The Purdue Climate Change Research Center prepared a study specifically about the climate change impacts that are predicted to affect Indiana in the coming years if no action is taken to mitigate climate change. They also discuss the possible pros and cons of climate change mitigation throughout the state of Indiana. - Lauren Baugh https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/resources/docs/ClimateImpactsIndiana.pdf
0 Comments
Buying locally grown and raised food is a great way for an individual to make a real impact on their own environmental and food footprints. This is why so many people are doing so and why it is attractive to a lot of people who care about the footprint they create. There are many different benefits to buying local and organic products. Other than health benefits, there are environmental, economic, and social benefits as well. For thousands of years now, humans have been growing their own food. Only within the last century or so has someone from one side of the world been able to buy food from the other side of the world on a large scale. Today we live in the most connected, yet disconnected age that this world has ever seen. There is communication and social interaction tied to every inch of our lives thanks to technology. Yet, there is a huge disconnect to the simple things in life like knowing where our food comes from, how it was grown, and how it got here. These are questions that I personally strive to know the answer to. Buying and eating local, organic food products has several health benefits. One of these is that the food, whether plant products or animal products, is pesticide and hormone free as well as preservative free. Small farmers that cater to local shoppers usually produce organic goods as an extra step towards being more natural and environmentally friendly. When you aren’t shipping your product half way around the world, or storing it to be sold 6 months down the road, you don’t need to treat your product with preservatives. Buying local also supports healthy living and well-balanced diets by offering whole food proteins, fruits, vegetables, and grains rather than processed and packaged options. There are also economic and social benefits to buying local. The biggest of these is that doing so supports local farmers and keeps money in the community. When you buy a tomato from the farmers market rather than the supermarket, you’re supporting the farmer that grew that tomato and his/ her family. You also grow a relationship with the farmers/ producers that you buy from that is an important part to knowing where your food comes from. The biggest benefit to buying local is perhaps the positive effect that it has on the environment. Buying local decreases or eliminates the amount of “food miles” that is the number of miles your food was shipped from where it was grown to where it was processed/ packaged to where you bought it. This large amount of transportation causes a large amount of fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. These can be avoided if you choose to buy food that is locally grown and raised. Another environmental benefit to buying local is that is preserves small farms and farmland and it promotes genetic diversity. Keeping small farms alive, prevents big farms from moving in and planting a monoculture of corn, wheat, or soybeans. Nearly everybody in the world has access to buy local food. Even in unlikely places, like the desert in Arizona, there are still farms within 100 miles that grow local, organic food. The big problem, however, is that not everything is available to people wherever they live. In fact, no matter where you live, if you tried to switch to a local-only diet, you would have to cut out many foods that you commonly eat. Most regions of the world aren’t suited to grow every type of food. On top of that, any processed or packaged food and pretty much any restaurant would have to be cut out of your diet, because the food that those companies use is most likely not local. There are some special restaurants that have popped up (mostly in places like California), where they serve only local food, however, these aren’t very uncommon. The big benefit to buying local is that it cuts down on travel time, and therefore, carbon emissions. If you buy tomatoes grown 50 miles away at a farmer’s market, they obviously only have to travel 50 miles, as opposed to the hundreds or thousands of miles that non-local tomatoes travel to get to the local grocery store. Therefore, if everybody bought local food, it could potentially cut down quite a bit of carbon emissions, however not everybody would have access to every kind of food that they have access to now. If buying local only food was possible, the world would look similar in most respects, but very different in others. Carbon emissions would be cut quite a bit just from reducing the travel time of food. However, in order to produce certain kinds of food in areas where that food is not available and the local environment doesn’t support the growth of that food, people may turn to using greenhouses or indoor farms. This could be a big problem because both require more electricity, and therefore produce more emissions. Much research would have to be done on how much greenhouse gas emissions come from these, as opposed to just transporting the food from other areas. On top of that, most people who own greenhouses and indoor farms are individuals who are less experienced at farming than the professional farmers that grow our food today. Therefore, they could be less efficient with water usage and pest management (assuming they don’t use pesticides). Another big problem would be that these foods that are not commonly grown in a certain area would be extremely expensive there; due to the fact that there would be a very limited supply. If everybody bought only locally grown food, the cost and greenhouse emissions could be cut by eliminating transportation, packaging, and processing, however, that cost and emissions could still be worse by trying to grow foods that are not commonly grown in that area. More or less sustainable? Local products have countless benefits ranging from consuming fresh produce to health benefits but one of its biggest advantages is its environmental sustainability. There are multiple reasons for more sustainability of local produce over other sources which we will discuss below. To begin, local produce reduces our food miles. When we buy local the produce is grown within few miles of our location so there is no need for a lot of packaging, shipping and refrigeration whereas when we buy from grocery and big-name chain stores we are creating a huge carbon footprint as the produce is shipped thousands of miles, requires packaging and refrigeration for long hours. 1 billion metric tons of CO2 is generated by the US each year for International shipping [3], in contrast by using local produce we are not only reducing our carbon footprint by up to 10% we are also reducing deforestation and thus increasing sustainability. The infographic below clearly shows the dire effects on sustainability of not buying local. Buying local also protects farmland and Wildlife and thus increases the products sustainability. When we buy local we are improving the financial position of the local farmer. This money is spent by the farmer to operate and protect the farmland along with the biodiversity which grows on farms. Buying local is more sustainable as local producers are more likely to reuse resources and thus reduce the use of coal and other minerals. It is also more sustainable as more forests can be preserved which leads to increased absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere.15% of wood waste is also recycled by using local products [3]. The Infographic below clearly shows how more sustainable local food is as compared to other sources. West Lafayette is a great example of growing sustainable food as farmers have access to the world class research being done by Purdue in this field. In West Lafayette you can find local products which include vegetables - corn, tomatoes, carrots, kale etc. Fruits -strawberries, watermelons etc. Dairy-Eggs, butter, milk and cheese. Meats- pork, chicken, lamb, etc. There is a wide variety of local produce available and if we try living on it, we would be able to balance a healthy lifestyle while living sustainably and improving the economic conditions of the community. The downside is that we would have no access to goods from other states and countries. Also, the cost of buying local produce is generally more. However, recent trends suggest that 95% of American households are willing to pay more for local produce for its positive effects on the economy and the environment [4]. If Buying local is a feasible option for you then I would recommend you look into local farms/ farmers markets. The benefits of doing so are worth it.
