Yes! You heard that right. Indiana has had a ban on banning plastic bags since 2016. Originally proposed by Ron Bacon, the bill states that a city may not “regulate, or adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution to regulate the manufacture, distribution, sale, provision, use, or disposition or disposal of auxiliary containers” among other things [1]. What was their reasoning? The ban on plastic bag bans was passed in response to efforts by Bloomington to place restrictions on the use of plastic bags. The environmental group “Bring Your Bag Bloomington” was campaigning to ban single-use plastic bags in the city, and according to co-founder Libby Gwynn, the effort was gaining traction. At the time of this state law being passed, no municipalities in Indiana had actually banned plastic bags yet. Representative Ron Bacon, the author of the bill, said that one reason for the law was to unify regulations at the state level. “What we’re trying to do is de-regulate what the cities and towns and counties and municipal governments are doing on an individual basis and not have a patchwork of different rules and regulations throughout the whole state of Indiana,” he said. Economic concerns were another reason for the law. Plastic bag bans are often opposed by local businesses, such as supermarkets and manufacturers of the bags. Bacon cited the manufacturing of plastic bags in Indiana as a reason for his law, saying that bans on plastic bags could have economic consequences, such as loss of jobs [2]. What could happen? On the one hand, this state law had very little impact, because no cities in Indiana had actually banned plastic bags. However, the law did stifle the efforts of groups like “Bring Your Bag Bloomington”, who were campaigning to ban the bags in Bloomington. If their efforts had been successful, it is possible that the campaign would have spread to other liberal cities in Indiana, such as West Lafayette and Indianapolis, which would have resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of plastic bags being used, so this law did have a negative effect on the environment. The law had a positive effect on Indiana manufacturers of plastic bags, such as Four Star Plastics and Ameripak, who saw a potential threat to their business neutralized. The law was also good for supermarkets and businesses who use plastic bags and would like to continue to do so. Other Opinions of the Ban We talked to Mark Hinton, a candidate for Indiana House District 39 out of Carmel whose main issues are on women’s rights, redistricting, improving jobs, and education. We asked him how he felt about the ban on plastic bag bans, and he felt that the measures were an overstretch of government power over cities. He felt that local cities should have more power to create their own policies. He says that when the state government has something “they don’t like, they ban the local cities from doing it.” He even compares the plastic bag ban to RFRA, stating that “that’s exactly what RFRA was. It was them telling the locals that you cannot have, you cannot offer, a wider net of protection against discrimination… The state really has no reason to say you cannot do that, just because we do not like it.” We wanted to find out what local residents felt about this law, so we asked two local students what they felt. Nikita Prabhakar, a Purdue student, said she originally “didn’t even know about” the ban. When we explained that Indiana had passed a law banning plastic bag bans, she said that it was “good for the environment,” but upon clarification that this wasn’t a ban on plastic bags, she stated that it was “bad, obviously, because a ban on plastic bags would have been good.” Another Purdue Student, Tomasz Parzadka, responded that the ban is “obviously bad. I don’t even know how to answer. How can you ban something that bans other things?” Success of Bans Currently, plastic bag bans have been effective in numerous cities in the United States. One of the most notable is the statewide ban of plastic bags in California. This ban prohibits all grocery, convenient, and drug stores from distributing plastic bags and encourages shoppers to bring reusable bags. Paper bags are still available, but there is a minimum 10 cent charge added to each bag. Other states such as Florida, New York, and Oregon (to name a few) have issued similar sorts of bans or fees to prohibit or reduce the distribution of single use plastic and paper bags. The effects of such bans can be seen from a case study done in San Jose, California. After the ban of plastic bags was put in place, it was observed that 75 percent of shoppers either brought their own reusable bag or simply opted for no bag at all [4]. Decreasing the use of plastic bags by issuing bans is feasible and is possible. Outside of the United States, countries such as Australia, China, Ireland, India, most of Western Europe, some of North Eastern Africa and many more have successfully issued plastic bag bans. Results have been favorable, including an increase in natural resource conservation, increase in national wealth, and a decrease in overall pollution. Impact of Bans on Indiana, United States, and the world
