Soda Lovers Learn Waste Management

On the homepage of the Container Recycling Institute is a counter clocking how many beverage containers have been landfilled, littered and incinerated in the United States. This year alone the counter has tallied over 123 billion bottles and cans. Amazingly, the average American drinks around 60 gallons of soda each year, sadly, only 33-45 percent of those bottles and can get recycled. The environmental toll from the production, packaging and shipping of each soda can and bottle is incredible – the energy wasted in 2001 to produce 50.7 billion soda cans was the equivalent to 16 million barrels of oil!  Our towns and cities are being buried in water and soda bottles and cans. 

 (Image: Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

With the economy in the dumps-- no pun intended-- the problems arising from these drink containers is getting even more severe.  Plainly said, at this moment in time, there is no market for recyclables. Paper, plastic, aluminum, cardboard, all those products we are so proud to put in our recycling bins and put on the curb for pick up are piling up at municipal recycling facilities.  A once lucrative business, recyclers cannot find anyone to buy there "junk".  

According to a December 7th story in the New York Times entitled Back at Junk Value, Recyclables are Piling Up, in some areas mixed paper is selling for $20-25 a ton, down from $105 in October and tin is now $5 a ton, down from $327 earlier this year.  Some towns and cities across country that used to get paid for their recyclables are either not getting their monthly checks or are now being charge to take the junk away.  

I recently spoke with public works representative in my town who told me that our township was getting paid for all our recyclables but the checks had stopped coming.  However, they told me that our town is lucky because we are in a contract with a hauler, so our recyclables were still getting picked up. In many towns without rock-solid contracts, recyclable haulers are refusing to pick up their loads.  

So now what?  Clearly we should not abandon our recycling programs. I know I've painted a bleak picture, but it is really important to continue to recycle.  However, now more than ever, the first two of the 3 "R's"s are increasingly more important.  We need to REDUCE and REUSE.
 

Between 1960-79 the average person purchased 200-250 packaged drinks per year. In 2006 that number has soared to 686 drinks (Source: Container Recycling Institute).  We need to turn this around and reach for zero new waste. We need to make consumer choices to buy products that are not only recycled and recyclable, but to buy goods that do not generate more recyclable garbage.  Sounds hard right?  Well in some instances its not as difficult as you might think.

In my house we've taken an interesting step in this direction. We drink a lot of soda water (seltzer).  At least a 1/2 gallon a day.  Now my husband and I used to drink Peligrino by the case.  Doing so would put at least 6-8 glass bottles back into the garbage/recycling stream on a weekly basis. In addition, our sparkling water traveled thousands of miles to reach us. A gallon of Peligrino costs over $7.50 per gallon, much more than gasoline. 

Recently, we got the opportunity to try out Sodastream Soda-Club, a home seltzer and soda-making machine. The machine is already helping eco-conscious consumers elsewhere - 30% of German and 24% of Swiss households have soda machines and have reduced their waste.  With a Soda-Club machine, we drink freshly made, great tasting seltzer and we are drastically reducing waste from store-bought cans and bottles. The machine uses no batteries or electricity, just a 14.5 oz CO2 canister that can make up to 60 liters of seltzer or soda. Empty carbonators are returned to Soda-Club to be cleaned, inspected and refilled with CO2 drawn naturally from the air. Carbonators are reusable as long as they remain in good condition. 

We tried a machine that is called the Penguin. This little marvel comes with 2 glass carafes. Other versions come with clear plastic (PET), BPA-free reusable bottles will about 3 years. Each bottle also comes with a special cap with a hermetic seal that keeps your soda carbonated long after you first open it and it really works. 

The machine's also come with regular, diet and caffeine-free flavors to make cola, root bear, cherry soda and many more. In addition they have fruit essence to make flavored-seltzer. If you are purist like me these syrups may not pass the test. But for those of you who still need your soda fix, it beats drinking high-fructose Coca-Cola. Regular flavors have 2/3 less carbs, calories and sugar than store-bought sodas, and contain much less sodium. Both regular and diet flavors do contain Splenda®. 

For our household we are sold. We always have fresh bubbly seltzer in the house. Finish a bottle during a meal, just fill the bottle with water, stick it in the machine press the lever and we have seltzer in seconds. According to Carbonrally, we save about 6 lbs of carbon emissions per week (production, bottling, transport) by making our own soft drinks. According to Soda Club, worldwide, they estimate over 10 million units have been sold.  That is huge savings worldwide in carbon emissions, bottles and cans.
  

So if you are like me and want to still recycle but REDUCE your waste dramaticly, I suggest giving a Soda-Club machine a try.  The machines range from about $100 to $230 dollars depending if you order just a machine or a machine with flavors.  All machines come with CO2 carbonators.  It may sound a little steep but the savings on your waste, environmental impact and future costs (pay back depends on how much you drink), it is well worth it.  AND Soda-Club is giving Green Luvin' readers a discount.  Use the discount code MELISSA at check out you will get an additional $5 off after their current holiday discount, a total savings of $25 per machine.  

An open letter to President-elect Obama.

Dear President-elect Obama, 

After a long, hard and contentious campaign you've won the Presidency of the United States. Congratulations. Take a moment to enjoy your success. Ok, that was long enough. Now let's down to business.  

You well know that you have a long hard road ahead of you, but your first order of business is to choose a cabinet that is strong, thoughtful and will move this country in the right direction. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many people like me, administration environmental jobs should a top order of business. Our crumbling economy will not matter if we cannot breath our air, drink our water, or eat our food. Relieving the credit crunch won't make a difference if rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart disease continue to rise. Keeping people in their homes, empowering people to buy new cars will become meaningless unless we fix the food system, the water system, and limit the spread of untested genetically modified organisms (GMOs). That is why I am calling out to you to take a good look at who you appoint as Secretary of Energy, Head Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture and possibly the new position, Climate Change Czar -- or make this a function of the Department of Homeland Defense.

Of all the cabinet level posts you will fill, there is one that is usually a second thought, but in my opinion is as important as State, Treasury and Defense -- the Secretary of Agriculture. Our food system is in dire need of a change and the right person might be able to help begin the overhaul necessary. 

The Secretary of Agriculture oversees food safety and sets farm policy.  He/she makes recommendations to Congress on which crops should be subsidized, how agricultural laws are enforced, crop-land conservation, and setting the nations nutritional standards and even organic labeling. They also oversee our food stamp program, food distribution during disaster relief efforts, the US Forest Service and the food that is fed to our children in school. That's a big job.

I have read that former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack is on the short list for this position. From the corn state, Vilsack strongly supports ethanol subsidies. He believes that he has changed the corn fields of Iowa into energy fields. To me that sounds like a shift in use, not better agriculture or energy policy. As he stated in an op-ed in the Argus Leader, "If you drive across Iowa today, you will see a changing landscape marked by new ethanol and biofuel production plants and wind farms. As a state, we became more economically, environmentally and energy secure." Today, Iowa farmers are still hurting the soil and water by using petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers. Furthermore, these farmers have shifted corn from feeding the world to ethanol production, which, as we all know, is not helping increase our independence from foreign oil. But with all his good intentions, former Governor Vilsak is too much of an insider to create really change.