References: [1] Go Green. (2017). The Environmental Benefits of Buying Locally. Referenced From http://www.gogreen.org/blog/the-environmental-benefits-of-buying-locally [2] Arrowquip. (2018). Top Benefits of Buying Locally Grown Food. Referenced From https://arrowquip.com/blog/animal-science/top-benefits-buying-locally-grown-food [3] HuffPost. (2017). Why Buying Local is Worth Every Cent. Referenced From https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-salguero/why-buying-local-is-worth_b_4310520.html [4] Statista. (2015). Local Food- Statistics and Facts. Referenced From https://www.statista.com/topics/2123/local-foods-statistics-and-facts/ [5] West Lafayette Farmers Market. (2017). Referenced From http://wlfarmersmarket.com/404.html Many sustainability organizations around the world emphasize the importance of buying locally. Why is that? What makes buying locally more or less environmentally friendly, and how does it make the world more sustainable? These are some of the questions we plan to answer. We will address some of the environmental impacts of global trade and how it can be mitigated by buying local. We’ve asked for the opinions of local business owners in Central Indiana, so you will read about their perspective on buying local. We will also address some of the economic challenges, and how it might not be challenging in the long run. After researching this topic, our team has concluded that it is beneficial to the environment and the local economy to buy local, and that the challenges of buying local can be overcome. One of the first questions to address is why the international market and global trade have such a negative impact on the environment. In the current market, it is much cheaper to produce foodstuffs and products overseas and ship them to consumers. Often, packaging and processing facilities are far away from where the products are made. This leads to a huge consumption of fuel during shipping. At the bottom of the text, we included an infographic which outlines many facts we reference. The beginning includes several statistics about transportation emissions. Shipping produces 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. 65 percent of all shipping methods are by air and sea, meaning that most shipping is done internationally. We could reduce these emissions significantly by buying domestically produced goods. Looking specifically at global food production, much of their impact is due to emissions and over farming. While local food production may cause soil damage, the scales are more reconcilable than that of global industries. Yet, due to the ever-upward growth and consumption rates, the global food market will continue to harm the environment. Also, looking at the ‘scale effect’ of large producers, this destruction will continue even as equipment and facilities become more efficient at producing (Clapp & Dauvergne, 2001). Buying local is more environment-friendly, but is it sustainable in the long term? We believe that local good consumption is a sustainable practice. In fact, many have begun to call local goods sustainable goods. Local suppliers must learn production methods that would be more efficient/environmentally friendly than the global suppliers. Yet, they do not use it in the same capacity as international producers. Close networks of local farmers, stores and events, ensures the process is sustainable. Looking at the waste produced by large food producers we know that many of its byproducts are not recyclable or impossible to recycle. This point is supported in the infographic. On the contrary, local producers use Farmers markets to gain access to consumers while reducing the footprint from packaging (Grace Communications Foundation). We asked Amy Farmer, a local producer with a farm in Cicero, Indiana for her opinion on buying local. She stated a number of advantages of buying local. For example, a lack of freight cost. Fossil fuel use in transportation is limited because most customers of a roadside stand are within 15 minutes. The customers will have a personal relationship with who they are buying from. Because customers are able to buy directly from the producer, there are no ‘middle men’. Amy says this creates “less chance for contamination, less price inflation, and less chance that someone will mess something else up.” When asked what the world would look like if everyone bought locally, she stated the food would be more secure since it would no longer be dependent on international relations and politics. She said that most people would have gardens or livestock in their own yard, and the number of large scale farms would be minimal. However, Amy also recognizes that a lot has to happen before society reaches this point, and that buying 85% local is a more realistic goal. Amy Farmer also recognizes that buying local is not subsidized by the government and is more expensive for the consumers. However, in her personal experience, her and her customers end up eating less when they eat local fresh grown produce that doesn’t need preserved. She also states the those who buy and eat local might save on health costs down the road. She said, “Customers feel better when they eat local, they tend to notice subjective improvements in their health.” While the idea of buying local is filled with promise, it’s easier said than done. Whether we like it or not, the economy and the environment are tied in ways we can’t undo. There are definitely economic challenges that come with buying local. As determined by environmentalists, poverty is responsible for a lot of environmental harm (Shah, 2005). It is much more affordable to buy processed, international products. Those with low income do not necessarily have the means to buy the more expensive locally grown, organic food products, or other locally made goods. This makes it seem that not everyone can buy local. However, economists say that this might not be a problem in the long run. Buying local actually boosts local economies significantly. Author and NEF researcher David Boyle says in an interview with TIME, “Money is like blood. It needs to keep moving around to keep the economy going” (Schwarts, 2009). If we look at the human body, blood has to circulate continuously for the body to function. Similarly, an economy needs a flow of money to keep it from collapsing. When members of a community give money to local businesses by purchasing their goods and services, those local businesses can give back by employing more community members and investing in the community. According to a study by the American Economic Review in 2008 and 2009, local businesses return 52 percent of their revenue to the local community, whereas national chain retailers only return 14 percent (Grow Riverside). When more people buy local, giving small businesses a chance to grow and expand, it reduces the challenge of buying local for those who find it financially impossible. While there is certainly an initial barrier to buying local, it just needs a push. After this push, local economies should experience a snowballing of growth. If this happened everywhere, especially in the U.S. and other developed countries, we’d actually see sustainable growth. Buying local is not only greener itself, but it also creates economic growth that could reduce poverty. Poverty reduction can lead to more people who have the means to live a sustainable life and who participate less in consumerism. To get more information on what challenges we need to overcome, a representative from “Better World”, a popular local Asian market among international students at Purdue was interviewed. Compared to supermarkets like Walmart, Better World meets the needs of Asian students more by offering a larger variety of vegetables and meats. We interviewed Ruizhi Guo, who’s in charge of Better World’s vegetable distribution. She stated they offer more than 60 kinds of vegetables, 80 percent of which is from California and 20 percent is from Chicago. Expecting these products to be more “local”, this was surprising. “Are there no local farms, maybe in Indiana, that provides the same product?”, she was asked. She said she asked the same question after first getting here, and what she