Group items tagged

A challenge to the idea that vertical farming may be more energy efficient than traditional approaches. Like the debate around local food though, it bothers me that we focus on energy and/or CO2 emissions when we measure environmental impact. In a much bigger picture, I'm not even so sure that another agricultural revolution, like this, is really what's best for the planet in the long run.

Good points all. While the excitement about vertical farms is good for attracting investors, the economic realities of all the systems involved are definitely questionable. That said, the Economist left out some things that are worth mentioning, both for and against the idea. First of all, the use of hydroponics is thrown out pretty willingly and easily, but its hardly simple. For one, you're moving away from the use of soil (and fertilizer, manure, other related mediums) as the primary medium for agricultural production. We are simulatenously just realizing that we don't really know much about soil as a medium. And even with water we have the same problems. The "known unknowns" are pretty great either way, and scale plays in. Most hydroponics (though there are major exceptions) are run by research organizations or universities, which means there is a lot more free and regular support, particularly from the sciences, than most commercial operations will be able to afford. Its much easier, when things go wrong, to have a cadre of free sciences hovering around. As for "you can grow anything in hydroponics", speaking from work I've done with those systems, you can - but good luck with a lot of it. Plus water filtration becomes an issue, though there are biological ways of handling that (even then you're creating a very limited ecosystem - they can get thrown off ridiculously easily). On the other hand, while light inputs are definitely a notable consideration, light science and "light engineering" is making leaps and bounds. So while I'd say issues with light are writing it off just yet, I wouldn't count on that as the everlasting limiting factor. Along with the various spinning, rotating, window side containers there are also various types of windows, "light tunnels", and even the good ol' basic efficient lighting systems and such to consider. And design, rather than technology, can also contribute - several vertical farm designs "stagger" floors to reduce

shading from the building itself. Also, for anyone following alternative agriculture from the technology/commerce/urban ag side, there are two details the Economist got wrong. Sweetwater Organics, featured on NBC a few weeks ago, is already running a commerical hydroponics farm out of an old railroad warehouse. The nutrients for their water chemistry come from fish (poop), who are also raised in tandem with the plants, also for food. Also, at least one vertical farm plan has moved off the drawing board (sort of) into fundraising stages, and the land for it is cleared (both physically and legally) for building. This is at Will Allen's Growing Power, in Milwaukee, WI. Will, the "father of modern urban agriculture" and a frequent visitor to the White House with Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" program, is hoping to build the five story building within a few years. It will be located (and provide food to) in a food desert, in one of Milwaukee's largest low-income housing projects. So the world will soon have a test case for this idea. Other cities may follow, but as far as I know the closest one (in terms of multiple floors of greenhouses) is planned for Toronto, and is at least two decades out - which probably means its anyone's guess whether it'll happen.

This article, from WPRI.com (the website affiliated with the Rhode Island news channel), discusses the plans to build a wind turbine in the town of Narragansett. As someone familiar with the area--I grew up in Massachusetts--I am aware of the intense debate revolving around wind power on the New England coast. The case of the Narragansett turbine is notable due to the town's status as a tourist destination. The argument is centered around the fact that, although new forms of energy are universally considered to be important, the region's primary economic facet is tourism. Those opposed to the turbines argue that their presence negatively impacts the aesthetics of the coast, while proponents of the turbines take the position that sacrifices must be made to ensure a bright future. The building of the Narragansett turbine could perhaps be a step towards acceptance of the turbines' presence.

As we are currently pursuing a LEED platinum certification for our new dorm building, this might be a good time to ask ourselves if following the status quo "green fads" is really the best way to be a "leader in sustainability"... especially if those fads could be falling out of popularity and assumed legitimacy

This is a post from a really great blog called Secret Republic about urban design and green building. The blogger is currently in Sweden and visited a school with some really innovative ideas about environmental education, and they're employing some cool eco-design strategies too!

One of the icons of the climate movement is, well, giving up…but imagining a new dawn, one that looks a lot like the utopia of traditional societies that many in the environmental movement prefer: "The momentum of the heat, and the momentum of the economy that power it, can't be turned off quickly enough to prevent hideous damage. But we will keep fighting, in the hope that we can limit that damage. And in the process…we'll help build the architecture for the world that comes next, the dispersed and localized societies that can survive the damage we can no longer prevent.…We'll need, chief among all things, to get smaller and less centralized, to focus not on growth but on maintenance, on a controlled decline from the perilous heights to which we have climbed." So, what's wrong with this picture??

This article looks at what Chicago is doing to push their development in the green direction. This falls under progressive ecological modernization. It is particularly interesting examining this development in a city that one would more readily associate with the historically negative side of industrialization (birthplace of the skyscraper)

Pro-Urbanism "...developers and county leaders in Fairfax County are close to finalizing a radical multibillion-dollar plan to "desprawl" Tysons Corner, VA. The proposal, aimed at attracting a total of 100,000 with the texture and energy of city life, involves tearing up large swaths of the existing town and constructing a series of urban villages, with buildings up to 25 stories high."