I have also read that your short list includes Tom Buis the President of the National Farms Union and the Congresswoman for South Dakota Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. These two are also agriculture "insiders" who are in the pocket of industrial agriculture who might working in the best interest of the farmers they represent, mostly corporate farming, but neither are strong enough or creative enough to achieve real change we need in the system.

Then there is former Congressman Charles Stenholm (D-TX). Charlie is a conservative Democrat that joined the Republicans to kill a bill that would have prevented sick cattle that are unable to walk from entering the US food supply. (Remember the video released by the Humane Society of downer cows?) While part of the House Agriculture Committee he received more than $800,000 in PAC contributions and took numerous trips sponsored by agriculture lobbyist groups. After leaving Congress he became a lobbyist for the agriculture and food industry. Again, not someone who is going to change our system for the better.

So by now President-elect Obama you must say, well then who? There is one man out there who is not already in politics, who has examined our foods system from farm to table, and who understands the impact it plays on our environment, our economy and our health. He has intimate knowledge of not only farmers, but also diaries, feed-lots, and food processors. He is not a Washington insider and to top it off he has already laid out a plan for tackling the issues we face. His plan takes into account the impact agriculture has on our climate, energy dependence, the healthcare system, foreign and trade policies and national security. As states in his own words:

We need to wean the American food system off its heavy 20th-century diet of fossil fuel and put it back on a diet of contemporary sunshine. True, this is easier said than done — fossil fuel is deeply implicated in everything about the way we currently grow food and feed ourselves. To put the food system back on sunlight will require policies to change how things work at every link in the food chain: in the farm field, in the way food is processed and sold and even in the American kitchen and at the American dinner table. Yet the sun still shines down on our land every day, and photosynthesis can still work its wonders wherever it does. If any part of the modern economy can be freed from its dependence on oil and successfully resolarized, surely it is food.

The scribe of this plan called the Sun-Food Agenda is Michael Pollan, the Knight Professor of Journalism at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC-Berkeley, director of the Knight Program in Science and Environmental Journalism and author.

President-elect Obama I urge you to read Professor Pollan's plan as laid out in an article in the New York Times Magazine entitled "Farmer In Chief" and stick with what you have been saying throughout your campaign, that America needs real change. I urge you to consider Michael Pollan for the Secretary of Agriculture. (Or at least consult with him to mine his knowledge on the issues to make the best choice possible for the position.)

Pollan's plans are not liberal.  They are not conservative.  They are what is best for America.  And most importantly they are achievable.

As Pollan states:

[The] sun-food agenda promises to win support across the aisle. It builds on America’s agrarian past, but turns it toward a more sustainable, sophisticated future. It honors the work of American farmers and enlists them in three of the 21st century’s most urgent errands: to move into the post-oil era, to improve the health of the American people and to mitigate climate change. Indeed, it enlists all of us in this great cause by turning food consumers into part-time producers, reconnecting the American people with the American land and demonstrating that we need not choose between the welfare of our families and the health of the environment — that eating less oil and more sunlight will redound to the benefit of both.

This is a new era for America and Michael Pollan may just be The Change We Need.

Yes We Can!

Best,

Green Luvin'

A Victory Garden at the White House?

The next U.S. president is going to have the daunting task of fixing all that has gone wrong in this country. However, I believe that both candidates are overlooking an extremely important issue -- our food system. As Michael Pollan said on WNYC's Leonard Lopate Show, “It’s true that neither candidate has talked about food policy very much. Some of the issues they have talked about — energy independence, climate change and the health care crisis — I think they will find, as soon as they get into office, that you can’t deal with any of those three problems without dealing with the food system.” 

Last month Pollan wrote an article in the New York Times Magazine which was an open letter to the next president called "The Farmer In Chief" where he laid out what is wrong with our food system and what needs to changed. The article has too many important points to lay out here so please read it.  However, I will highlight one. Pollan concludes his piece with saying that the White House needs to set an example for the rest of the world. I am a firm believer in setting an example for others whether they be our children, our friends or for the next president -- the country.  

Pollan recommends that the next President needs to create a new post -- White House farmer -- who would be in charge of five acres of the White House lawn that would be turned into an organic fruit and vegetable garden. This may sound silly but as Pollan points out back in 1943 Eleanor Roosevelt started the Victory Garden movement, vegetable and fruit gardens planted to ease the burden on the food system during World War II. According to Pollan, by the end of the war more than 20 million home gardens were supplying 40 percent of the produce American's consumed. Victory Gardens today can help reduce our dependence on fossil-fuels and help address the problems of climate change.  

Well Pollan is not the only one who thought of using the White House as a national organic garden  -- two groups Eat the View and The Who Farm are petitioning the next president to plant an organic garden on the White House lawn.  

"Eat the View" is a campaign to plant healthy, edible landscapes in high-impact, high visibility places; whether it's the "First Lawn" or the lawn in front of your child's school. "Eat the View" is coordinated by Kitchen Gardeners International, a Maine-based 501c3 nonprofit network of 10,000 gardeners from 100 countries who are inspiring and teaching more people to grow some of their own food. Roger Doiron the founder of Kitchen Gardeners International just wrote his own letter to the next president entitled "Message to the candidates: Listen to Roger the Gardner" stating the importance of this issue.

TheWhoFarm (aka The White House Organic Farm Project) is a non-partisan, petition-based initiative who is requesting that our next president oversee the planting of an organic farm on the grounds of the White House. The farm will be a model for healthy, economical and sustainable living everywhere and serve as an educational tool and economic aid, and as a means to provide food security in the Nation’s Capitol while reconnecting the Office of the Presidency to the self-sufficient agricultural roots of America's Founding Fathers. TheWhoFarm have been traveling around the country educating Americans on the importance their mission in TheWhoFarmMobile, two school buses fused together with an organic edible garden on the roof.

Instead of a President that loves jelly beans or one that runs to McDonald's to get a Big Mac or one who hates broccoli, how about a president that walks out his front door and picks his own lunch -- or a least his farmer and chef do! Please sign both petitions. You can find the The WhoFarm petition by clicking here and the Eat the View petition by clicking here.

And don't forget to vote on Tuesday.  

 

1908 Ford Model T vs. 2008 Ford Pick-Up

On October 1st, 2008, the Ford Model-T turned 100-years-old.  Back in 1908, the year my grandmother was born,  this "universal car" as Henry Ford called it, became the first mass-produced car and the symbol of low-cost reliable transportation. But more important than it's centenial, the Model T got 13-21 MPG (max speed 45 MPH), and it was the first flexible-fuel vehicle, running on gas, ethanol or both. According to Model T collector Stu Chaney of the Model T Ford Club of America who appeared on the The CBS Saturday Early Show, "It will run on moonshine, gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel-- about anything you can put a match to. And, whatever it runs on, it would pass today's very strict emission standards, because it burns the complete charge in the combustion."

Call me crazy but why are we no better off 100 years later? According the the US Department of Energy's website, FuelEconomy.gov, the 2008 Ford Ranger Pick-Up gets 15 MPG (highway, city combine).  I drive a Acura MDX and hardly ever go above 45 MPH and I am only getting about 15 MPH, and neither of these cars are Flex-Fuel vehicles.  

Are you kidding me?  So the 100 year-old Model-T does better on fuel efficiency than cars made today and its a flex-fuel automobile.