Banning plastic bag bans would not be good for Indiana or the world. While some sources point out that plastic bags cost and require less natural gas to produce than paper bags, nearly 1 percent of the total 500 billion plastic bags produced each year are recycled. Thus, they continue to pose a severe threat to the environment despite being better for the United States economy, which is dominated by big oil and fossil fuel companies. Additionally, banning plastic bag bans is a threat to local governments as it takes away their power to make and enforce regulations. This would be detrimental to the state of Indiana if the government of the United States decided to prohibit state and city governments from issuing plastic bag bans because it would decrease local sovereignty. This would also be a detriment to the world because the United States is a large contributor to the plastic pollution in the oceans, so nations other than the United States would likely be the ones impacted the most. Smaller nations would not have enough influence and power to right the pollution done by plastic bags from the United States, so it is imperative to allow smaller governments to enforce plastic bag bans should they deem it fit for their community. Considering plastic bags are made from oil and natural gas, having the ability to ban bags could save countries massive amounts of natural resources. For example, China has saved nearly 1 million tons of oil since banning the bags [3]. While the ban of plastic bag bans would increase the power of the United States, it would severely restrict the state of Indiana and severely impact the world. References [1] House Enrolled Act No. 1053, 2016, https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bills/house/1053#document-d2328d28 [2] Downing, Kendall. Bloomington group outraged at Indiana’s prohibition on “plastic bag bans”. March 25, 2016. http://fox59.com/2016/03/25/bloomington-group-outraged-at-indianas-prohibition-on-plastic-bag-bans/ [3] Plastic Bag Bans in the World. (n.d.). Retrieved March 04, 2018, from https://www.reusethisbag.com/reusable-bag-infographics/plastic-bag-bans-world.php [4] The Proliferation of the Plastic Bag...BAN. (n.d.). Retrieved March 04, 2018, from http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/the-proliferation-of-the-plastic-bagban
0 Comments
Do Reusable Bags Help or Hurt? Banning plastic bags is a hotly contended issue within the United States. While some argue that a plastic bag ban will help our environment by limiting the plastic waste which ends up in the landfill, others dispute a ban will hurt the economy as potential manufactures will lose business and workers will end up unemployed. Like most issues, the topic is far more complex than one might gather at first glance. Simply looking at the numbers of the issues:
Presented with these appalling statistics, it appears as though there is a dire need for people to switch away from classic plastic bags and instead select an option which may be sturdier (provide a material less likely to rip or be damaged such as cotton or a thicker plastic), and provide more uses. But is forcing consumers to switch to alternative bagging options really best for our environment? The answer isn’t as simple as one bag preference over another, but instead is in the lifetime use of the bag. In a study conducted by the Environment Agency of the United Kingdom, completed 2011, the lifecycle of various supermarket carrier bags was analyzed in order to assess the environmental impact each has. This study found that while polypropylene (PP) bags or cotton bags may be preferred alternatives to traditional HDPE (high density polyethylene) bags, the global warming potential (GWP, measured in kg CO2 eq.) far exceeds that of conventional bags. Figure 5.1 provides a visual representation of the global warming potential associated with each bag type tested. One may notice that cotton bags is excluded from the figure; this was due to the fact that its GWP was 10x greater than any other carrier bag (Edwards/Fry, 2006). The primary conclusion from this study which is of interest is that cotton bags must be used a minimum of 131 times, and non-woven PP bags a minimum of 11 times, in order to ensure that they have a lower global warming potential (GWP) than traditional HDPE bags. From this data, we can conclude that the type of bag used is not as important as the frequency of use. If you choose to purchase a reusable bag, make sure that it is a staple in your shopping routines. If you choose to continue using store bags (HDPE bags), be sure to recycle them (either in bins provided by your local supermarket or re-use them on the next shopping trip), or find uses for them around the house (such as garbage bin liners in smaller trash cans). Be mindful, be creative, and chose to use plastic bags responsibly. The Stance of Indiana On March 23rd of 2016, then governor Mike Pence, signed House Bill 1053 into law in the state of Indiana. This law, written by Representative Ronald Bacon of Indiana’s 75th District, prohibits local governments in the state of Indiana from “(1) regulating: (A) certain activities with respect to reusable or disposable auxiliary containers designed for one time use…; or (B) a manufacturer of, a distributor of, or a food or retail facility that sells, provides, or otherwise makes use of, auxiliary containers…; or (2) imposing any prohibition, restriction, fee, or tax with respect to auxiliary containers”(Bacon, 2016). Companies that operate within the state of Indiana, be they local, national, or international, can still uphold their own policies on the use of auxiliary containers such as plastic bags. This law, for example would not prevent companies such as ALDI for charging for the use of a plastic bag, but it does stop the debate that was occurring in Bloomington, Indiana at the time about what restrictions that they, as a city, could place on the use of items such as plastic bags. As of the end of 2017, Indiana is one of nine states with a ban on the banning of plastic bag bans nationwide, in comparison to the seven states where some measures have been taken against plastic bags, be it outright bans, additional taxes, or reuse programs. In the states that have placed bans on the banning of plastic bags, it has been done, so that grassroots movements do not have the opportunity to give way to statewide policies as was the case in California. In Indiana an additional reason for this law was the opposition to a plastic bag ban presented by concerned business and industry groups that operated within the state.
