Are Green Products Really Green? April 21, 2009

This Sunday’s New York Times Magazine issue is devoted to green issues and it has some interesting articles.

One of the pieces which coincided with Sunday’s Magazine that drew my attention evaluated the eco-footprint of stainless steel drinking bottles versus plastic bottles on a very basic level.  The point was obviously to uncover some of the hidden environmental costs of producing things that we commonly consider to be green.  I think there are a couple of things to note whenever determining the environmental impact of what we buy.  First, the measure of the environmental impact of consumer choices can change significantly depending on what criteria we’re using to judge.  In this comparison, stainless steel bottles were far worse, environmentally speaking, than plastic bottles when pitting one stainless steel bottle against one plastic bottle.  Yet, when the cumulative impact of the production and waste of hundreds of plastic bottles is taken into account, the steel bottle is much greener.  The consumer’s actions also matter.  For example, less energy is used when the bottle is washed in cold water and less waste results when the bottle is recycled after it can no longer be used.

Second, we need to question any product’s claims to environmental sustainability.  As people become increasingly environmentally conscious, companies are going to want to cash in on that popularity.  Indeed, this is already occurring.  For example, both Clorox and Scott recently introduced “green” lines of products.  And we certainly shouldn’t just take their words for it.  The problem with not taking a company’s word for it is that it takes a lot for the consumer to research the product’s environmental footprint.

I think it basically comes down to consumers making some common sense decisions.  Opt for purchasing the product that will give you the most volume with the least packaging (assuming of course that you will use what you buy).  Opt for buying products made with recyclable materials.  Consider the purpose (and the need) for the product and buy only what you know you will use.  Opt for the non-toxic alternative and use toxics sparingly and only when necessary.

EPA Finds that Carbon Dioxide Endangers Public Health April 17, 2009

The EPA has finally issued its findings (albeit proposed at this point) that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.  This is the first step on the road to regulating carbon dioxide emissions, however the EPA says that no regulations are being proposed at this time. 

 

This is a long time coming.  It’s especially nice to see science’s prominent role returned to EPA’s decision-making process.  The press release says it all:

 

“EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.”

 

While this is certainly only a first step—and I expect some dramatic fights when draft regulations are proposed—it is a very good and important first step.  

The Power of the Obamas’ Organic Garden April 15, 2009

There has been a lot of talk this past week about the new vegetable “kitchen” garden planted by the Obamas on the White House grounds.  What got people talking is not so much the fact that the Obamas started the garden.  In and of itself the garden is not too important, at least not to anyone other than the Obamas. 

 

What did get people talking was a rather laughable letter sent to the Obamas by the Mid American CropLife Association.  In it, the Association took issue with the label “organic” as applied to the garden.  The Association defended “conventionally” grown food as being “wholesome and flavorful yet more economical,” all the while being sustainable. 

 

But the truth is that many conventional food production practices harm the environment, increase farm consolidation (thereby decreasing small farm ownership and regionality of food source), and rely on artificially low costs with the help of government subsidies. 

 

The Association listed several methods that they argued are sustainable farming practices, all the while attempting to paint industrial food production techniques as being environmentally sustainable.  But this misses the point.  People who advocate the benefits of organic and alternative farming welcome efforts by industrial agriculture to adopt farming methods that decrease negative impacts on the environment.  The truth of the matter is that industrial food production contributes to pollution of water bodies, soil, groundwater systems, and the air.  And the sustained practices that the Association alleges are in use by farmers are being employed on an extremely small amount of farmland in the United States.  For example, the letter asserts that “reduced tillage practices” are being employed on 72 million acres.  Yet, according to the most recent agricultural census data from the U.S. Census Bureau, there are over 992 million acres of farmland in America. 

 

The letter also employs the common image of the ideal small American farm that has been purposely and disingenuously raised by industrial agriculture producers and their defenders for years—the false idea that America’s food supply is produced by small family farmers who work their own land from sun up to sun down.  This is just false, and the industrial food producers know it.  In fact, they rely on this pastoral image pervasive in the collective American conscious to continue to consolidate their ownership of American food production, to secure monetarily beneficial government subsidies, and to fight moves toward greater environmental sustainability.  The truth, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is that 70% of the American food supply is produced by 6% of the total farms in the nation.  The truth is that small farms—the basis of that idyllic American image—have been sold to large agribusiness corporations and consolidated into behemoth operations. 