Henry Ford knew there was a future in alternative fuel.  In 1925 he told the New York Times that "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust -- almost anything. There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years."

In the late 1920's, Ford began to test crops for their industrial potential.  He actually used soybeans in gearshift knobs and horn buttons. This process of creating industrial products from agricultural raw materials is called Chemurgy.  Coined by the chemist William J. Hale, chemurgy in the 1930's during the Great Depression, many farmers and others were advocating the link between farm and industry. In 1935, the Farm Chemurgic Council (later renamed the National Farm Chemurgic Council) was formed to encourage greater use of renewable raw materials in industry. This sounds like a good idea to me.  If you've read some of my other blogs, you know that I feel strongly about the pervasive nature of petrochemicals in our everyday lives.  

So tell me what happened in the past 100 years.  Well, after Henry Ford began producing the Model-T oil-based gasoline emerged as the dominant fuel due to it availability, price, and of course lobbying from petroleum companies to maintain steep alcohol taxes. According to Hemp Car Transamerica (don't laugh this is both legit and important):  "Many bills proposing a National energy program that made use of Americas vast agricultural resources (for fuel production) were killed by smear campaigns launched by vested petroleum interests."  So big oil killed big agriculture's bid for our gas tanks?  We're dependent upon foreign oil due to American big oil efforts.

Hemp Car Transamerica continues, "One noteworthy claim put forth by petrol companies was that the U.S. government's plans 'robbed taxpayers to make farmers rich'. Gasoline had many disadvantages as an automotive resource. The 'new' fuel had a lower octane rating than ethanol, was much more toxic (particularly when blended with tetra-ethyl lead and other compounds to enhance octane), generally more dangerous, and contained threatening air pollutants. Petroleum was more likely to explode and burn accidentally, gum would form on storage surfaces and carbon deposits would form in combustion chambers of engines."  So this fuel is less efficient, dirtier, and more dangerous.  Great choice America.

Finally, Hemp Car Transamerica concludes,  "Pipelines were needed for distribution from 'area found' to "area needed". Petroleum was much more physically and chemically diverse than ethanol, necessitating complex refining procedures to ensure the manufacture of a consistent "gasoline" product. However, despite these environmental flaws, fuels made from petroleum have dominated automobile transportation for the past three-quarters of a century. There are two key reasons: First, cost per kilometer of travel has been virtually the sole selection criteria. Second, the large investments made by the oil and auto industries in physical capital, human skills and technology make the entry of a new cost-competitive industry difficult."

Back in 1974, the EPA began the Miles Per Gallon rating system.  In a 1999 press release announcing the 25th Anniversary of the rating system, the EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner stated, "Choosing the most fuel-efficient vehicle within a class can save drivers at least $1500 [in 1999] in fuel costs and avoid more than 15 tons of greenhouse gas pollution [in 1999] over the life of the vehicle as well as help reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil."

Well only now in 2008, 100 years after the first Model T rolled off the manufacturing line, are Americans and our government, seeing the health, economic and environmental effects of not listening to Henry Ford's original vision.  Well I'm not sure about this?  Are we leading the world, or or we lagging behind?  Can you guess?

Currently one country in Asia has fuel efficiency standards of 43 MPG.  Another has mandated 35.5 miles per gallon by 2010. Those crazy Europeans have mandated 47 MPG by 2012, and Australia is 34.4 by 2010.  But the US is waiting until 2020 to require cars to go 35 MPG. 

Guess who is at 43 MPG?  THE CHINESE.  Yes China, the land of coal fired power plants popping up like weeds is WAY ahead of us in this area.

Time to go vote.  Let your Senator or Congressperson know how you feel about this.  Now is the time.  Think Green on November 2. 

The Week in Green

I decided that there is so much "green" news out there each week that I would update you on what I think are the most interesting stories and topics.  So each week I will publish "The Week in Green."

If there is something that you think is interesting, topical or important, please post it to the comments here, on my Facebook Group (Green Luvin') and/or my Facebook blog, Green Luvin'.  You can also follow me on Twitter @Green_Luvin.

The Week in Green...

Be Green and Vote:  In most states you have until the end of the week to register to vote in the Presidential election.  Some say "why should I vote"?  No matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat, an environmentalist or a creationist (not sure why anyone would be), you MUST exercise your right to vote.  In this week Grist, Umbra Fisk wrote a piece called Citizen Bane: On the importance of voting.  A must read for all and if you have not registered to vote go to Declare Yourself to find out your state's deadline and all you need to register.

Bush's Environmental Record:  In a week that has once again exposed the incompetence of the Bush administration, the Republicans have boycotted a review of Bush's environmental record, as reported by the Environmental News Service. All of us know this administration has failed the American people on environmental and health issues while letting big business run rampant without oversight.  "For six years the administration sat by while oil imports increased, gas prices rose and global warming became more and more threatening," said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. "It refused to set higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles even when the data showed that the current trajectory was actually hurting the U.S. auto industry, desiccating its market share."

Fast Food is transforming the waistlines of the Greek: Our fast and highly process foods are making the U.S. a nation of the overweight, sick and obese. We have been told that the healthful Mediterranean diet — emphasizing olive oil, fresh produce and fish -- is the way to go. But as reported in the New York Times this week, the Greeks have succumbed to our ways and are now seeing increased negative health effects from the change in their nation's diet.  So much so that the government has began lectures on nutrition in schools.  As stated in the article, "In Greece, three-quarters of the adult population is overweight or obese, the worst rate in Europe “by far,” according to the United Nations. The rates of overweight 12-year-old boys rose more than 200 percent from 1982 to 2002 and have been rising even faster since."  

The reusable shopping bag, green or not?:  If you're reading this, and you are, you probably have about a half a dozen or so reusable shopping bags.  Those of us who do, proudly bring them to the supermarket making our statement that we are taking one step in reducing waste and helping the environment. According to a story in the Wall Street Journal this week entitled "An Inconvenient Bag," reusable shopping bags are the new "it" freebie.  Sales are up 76% from this time last year.  Wow, what a business, but is it a green business? "Many of the cheap, reusable bags that retailers favor are produced in Chinese factories and made from nonwoven polypropylene, a form of plastic that requires about 28 times as much energy to produce as the plastic used in standard disposable bags and eight times as much as a paper sack, according to Mr. Sterling, of Natural Capitalism Solutions.

Reclaiming Cow Shit for Energy:  So many people dis on the cow because they feel that bovines are a leading causes of global warming.  They burp and fart methane. Well, a farm in Vermont is now taking the waste from their cattle and converting into clean burning natural gas to create a new and recurring source of green energy. The Green Mountain Dairy in Shelton, Vermont is part of an alternative energy program that converts methane from cow manure in to electricity.  Check out this interesting and progressive program by reading  Electricity From What Cows Leave Behind in the New York Times, The Business of Green section.

By the way, please don't print these stories out to read them.  Save the paper and read them online.

New study finds that you don't have to overeat to become obese.

Pollution contaminates our water, air, and land. It has been proven to cause asthma, allergies, cancer, emphysema, and whole host of other diseases. It causes global warming, kills our wildlife and now scientist from the Environmental Epidemiology at the Institut Municipal Investigacio Medica in Barcelona discovered it causes OBESITY.  