Economic and Environmental Impacts of Plastic Bags Now that we have an idea of the impacts of plastic bags, the banning of them, and the current state of the issue in Indiana, we will now take a look at both the environmental and economic impacts of plastic bags by analyzing the banning of plastic bags in San Diego, CA to potentially get a better idea of what would happen if the state of Indiana were to swing the other way and enact legislature that would promote the banning of plastic bags. According to the Equinox Center, the numbers are clear. With plastic bag bans and fees, there would be a reduction of not only solid waste, but also greenhouse gas emissions as well as energy spent per year; the only caveat being a greater increase in fresh water consumption (Equinox Center, 2013). Now while there is a large increase in the consumption of fresh water, the benefits of such a trade off is clear. The effects of the such legislature would result in a major positive impact on the environment. Now to address the impact of such legislature on the economy, we will take a look on the impact of retailers, consumers, cities, and plastic manufacturers. To begin, a large concern is that if plastic bags were banned, retailers would lose business. To address this, a study has been done that gives us some solid numbers. It states that although in city retailers would suffer, retailers outside the impact zone would actually benefit (Equinox Center, 2013). Although there is some evidence with this study, more studies would probably have to be conducted to see how it would perform in Indiana. Moving on, regarding how policy would affect consumers, plastic bag bans would have an initial flat fee in the beginning, but in the long run would actually start to save money given some additional policy that would discount an individual’s purchase by using reusable bags. Now addressing the issue of the effects on cities, the major point to examine is how much money that cities have to spend in order to clean plastic waste. With the reduction of plastic bags, cities are projected to save a large sum of money. That is in San Francisco, an estimated $700,000 in total. Of course this is in another city, but we can see how it might work similarly in Indiana. Finally to address plastic manufacturers, the ban of plastic bags may affect jobs of employees of such companies. This could be potentially true, but it is more likely that the companies’ revenue streams would take the hit before the jobs and with reusable bags being made out of different plastics, switching could prove to be a good solution. Overall, there is no clear winner when it comes to the economic effects, which isn’t amazing, but is good considering the very positive environmental ones. Sources: Associated Press. “Indiana Senate Approves Bill Banning Local Plastic Bag Restrictions.” Indianapolis Star, AP, 23 Feb. 2016, www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/23/indiana-senate-approves-bill-banning-local-plastic-bag-restrictions/80813858/. Bacon, Ronald. “House Bill 1053 - Regulation of Packaging Materials.” Indiana General Assembly, 5 Jan. 2016, iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bills/house/1053#digest-heading “Banning Local Restrictions on Plastic Bags | Hoosier Environmental Council.” Hoosier Environmental Council RSS, Hoosier Environmental Council, 2016, www.hecweb.org/bill-watch-2016/hea-1053-banning-local-restrictions-on-plastic-bags/ Edwards, C., Fry, J.M. “Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags available in 2006.” Environment Agency (UK), February 2011, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf “Fees, Taxes and Bans: Recycling and Reuse” National Conference of State Legislature, 7 May 2017, http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx “Plastic Bag Ban: Analysis of Economic and Environmental Impacts.” Equinox Center, 23 Oct 2013, https://energycenter.org/sites/default/files/Plastic-Bag-Ban-Web-Version-10-22-13-CK.pdf “Stop Banning Plastic Bag Bans.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 12 Jan. 2017, www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-bag-preemption-2017012-story.html. 2016 was not only declared the hottest year on record, but was the third consecutive year to break that record in the state of Indiana. However, the question must still be asked. Why should Hoosiers be concerned with Climate Change? In a single sentence, within the next decade Indianapolis is projected to have more than 80 days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, with at least 28 days above 100 degrees. Side effects of hotter summer 1. Agriculture: Indiana is one of the nation’s top states in terms of agricultural yields. Warmer winters and summers can lead to decreased crop yields and lowered livestock productivity. This heat stress can cause severe droughts, leading to decreased agricultural yields, crop death, and even soil erosion as experienced in other drought-prone parts of the nation. In addition, crop pests have traditionally been killed off by Indiana’s intensely cold winters, but with warmer winters ahead of us farmers will have to offset the increased insect population by spending more money on insecticides. 