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.
0 Comments
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
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a...plastic bag. Photo: New York Times And the amount of those bags you see will not be decreasing in Indiana any time soon. You can thank state representative Ronald Bacon of the 75th district who authored a bill last year that regulates packaging material. House Bill 1053 prohibits a local government from imposing a ban, restriction, fee or tax on reusable or disposable ‘auxiliary containers’ (plastic bags) that are used to transport goods from a food or retail facility. Opponents of the bill call it an overstep of the state government on local governments. This legislature, signed into law in March 2016, came after a group in Bloomington, Indiana called Bring Your Bag Bloomington began working towards eliminating plastic bag usage in the city. Reasoning behind the bill from those supporting it say that it would hurt local industry that produce plastic bags while also creating patchwork of regulations throughout the state. Plastic bag pollution- land, waterways, sea Plastics bags pose a huge threat to ecological and human systems in Indiana, the United States, and throughout the world. Each year between 5 and 10 trillion bags are produced, used for an average of 20 minutes, and then disposed of. For 98% of bags this means being thrown away; only 2% are recycled. Each recycled bag is melted, releasing toxic chemicals, and reformed into new plastic. This process still uses about two thirds of the energy of making a bag from virgin materials and is far from perfect. The new plastic is weaker than the original because some of the polymers break during the melting and are unable to be reused. Eventually, the plastic needs to be thrown out. Still, those bags that are thrown out are an even larger problem. Each unrecycled bag can last for up to one thousand years, and during that time it can have a myriad of negative effects on our environment. While on land, bags not only leach toxins into soil but also block water seepage and root growth for many plants, decreasing soil fertility. Even once the bag has fully broken down, it continues to exist as a collection of micro-plastics and toxic chemicals. However, the real problems begin once the bags make it to the ocean. 100 billion bags come out of the United States each year, which means 98 billion are dumped in the environment, many of these are washed out into the ocean. Due to ocean currents, this plastic often accumulates at the center of gyres, or circles of currents, and form what are known as garbage Patches. The largest of these, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP), is twice the size of Texas and contains more than 2 million individual pieces of plastic every square mile. Figure 1: A fact sheet of the GPGP These Garbage patches are perhaps the single worst offender for the deaths and extinction of marine animals. Each year 1 million seabirds and 100,000 marine animals die from plastic. They either eat the plastic and then starve due to a lack of nutrients, or they become entangled and trapped, such as the turtle in Figure 2 below. Figure 2: A turtle that grew up inside a soda six pack ring Is Indiana alone? A look at other legislation, successful bans/taxes Indiana is not alone! At least 4 other states have enacted similar legislation as Indiana in restricting local municipalities from banning or taxing plastic bags. These other states include Michigan, Idaho, Arizona, and Missouri. Not surprisingly, these laws are enacted to appease businesses by restricting the legal authority of local municipalities within each of the states. Michigan for instance, passed legislation to appease the Michigan Restaurant Association (Michigan plastic bags). In Indiana, one of the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Brent Steele, cited also cited similar reasons of industry and business groups that opposed plastic bag bans (IndyStar). The legislators in these states have suppressed the voice of several municipalities and thousands upon thousands of citizens, in favor of a few companies that lobby and donate heavily to the legislators campaigns. These legislators are selling the voices of thousands for reelection money. The ban against plastic bag bans should be removed Ireland has a 22 Euro cent tax on every plastic bag, which is applied to the customer when they request a bag. This has resulted in much less plastic bags being purchased, which drastically decreases the capacity of plastic bags which can be littered. 14 bags are used on on average per capita per year, down an astonishing amount from 328 from before the levy. This means consumers are utilizing more sustainable bagging practices and there is less plastic bag pollution. There is a cost, however, after the levy was passed in 2002, one plastic bag manufacturer had to shut down, resulting in 26 jobs lost. A trivial price to pay in the face of this environmental adversity, which impacts more than just the surrounding region of plastic bag users. This issue, however, expands beyond the environmental scope of the impacts of plastic bags. This ban silences the voice of the people so they can no longer create movements in their locality. This suppression can be seen then as a dangerous precedent where the powers of communities are lost to the power of the state, which is ultimately controlled, in situations like this, by industry groups. In this way the ban infringes upon our freedoms and is immoral. In many cities, such as Larchmont, NY, plastic bag bans or taxes have been enacted as a result of local action and citizens consensus. These cities and towns have been empowered to be able to act of their sovereign impulse, meaning the individuals who live there have decided collectively that they want to reduce the amount of plastic bags being put into their environment. This has no direct impact on the neighboring areas or how they choose to bag. Plastic bags are a system which can be replaced. By looking at their impact on our environment we can see these bags are not sustainable and are causing harm. There are several alternatives to plastic bags which are more environmentally friendly, and ultimately less costly to both consumers and businesses. Furthermore, however, cities and towns should have their sovereignty in making decisions of this nature. In this way the ban against the local bans and tariffs for plastic bags is wrong and should be removed to enable a policy which empowers local communities to decide for themselves what is best.