found out was that most big farms here only provide a certain number of products. This makes sense because different vegetables require different growing environments, and it’s easier and more profitable for a traditional farm to focus on a few popular products. The second issue Guo addressed was that even if there was some small-scale farming going on locally, like Chinese broccoli in someone’s backyard, the demands would be way more than the supply. In other words, there won’t be enough products to go around if it is not provided by big farms. Take Better World as an example. They take in 120 boxes of around 30 pounds of vegetables every week, which sometimes is not even enough. To satisfy such demands large-scale farming is definitely required. It is true that the transition from global trade to buying local will face many challenges, but with new technology emerging every day, our team believes this is a future we can reach. Buying local is a practice that should be encouraged due to its positive impact on the local community and the environment. While we are far from a world where it is possible for everyone to buy local due to product availability and cost, more people buying local now, will make it easier for those in the future. It is the recommendation of this team, that those who are able should grow and/or buy their products locally. When it comes to eating local it is important to consider ecological societal limitations, however, in an ideal situation, eating local should be prioritized over eating food that is not locally grown, produced, and manufactured. The benefits of local purchasing include increased local economic support and greenhouse gas emission reductions. However, there exist limitations to local food consumption in the shape of availability. In the worst-case scenarios there exist food deserts where physical distance from accessible groceries, or local groceries limits consumers to convenience store and fast food options. In most other cases, foods are in seasonal supply and unavailable during certain times of the year, along with the fact that some people are in food deserts and are unable to access these fresh foods both creating limitations on what is available in your region. Social constraints can be addressed, but require action not only by the government, but by local citizens. Food deserts can be combated through developing more local food infrastructure. This will support local economic growth and community improvement. The ecological constraints can be circumvented through technological innovations such as hydroponics. While expensive, these solutions show promise in their ability to provide all types of food throughout the year. As a whole, while our society is not yet equip for buying only local, purchasing local products is a goal to move towards. Buying local is important for the local economy to support jobs, and to recirculate revenue. It is also shown for that growers who sell locally end up creating an average of 13 jobs, much more compared to the three jobs that would be created when growers do not sell to the local system. As these local businesses create jobs they are investing in the local community through a salary. This type of salary chain helps the middle class, as the small businesses are paying the individual who then can redistribute wealth back into their local economy. In a comparison of reinvestment based on spending $100 in a local economy, local businesses reinvest $68 compared to the $43 from non local companies. That is an additional 25% that local businesses reinvest into the local economy to help it grow, which can have a major impact. As this money is being reinvested into the local economy, the area is able to grow and support more businesses and become more stable and resilient to recessions that may occur. Local businesses are also known to volunteer and donate more compared to large corporations, as they have an interest in the community as when the community succeeds their business prospects are to increase. Another benefit to buying local is the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation of food products accounts for emissions, and given the understood impacts of Climate Change, all reduction methods should be explored. Collective action with regard to buying local can make large impacts on societal emissions. Despite the benefits of buying local, there exist challenges such the presence of food deserts. “Food deserts are areas that lack access to affordable fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat milk, and other foods that make up the full range of a healthy diet.” There are various standards of determining if an area is a food desert or not. One of the standard that the USDA uses to define an area as a food desert is that there should be at least 33% or 500 people in an urban area living without a proper grocery store in a 1-mile radius (10 miles in rural areas). Our own Purdue University falls under the category of food deserts after the closing of Fresh City Market on Northwestern Street. Statistics show that about 23.5 million people in the US living in areas that are regarded as food deserts. In food desert locations, buying local is not an option. There are many initiatives to make healthy and local produce more readily available to such areas. Garden on the Go, a produce initiative from Indiana University, has several weekly pop-up shops that sell produce. With the initiative of buying local to save the planet, these areas are targeted for increased availability of produce. Another effective solution are community gardens: pieces of public or private land that are used to grow local produce by groups of individuals. Community gardens are an excellent way to meet the local food requirement in a fashion that is ecological, economical and environment friendly. By practicing local food production using community gardens, not only is fresh and healthy produce readily available, but local community development is supported. Thus, community gardens provide with a great way to promote community gathering while making fresh produce available locally, thus improving the overall health of the people and the environment. Another major challenge that is faced when it comes to eating locally is that the supply of local food is hard to maintain year-round. It is nice to go walk around a farmer’s market on a warm sunny day and buy locally grown fruit and vegetables, however, when the colder months roll around, farmers are done for the season and the farmers markets close. Where are consumers able to get locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables when there is a blanket of snow on the ground? The solution to this problem is hydroponic farms, and they have been gaining momentum all around the world. Hydroponic farms have revolutionized the way crops can be grown through a soil free agriculture process where plants are grown in nutrient solutions. These farms are often found in warehouses where space is more affordable. These indoor farms have many advantages over a traditional farm. Since the farm is indoors, food can be grown year-round no matter the climate or location. A traditional farm only has one horizontal plane that can be farmed, but hydroponic farms take advantage of soilless growing methods and incorporate vertical farming systems. A system like the ones pictured below exponentially increases yields due to higher plant density. One of the best things about hydroponic farms is that they can be started almost anywhere. Urban Farms, a hydroponic farm in Indianapolis, grows a variety of produce and sells it to local restaurants and at local farmers markets. They provide a year-round supply, allowing customers to stop doing business with large produce distributors. This local supply of food ended up being cheaper and reducing greenhouse gas emissions greatly. This goes against many people’s first instincts and proves that hydroponic farming presents a economically-realistic option for food production. Additionally, from eliminating the delivery service of these produce distributors, the restaurants were able to cut out a large amount of greenhouse gases used in the delivery process by their trucks.