2. Air pollution: Air quality worsens as temperature rises. Ozone is a natural gas that protects Earth from UV rays when concentrated in the Earth’s mid-atmosphere, an area known as the Ozone Layer. However, ozone gas can also be a by-product of man-made pollutants and ultimately concentrates itself where humans and other creatures can breathe it in. This lower-altitude ozone pollution, known by many as smog, is harmful to the Earth, humans, and other organisms that rely on breathing in oxygen. People with asthma and other respiratory illnesses will be at risk, along with the elderly and children. “Spare The Air” days will become more common, those with compromised respiratory systems will be advised to stay inside, and among those unable to find shelter from the summer sun, heat-related deaths may rise. 3. Flooding: While Indiana’s upcoming summers are projected to be much drier, our winters, springs, and falls are projected to become much wetter in the same period of time. The rain that does fall over these seasons are going to be in heavy, concentrated storms. Spring rainfall is projected to rise by around 15% in the next several decades, would push back the planting of spring crops and can lead to polluted rivers. In addition, due to the fact this rainfall will occur in larger storms rather than spread out across seasons, rivers that are already prone to flooding will likely flood more severely, and those which previously came close to flooding are more likely to pass their banks entirely. We asked 50 Hoosiers about their opinions of the threat of Climate Change. In order to collect this information, we created an online poll to send via email and telephone. Each participant in the survey was asked to choose from the options of if they were “Alarmed”, “Concerned”, “Cautious”, “Disengaged”, “Doubtful”, and “Dismissive” with regards to Climate Change after being given a short summary of what each of these options implied. Over half of the participants chose “Cautious”, which was defined as “Believing that Climate Change is a problem, but not a personal threat. No urgency to deal with it”. The Hoosiers surveyed ranged from college students at Purdue University, from a mix of rural and urban backgrounds, as well as individuals that were born in the “Baby Boomer” generation. Many were surprised to hear that, when Yale University surveyed a group of American adults, more than half of the participants voted “Alarmed” or “Concerned”, which were defined as, “Very convinced Climate Change is happening, and willing to/already have taken action”. So, what explains this disconnect between the individuals surveyed in the two studies? There are multiple possible explanations. One is that, on average, Hoosiers are simply not educated enough on the issue. As our study showed, people in Midwestern states are aware that Climate Change will affect Americans, but do not believe it will affect them personally. In the image below, areas where Climate Change is discussed often are colored purple and areas where Climate Change is usually not a topic of conversation in green. As is evident, with the exception of rare, isolated districts, Midwestern areas show significantly less concern about Climate Change than coastal areas. If Hoosiers are concerned, how do their elected officials feel?
While many Hoosiers are at least aware of the realities of Climate Change, elected officials in the state are a more mixed bunch. As according to USA Today subsidiary IndyStar, Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett believes in severely reducing and mitigating his city’s Greenhouse Gas emissions in order to reduce its contribution to the state’s overall climate footprint, in order to eventually reach the goal of carbon neutrality. Contrasting that however, is Indiana’s state politicians, who have shown a personal, if not institutional, policy of ignoring or outright denying the existence of Climate Change. For example, Senator Jim Banks has shown a track record of voting against environmental regulations, for example choosing to vote for the repeal of 2015 EPA regulations over water safety, and expressed disbelief over the scientific consensus of Climate Change. At the same time, both former governor Pence and current head of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, have opted to prevent the instantiation of coal-fired power plant regulations, despite the existence of EPA requirements for these reductions, under the so-called “Clean Power Plan”. This is likely at least in part due to the prevalence of coal mining within the state, as well as Indiana’s traditional stance as a heavily pro-industry state. This ultimately aligns with the attitudes of the Hoosiers surveyed. Either Climate Change is not an immediate concern, or it is not something to be worried about at all. It is possible that individuals simply view it a small enough priority that other voting preferences take precedence, but either way, Indiana citizens and officials do not show a particular concern with the dangers of disruptions of the climate, man-made or otherwise, at least on a statewide level. Is this a concern? Overall, yes. If the issue is a simple lack of awareness or education, then there is at least a major chance to improve public outlook, particularly through more aggressive education and outreach efforts, but as shown by the outlook of state officials such behavior may be considered insufficient or not worth paying attention to. As such, the lack of education is not a particular surprise. After all, if no effort is made to educate, there is no way to ensure, or even expect, attitudes to change. Once consequences of Climate Change begin to make themselves more evident, however, it is possible that opinions will change. The question of whether that will be too late remains to be seen. Sources: https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/resources/docs/ClimateImpactsIndiana.pdf https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/stateClimateReports/IN_ClimateReport_CSRC.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-change-indiana.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html https://apnews.com/5cce22a1321547968280452de6ac4501/indiana-will-defy-obama-climate-change-plan http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/idem-chief-obama-climate-change-plan-bad-for-hoosiers/article_fc4d0f52-3db5-5474-9212-29f86f7e70f3.html https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/09/15/indy-mayor-vows-city-act-climate-change/663771001/ https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-in.pdf https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q4/studys-projections-show-climate-change-to-increase-commercial-indiana-energy-consumption,-reduce-residential-use.html The Crossroads of America is notorious for many things—among them, an apathy and often flat-out denial of environmental change among its state representatives and residents. Indiana representative Jim Banks even went so far as to state that climate change is “largely leftist propaganda to change the way Americans live and create more government obstruction and intrusion in our lives."