So in addition to fast foods and processed foods, pollution causes obesity? The Spanish study revealed that children who were exposed to a range of common chemicals and pesticides in the womb increased the childs chances of becoming obese. 

As reported in the journal Acta Paediatrica, scientists looked at the concentration of hexachloreobenzene (HCB) in the umbilical cord blood of 405 children born in Menorca from mid-1997 to mid-1998. Among those data point collected post birth, scientists looked at infant height and weight.  Feeding practices were reported by mothers in interviews at six months and one year after birth.  Additionally, the children’s height and weight were measured when they were 6.5 years old. The study revealed that children with the highest exposure to HCB were 2.5 times more likely to be overweight. The researchers also reported that these children were three times more likely to be obese than those with lower exposure levels. 

So, what is HCB? Hexachlorobenzene is a fungicide formerly used to treat seeds to control fungal disease. It was banned globally in the '90s under the Stockholm Convention which banned chemical substances that accumulate through the food chain, and pose a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment. HCB has been banned in the US since 1965 but can still be found in our environment in 84 Superfund sites in the US and all across the world. It is a known animal cancinogen and a probable human carcinogen. Studies have found that HCB accumulates as your move up the food chain. Just like mercury, as it goes up the seafood food chain, HCB concentrations increase. Therefore, if you eat a large fish like tuna or swordfish that has been contaminated up the food chain, the concentrations of HCB would be extremely high.

So what else have children been exposed to prior to being born, and what impact might it have on my kids?

Previous studies have linked bisphenol A exposure to obesity in animals, and other studies have linked phthalates to obesity in adult men. As reported in the Telegraph in the United Kingdom, "The report's authors are now calling for exposure to similar pesticides to be minimised, including bisphenol A (BPA), used in baby bottles and cans of food, and phthalates, found in cosmetics and shampoos." Tests have shown BPA is found in 95% of Americans, while 90% have been found to be exposed to phthalates in the womb.

Between BPA, HCB, and phthalates, I'm frustrated and concerned. I would prefer to screw my kids up on my own and not worry about what their sippy cups or shampoos are made of, or what banned fungicides are in their foods.

What's keeping you up at night?

Junk mail, other than the annoyance, what's the problem? Lots...

If you're like me you love getting mail. The holiday cards, the thank you notes, etc. There is little more exciting than the sound of opening an envelope and reading a real piece of mail. But what I hate is the junk mail. Specifically the catalogues that clog my mail box and pile up day after day.

Well it turn out that more than 19 billion catalogs are mailed to households in the United States every year. That's 63 catalogs for each man, woman and child in the US. Well I wanted to put an end to this flood of useless mail.  I knew my family was getting a ton of these unwanted, unrequested catalogues from companies like LL Bean, Lands End, Victoria Secrets, Restoration Hardware and a whole host of other companies, well actually for me, eight-two companies. Eighty-two, that is how many different companies have sent me a mail-order catalogs in the past 2 months.  That is more than one catalog a day not including repeat catalogs! Wow that's a lot of junk mail.  

How do I know it is eighty-two?  About two months ago I began using Catalog Choice, a free service that contacts mail-order companies for you to remove your name from their mailing lists.  I knew I received a lot of catalogs but I had no idea that is was SOOO many.  

Using the Environmental Defense Fund paper calculator, Catalog Choice calculated the impact of all these catalogs on our environment. More than 53 million trees are need make 3.6 million tons of paper and 38 trillion BTUs of energy are need to produce the paper (enough to power 1.2 million households per year.) This process emits 5.2 million tons of carbon dioxide equal to annual emissions of 2 million cars -- significantly contributing to global warming. More that 53 billion gallons of wastewater is discharged to create the catalog paper -- enough to fill 81,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.  This doesn't even take into account the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the US Post Office from delivering these useless pieces of paper.

Since its launch last year, almost one million people have joined Catalog Choice and already opted out of 13,117,365 catalogs.  More than 1,000 companies have joined in to help people opt out of getting their catalogs but there are a few that have decided not to participate.  Out of the 82 companies on my list just Garnet Hill, Metropolitan Museum of Arts Store, Nordstroms, and Title Nine are not participating.  To date, 22 companies on my list have confirmed the opt out and Catalog Choice is still working on the rest.  

Catalog Choice is not the only service out there. For a fee, GreenDimes and 41pounds.org will get rid of unwanted junk mail and catalogs. OptOutPrescreen.com will stop unwanted credit or insurance offers. Even the Direct Marketing Association offers ways to remove your name and address for mailing list.  

It is so easy you have to try.  All you have to do is input them in and Catalog Choice does the rest.

Let me know how many catalogs you get rid of!

Recycling Does A Milk Carton Good

I was reading a recent issue of National Geographic's The Green Guide (Spring 2008) and on the last page of the magazine was an image hundreds of milk cartons lining a street to demonstrate how much milk American's consume. The image was taken from National Geographic Channel documentary Human Footprint.  

According to the movie, America consumes 989,985,594,240 half gallons of milk over the course of a lifetime and it takes more than one trillion kilowatt-hours of energy to produce, ship and landfill the milk cartons.  That amount of energy emits 740,674,244 tons of greenhouse gases.  Amazingly, only a tiny fraction of the cartons are recycled.   

That got me thinking.  How many milk cartons does my household go through over a short period of time, say a week? More importantly, why are milk cartons not recycled? They are made of paper aren't they? Even more puzzling is the fact that on the side of some of the cartons I buy, it says "please recycle".  I want to, but my town will not take them. So I decided to do some research on how to recycle a milk carton, and why my town won't do it.  I thought the information would be readily available.  I was wrong.

Initially I was going to save my cartons for one week, assuming this would be plenty of time to get enough information to write on the subject. Well, do a "Google" search on "milk carton recycling" and you will basically come up with... nothing. Four weeks and 30 cartons later, I am finally writing about it. 

This is what I discovered...

Milk cartons ARE recyclable, however, according to an EPA report of MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) provided to me by the National Recycling Coalition, in 2006, 510,000 tons of milk cartons were generated in the United States and less than 0.05% (5,000 tons) were recycled.

In 2006, only a little more than 550 towns across the country recycled milk cartons (source: Organic Valley).  To put this into perspective, there are 556 municipalities in New Jersey. Doing a non-scientific search on the internet of various towns across the country, I discovered you cannot recycle milk cartons in San Diego, DC, the entire state of Pennslyvania, Los Angeles and Austin but you can in New York City and Boulder, CO.

But why?

According to Ed Skernolis, Policy and Program Director for the National Recycling Coalition, "Milk cartons, because of the wax lining, are not universally recycled. Each locality is different, depending on their recycling processing capability. Some communities may allow milk cartons to go into composting/food waste bins if offered."

Boulder, Colorado's Eco-Cycle is the most progressive recycling program in the country. They do recycle milk and juice cartons. Dan Matsch, Manager for the Center for Hard Recycle Materials, Eco-Cycle, said that milk cartons are very good source for recycled paper because the fiber are long, however, they have a plastic coating which sometimes makes it difficult to recycle.  According to Matsch, the main reason that many municipalities do not recycle milk/juice cartons is that they need to be rinsed out which rarely happens.  Once the cartons get to the recycling center they get bailed and shipped (usually by truck, then boat) and by the time they reach their destination for recycling they are "ripe" or partially composted.  