The main downside to a hydroponic farm is the initial startup cost. A building has to be rented or purchased, which can be expensive depending on the location. The hydroponic systems themselves can also be very expensive. To build a 500 square foot farm it will take an initial investment of around $110,000 (Arnold, 2017). This pays for all of the systems, automation, lights, CO2, and nutrients for the solutions. There are some hydroponic farms that receive government funding because they bring lots of jobs to communities. Some programs even provide social benefits through taking in ex-convicts and giving them jobs working at the farms. As outlined throughout this blog post, eating locally produced food is an ideal option that benefits the environment and economy. However, this is not always the easiest choice and sometimes it is not possible. With some help and initiative, communities have begun projects such as community farms to provide people a source of fresh, locally grown produce. Emerging technology in hydroponic farming is providing a way for innovative farmers to grow plants year-round in city environments. These options are not always possible, but they are a step in the right direction. Local governments and communities are realizing the importance of locally produced foods and providing support for these movements. Sources (APA) Arnold, J. (2017). Indoor Hydroponic Farming: Costs and Profits [without the fluff]. Retrieved February 10, 2018, from https://blog.brightagrotech.com/indoor-hydroponic-farming-costs-profits Callie. (2015, September 15). Award-Winning Vertical Farming System. Retrieved February 10, 2018, from https://gardenculturemagazine.com/techno-gardens/vertical-gardening/award-winning-vertical-farming-system/ Civil Economics. (2015). [Pie charts depicting how much currency remains in a local economic system based on the companies it goes to]. Retrieved from http://clatsopnews.com/2017/11/22/shop-small-astoria/ Food Connects. (2017). [Infographic regarding farmers markets and how they support local economies and communities]. Retrieved from http://www.foodconnects.org/where-to-find-local-food.html Food desert. (2018, February 13). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert Go to the Atlas. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas.aspx Hydroponic Systems: How They Work and How To Build Your Own. (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2018, from https://www.epicgardening.com/hydroponic-systems/ Metropolis Agricultural Technology. (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2018, from https://www.metropolisfarmsusa.com/in-depth-tech Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A. D., Travis, R. C., Bradbury, K. E., & Key, T. J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic change, 125(2), 179-192. Weber, C. L., & Matthews, H. S. (2008). Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. 11 Facts About Food Deserts. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-food-deserts Let's Talk About Local Food -Snigdha Devineni, Sam Kuhns, Connor Lucas, Sabrina Myoda (Group 5)2/17/2018 Stan’s a resident of West Lafayette, Indiana. He considers himself to be an environmentalist. He believes that rising CO2 levels are a major driving factor of climate change and believes that we have indeed entered the Anthropocene. He sees local foods as a way to cut down on his carbon emissions and save the planet. So even when it’s freezing outside he still decides to walk the extra mile to get some locally grown tomatoes. When he reaches home he looks at his roommate's grocery bags and scorns his roommate’s decision to get imported food instead of locally grown food. What Stan doesn’t realize is that the locally grown tomato he’s so proud of has a larger carbon footprint than the imported one. Tomatoes are seasonally grown and require high temperatures to grow. They need a temperature range of 65° F to 75° F to grow, but the average high temperature in West Lafayette during the winter is 32.9° F.[1] So to produce tomatoes locally during winters, a hot house is required. This method of production consumes a lot of electricity and may use higher amounts of fertilizers, ultimately leading to a higher production of CO2 than what is released if the tomatoes are imported from warmer to colder places.[2] If we can’t assume that local foods are always sustainable, why do sustainability efforts often emphasize buying local? For one thing, buying local seems to be a logical way of protecting the environment: if you want to shrink your carbon footprint, buy produce that has traveled 10 miles in a pickup truck instead of 10,000 in a semi.[1] As you just learned, however, calculating the environmental impact of a local vegetable is not as simple as that. Another argument in favor of local foods’ sustainability comes from the idea that local farmers are well positioned to strengthen the social sustainability of their community by actively participating in local economies and bringing people together.[2] While agribusinesses may be viewed as operating simply to make money, local farmers are thought to be motivated by their love for food, the land, and their desire to see their communities thrive. These farmers are supposed to be conscientious producers, avoiding the tragedy of the commons that can occur when each actor makes decisions that are purely rational and cost/benefit motivated. However, not all local farmers have excellent motivations and they may also be largely motivated by profit instead of sustainability. Due to the overlap between the local foods movement and sustainability efforts, determining whether or not a local product is truly sustainable is not straightforward. In addition to the challenge of determining sustainability in the local foods movement, not everyone agrees on what qualifies as “local”. Some producers advertise their products as local if they are supplying consumers within the same state, which can be misleading if the consumer believes that local foods come from within a hundred miles (a popular definition of local). The varying sizes of states further compounds the issue.[3] In reality, though the local foods movement centers on the proximity of producers to consumers, considering the distance the food has traveled is only one part of sustainability. Water use, fuel consumption, social justice, and many other things all play a role. Since sustainability has many facets, purchasing local foods should be based on an understanding of the larger food system rather than a blind adherence to a local foods mantra. So what should you consider before you start shopping at your local farmers’ market? Here are a few guidelines that we hope can help you identify truly sustainable local foods. The first, and easiest, way to start your research is to understand what grows well in your area. Local foods often aren’t sustainable when grown in greenhouses that utilize large amounts of energy. For a Midwesterner, this means that buying basil locally in the summer is a logical choice, but that local basil in the winter has probably generated additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to the herb’s need for a warm, well-lit environment. Another factor to consider when purchasing local foods is your budget. Local food is infamously expensive, but this is not always the case. A concerned citizen looking to reduce their carbon footprint and support producers in their region can still find local foods that fit their budget. College students at Purdue can find many local fruits and vegetables at prices comparable to those in grocery stores (especially in the summer), although local meat may still be prohibitively expensive. The cost barrier inherent to local food production, noted by some local farmers as the biggest issue with the local food system,[1] could be mitigated with a shift away from large scale food operations and demand growth. One option available here in Lafayette would be joining a co-op such as City Foods. This would be a way to trade some labor for much cheaper local foods. It also gives you an inside look at how your food is being grown and gives you a better idea of the sustainability of the process. If possible it is always a good idea to learn as much about how your food is grown so that you can make decisions for yourself on what you would like to purchase. While this isn’t always possible, it is much easier with local food than with globally distributed food. An example of successful local food use can be seen right here in town at McGraw’s Steak Chop and Fish House. Over the past summer, McGraw’s started purchasing locally grown microgreens. In this case, the short travel distance of the product made for decreased GHG emissions and greatly reduced price from what was being provided by a national food distributor. The local product was also of much higher quality and freshness. Buying local, did require extra effort on the part of the restaurant, however, and meant that in the winter substitutes had to be found for the local microgreens.