[1] While this may seem like a more extreme example to many, Indiana has had a string of politicians that clearly align themselves with Banks’ beliefs. With regards to climate change, as governor of Indiana for two terms and your current president here at Purdue, Mitch Daniels stated on C-Span in 2010, “There’s been nothing but dubious news about the science of all this now for about a year, including apparent scientific wrongdoing.”[2] Not only do these statements reflect the opinions of the politicians themselves, but of a large portion of Indiana residents. Known to be a major player in the “backbone of America” and for decades as an agricultural powerhouse, Indiana residents strive to attain the American dream, and any slight opposition is dismissed quickly. In order to maintain competitiveness in the future, all science suggests that without changes, temperature rises, floods, and more will most definitely affect Indiana residents and their productivity; fortunately, it is not too late even for Hoosiers to change how they perceive the environmental future. Indiana residents often have conflicting views regarding the various aspects of climate change. As an Indiana resident who attended a private, Christian school in Indianapolis, I remember several times when peers and teachers alike denied global warming, making a fast, dubious comment on the matter and quickly changing direction. However, in a recent survey of 800 Indiana voters, 71% of Hoosiers agreed that protecting the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of slowing economic growth. What’s more, 70% believed that the government should do more to combat climate change.[3] So what’s the problem? Why does a majority of Hoosiers want their government to be more involved in the fight against climate change, yet a shocking number of Hoosier leaders are so strongly opposed to it? The answer is likely a combination of several factors. The first regards an unequal distribution of wealth and power within the state. White, wealthy, male, and Protestant, Hoosier politicians are exceedingly homogeneous in a state of diverse racial backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses. Because of this, a discrepancy exists between Hoosiers and those who make political decisions on their behalf. Additionally, those who hold more traditional, religious values tend to view the Earth as something God intended for humans to dominate and use to flourish, rather than a place to be cared for. The second factor concerns Hoosiers themselves. While Indiana is hundreds of miles from the nearest ocean, residents don’t have to worry too much about rising sea levels. Because of this, apathy begins to grow for issues so far from home. Indiana is also infamous for terribly hot summers and bitingly cold winters, so extreme temperature changes are often perceived as the “same, crazy Indiana weather,” and climate change’s magnitude may be downplayed. Hoosiers themselves have the ability to pressure their representatives to make changes, but when a lack of knowledge exists about our own effect on global warming and its future impacts on us, this pressure is deficient. So, while the majority of Hoosiers clamor to reduce climate change impacts, their cries aren’t loud enough, so their incredulous representatives are slow to make change. Although Hoosiers and the Indiana government don’t seem to be making strides towards reducing climate change impacts anytime soon, it may become an absolute necessity very soon. The effects of climate change on Indiana and the rest of the Midwest are already very apparent in the last century and don’t seem to be slowing down at all. Considering the already volatile weather that this state has, this could mean extremely dangerous conditions for us in the near future. In the last century, Indiana has already experienced an increase in average climate by one degree.[4] Although one degree doesn’t feel like a whole lot, a climate change of two or more degrees can change entire ecosystems and weather systems, so we’re getting there soon. In addition, Indiana has already been experiencing an increasing frequency and intensity of summer heat waves. For example, a 2012 drought in the midwest caused all shipping in the Mississippi River to be shut down and cost the Midwest region around $275 million, and another in 2005 caused commercial transportation in the Ohio river to shut down.4 Hundreds of people have died from midwest heat waves in recent decades, and we’re expected to have at least 10 more days above 95 degrees a year in the next 70 years. In addition the Great Lakes have already warmed up by a few degrees, which makes deadly algal blooms far more likely. Another huge problem for Indiana in terms of climate change is floods. The average annual precipitation in the Midwest was already pretty high, but has increased about 5-10% in the past half century. Even worse, rainfall in the 4 wettest days of the year has increased 35% and streams have had 20% more water overflowing during floods than before. So basically our weather is just getting more and more extreme, which could mean deadly and unlivable conditions in the near future.[4]