 

By arguing that industrial food production is more economical, the Association seems to be trading on the common misperception that organic food must always be more expensive than “regular” food.  This is the “whole paycheck” mentality.  It’s not necessarily the fact that the food is produced organically that causes it to be more expensive in stores.  It’s a combination of marketing organic as an up-scale, yuppy commodity, the ability of grocers to trade on the yuppified idea of organic to increase their prices, and industrial agriculture’s stranglehold on the market and on American food policy. 

 

In the end, the power of the Obamas’ new organic kitchen garden is its statement.  By planting a garden on the White House lawn and calling it organic, consciously or not the Obamas have demonstrated the importance of questioning where our food comes from.  That is an important first step in fundamentally altering our nation’s food policy toward sustainability. 

 

When I first heard about the new garden on the White House grounds, I was pleased, but I didn’t think it would matter too much.  But, the letter from the Mid American CropLife Association changed my mind.  If they are worried enough about the impact of this small garden, then I think that bodes well for the future of sustainable, local, economical food in America.  

The Environmental Benefits of Recession Era Food Shopping April 5, 2009

 

They say every cloud has a silver lining.  And in these tough economic times, that lining may actually be green.  As more and more people feel the effects of the recession, there is increasing demand for low-cost food.  Interestingly, the most cost-efficient foods oftentimes just so happen to be those that are the least processed.  I’ve come across a number of websites and magazines that offer suggestions for consumers to tighten the budget belt at the grocery store. 

 

Here are the most common suggestions I’ve encountered:

 

Tip Number 1:  Shop the periphery of the grocery store where you’ll find the fresh, generally less processed food.  Grocery stores tend to place less perishable items in the aisles.  It just so happens that those items are typically also the most highly processed, packaged, and preserved “food” in the grocery store.  The environmental costs incurred in producing products like these are obvious.  There’s the transport of the produce from the farms to the factories.  There’s the use of energy by the factories in processing the produce into some other form.  There’s the environmental impact of the production and shipping of the plastics used in the packaging.  There’s the shipping of the product from the factories to the grocers.  Then, after the “foods” are consumed, the packaging is thrown away and finds its way into the landfill.  Obviously, there are transportation and environmental costs related to the shipment of fresh produce, but generally, many of these layers are cut out.  And, if you compost, you can use all of your food, rather than throwing away voluminous amounts of plastic packaging. 

 

Tip Number 2:  Try dry beans and grains (preferably from the bulk section).  Bulgur, who knew?  Couscous, you’re so easy to make.  Polenta, how fulfilling and easy.  And the beans!  With just a minimal effort at planning, using dry beans in place of canned is so easy.  Using dry beans and grains cuts out the increased transportation costs of shipping heavier canned products, as well as reducing the use of cans.  And when beans and grains are purchased from the bulk section of the grocery store, packaging and its related environmental costs are reduced. 

 

Tip Number 3:  Consume less meat.  The financial and environmental impact of consuming less meat is substantial.  Meat is expensive and unless you’re buying your meat directly from the free-range, environmentally sustainable farm, it’s likely that the environmental costs of the meat are huge.  First, the corn has to be grown and shipped to the factory farms to feed the cows.  The feedlots are often huge fenced areas without shade where cows wallow in their own excrement.  Their waste is then washed off the land by rain and often finds its way into waterways, contaminating the ecosystem.  After the cows are large enough, they are trucked to a slaughterhouse, then packaged and shipped again to a distributor.  Finally, the packaged meat makes its way to grocery store shelves.  The same questions of environmental cost and humane treatment arise with chicken and pig production, as well.  For more information, read this article from a 2002 edition of E The Environmental Magazine.   

