions of dollars in job-creating investment. In 2009, 40 percent of cleantech venture capital went to California, where some 12,000 companies are working on ways that could help businesses and consumers reduce energy consumption. More than 500,000 people work in the industry, including 93,000 in manufacturing.

The San Jose Mercury News editorial concludes:

Supporters of Proposition 23 are right about one thing: Job creation is absolutely essential to California’s future. Which is precisely why voters should reject the measure — it would kill the state’s primary economic engine, now and for years to come.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_15844762?nclick_check=1

 We searched for other editorials on the topic.  Papers such as the Ventura County Star, the Sonoma County Press Democrat, and San Diego’s East Country Magazine, and Desert Sun of Palm Springs all oppose Prop 23.

We only found one editorial favoring the proposition, that in the Orange County Register, which argued that:

 Even without the Global Warming Solutions Act [AB 32], the state’s numerous clean air and water laws are the nation’s strictest. As we have noted repeatedly, the Draconian and unnecessary Global Warming Solutions Act fully implemented would result in more than 1 million lost jobs and billions of dollars in higher energy and other costs, while accomplishing nothing regarding global warming. Suspending its implementation, particularly in this economy, is prudent.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/brown-260575-news-law.html

Recent Report from UCBerkeley:

Here’s an article from the Sacramento Bee published just  last Thursday, September 9.  Reporter Rick Daysog writes of a newly released study of Prop 23s impacts coming from the University of California, Berkeley.  He wrote:

Suspending California’s landmark climate change law would result in the loss of millions of dollars in state revenue and hurt the state’s growing clean-tech industry, a new report says.

The Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at the University of California, Berkeley Law School also said the rollback initiative, Proposition 23, would benefit oil and power companies while increasing regulatory burdens to real estate developers and auto makers

“It adds significant uncertainty at a time when we have a lot of economic uncertainty,” the report’s co-author Dan Farber said.

California’s climate change law, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, attempts to reduce carbon emissions statewide to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

The rollback measure seeks to suspend the law until the statewide unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or below for four quarters in a row.

Farber said Proposition 23 would force the state to suspend a $63 million fee it plans to charge oil companies, utilities and other energy companies.

It also would require the state to set aside a cap-and-trade program that places limits on greenhouse gas emissions from oil refiners, utilities and other energy companies.

Under such a system, the state would sell carbon allowances to the state’s largest polluters, which could then use those allowances to offset their emissions or sell them on a secondary market.

Estimates of the state’s revenues from a cap-and-trade system have ranged from $220 million to $550 million.

Another “casualty” according to the UCBerkeley report would be:

[…] California’s budding clean-tech sector.

Part of AB 32 requires utilities to purchase about a third of their energy supply from renewable sources.

Setting aside the law would result in the loss of clean jobs and limit investments in new technologies, the report said.

The study also said Proposition 23 will create inequities between industries regulated by different climate change laws.

Oil companies and utilities would be relieved of their burdens under AB 32 while real estate developers and car makers governed by a separate set of climate change laws could see increased pressures from regulators, the report said.

“You’re going to end up with this patchwork of climate change regulations that will affect some sectors and not others,” Farber said.

 Anita Mangels, spokeswoman for the Yes on 23 committee, disputed the report. She said Proposition 23 would have a positive impact on state revenue and California’s economy.

She cited a July study by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office which said the state could see “a potentially significant increase in revenue” from greater economic activity if AB 32 was delayed

 

We want to add that reader comments appended to this article on the Sac Bee website were vitriolic, mostly challenging the conclusions of the Berkeley study and generally attacking the idea of climate change, Al Gore, the University of California, while arguing for the factual basis of Fox news.

 To take the pulse of some of the people and their reaction to the debate, we’d recommend that you read both the article and the responses. 

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/10/3017897/climate-change-laws-suspension.html#ixzz0zAt6uW1K

  

Our Questions for Jessica Allen

• Please tell us something of your biography and background.  How did you come to be involved in Vote Down 23?
• What are the elements in Proposition 23 that you oppose?
• Attorney General Jerry Brown originally phrased Prop 23 this way: “”Suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year.”  However his use of the word “pollution” was challenged in court in favor of language that talks about “greenhouse gas emissions.”  What’s the difference?  What is Prop 23 really about?
• Who is behind Prop 23?  Who is putting financial support into it?
• The No on 23 campaign has also received a good deal of cash. Who are the major contributors opposing 23?
• Proponents of Prop 23 assert that California’s environmental laws are a job killer, forcing industry out of the state and costing up to one million jobs. And the legislative analysis, which we read earlier, predicts “Potential positive, short-term impacts on state and local government revenues from the suspension of regulatory activity, with uncertain longer-run impacts.”  Isn’t it true that clamping down on emissions does cost jobs, does cause businesses to move to states with more lax climate laws?
• The Orange County Register has said that it in our current economic downturn, it is “prudent” to suspend the climate change laws until the unemployment  rate goes down.  What is your response?
• There are conflicting arguments about energy costs.  Proponents of 23 claim that our current climate change laws are driving up energy costs: “Up to 60 percent in higher electricity rates, $3.7 billion a year in higher gasoline and diesel prices, and up to 56% increase in natural gas rates.”  The opposition says that repealing AB 32 would cause a 1/3 increase in electric bills by 2020.  Please explain those claims.
• Opponents of Prop 23 have claimed that our climate change laws actually are creating jobs for California.  What is your evidence for that?
• The original AB 32 calls for a cap-and-trade approach to greenhouse gas emissions, where the state sells and industries buy carbon credits.  Other guests on this show have called this approach pollution-for-sale, enabling wealthy polluters to continue on their ways. Can you defend this aspect of AB 32?  Isn’t it already a kind of compromise bill?
• As we close, please tell our listeners how they can become more fully informed about this debate and become involved.

 As we close, and in the spirit of fairness, we are puttingincluding pro and con links on the website:

The proponents of Prop 23 have marshaled their arguments at: http://www.yeson23.com/

And the opponents are at www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com

Playlist for Eco 104–Prop 23

1.  Black Moon (Album Version)        6:59        Emerson, Lake & Palmer        Black Moon       
2.  Only So Much Oil In The Ground (LP Version)        3:50        Tower of Power        Urban Renewal       
3.  Slower Than Guns (LP Version)        3:50        Iron Butterfly        Metamorphosis       
4.  Supernova        4:42        Liquid Blue        Supernova       
5.  North Sea Oil (2004 Digital Remaster)        3:12        Jethro Tull        Stormwatch       
6.  Weave Me the Sunshine        4:28        Peter, Paul And Mary        The Very Best of   Peter, Paul and Mary       
7.  Don’t Go Near The Water (2000 Digital Remaster)        2:43        The Beach Boys        Sunflower/Surf’s Up       

 

No Comments »