It seems clear that climate change is no longer a distant problem that only other parts of the world must deal with, but has instead slowly approached inland America. Indiana must take measures to limit climate change soon or risk destroying the state before the end of this century. The first step in this change involves changing the minds of those who have control of the state’s future- Hoosiers themselves. While the majority of them agree that global warming must be stopped, they likely underestimate the gravity of the situation. To begin, more media should be covering the science behind global warming, as mentioned previously. By raising awareness of the issue, Hoosiers will more eagerly pressure their local government representatives to make changes; the skepticism of these representatives will matter less given enough pressure from Indiana residents. If the state makes even one compulsory environmental course for high school students, this will greatly influence students to make green changes at home or in their future careers. Indiana has the power to prove to other states that being politically conservative and being at the forefront of limiting environmental impact aren’t mutually exclusive; this has the potential to make waves for other states that share similar opinions. Hoosiers must be made aware of how they can make changes themselves outside of government as well. Discussion and education are key steps toward an informed electorate. The ways in which these conversations are approached is also a crucial step toward change. For example, information can be presented or addressed in different ways according to one’s audience. Those who are more skeptical about global climate change might be more receptive to being given information about the effects on a local level rather than a state wide or global perspective. Another way to persuade those who might be skeptics or who don’t care about climate change is to educate using non-biased media sources and open forum discussions. Education is also a crucial aspect of getting Hoosiers to care about climate change. Climate change initiatives integrated into community programs could help foster a generation that is concerned with preserving the quality of our world. By learning about ways to limit one’s carbon footprint, Hoosiers can better understand their individual impact. Also, learning about ways to integrate green technology into Indiana companies can make an incredible difference. Instead of placing climate change on the backburner, small changes now will have profound positive impacts on the Hoosier state and overall help Hoosiers become more concerned with the issue of climate change. References [1] Francisco, Brian. “3rd District Rivals Sound off at Forum.” The Journal Gazette, 4 Oct. 2016, http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/local-politics/3rd-district-rivals-sound-off-at-forum-15610761 [2] Armbruster, Ben. “Daniels: Climate Science is ‘Dubious,’ ‘Extreme Measures’ Advocated by ‘Zealots’ Won’t Address Global Warming.” ThinkProgress, 5 Apr. 2010, https://thinkprogress.org/daniels-climate-science-is-dubious-extreme-measures-advocated-by-zealots-won-t-address-global-ff6e632fc00e/ [3] Bowman, Sarah. “Hoosiers Concerned about Cleaning Waterways over Lowering Taxes, Poll Says.” Indianapolis Star, 24 Aug. 2017, https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/07/23/hoosiers-concerned-cleaning-waterways-poll-says/493994001/ [4] “What Climate Change Means for Indiana.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Aug. 2018, https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-in.pdf [5] Raymond Bradley, Ambarish Karmalkar, Kathryn Woods. “How will global warming of 2 degrees C affect Indiana?” Climate Change State Profiles Indiana. 2010, https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/stateClimateReports/IN_ClimateReport_CSRC.pdf Indiana: Indecisive on Climate Change - Garrett Illa, Trey Jagiella, Jacob Yeager (Group 10)3/3/2018 As the threat of climate change looms over the globe, are Hoosiers expressing concern over its effects? How will climate change affect Indiana, and should Hoosiers be concerned about these effects? In this post, we will explore the expected effects of climate change in Indiana and determine the level of concern among Hoosiers using both our own polling data and the findings of others. Research findings consistently agree that Indiana will experience consequences of climate change. Temperatures year-round are expected to increase. If carbon emissions continue at a high rate, these increases are expected to be exacerbated. While temperature increases are a major climate concern, winter temperature increases will not be as harmful to the state; in fact, they may have some benefits. Greater winter temperatures will potentially lengthen the growing seasons of crops as well as allow for shipping to and from the state via rivers and the Great Lakes to be extended throughout the year. However, it is possible that these warmer winters, as well as springs, will be wetter and will lead to increase flooding, which can disrupt the benefits of the longer growing season. These warmer winters would also make it easier for pests and diseases to damage crops. Additionally, summer temperatures may increase to the point that the weather becomes hot and dry, making it difficult to grow crops. Despite this, the overall expectation is that Indiana and the Midwest will still be the best location for growing corn and soybeans. Ultimately, while it is believed the state’s agriculture may take a hit due to climate change, it is also believed that Indiana will be able to continue to operate as an agriculture-heavy state. The warmer weather is expected to decrease cold-related illnesses and deaths while increasing heat-related ones. Additionally, the high temperatures may lead to a decrease in both water and air quality. Increased levels of carbon dioxide cause algal bloom in water bodies to further reduce water quality and disrupt ecosystems. Climate change may also lead to extinction in species of mussels, fish, and amphibians in the state and may harm wild plant life as well. Unlike many areas of the world, Indiana will not be affected by sea levels rising or desertification that will render the area uninhabitable. It is believed that Indiana’s