[2] This brings us to the current state of local foods, and why a global local foods movement seems so unrealistic. National policies focus more on poverty reduction and development than environmentally sound agriculture, and any shift to local foods would require a major shift in mindset and agricultural law. We have grown accustomed to eating our favorite foods year round; eating seasonally in most of Indiana would mean living like a squirrel in the winter. Much like McGraw’s, consumers would have to start modifying their diets and spending much more time finding local sources for their food. It’s important to recognize the limitations of local food and the possibility that slow change could help shift our dependence on the global food supply to more sustainable and self-sufficient local economies. Consider everything you’ve read so far. How can you translate this into your individual lifestyle? There are a million factors that go into how you pick what’s on your plate. Making informed purchasing decisions is a simple way that you can reduce your carbon footprint and promote sustainability in the world around you. If you want to purchase fish, go for it! But before you hand over your cash, look into where it came from. Is salmon that is transported all the way from Alaska really more sustainable than salmon from a Midwestern fish farm? How much energy did it consume to store and transport that tomato from across the country? It’s hard to know! There is not always a clear answer to these questions, but you’ll never make a difference if you don’t put in the effort to understand the impact of your food. Our recommendation? Try to find some primary sources that you can trust, and look for certifications that reliably indicate sustainable options. Visit your local farmers’ market and look for some truly fresh, truly local produce and learn about how it got from the field into your hands. Engaging with and supporting your local food producers is the best way to ensure your food travelled the minimum amount of miles and consumed the least amount of energy possible. References [1] Adair, interview with Sabrina Myoda, Feb 2018 [2] Rebecca Wood, McGraw’s, interview with Connor Lucas, Feb 2018 [1] Kate Ashford, “9 Low-Cost Ways to Shrink Your Carbon Footprint”, Forbes, June 2017 [2] Chris Adair, manager of Purdue Student Farm, interview by Sabrina Myoda, Feb 2018 [3] Whitney Sager, “Definition of local food explored by small farm specialist”, Iowa State Daily, Oct 2008 [1] SFGATE, “What Conditions Do Tomatoes Need to Grow?”, Homeguides.sfgate.com, n.d. [2] Terrapass, “Food Miles: Is Eating Locally Always Better?”, The Footprint Blog, n.d. Dear Earth, We are sorry. We are sorry that your oceans are filling with our waste and causing detrimental harm to all living things. Nothing sickens us more than seeing your beauty turned into a landfill for the human race. We don’t know where the line begins between necessary and unnecessary consumption! The resources we deem necessary such as water, food and energy need to be reduced. The average American household uses 80-100 gallons per day. In 2016, total U.S. primary energy consumption was near 97.4 quadrillion Btu. These necessary resources can be reduced over time, but where the real problem lines within unnecessary consumption. Americans typically own about 3 cars per household when most have access to public transportation. We can get by on a lot less of we just buy less. We have the power to decide what we buy and how often we buy things. Instead we are obligated to use the power of choice to make better choices for you, Earth. It is true, the average American consumes far more natural resources than a single person from any other country in the world. As Dave Tilford from the Sierra Club explained, “A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil.” It is a fact that on average, an American consumes more than any other individual elsewhere on the planet. The sad part is, we produce even more than what we can consume, and as a result, a lot of the things we produce, are wasted. According to the EPA’s website, 33% of the food we produce in the United States, are wasted and independent websites put that number higher to around 40%. An article published by the New York Times (1) mentions that we throw away 1.3 billion tons of food each year. We may throw away food, but the growing of these food items adds significantly to the worlds carbon footprint. According to the same NY Times article, this 1.3 Billion food wastage equals to 3.3 billion tons of carbon equivalent and cost us over 160 Billion USD each year. Something to think about, especially when many parts of the world have a food shortage. Earth, this is where we really break into song for our apology. It’s not surprise that we, as citizens of the United States, consume a large amount of energy and resources; in fact, we have been known to consume 24% of the world’s energy, even though we are home to only 5% of the world’s population. Outside of energy consumption, Americans throw out 200,000 tons of water daily, a feat that truly needs no explanation. The simple fact is this: citizens living in the United States are overconsuming. There is a natural tendency to consume what is necessary to live; that is just how the world operates, on basic needs as the foundation for survival. However, what we should apologize for is the fact that we go beyond what is necessary, and when we go over this limit and realize that we did not need it, we simply throw it out, cluttering the oceans and landfills. Why should we be allowed to do this? The answer may not be so simple, but what is simple is that we apologize for it. Below is a graph of the Percent of World Total for Population, Hazardous Wastes, Energy Consumption, and Fossil Fuel Consumption. Notice, Earth, how Americans are the responsible for some of the highest amounts of consumption in each category. Now, we are not just sorry for the fact that Americans overconsume. Rather, we are also sorry for the fact that although the developing world has been unable to reach the level of consumption the more developed countries have, they are on the rise. Take Madagascar, for example: the country is considered a developing nation, and its consumption is rather low as compared to the United States. However, there is still an issue that fits the country, among others in similar status: consumption through the rise in CO2 emissions is indeed on the rise. The graph below details Madagascar’s CO2 emissions over the course of a few years. Notice how little they use as compared to the graph below it, detailing the United States’ emissions. Emissions and consumption may not necessarily be directly related, but they are sharing the common problem that we are apologizing for: we are harming you quickly enough to have to begin worrying about our actions, present, past, and future. Earth, we are in no position to say that we are sorry for our heavy emissions, only to attempt to justify them. However, the fact of the situation is that countries such as the United States and China are overconsuming, and leaving you damaged beyond noticeable repair, while other developing countries such as Madagascar are simply unable to have such problems for any number of reasons. Yet, consumption and emissions in the developing world are also rising, so at the end of the day, does the major difference in consumption actually matter in long-run? Perhaps we are not yet sure; what we are sure of, however, is that we are sorry for hurting you so much. We love you, Earth, we just don’t know how to show it the right way.