 

Tip Number 4:  Shop with an open and creative mind.  Buy produce that is on sale, rather than shopping directly from a recipe list.  When perusing the produce choices, try to be creative in coming up with multiple combinations using the same basic ingredients.  By using a little creativity, you can reduce the amount of waste from purchased but unused food.

 

 

Tip Number 5:  This isn’t really about shopping, but it does help to conserve money and environmental resources.  Consider growing some of your own food.  Even if you don’t have a backyard suitable for gardening, there are many online resources with instructions on how to grow vegetables and herbs in containers.

 

Tip Number 6:  Buy fruits and vegetables from local farmers’ markets.  This is where real bargains–and real freshness–can be found.  Plus, you get the chance to speak with the people who grew the food, allowing you to learn a little about their farming practices.  To locate a farmers’ market, go to www.localharvest.org.

Sagan’s Demonless World: An Impassioned Plea for Scientific Skepticism March 31, 2009

I very recently finished reading Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.  In it, Sagan argues that scientific skepticism and critical thinking in general should be taught more rigorously in our nation’s schools as a means to strengthen our freedom and democracy.  Sagan examines multiple topics of pseudoscience to show how a greater skepticism in the public would make fewer people so easily susceptible to claims such as telepathy, ESP, UFO sightings, alien abductions, and witchcraft. 

 

Sagan demonstrates the beauty of scientific skepticism by indicating that he is ready to believe any of these claims, so long as there is adequate evidence to support them.  In fact, Sagan was very much involved with the effort to seek out extraterrestrial life.  But, as a good practitioner of scientific skepticism, he insisted on evidence. 

 

As Sagan argues in the later chapters of the book, a public skepticism promotes freedom and democracy.  Greater freedom is had by ensuring that the public does not blindly accept what those in authority dictate.  The interests of democracy are preserved in scientific skepticism’s willingness to consider evidence and change opinions, views, and conclusions accordingly.  That, I think, is at the heart of scientific skepticism: insist on good evidence and follow where the evidence leads. 

 

If the public gains a greater appreciation for and awareness of the rigors of the scientific method and the rigors of the peer-review process, we will have a greater ability to sift the good science from the pseudoscience.  Creationists sometimes claim that their articles are not published in peer-reviewed journals because the science cartel doesn’t agree with creationism.  They may be correct that science doesn’t accept creationist dogma, but they are wrong in asserting that reason as the basis for any refusal to publish their work, if any.  The reason their work is not published is because it is not science.  It doesn’t employ the scientific method and it cannot withstand the scrutiny of its peers.  So, it doesn’t get published in the peer-review process.  If people understood this checks-and-balances system, perhaps we would not be expending energy to keep creationist teachings out of the public school system. 

 

In any event, The Demon-Haunted World is an important book and we would do well to heed its advice.

Congressional Misunderstanding of Global Warming March 28, 2009

During a recent hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, some congressmen displayed a frightening lack of understanding of the basics of global warming and its effects. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who was the former chairman of the full committee, had this to say:

 

“I believe that earth’s climate is changing, but I think it’s changing for natural variation reasons. And I think man-kind has been adopting, or adapting, to climate as long as man has walked the earth. When it rains, we find shelter. When it’s hot, we get shade. When it’s cold, we find a warm place to stay. … Adaptation to shifts in temperature is not that difficult.”

 

This statement belies a fundamental misunderstanding, or to give Rep. Barton the benefit of the doubt, a purposefully disingenuous mischaracterization, of the effects of global warming. And, his comment is similar to a popular argument by global warming deniers, which conflates local and global effects of global warming. The underlying assumption of this kind of argument is that the negative effects from global warming are limited to a local level, rather than a systemic, global level. The natural conclusion from this argument is that as it gets hotter, people can turn up the dials on their air conditioners. (This is essentially the reason why many global warming deniers happily jeer when unseasonably cold weather occurs.)

 

But, that’s an oversimplification. The problem with global warming is not that it will merely cause the air to get hotter, resulting in some minor discomfort and increased annoyance. When the planet warms—and we’re only talking about a few degrees over long periods of time—it affects the global climate patterns, which results in dramatic shifts in weather systems. Also, that increased surface temperature negatively affects ecosystems and animal species. And we don’t know what that will mean for humans.