staple crops will still be able to be grown and shipping by water will still occur. As a result, it appears that while Hoosiers do have reasons to be concerned about climate change, Indiana will likely be less affected than other areas of the world, thus potentially giving less reason to be concerned. Understanding the concerning effects of climate change on Indiana, we delved further into the perception of climate change from Hoosiers. More than many would expect, people were concerned. In a state that is surrounded by the great lakes to the north, the Ohio river to the south, and the White and Wabash rivers running through Indiana, it makes sense that residents worry about the pollution of their waterways. In a 2017 poll conducted by the Morrison Institute of eight hundred registered voters in the state of Indiana, fifty percent were very concerned about pollution in the rivers and lakes and forty percent were somewhat concerned. This trend was consistent across many environmental issues that face Indiana. Most people were relatively concerned in topics like air quality, protection of wildlife, and greenhouse emissions. Hoosiers tended to express at least some level of concern for all issues, with variations in political party. Democrats and younger female populations voiced the highest concern out of all demographics, while male republicans were the lowest. However, if a closer look is taken, the data runs deeper than the interests of the people in the poll. People care about climate change, but it is simply not a prominent issue for Hoosiers. People reported being more interested in education improvement, healthcare, and attracting and retaining jobs to the eleven percent that said protecting the environment should be the top priority. Only forty-six percent of those people put protecting the environment in their top three priorities. Due to the impersonal nature of climate change and the time it takes for effects to become noticeable in Indiana, people are worried, but not enough to do anything drastic. This mindset seems to be consistent to us in how Indiana relates to rest of the United States. Indiana is the eighth largest state in contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and the residents’ opinions on climate change reflect poorly to address this issue. According to the Yale Climate Opinion Map (2016), Hoosiers fall behind the national average on global warming worry, perception on how harmful global warming will be to the individual, and perception on how harmful global warming will be to the United States. Hoosiers will water their lawns less, recycle more, and sign petitions, but because most do not see climate change as an immediate threat to the state of Indiana, they have not been found from external data wanting to take all the necessary steps to properly handling climate change. Our personal data found many similar opinions among Hoosiers. For our survey we polled 153 people on a variety of climate related questions. Our findings were that Hoosiers show a moderate level of concern, scoring a 7.0/10.0 when asked “How worried are you about climate change”. Hoosiers showed less concern about whether or not they would be personally affected(6.4) and higher regarding whether or not other people should care(7.4). This data suggests a problematic mindset, the belief that there is a problem but that it won’t affect them personally. We sorted the survey responses by four metrics: age, region, gender, and socio-economic class. We found that in all three metrics there were significant differences. The first metric that we evaluated was age. Data showed that with increasing age there was less concern about both climate change and its effect on Indiana. This correlated directly to the opinions of the US economic policy. These changes we believe are the result of new information being taught in schools and exposure to climate change news from a young age. Our second metric was region. The important distinction was rural vs urban habitation and from the data collected, with 109 urban and 44 rural, concern about climate change was 19.3% higher for people living in urban environments that those in rural areas. This is consistent with a poll of 724 Indiana farmers, where 79% stated that climate change is “an ongoing natural process.” This statistically significant difference may be attributed to similar factors as age, that higher average education results in greater concern for climate change. Urban areas have 46% more college degrees per capita than their rural counterparts, with 41% possessing a degree. The third metric we used to differentiate groups was gender. Our findings were that on average Hoosiers women(7.6/10) were 20% more concerned about climate change than Hoosier men(6.6). This likely has a multitude of causes, but from research, some of the largest are societal pressures and predispositions. Our final metric, socio-economic class was the least extreme in the differences between groups, but still showed that when it comes to caring about climate change the upper class was 16.7% more worried than the lower class. This large gap between upper and lower class seems to emphasize the impact of education on concern about climate change. In total, people from Indiana care about climate change. The state itself is very dependent on environmental conditions due to its agricultural foundation and dependency on its bodies of water. This is all well placed concern because the state will experience a myriad of negative repercussions from a changing climate. From water quality in jeopardy, to the risk of multiple years of bad harvests, climate change is something which Hoosiers have reason to be worried. However, with the effects of climate change prominent far from Indiana, and the general worry (perceivably) decades away from today, people do not care enough to adequately prepare for this global crisis. Hoosiers care about climate change, but not enough to make the difference.