There are solutions that can be implemented for to reduce overall consumption. To reduce our energy consumption, we can start by simply turning off lights that aren’t being used, using energy efficient LED lights and then eventually using renewable power such as solar panels and windmills. We can buy products we truly need and avoid unnecessary shopping habits. Tracking our food habits to determine how much is wasted, that way we can make more efficient purchasing choices in the future. Recycling and reusing products can also reduce consumption. If we encourage our friends, family, neighbors and communities to start moving towards a “greener” lifestyle, we will be on our way to a healthier Earth. Sincerely, Jesse Veloz, Olivia Lake and Mokammel Hossain Sanju Concerned Students of Purdue University References: https://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption.htm http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/highlights41_allemissions.PNG http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/madpc.gif https://assets.weforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160104-global-consumption-2020-china-usa-india-japan-bcg-chart.png https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/ http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-content/richmedia/0/652/project/index-7.html http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-content/richmedia/0/652/project/index-7.html Sengupta, Somini. “How Much Food Do We Waste? Probably More Than You Think.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Dec. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/climate/food-waste-emissions.html. Consumption is a multifaceted issue with no simple solution. However, steps must be taken in order to avert the current planetary course. Ideal goals to attain to strive for a sustainable future would be an average consumption of 2,500 kilowatt-hours, 2,500 calories, and 45 cubic meters of water per person. The concept of consumption has an underlying basis, dealing with population, and can be further elaborated to the topics of energy, food, and water. Population To properly understand current and future global consumption we must look to population data. In 2016, Earth’s human population was reported to be over 7.4 billion people and growing at a rate of 0.7%. The United Nations predicts that by the year 2100 total population will have grown to 11.8 billion. Each individual will have base consumption needs for various resources. Energy Since the advent of electricity, energy has been the driving force behind human advancement at all levels. Energy production can be credited with being the catalyst of many modern innovations in a diverse number of fields, heralding a period of relative prosperity and a population explosion. However, the benefits of energy present a Sisyphean dilemma, as the increased energy production results in the ability to provide for more people, which in turn demands more energy. The population of the country is also usually heavily indicative of its state of development. We know there is correlation between development and energy consumption. Developed countries such as the UK and the US have a significantly larger energy consumption than other developing countries. It is also important to note that even within these developed countries, the US still consumes about twice as much energy as the UK, despite similar gross domestic incomes (GDI). This statistic reveals that there is an energy efficiency issue. An average resident of the United States, consumes 10,766 kilowatt-hours per year, and if this consumption is extrapolated for all people in the world, the total energy consumption would reach about 80 trillion kilowatt-hours. In comparison to those in developing countries, such as India, with an average of 1,054 kilowatt-hours a year, this extrapolation would only reach about 8 trillion kilowatt-hours. The developed world’s level of energy consumption is just unviable and must be reduced momentously. With an environmentally generous projection of consumption to be about 20 trillion kilowatt-hours, which implies an allotment of roughly 2,500 kilowatt-hours per person, this projection must be followed in order to ensure a level of sustainable development. This must be an essential concession that must be reached by all people globally in order to avoid the tragedy of the commons and ensure a future and world without fear of collapse. Food There is more than enough food produced to feed the entire population. However, due to food waste and inefficiencies, ~30% of total food production is lost -- enough to pull millions out hunger. If we were to reduce food production to eliminate waste, we would also reduce the amount of farmland needed to produce it. Farmland is detrimental to the environment causing biodiversity loss and CO2 emissions. The western world is partially to blame. European supermarkets demand high produce cosmetic standards and sporadically change farm orders. These high cosmetic standards and the combination of lack of storage and refrigeration by low-tech farmers causes a great deal of food waste. In Kenya alone, some small farms waste 40% of what they produce for these supermarkets. Instead of throwing this food away it could be sold at lower prices locally to create economic gain for farmers and provide nourishment for the local community. US supermarkets only sell 90% of their food while restaurants and households waste 19%. At our current consumption patterns, we will need to increase food production by 50-100% by 2050 or 200-400% if we keep supplying the planet’s meat demands. This increase requires more farmland accelerating the damage we are doing to our environment. Western countries also waste a lot of food by simply throwing it away. Food production subsidies, given by countries such as the US, make the cost of purchasing and wasting food inexpensive. As a result, people become blind to their unsustainable consumption habits. In an attempt to find a solution, one research project discovered that food waste awareness greatly decreased waste with no effect on food consumed or dollars spent. The UK believes their increased food waste awareness accounted for half of their 21% reduction in household food waste reduction in 2007. The western world must also reduce their food consumption. The average US citizen currently consumes 3,600 calories per day -- over 1,100 more than recommended. This excess consumption is not only causing a health epidemic in the US but further abusing our planet’s finite resources. A commitment from western countries is not only necessary but will set an example to rapidly developing countries. Water Water is considered the key to life. Every being on Earth depends on it and it is in limited supply. As humans we have many uses for using water, from farming, to industry, to just taking a shower. Water is essentially the main fuel that drives society and we as a species are not doing a good job at managing that fuel. Most water on Earth is used for agriculture. Only 20% of total consumption is used for industry and an additional 10% for municipal use. Yes, your long showers may not be using up as much water as you thought. Flood irrigation is where most of agricultural water waste occurs. Fields are drenched in water and the excess can end up in streams are rivers or evaporate off. Even more is wasted when we grow water intensive crops like cotton, or walnuts in arid places.