Boulder has dedicated significant resources towards education to teach the community and kids in school the importance of recycling.  The city has been involved in recycling education in the school system for 21 years!  Students are involved...they even have milk carton monitors to make sure that the leftover is poured out prior to placing in the recycling bin.  

Most milk cartons, such as those sold by Organic Valley, are made by Tetra Pak. Tetra Pak manufactures two types of cartons: gable-top and aseptic cartons. The first ones are the chilled cartons, mainly for milk and orange juice. The aseptic ones are used for a variety of food products and have shelf life of up to 12 months without the need of refrigeration or preservatives. They rely on three things: packaging material (six layers of protection), UHT (ultra high temperature) food processing and aseptic filling machines. UHT, or Ultra High Temperature treatment takes place in optimised heat exchangers before packaging. This process minimizes heat penetration problems and allows very short heating and cooling times, at the same time minimizing unwanted changes in the taste and nutritional properties of the product.

One of the biggest challenges with carton recycling is generating volume enough for the recycling chain to make a profit out of recycling cartons. According to Tetra Pak, as recycling is a business, all players are looking for sustainable business: from the recycling facilities to the tissue mills. Tetra Pak has been working with cities and schools across the country to increase milk and juice carton recycling.

Ok, all of this is good and well right?  But, it begs an important question, which is better, milk cartons or plastic ones?  According to Organic Valley, "Plastic is easier to recycle, but is oil based. Paperboard is made mostly of a renewable material paper." Matsch of Boulder's Eco-Cycle believes that "Tetra Pak beats the pants off anything in terms of carbon foodprint. Tetra Paks are very space efficient, using less square feet for shipping, however, they do need to be refrigerated."

Where does the recycled paper go?  To one of the biggest paper companies in the world, Weyerhaeuser. Weyerhaeuser is one of the largest pulp an paper company in the world. In addition, the company collects and recycles wastepaper, boxes, and newsprint to make new products. According to Pete Grogan, Manager of Market Development for Weyerhaeuser Recycling, "We [Weyerhaeuser] accept Tetra Pak and gable top containers (milk) for recycling. In our case, we produce recycled content newsprint from these materials in addition to using old newspapers and magazines as a feedstock."

Ok.  This is a ton of information to swallow. So lets take a quick moment to put it all into perspective. We all consume a ton of milk.  If you're a mom like me, you're practically swimming in the white stuff. If you're reading this you care deeply about both the environment and a healthy, sustainable lifestyle. And, after reading all this you're probably a bit confused on what to do.

Here's my conclusions:

(1) Paper cartons are WAY better than plastic.  They are healthier for your you and kids, and have a much smaller carbon footprint to produce and ship than plastic ones.

(2) Paper can be recycled, so each one of us needs to petition, lobby and work to get out towns and cities to recycle these cartons.  If we each do a little, we'll all add up to a lot of impact.

(3) Read more, learn more and educate more.  Every little bit helps, and my month-long odyssey to learn about this issue has taught me a great deal.  But I have a lot more to learn.  As I do, I'll let you all know.

WIRED Environmentalism

"Attention Environmentalists: Keep your SUVs. Forget organics. Go nuclear. Screw the spotted owl." Wow, if that is not an attention getting headline I don't know what is. Well that is what is stated on the cover of the June issue of WIRED magazine.  The headline continues "If you're serious about global warming only one thing matters: Cutting Carbon. That means facing some inconvenient truths."

So what is this all about? Yes our climate crisis is important but forget organics, drive an SUV... huh? According to WIRED magazine, "The war on greenhouse gasses is too important to be left to the environmentalist" and we need to push everything aside and just focus on our reducing our CO2 emission. Forget about everything else? Our health, cleaning up toxic areas, erosion, our culture and work only on global warming? 

This single minded way of looking at the environment is split up into "10 tenets" of what WIRED magazine calls "the new environmental apostasy."

Here's what WIRED says:

(1) Live in Cities.  WIRED posits that urban dwellers emit less greenhouse gases than those living in suburban sprawl.  Well this is true.  As reported by Reuters on May 30th in a story entitled Big US Carbon Footprint Lie East of the Mississippi,  "metropolitan areas, where people drive shorter distances and use less electricity in their homes, are greener. On average, an urban dweller's carbon footprint was 86 percent of a suburban or rural resident's." So we should all move to cities? Is this realistic? Cram everyone into NY, LA, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and Denver? LA where you can only see the surrounding mountains when it rains and the smog settles? What about health issues? Also, "green" goes beyond just CO2 emissions. Cities can't sustain themselves. Central Park isn't a farm, and Staten Island isn't used as a giant diary. So yes, urban areas may emit less greenhouse gasses per person, but they are still massive heat islands, net consumers of food, oil and other things that are generated by the generation of CO2, NO2 and SO2.  

(2) A/C is OK.  According to WIRED it takes more energy to raise the thermostat in New England to 70 degrees when it is zero outside then it takes to lower the temperature in Phoenix to 70 degrees when it is 110 degrees outside. Therefore using the A/C emits less greenhouse gases in heating a house in winter. Well how about all the greenhouse gases emitted from shipping all the food that does not growing 110 degree weather to feed those people using the A/C or all the water that needs to be pumped into the swimming pools to cool down those sweating people in Arizona.  

(3) Organics are not the answer. WIRED magazine's argument here is organic dairies do not produce as much milk as industrial dailies.  Organically fed animals take longer to fatten up before going to market.  More time breathing means more time to burp, fart and poop emitting more greenhouse gases e.g. methane. Organic farmers do not produce as much produce per acre as industrial farmers.  Even so, organic farming has become big business delivering "wholesome" food to moms like me across many thousands of miles; think grapes from Chile or Strawberries from California. Well this is one that rips my heart out. Don't eat organic? Are they kidding? First, don't we need to be healthy and alive to save the environment? Organic produce and meats are significantly more nutritious than industrial foods. (To read more about the nutritional difference of organic over industrial produce read my past post "Another Point of the Organic Industry!") The pesticides and fertilizers that are used on industrial farms are ALL made out of fossil fuels, degrading the land and polluting the water from runoff. And the same trucks and planes that are hauling the organic foods are also hauling their industrial counterparts.  So organic or industrial? Go organic. Now I will agree with WIRED on one point.  Buy local.  But local industrial is worse than shipped organic. WIRED's reporters would have us eat the pesticide laden lettuces grown locally. Yuck! Not for me and my family.

(4) Farm the Forest. WIRED reports that 55 years is the age at which a tree's ability to absorb carbon begins to decline. Their solution -- cut down trees and plant new ones -- clear old trees and landfill the scraps. So now we need landfills for trees? Then they suggest planting seedlings and cut them down as soon as their CO2 absorption declines and make furniture. According to Alex Steffen of Editor of WorldChanging.com in his rebuttal article in WIRED, "Older trees can absorb CO2 for centuries after reaching maturity, while replanted forests can emit more CO2 than they sequester until the new trees are as much as 20 years old." He continues to say "Chopping down forest causes massive soil erosion and leads to desertification, making repeated plantings a dodgy prospect." Gosh, clear cutting just doesn't make that much sense does it? Old growth is still better than no growth.