 

Rep. Barton also said something that seems to support taking immediate actions to counter global warming. He said, “Nature doesn’t seem to adjust to people as much as people adjust to nature.” If nature doesn’t adjust well to changes that people make (and here it seems that Rep. Barton is unconsciously implying that humans are in fact contributing to global warming), but people can adjust, then that’s all the more reason to take actions to stem the negative effects of global warming.

Earth Hour 2009 March 28, 2009

Don’t forget to turn out your lights tonight at 8:30 P.M. wherever you live to participate in Earth Hour 2009.  And while you’re making a statement about the importance of conserving energy and protecting against global warming, grab your telescope or binoculars and do a little sky gazing.

And if you want to contribute to the Earth Hour event, you can upload photos and videos to share with others.  Visit earthhour.org to find out how.

Do the Religious Harbor a Greater Fear of Death? March 26, 2009

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that people who consider themselves to be religious may be much more likely to want medical actions that prolong life than those who do not consider themselves to be religious.  The study involved 345 patients with cancer at an advanced stage, so the test group probably has thought more, and more seriously, about death than the average population.  But, the results are still interesting.  The patients who considered themselves to be religious were almost three times more likely to seek life prolonging medical actions than those who did not consider themselves to be religious. 

 

While there could be many varying explanations for these data, it is certainly interesting and not a conclusion that I would have necessarily predicted.  Although, I must say that it corresponds to my personal experiences when speaking with others about death and prolonging life. 

 

What makes these results most interesting to me is what they might say about how religious people versus non-religious people view life and the natural life cycle.  (And, to be honest, this is mere speculation on my part.  The study did not attempt to interpret what these findings meant in terms of overall belief or outlook on life.)  I would have thought that religious people would not fear death due to their belief in a rewarding afterlife.  I have spoken with many religious individuals who profess to share this view.  But maybe an acceptance of the natural life cycle and a denial of an afterlife give non-believers a calm view of death.  Perhaps it is more comforting to some people to believe that there will not be anything new to encounter after death. 

 

In any event, I think these findings are interesting and I’d like to see similar studies of otherwise healthy individuals and more studies on this topic.  

SF Skyline Could Go Dark March 24, 2009

There’s a new push for legislation that would require skyscrapers in downtown San Francisco to turn out their non-emergency lights at night.  Newly elected Supervisor David Chiu will be introducing the legislation today as a way to help save energy.  I haven’t seen the legislation yet, but I think this is a great idea.  Not only will it help save electricity, but it will help to darken the night sky around San Francisco.  As I’ve posted about before, I believe bringing back the dark night sky will help us to experience a reconnection with nature and new-found awe and wonder with the universe.  

In related news, don’t forget that Saturday, March 28, 2009 is Earth Hour.  At 8:30 P.M. in your time zone, turn out your lights for one hour and gaze at the stars.

Most Americans Favor Nuclear Power March 24, 2009

With President Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress, we can look happily forward to a new drive toward development of alternative sources of energy.  But, just as in every other area of public policy, there will be fights over what to develop, how much money to allocate, where to locate plants and transmission lines, and negative environmental consequences.  I anticipate the biggest fight to occur over development and construction of new nuclear power plants.  As I posted about last week, the government is experiencing a flurry of requests to construct new nuclear facilities.  As the government determines what course to take, it will be interesting to see how the environmental community responds.  Again, I predict a pretty big fight.  And, according to a recent Gallup poll, it seems as though there will be a big fight among the general public, as well.  

According to the Gallup poll, 59% of Americans somewhat or strongly favor nuclear power.  This is apparently the highest level of good graces that nuclear power has attained in the United States.  I imagine it has something to do with the fact that there has been no catastrophe for quite a long time.  Yet, our memories remain strong.  The Gallup poll also found that 42% of Americans are wary of the safety of nuclear plants.  This is not a huge margin and I expect that there will be much more talk about both the benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power.