References: https://www.earthcharterindiana.org/si-2016/perception-of-indiana-positive-and-negative https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84878456259&origin=inward&txGid=330a90d61c6f8ced4dbdd30b9615cc96 https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/07/23/hoosiers-concerned-cleaning-waterways-poll-says/493994001/ https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3898848/In-Environmental-Attitudes-Poll.pdf http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/?est=happening&type=diff&geo=state&id=18 https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-change-indiana.pdf http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/employment-education/rural-education/ https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-12-08/in-americas-rural-urban-divide-age-earnings-and-education-are-prominent https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/15/climate-change-gender-divide-belief https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-in.pdf https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/resources/docs/ClimateImpactsIndiana.pdf Climate change has world-wide effects and Indiana is not exempt from those changes. Many isolate the idea of climate change to melting ice caps and rising sea levels, but landlocked states like Indiana are also facing serious challenges. Indiana faces reduced water and air quality, decreased crop productivity, heavy rainfall, heat waves, shorter winters which increase tick and lyme disease exposure, delayed freezes which lengthen ragweed allergy seasons, and species loss like the blue karner butterfly (Dukes 2018). All of these impact everyday life in Indiana. Increases in lyme disease, allergies, flood induced water-borne illness, and heat-related ailments all affect the health of Hoosiers. Flooding, storm damage, and heat waves can damage infrastructure, houses, bridges, and buildings, thus costing the state, the taxpayer, and individuals more of their hard earned cash. By this logic, everyone should care about climate change, or at least it’s affects. Determining whether Indiana citizens care about climate change is not particularly simple. Climate change is a controversial and partisan subject. Democrats and republicans in both the general population and in government routinely fall on separate sides of the issues surrounding climate change and policies driven by it. Indiana is historically a very Republican state. In presidential elections, the state has voted Democrat only once since 1968, and twice since 1940. This is also reflected in the state’s representatives. Indiana currently has 9 US representatives, 7 Republican and 2 Democrat. According to the League of Conservation Voters, the Republican representatives have combined to vote for less than 6% of Pro-environment action introduced to the house, whereas the democratic representatives have voted for over 80%. The trend holds in the senate, where Todd Young rarely votes for climate legislation (3%) and Joe Donnelly votes for about 59%. All this would seem to indicate that Hoosiers do not care about climate change, at least when they are voting. A poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication asked several questions about climate change to people around the country. The results were then separated by party and state. The results from the most pertinent questions are included below in figure 1. <<img world directly to the right (not between paragraphs)>> This poll shows a different result from the extremes highlighted in Indiana’s lawmakers. This chart shows that over half of republicans support regulating Carbon Dioxide emissions, which is a much different stance than the state’s lawmakers’ dogged denial of climate change and its impacts. Because of the political party system, these voters are left with choosing between two representatives that they do not completely agree with. The GOP would be reluctant to support any candidate who would vote for sweeping environmental policy change. This could be one of the reasons environmental legislation rarely makes it through congress, even though a majority of the US wants change. Indiana is about 55% republican and 40% democrat. That would mean about 40% of Indiana citizens are worried about climate change consequences and 62% support carbon dioxide regulation. In some cases, there might be a majority of the state that cares about climate change. Clearly there is more than a 7:2 ratio. Part of Indiana cares about climate change, but their voices are drowned out by those who religiously vote red. Climate change has always been a very controversial topic and is subject to every individuals opinion. In a state like Indiana with huge chunk of the population working on agriculture and in factories the outlook of climate change is affected. With increasing concerns about climate change in the population, the jobs of a lot of people have come under scrutiny leading to a negative outlook about the same. With climate change and its effects not being mandatory to be taught to all the students in middle or high schools they do not have a opportunity to think and make a well reasoned judgement about this topic. The ever changing political scenario in Indiana does not help with the situation. After talking to several students who go to school at Purdue the truth about Indiana’s attitude about climate change has come forth which is that a small group of individuals believe in climate change and they are ignored by the majority in the society as ‘liberal outcasts.’ For people who believe that climate change is a hoax they have reasons which are directly linked to their livelihood and with no food on the table at home for children they tend to ignore the much less direct threats due to climate change. When increasing rain or drought patterns along with sudden tornadoes it would be natural to assume that Hoosiers should be concerned about climate change but that isn’t happening. Climate change awareness leads to oil industry which if on decline affects jobs in factories which are a major source of income for a lot of people in Indiana. Thus it becomes a circle which Hoosiers cannot jump out of causing them to believe that climate change is hoax. This unsurprisingly aligns with the political affiliations of a majority of Indiana residents. We believe that the effects climate change has on Indiana should spur a motivation to do something. That hoosiers across the state should be armed with the knowledge of what is being done to the planet and prepared to do what they can to change the way they treat the planet. With lives being impacted and the hard stance our political leaders have taken, Hoosiers need to stand up for the planet, vote to elect more officials who care, implement change in their own lives, and work to create green policies in local businesses. The jobs that hoosiers rely on could be revolutionized with newer, greener, technologies if investments came from places who have the environment in mind. As of right now, life in Indiana is business as usual, and something should be done before disaster strikes, and it’s too late to make real change. Dukes, J. & Widhelm M. (January 2018). What Will Climate Change Mean in Indiana? Indiana Climate Change Impacts Assessment Factsheet. Retrieved from http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/docs/ClimateFactsJan2018.pdf League of Conservation Voters. (2017). 2017 National Environmental Scorecard. Retrieved from http://scorecard.lcv.org/sites/scorecard.lcv.org/files/LCV_Scorecard-2017-Full.pdf Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. (2016). Partisan Climate Opinion Maps 2016. Retrieved from http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/partisan-maps-2016/?est=human&group=rep&type=value&geo=cd 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 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 |
AuthorsThese blog posts are written by students in the POL 327 Spring 2017 class. Archives |