(5) China is the solution. WIRED says it is the solution because China is producing 35% of the worlds photovoltaic factories (solar panels) and soon will produce inexpensive wind turbines--though there is currently more than a 3 year backlog of orders for wind turbines globally.  I would not say that this makes China the solution. With China's population at more than 1.3 billion and rising, they are more of the problem than the solution. China heats itself with coal, can't feed itself, and has become the fastest consumer of oil and other petroleum-based products in the world. Additionally, China (like the US) has not signed the Kyoto treaty, so they will pump the greenhouse gasses out as fast as they can. So they are the solution? Also, just between you and me, while I love solar and wind, neither are base-load solutions, and can only supplement coal, gas or nuclear plants (and yes I know all about geothermal, but there aren't enough resources to really make a difference.)

(6) Accept genetic engineering. WIRED believes that we need to look at Mosanto, Dupont and Syngenta as saviors who will feed the world- where's Bob Geldoff when you need him? They gleefully report that genetically engineered crops creates higher yields, and that they are the only hope for biofuels. WIRED's reporters even discuss genetically created meat -- lab-grown animal flesh--think Soylent Green--its people. (To read some of my rants on Monsanto  check my past post on milk labeling.) Are they kidding?  

(7) Carbon trading does not work. Now I cannot dispute or agree with this position. I have limited knowledge on this issue. According to WIRED magazine, the trading system put forth by the Kyoto Protocol will slow rising emissions by 6.5 days. That does not sound so good. They feel that a carbon tax would do a better job. To understand the difference between carbon trading and tax read "Carbon Taxes vs. Emissions Trading: What's the Difference, and Which is Better?" by Kevin Baumert posted on the Global Policy Forum. Also, check out Gar Lipow pieces on Grist called "Emission trading: A mixed record with plenty of failures, regulations work better."

(8) Embrace nuclear power. Well I am not sure I can embrace something that leaves us with a lot of radioactive waste. However,  nuclear power does emit a lot less carbon than coal as it is currently used but it is not zero--there is no zero carbon electricity generation. Uranium needs to be mined, refined and enriched; the power plant needs to be built and operated; each step uses fossil fuels, emitting greenhouse gases. The biggest issue for me is safety. A nuclear accident could do extreme harm to people and the environment -- killing thousands of people, injuring hundreds of thousand and contaminating a very larger area of land. Is that worth it? I say no, my husband says yes. 

(9) Used cars not hybrids. A company called CNW Marketing Research Inc. released a study titled Dust to Dust Energy Report which analyzed data on the "energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrap." Based on the results of this report, which used data points from 2005 and earlier including setting oil at a maximum of $80 per barrel and gas at $3.00 per gallon (a worse case scenario they say), WIRED suggests that we purchased a used car and that a hybrid such as a Prius has a larger carbon footprint than a Hummer.  From concept to road, CNW discovered that because of the nickel hybrid battery of hybrids the complete carbon footprint is higher than a Hummer. To get the full gist of the study you have to read it but what WIRED is suggesting is purchase a used car that the first owner already paid off the carbon debt such as a 1994 GeoMetro XFi -- what they say is the most fuel efficient car there is. However, I do not think I would put my kids in a car that has no airbags with all those "green" Hummers on the road.  By the way, I not sure how this all applies in 2008 when oil is at $140 a barrel and gas is as high as $4.40 in some places.  

(10) Prepare for the worst. So WIRED says some type of climate change is going to happen and I agree with them. We are already seeing it around the world.  But this just means we have to get with the program and stop delaying the necessary steps needed. We have been talking about this for years and we still see delays. The auto industry should be forced to build more fuel efficient cars. Heavy manufacturing industries need to be forced to reduce carbon. Utilities need to invest in new energy sources. Ethanol subsidies need to end. There is so much that must be done.  

Does that mean I need to buy more bikini's to prepare? Not sure what WIRED wants us to do.

What do you think? What are you doing?

 

Guest Blogger: Farmer Shannon Hayes on Methane Production in Grassfed Livestock

Once again Shannon Hayes, a sustainable farmer in Upstate New York, has written an interesting article on Methane Production, Beef and Global Warming.

Methane Production in Grassfed Livestock: By Shannon Hayes

As debates about how to save the planet rage on, grass farmers are suddenly faced with an onslaught of questions about…believe it or not, cow burps and farts. Any of us who’ve sat quietly and milked our family cow can attest to the simple fact that, yes, grassfed cattle do belch quite a bit.

Enteric fermentation, the fermentation of forage in the rumen, is a natural part of the digestion process for ruminant animals such as cows, sheep, goats or buffalo. As Matthew Rales pointout in his excellent article in the Spring 2008 journal, Wise Traditions, rumen fermentation “is the process that gives us fats like conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), and bone building nutrients like vitamin K.”(1) Grassfed livestock belch more than factory-farmed animals because they have a higher amount of roughage in their diet, which comes from grasses, and less starch. Grainfed livestock have a higher percentage of starch, since much of their feed comes from corn (the production of which, as we know, is also responsible for a fair amount of greenhouse gas). The natural fermentation process is unnaturally suppressed in factory farmed livestock…but grainfed animals still burp and fart quite a bit. In addition, factory farming results in considerable carbon emissions owing to the fuel intensive production practices. Concentrated animal production can also cause very serious pollution problems.

Unfortunately, this natural process of emitting methane is causing a lot of folks to raise their arms in alarm, to forego their local grass-fed burgers, and to opt instead for a bowl of rice and veggies. 

Whoa! Stop right there….rice field methane emissions are a major source of atmospheric methane. Further, research is starting to indicate that vegetation is also a source of methane. Trees, too. On another note, those blessed wetlands that we regard as bastions of environmental health and wealth comprise 80% of all natural methane emissions (2). Still, human-made sources of methane exceed natural sources, and in the United States, the culprits are oil, coal and gas extraction, landfills, rice cultivation, biomass burning and, yes, ruminant livestock and waste treatment.

So what’s a hungry person to do? 

Well, first of all, get recycling, and buy fresh local food that doesn’t come in a lot of packaging. Can the tomatoes from your garden or farm stand so you don’t have to buy any from the store in the winter. Start riding your bike more and using your car less. In the United States, landfills and natural gas and petroleum systems are responsible for more methane emissions than ruminants. When you hop on your bicycle, make sure you strap a little cooler on the rack and pedal over to your local grass farmer to pick up some lamb chops and some burger for your grill tonight (and, while you’re at it, go ahead and pick up a copy of my cookbooks there too, -- they’re printed on recycled paper!). 

On her website EatWild.com, Jo Robinson reports on research that was conducted by Dr. Rita Schenck at the Institute for Environmental Research and Education which shows that, when we account for the carbon sequestration resulting from grazing animals (where well-managed pastures help to pull excess carbon out of the atmosphere), even with the increased enteric fermentation, the net result is still a reduction in greenhouse gases. Jo Robinson also reports on a study demonstrating that keeping ruminants on high quality pastures (using the management intensive grazing practices that most of our nation’s grassfarmers employ) can reduce ruminant methane emissions by as much as 20% (3). 