Introduction Is buying local really more sustainable? When did it became popular? What could be some challenges. This post attempts to answer these questions, and provide a firsthand example of a success story via interview. We ultimately think buying local is a good option for sustainability, however there are some possible drawbacks. Is Buying Local More Sustainable? The statistics tell a story. A study done in Chicago called the “Andersonville Study of Retail Economics”, concluded that local business generate 70 percent more local economic activity than big chain retailers. If you spent locally $100 in Andersonville, then $68 of that stayed in the local economy. On the other hand, if you spend $100 at a big chain, only $43 of that would stay in the economy. That means less money going to small business, employees, and infrastructure. Not only is this important for creating strong economies, it also has important impact for global sustainability policy. We have seen that GDP has been used as a crude index of economic strength. Perhaps if we were to strengthen local economies, governments would stress national economic development less and get on with more sustainable policies. In terms of direct environmental impact, the numbers don’t lie. An entire 25% of CO2 production in most countries can be attributed to international shipping and transport. In the United States alone, 50% of pollution is due to industrial pollution. In general, industrial pollution is a huge culprit in environmental degradation. Here are the facts: US factories produce 3 million tons of toxic chemicals, dispose of 275 million tons of hazardous waste, and destroy 15 million acres of land, all in one year. Not to mention, local businesses are also more likely to reuse materials than big chains, so supporting the growth of local business it turn supports sustainability. Growing Trend of Buying Local In recent years, buying local has been proven helpful to the recent epidemic of climate change and the emissions of gases that come along with mass production, and the exchange of goods around the world. Hand in hand with this discovery; “going green” has become somewhat of a trend among the growing, developed countries, especially with the younger generations. In the article, Characterizing the Face and Value of the “Buy Local” Movement by Kynda Curtis, it has been found that the “number of farmers markets around the country has increased by 364% from 1994 to 2013”. Since this has grown, the number of people that are buying local has skyrocketed. During a survey put on by Kynda Curtis, she found out that the two top reasons people have started to buy locally instead of going to shop at their mass production grocery store are: “food safety such as diet/health and environmental impact. In was stated in Fortune that people are even willing to pay up to 25% more for locally produced foods in order to help the environment. Because of this recent trend, many big box retainers and grocery chains are beginning to carry locally grown items. According to Fortune magazine, the local food industry has generated $11.7 billion in sales in 2014. This is making it easier for people around the world to buy locally because they are able to get these items in stores they are used to instead of researching other ways of access. If this market continues to grow, easy access to these produces for consumers will skyrocket in turn reducing emissions from transportation and mass production. Potential Restrictions on Buying Local Despite the advantages of buying local, there are certain limitations on local produces so people do not have to purchase everything locally. There are many people in third world countries who grow commercial crops for living. Once people start to buy local products, they will be left jobless and forced into other occupations with more environmental damage such as factory workers or loggers. For example, if a large portion of Brazilian farmers are forced into industrial factories, it will not take long for them to pollute and destroy the amazon rainforest. The destruction of Amazon rainforest will be devastating for global ecosystem because it absorbs 2.2 billion tons of CO2 each year. Moreover, a study conducted by Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews from Carnegie Mellon university shows that only 11% of the Greenhouse Gas(GHG) emission is produced from the transportation stage and only 4% is produced from producer to retail contributor. In fact, 83% of the GHG emission is produced from the production stage so it becomes very critical for people to choose certain kinds of local products to purchase if they want to reduce greenhouse gas emission. Once buying local, people should focus on products with significant environmental advantages within the area. For example, Swedish tomato only emit 0.8 kilo of CO2 per kilo(transportation included) if