Overall, the world consumes about 4 trillion cubic meters of water per year. Assuming an equal usage of water, this previously mentioned figure equates to about 60 cubic meters, roughly equivalent to 60,000 liters per person. It is important to note, however, that the water allotment is not equal. Of the total consumption, 70% is used for agriculture, highlighting the interconnectedness of consumption. This presents an area that can be reduced, allowing for the utilization of water in countries that desperately need it. Americans waste about 500 gallons a year because they forget to shut off their faucet. If we can reduce water wastes, average water consumption can be 45,000 liters per person, a number that is still fairly large and also allows for a sustainable future. The drop from 60 to 45 cubic meters is definitely an achievable goal, given that we as a society can unify behind the idea of water conservation. This shift of limiting waste of water will also allow people in developing countries their fair share of the Earth’s water. If the whole world were to consume what the United States does today then we would require four and a half Earths to sustain ourselves. Striving for excellent living conditions should be a goal but needs to be attained in a sustainable manner. With proper consumption targets, increased efficiencies, and technological development we can make a significant progress towards this without needing to completely give up current lifestyles. It will will be difficult, but not impossible. In this blog post we will be discussing both necessary and unnecessary consumption patterns in the developed and developing worlds. The term “consumption” constitutes multiple things - from the foods we eat to the goods and services we use. As the developed world has shown, an increase in consumption means economic growth; however, is economic growth always a good thing? The production of “stuff” does not go without consequence, specifically for the environment. There’s a difference between life’s necessities and the goods we simply want. In the end, there needs to be a shift in consumption to avoid the production of unnecessary “stuff”, particularly in the developed world. According to Alex Kirby, in an article titled “Human Consumption of Earth's Natural Resources Has Tripled in 40 Years” [1] from EcoWatch, a rapidly growing middle class has caused rising consumption, and thus rising extraction of materials from the earth. The richest countries use ten times more resources than the poorest countries. However, the use of these resources affect the poorest countries as much, if not more, than the countries consuming the most. The figure below (left) from the article “Reasons for Increase in Demand for Energy” from BBC depicts the distribution of consumption around the world. Consumption has been on the rise since nations began to industrialize, and what’s even worse is that energy consumption is not expected to decrease, as shown in the figure above (right) from US Energy Information Administration [2]. The developed world has already gone through their period of industrialization, and so the increase we saw in the last forty years is not going to be from the industrialized nations in the future. Rather, the developing world is expected to account for about 70% of the increased energy demand, especially from China and India. Read “Reasons for Increase in Demand for Energy” [3] from BBC to learn more about how as nations develop, energy demands increase. It makes sense that as the population grows, there are more people demanding goods and services, and thus consuming. Why, though, do developed nations have to consume so much? According to Annie Leonard in her video “The Story of Stuff” [4], the developed world, particularly the US, consumes as much as it does strictly because of capitalism. In our society, developed means having a stable economy. This is measured through GDP, which increases as a nation produces more. Thus, a nation’s identity is based on its level of consumerism. If energy consumption is expected to shift towards the developing nations with faster growing populations, why does the capitalist-based economy of the developed world matter all that much? One reason is the fact that the developing world will only mimic what industrialized nations have done in the past. As nations develop, eventually more of the world will become consumerists, just like the people of the US. This is particularly alarming because as the article, “How many Earths do we need?” [5] from BBC states, if everyone in the world consumed as much as Americans, it would take four earths to sustain that lifestyle. With all this being said, our problem of overconsumption is not an easy fix. To enable the continued survival of our species, some things that are consumed are simply unavoidable. Major examples include food, water, clothing, and shelter. Without food and water we cannot survive. We need clothing to survive extreme weather conditions that take place in the different parts of the world. Without shelter, we’re not protected from the sun, climate, or even predators. While the above mentioned are extremely necessary for human survival, there are also other things like basic education, health and nutrition, and reproductive health for women that require unavoidable consumption. To enable proper facilities for sanitation and health, basic infrastructure and availability of medical equipments are required. Since ideally every individual should be allowed to have these basic needs, it can be seen that these goods and services are linearly related to population size. In other words, every individual requires their own share of food, shelter, clothing, medical services, etc. Thus, as population grows, the demand for basic necessities will increase as well as the resources to fulfill these needs. For example, with increasing population, more and more lands are being used for agriculture, but at the same time, more infrastructures need to be built on these lands. Population growth cannot take place without more use of natural resources; and the more the population, the more the waste that is being generated. The graph below from the article “Peak Phosphorus” [6] shows another example of population growth being directly correlated with oil production. Anything that is consumed apart from the necessities can be termed as a luxury. Production of these luxury items requires the use of natural resources which are becoming more scarce with the passage of time. As a result, these goods and services have an economic, social, and environmental impact. It has been seen that the wealthiest 20% account for 86% of private consumption in the World. Most of the energy consumption comes from the developed countries like the US and UK. People in these countries spend an enormous amount of money