To learn more about how your consumption of local grassfed meats can help save the planet, check out the article titled Moving the World Toward Sustainability in the Green Money Journal, where grazing advocate and environmentalist Allan Savory shows us how we could stop global warming within 15 years using Holistic Management and management intensive grazing practices (4). 

Yes, despite their burps and farts, those grazing cattle, sheep and goats are still going to play a major role in saving the planet…so enjoy tonight’s cookout.

1. Rales, Matthew. “An Inconvenient Cow: The Truth Behind the U.N.
Assault on Ruminant Livestock.” Wise Traditions, Vol. 9, no. 1, Spring
2008: 16-23.
2. www.eoearth.org/article/Methane
3. DeRamus, H. A., T. C. Clement, D. D. Giampola, and P. C.
Dickison. "Methane Emissions of Beef Cattle on Forages: Efficiency of
Grazing Management Systems." J Environ Qual 32, no. 1 (2003): 269-77.
4. Savory, Allan and Christopher Peck, “Moving Our World Towards
Sustainability,” Green Money Journal, Spring 2008.

About Shannon Hayes
Shannon is the host of grassfedcooking.com, and the author of The Farmer and the Grill and The Grassfed Gourmet. She holds a Ph.D. in sustainable agriculture and community development from Cornell University. Her family farm is Sap Bush Hollow, it is located in Upstate New York.

Green in Paris

So I think I have used up my allotment of fossil fuels for at least the remainder of this year or more likely the next decade. Why? My husband surprised me with a birthday trip to Paris last weekend. 

American's have a love/hate relationship with the French. So of course as an American and a Greeniac, I had to do some hardcore observations of Parisian "green" habits and compare them to what we do here.  What I discovered from my four days in the "City of Lights" is as follows.

(1) Recycling
There is a recycling program in place in Paris, but I am not sure if the Parisians are interested in recycling. On some streets they have huge recycling bins for bottles and cans but most of them were covered with graffiti (which happens to be all over the city). In the parks, they do have recycling bags next to the the garbage bags but as you can see in the picture,  recyclables are also placed in the garbage bag. On a walking tour the Marias, I asked our tour guide about how well the Parisian recycle. She said they are horrible and during our tour she opened a recycling bin from an apartment building to show us what she meant. It was filled with recyclables and non-recyclables.

(2) Reusables
My husband and I went in a few supermarkets (which I love to do whenever I travel abroad) and outdoor markets and I think I saw maybe 5 people using resusable bags. The worst was in the outdoor markets where you can buy fruits, vegetables, meats, cheese, bread, fish, flowers and much more. The biggest one we went to was in Versailles, and everything was put in a plastic bag. Many did bring there own reusable bag but those bags were then stuffed with plastic bags. It appeared to me that they may use more plastic bags than we use.

(3) Transportation
Paris is a very busy city with lot of traffic. But I would not say that they have any more traffic then New York City. They do drive smaller, and most likely, more efficient cars (I didn't see 1 hummer or SUV) and many people do ride bikes and take the subway. I think more people ride bikes in Paris then they do in Manhattan--but not as many as in Beijing. But the most ingenious thing that we observed in Paris was a bike rental system called Velib. The system began in July 2007, with 10,000 bikes, and now they are up to 20,000 bikes all over Paris. Riders can buy monthly, daily or hourly passes to rent bike stationed at more than 1,400 automated stations across the city. A bike can be rented from one station and returned to another. From what we saw, and from the doubling of the number of bikes in use, it appears that the Parisians love the system. My husband and I wished we had more time to try it out. Its funny, the first few days in Paris we weren't sure what these bikes were. Initially we thought they were motorized, then we didn't understand the rental system. By the time we figured out what was what it was it was time to go. I wonder if this would work in NYC.   

(4) Food
So those of you who read my blog know that I have an obsession with food.  Our trip there had some gastronomic highs--the picnic in Versaille and some lows--dinner at Chez Andre off the Champs-Elysées.   So of course I had to d find out where the French food comes from. Well I think this is a department that they really do better than we do. French farmer say no to GMOs--they even strike and riot to oppose them on a semi-regular basis. None of the fruits or vegetables grown in France are from genetically modified seeds. NONE! We can't say anything like that here. You can also find organic produce in Paris. We spoke to some butchers and they insisted that none of the meat is treated with antibiotics or hormones and that beef is grass-fed.  One of the butchers we spoke with even made a stink face when referring to grain fed beef.  I could not find anywhere on the internet to confirm or deny this so I have to take their word, for now. I did ask Shannon Hayes, a grass-fed beef farmer, of Sap Bush Farms and she said "It is my understanding is that not all meat in France is grass-fed. But a fair amount is. Quite often it depends on the breed - charolais beef, for example, is supposed to be exclusively raised on grass. When I was there I saw a lot of cattle grazed and fed in the barn - a model that is infinitely more sustainable than factory farms, but not, according to our strict definitions grass-fed. The meat is also much more likely to be raised on small farms, not from confinement facilities."

So what do I take from my trip to Paris.

1-  Thank you Lewis...I didn't thank you when I was there, but I'm thanking you now.

2- The food there was at times over rated, and at times sublime.  The baguettes in Versailles where the best I've ever had.

3- We might do a better job in recycling, and in moving towards a bag-less shopping experience, but I'm not sure.

4- The quality of the produce in Paris far surpasses what we have here.  I was thrilled by the freshness, the quality and the shopping experience.

5- Four days is just not enough time to be in Paris, but we missed our kids, and wanted to come home.

I'd love to hear about your "green" international observations.

Guest Blogger: Farmer Shannon Hayes on global warming, eating meat and the importance of the local farm movement

We have a guest blogger today, Shannon Hayes, a sustainable farmer in Upstate New York, who I wrote about a couple weeks back in my post entitled "Grass-Fed Meat." Shannon has a wealth of information on today's food issues and I thought you all might enjoy what she has to say about global warming, eating meat and the importance of the local farm movement.  I hope you find it has informative and timely as I did.   

Compare Apples to Apples When You’re Talking About Rib Eyes
By Shannon Hayes, farmer and host of grassfedcooking.com

After decades of hunching over in shame around environmentalist vegetarians, small grass-based meat farmers were finally given a chance hold our heads high by investigative journalists and nutritional advocates like Jo Robinson, Michael Pollan and Sally Fallon. In the last 10 years, Grass-fed meats have been lauded for their health benefits, their contributions to local economies and animal welfare, and most especially, for their environmental benefits.

…Until recently. A study released by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization started a buzz in November of 2006 suggesting that livestock production is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined. According to a story in the New York Times, in 2007, PETA commissioned a hummer and outfitted it with a driver wearing a chicken suit to travel around to environmental rallies, proclaiming meat as the number one cause of global warming. And this month, a story in Environmental Science and Technology reports on a new study which suggests that, rather than eating locally, we should just remove red meat and dairy from our diet once per week and replace it with chicken, fish or eggs, and have at least one day per week entirely meat-free. The result? Customers ordinarily seeking beef are suddenly asking for turkey burgers and chicken sausage; or they are dropping meat from their diets all together.

That’s pretty grim news for my family. Three generations of us garner a living from our small grass-based farm tucked up in the northern foothills of the Appalachian mountain chain. We’ve managed to build an exclusively local market for our products, making us an integral part of our rural economy. We’ve also managed to bring three additional farms back into viable agricultural production with the help of folks dedicated to buying locally. 