farmed in Spain. However; if the same species is grown in Denmark, the CO2 emission will be almost 7 times higher (5.4 kg CO2/kg tomato). People in Northern Europe will end up emitting more CO2 if they purchase local Swedish tomato rather than import them from Spain. Unlike tomato and meat products, the transportation emission takes a higher percentage in certain products like potato and rice. In general, our goal is to reduce the net emission of both production and transportation. Once people are buying local, they should focus on the products with high transportation emission percentage such as rice and potato. While for products like meat or tomato, people should buy them from regions where production emission is relatively low. A Firsthand Interview About Buying Local and Sustainability How better to address the topic of “Buying Local” than, well, locally? To really get to the heart of what buying local means in terms of sustainability and community one member of our team went to a local grocer in Lafayette. The store has a mission to meet the nutritional and economical needs of its members all while selling sustainable goods. Our group member was able to interview one of their volunteers. Here is the recount of the interview: The volunteer began by explaining that they were a non-profit, and how that creates an economic and social support system for people in the area. She elaborated that the place is more than a grocer, it is a community gathering place with workshops and activities. I proceeded to ask her opinion on why sustainability efforts emphasize buying local. She responded by reminding me that a lot of food production is still through families and small business, and that by supporting these local business’, one is supporting their local economy. Ideally, a government would want to boost these local areas. A government would want its citizens to have something to fall back on if infrastructure were to fail. I asked the interviewee why she would want people to buy locally. Her response was that it minimizes transportation cost. She said that people are starting to care more about where food comes from, they’re not happy knowing that their eggs come from factory hens anymore. However, people don’t have the space, time or energy to grow their own food in cities. They can’t grow it themselves, but they still want to know where it comes from, so they buy locally. I proceeded to ask her a more ambitious question, “Do you think everybody in the world could buy local?”. She said most people already do. It is only a small percentage of the world that has such expansive consumption culture as the United States. A majority of the world’s population is rural. She said, realistically instead of buying completely local, we could just take a step back from supermarket culture. Start your shopping locally at a farmer’s market, and go to a big chain grocer to get specialty items. It was about this time in the interview where the store’s first customer of the day strolled in. I got to see firsthand the difference between how this place and the average chain grocery store operates. She greeted the customer in a very friendly manner, asking him what he needed. He was looking for eggs, she explained that they were out, but she knew when they were going to get more, and who from, she could even tell you the name of the farmer who the eggs came from. The environment here was different from a big chain grocer. The volunteer has developed a strong sense of community at this small grocer. She said that she is a relatively newer member of the grocer compared to some of the other members, but they are always willing to talk and answer her questions. For example, she learned how to cook kale! She left me with a quote, “People want to live healthily if they’re given the opportunity and the support”. She made a pretty convincing point for why places like this are important. Sustainable, local food leads to a healthier, friendlier community, and this small grocer is making that dream come true right here in Lafayette. Some References
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-miles http://www.livescience.com/44235-amazon-rainforest-carbon-cycle-measured.html http://www.iedm.org/files/note0210_en.pdf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-salguero/why-buying-local-is-worth_b_4310520.html http://www.andersonville.org/business-resources/retail-attraction-market-research/ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es702969f Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States CHRISTOPHER L. WEBER AND H. SCOTT MATTHEWS Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.497.7647&rep=rep1&type=pdf Climate change and dietary choices — how can emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Annika Carlsson-Kanyama |
AuthorsThese blog posts are written by students in the POL 327 Spring 2017 class. Archives |