on things like alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs. In addition, there is almost equally the number of cars in the US as the number of people, contributing greatly to the emission of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People also have an unreasonable amount of clothes, shoes, and accessories; unwilling to wear something more than once. Increasing popularity of social media has made everyone desire electronics such as smartphones and laptops which are disposed of without being recycled. While shelter is important, having huge houses with an unneeded number of rooms and lavish decor is unnecessary and adds to wasteful consumption. As said before, the development of a nation is directly related to its level of consumption, particularly of unnecessary consumables. The list of examples like these is never ending, and growth of both developed and developing countries is coupled with increasing wasteful consumption that needs to be stopped. The impacts of avoidable consumption are plenty and at many times may not be directly visible to us. When there is an overconsumption of resources in a certain ecosystem, it implies that the rate of consumption has crossed the sustainable rate at which the environment may be able to replenish it, thus leading to the chain of events: overconsumption, depletion, degradation and finally collapse of the entire ecosystem. According to the article “American Consumerism and the Global Environment [7]” by Mt. Holyoke university, our consumption generates a vicious cycle in which we depend on forests and coal for fuel, and other forest-produced products such as wood for furniture, paper, etc. Once we over consume these commodities, it leads to heavy deforestation, which can cause accelerated erosion of the topsoil making the surrounding land barren and less efficient to replenish our overused resources. This is a problem because as the population rises, more land is necessary for homes and the production of agriculture. In addition, it is a widely known fact that ultimately the strain created by our rising demands affects the strain we put on our energy sources, ie. the need for more fuel to power production and more exploration to serve these demands. Reading this [8] article by the “Tribal Energy and Environmental Information Clearinghouse”, explains how over exploration of fossil fuels has a heavy hidden impact on our environment’s flora and fauna. The byproducts, such as drilling fluids, mercury traces, and excess copper and cadmium are dumped into the surrounding sea water, thus disrupting the marine ecosystem around the world. Refer to the image below (left) from PBS. Having a similar effect is the waste from unnecessary consumables that we dump in our oceans, refer to the image below (right) from Green Living. Hence, the overconsumption of these resources is causing both direct and hidden harm to our surrounding ecosystem and affects our overall global environmental condition. Everyone is responsible for environmental impacts, but, as said before, the developed nations draw more resources than the developing. This inequality not only creates different environmental problems but also makes it harder to build a sustainable future. A main point is that the growing population has increased the demand of the goods. This is clearly a problem because of the amount of resources and waste generated from the production and consumption of these goods. Using these unsustainable resources pollutes and destroys our marine life, land, and environment. Read the book “One with Nineveh: Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future” [9] to understand future impacts if more unnecessary and avoidable consumption continues in the future. In the end, the best way to combat the global consumption problem is to reduce the amount of unnecessary goods consumed in the developing world. This trend then needs to serve as an example for the soon-to-be developed nations in the future. References: [1] climate_news_network. “Human Consumption of Earth's Natural Resources Has Tripled in 40 Years.” EcoWatch, EcoWatch, 29 July 2016, www.ecowatch.com/humans-consumption-of-earths-natural-resources-tripled-in-40-years-1943126747.html. [2 ]“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” EIA projects 28% increase in world energy use by 2040 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32912. [3] “Higher Geography - Reasons for increase in demand for energy - Revision 1.” BBC Bitesize, BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zpmmmp3/revision/1. [4] “The Story of Stuff.” The Story of Stuff Project, 23 May 2017, storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-stuff/. [5] McDonald, Charlotte. “How many Earths do we need?” BBC News, BBC, 16 June 2015, www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712.\ [6] “Peak phosphorus.” Resilience, 12 Aug. 2007, www.resilience.org/stories/2007-08-13/peak-phosphorus/. []Efffects of Consumption on Global Environment, www.mtholyoke.edu/~kelle20m/classweb/wp/page5.html. [8] Oil and Gas Drilling/Development Impacts, teeic.indianaffairs.gov/er/oilgas/impact/drilldev/index.htm. [9] Ehrlich, P., & Ehrlich, Anne H. (2004). One with Nineveh : Politics, consumption, and the human future. Washington, D. C.: Island Press : Shearwater Books. Corruption of Consumption - Kelly Fox, Alex Goswick, Madison Olsen, James Terrell (Group 1)2/2/2018 Livestock are typically consuming corn, soybeans and other grains that require over 160 million pounds of pesticides and around 17 billion pounds of fertilizer, yearly. In order to grow these grains, around 149 million acres of land is required, as well as using of one-third of the world’s fresh water. – Scientific American “People should consume 33-66 pounds of meat per year. Americans typically eat around 184 pounds compared to French citizens’ yearly 35-pound consumption habits. However, we cannot rule out livestock and meat production completely.” - Scientist Vaclav Smil, Should We Eat Meat? Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory “Animals eat products that people may not typically eat and expose consumers to energy they may not have gotten otherwise. Additionally, animals are key fertilizers for the soil, which lightens the usage of chemicals and pesticides”. - UC-Davis science professor Frank Mitloehner The meat industry is complex in terms of the economy and the importance that animals have on the environment. Therefore, consuming meat can be sustainable, just in moderation. Some tips to decrease consumption include: - Buy local products - Look for organic labels, which means that the animals had access to pastures - Eat poultry or pork. Only contribute to 10% of greenhouse-gas emissions - Time Magazine
|
AuthorsThese blog posts are written by students in the POL 327 Spring 2017 class. Archives |