…Which leads to the next piece of news being circulated: that these “small dietary shifts” of giving up meat can accomplish the same greenhouse gas reduction as eating locally. The subtext here seriously stings: “Forget about those looney meat farmers in the hills, don’t fret about canning local tomatoes, and return your faith to the conventional supermarket. Just buy less red meat and go vegetarian once per week..” As a grass-based meat farmer, I’ve got a beef with that -- not to mention a serious steak in the matter (in this case, a rib eye, which I plan to lay across my grill later today).

Truth be told, these studies aren’t wrong. They aren’t exactly right, either, but I’ll get to that in a second. When we are looking at the industrial model of factory farming, of pumping grains into animals, there are serious ecological reasons to forego the red meats. “The main issue,” explains animal scientist Dr. James Hayes “is the conversion factor. When you feed grain to fish, you have a conversion factor of about 1.25 to 1.” That means that for every 1 ¼ pounds of grain product you feed to a fish, you’ll have a pound of weight gain. “The conversion for chicken is 2 pounds of feed per pound of gain on the bird. Pork is 4 pounds per pound of gain. And when you get to the ruminants, it skyrockets. Lamb requires 8 pounds of feed for a pound of weight gain, and beef requires 9 pounds of feed per pound of gain.” Grain production is extremely taxing on the environment, particularly in light of the chemical fertilizers, the nitrous oxide emissions, and the fossil fuel-intensive farming practices.

But here’s where there are gaps in the analysis: Ruminants are not designed to eat grain. Beef and lamb from grassfed farms do not eat grain. Grassfed dairy products are not fed grain. Ruminants can live off what our fields naturally produce – they harvest perennial grasses which do not need to be seeded every year, and they return nutrients to the soil. In a pinch, they can also eat things like straw and corn stalks – which means they have the magical capacity to convert crop production waste into food. Conventional factory-farmed red meats are bad for the environment. Grass-fed red meats are not. Most grass farms use no chemical inputs; and since the animals harvest the feed themselves by grazing, very few fossil fuels are required to produce the meat. In fact, grass-fed meats play an integral role in our carbon solution.

In 2005, the USDA released a report showing that properly managed pastures store 2 to 3 times more carbon in their soils than fields that were left unmanaged, used for hay, or left un-harvested. Another study released by the University of Iowa in 2002 showed that grazed pastures were the ideal land use for storing carbon. This means that properly grazing animals helps to reverse the greenhouse effect. Allan Savory, founder of the Center for Holistic management, has done calculations suggesting that we could actually reverse global warming by grazing cattle and using them to build soil organic matter. His work emphasizes, however, that this is only done through good grazing practices. Poor grazing practices have long been the culprits of desertification and environmental degradation. There is a difference; and the only way to identify sound practices is know your local farmer.

But in the crunching of their carbon calculations, the anti-red-meat advocates overlook another huge element in the push to buy locally. Food security is a big one. As we hit peak oil, it will get harder and harder to transport those non-local food products to the folks that need them. Isn’t it wiser to have a secure local food system in place? And then, of course, there are the issues of viable local economies, made vibrant by independent businesses, beautified by open farmland, and hopeful by families whose children can find a livelihood near home, rather than far away. And then, finally, there are the simple principles of non-exploitation and social justice that are embodied by the local food movement. This means paying us farmers honest wages for our work, which in turn enables us to steward the land responsibly, and create great tasting food…especially that rib eye, which I’ll be grilling up for lunch.
 
About Shannon Hayes
Shannon is the host of grassfedcooking.com, and the author of The Farmer and the Grill and The Grassfed Gourmet. She holds a Ph.D. in sustainable agriculture and community development from Cornell University. Her family farm is Sap Bush Hollow, it is located in Upstate New York.

Corn: How can one food lead to both obesity and starvation?

Corn: it makes us fat, makes our cows sick, degrades our land and now it is causing a food crisis. How can one crop cause both obesity and starvation? Can a plant be evil?

Well, as we all know, and as I wrote about in my "King Corn" post, corn is the basic building block of most of our food. But with mountains of corn, all that processed food and high fructose corn syrup, how can there be global a food crisis? Think about this, there are people RIOTING in the streets because there is not enough food to eat!

Due to the poorly conceived energy policies of the United States and European Union a tremendous amount of corn is being converted to biofuels (think ethanol). The acreage being used to grow fuel corn is contributing to the explosive rise in global food prices.  Many farmers are growing corn for your gas tank and not your belly.

Yesterday the United Nations said that fuel policies pursued by the U.S. and the EU were one of the main causes of the current worldwide food crisis. So now, not only are we fighting for oil in Iraq, but Iowa isn't feeding us anymore, its feeding Ford's, Chevy's and Toyota's.

Jean Ziegler of Switzerland, UN special rapporteur on the right to food and a professor of sociology at the University of Geneva and at the Sorbonne in Paris, said "that last year the United States used a third of its corn crop to create biofuels, while the European Union is planning to have 10 percent of its petrol supplied by biofuels."  To me, that's both pretty amazing and scary.  Thirty-three percent of all the corn grown in the US is going to run our cars.

When speaking with Voice of America, Greg Barrow of the UN's World Food Program stated, "There is a perfect storm that has emerged over this issue [due to] a combination of factors - high fuel prices, high food commodity prices driven by the growth of economies in China and India. Then this phenomenon of biofuels production, where fields that were once used to produce grain for human consumption are now producing grain for fuel."

Food prices have risen dramatically in the last year and we are already seeing a food crisis in Haiti, Cameroon, Egypt, Ivory Coast, South Korea, Bangladesh and the Philippines. And American's are not immune to the crisis.  Both Costco and Sam's Club have begun rationing sales of rice allowing a maximum of two to four institutional-size bags per customer, depending on supply. 

When speaking with the Washington Post, Bruce Babcock, a professor of economics and the director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University said "If you didn't have ethanol, you would not have the prices we have today. It doesn't mean it's the sole driver. Prices would be higher than we saw earlier in this decade because world grain supplies are tighter now than earlier in the decade. But we've introduced a new demand into the market."  And the astounding thing is, ethanol is not an efficient source of fuel and might be exacerbating global warming. 

According to the Associated Press, even President Bush-- that well knowing environmentalist--said biofuel is responsible for about 15 percent of the rise of food prices. However the U.S. Department of Agriculture believes it to be more around 20 percent. And the International Food Policy Research Institute and Ziegler says it is 30 percent. Leave it to Bush to underestimate a crisis.

Then of course there is the biofuel industry that says that biofuels have only brought food prices up 4 percent. But who are they kidding. It is in their best interest to keep the corn flowing to their chemical vats, and the fuels flowing to our cars.

Check out the Associated Press photo above of a pump at an Ohio Department of Agriculture fuel station in 2006 that is 85% ethanol and 15% petroleum. Currently gasoline contains up to 10% ethanol. If the biofuel industry had it their way all our pumps would look like the one in the photo.

Ziegler and other international scientist have called for a moratorium on the production of biofuels. But of course Bush believes the opposite. Good thing he is a lame duck!

What do you think?

(pump image by Kiichiro Sato, AP)