Relates to next year's symposium on cities: here are some of the popular (and impressive, though unsurprising) approaches cities are taking to becoming more environmentally friendly. Many are rooted in energy concerns and transport, among a few other social equity issues. However almost all commonly share large-scale government investment approaches to creating spatially isolated things (exceptions include bike shares and Curitiba's bus system). Look to Masdar City for one that is fully designed as an environmentalist's paradise (cars are banned). But I would point out that such cities are incredibly expensive to build, and in this case, they're almost guaranteed to be built on the sale of oil. While I don't like to play a game of blood money blame, there is some irony. I'd like to see some cost-benefit analysis that address whether the costs, both monetary and external from the use of oil, really make these projects "better", or if they are more of a show than a practical reality. Curitiba in Brazil is one worth researching as well, if you're interested in cities. Also a design-centric city, Curitiba also tries to build off popular demand, and alongside their environmental wins they have a good list of social records to lay claim to as well. Unlike Portland's own MAX, they have a decent percentage of citizens who actually pay to ride the public transit (despite the fact that it also is run via a system where fare checkers are few and far between), and analysts have credited it to the civic pride generated by the aesthetic value and efficiency of the system. The demand there is a little more organic and if I remember right, the bus system actually uses a few private businesses who compete to provide optimal service. Government steps in to keep things relatively well organized - an interesting economic approach as well. Interesting government programs that combine solutions to poverty, waste, and education in one as well.

Cleveland has an interesting thing as well - low-income, private efforts to address problems locally and at a smaller scale. Theoretically, their approach could be used in a whole range of places, and addresses social concerns in Cleveland far better than something like a new green stadium would. It just requires people willing to set up systems like the one in the article (and funding - the systems they have were funded by another organization, not reliable in terms of expanding the scale of the project or keeping it going into the long term It is also a fairly fancy system - and costlier too. But the idea can be done cheaply). As we prepare to enter discussions on the symposium (meeting on the 10th! A week from today) I'm curious which approach people find more appealing.

The Vietnamese army has been accused of illegally selling timber from Laos. This timber is then used to build furniture which is transported to Europe. While the EIA say that this trade is illegal, the company in question stated that they were following the laws of Laos.

Ninety five percent of the corn gene has been successfully mapped out. Scientists claim that with this genetic information, they will be able to "develop new maize varieties that withstand prolonged heat and drought, use nutrients such a nitrogen more efficiently, or pack more nutrition per kernel."

The construction of the third largest dam in the world is being planned in Brazil. The construction of this dam is creating problems for the population who will be displaced by it.

An article run recently in the Portland Tribune details the price disparity between the local fruit of farmers markets and the local fruit sold at other shops throughout Portland. On one end are the sometimes obscene prices of farmers markets, tailoring to a predominantly wealthy white clientele, and on the other, you have prices at fruit stand shops that are for a blue collar society, sold at often over half the cost of farmers markets. A strange economic situation underlies the difference. Are Portland's own renowned farmers markets, cherished by so many, tailoring exclusively to rich white folks?

I think this is an important topic to address, however after reading the article I still agree with one of the comments another reader posted at the end of the article: "Many assumptions are made in this article about "local" produce. I would have asked some additional questions such as "What is your definition of locally produced?" Also, what are the labor practices on these farms? Of course I would choose $.89/pound over $1.50/pound unless that means the farmer is paying low wages to workers. What agricultural practices are these farmers using? We have an unrealistic idea of the true cost of food because of decades of subsidies and genetic modification. I'm willing to pay more to purchase beautiful, fresh, non-gmo, organically produced food by workers receiving a living wage. I'm willing to support small farmers and I like knowing that my money is going directly to the hand that grows it. It is true, many farmers markets are more expensive than traditional grocery stores and other outlets but they are offering much more than just a grocery shopping experience. It's a social, community building event." I also posted a response to the article: "I would like to second "local4food"'s comment. There's a bigger problem at hand here. We really shouldnt be focusing on getting the best deal for our food when we already have such a warped idea of the true cost of food. As someone who has both lived and worked on farms and grown a good deal of my own food, there's no way I can look at a bag of tomatoes and not think they're work $3 per pound... at least! Food is such an amazing resource. Shopping at farmers' markets makes me pay more attention to the amount food I buy and be more mindful of how much its really worth to me. I feel better too, knowing that the people who provide me with it are receiving the minimum compensation for their work. We should treat those who feed us with the upmost respect, not like measly vendors who ought to compete themselves nearly out of bus

The new up-and-coming trend in landscape architecture? Redesigning streets and sidewalks to be more "people-friendly" by creating public spaces. This article focuses on Viva Vancouver, an organization advocating for the creation of mini-parks in urban areas and whose most recent accomplishment is transforming two parking spots into a shiny new deck with seating for 4-8 people. Portland organizations like City Repair have been into this idea of placemaking for a long time, touting the benefits of creating public spaces to facilitate gathering between strangers and to make the rough urban landscape a bit more homey. Good idea? Or is spending $18,000 to make a wood structure in a parking lot absurd?  

Michael Pawlyn, arguably the foremost contemporary expert on biomimicry, gives a TED talk on how the principles of this field can be applied to energy, food and agricultural systems to close the loop and build a sustainable future. Biomimicry, for those that don't know, is the a field of engineering and development that bases designs off structures and systems found in nature. This talk covers a lot of what we learned about systems and loops from 160 and I am sure a lot of information from our other classes. I am personally very compelled by biomimicry and I have always thought that it is the obvious way to innovate sustainable technologies. Enjoy.

Citizen science is science done, not by highly trained experts, but by your run-of-the-mill citizen on the street. Which makes a lot of sense, since science is conceptually a very simplistic, mindless, algorithmic process (in certain forms, granted) which makes it very powerful (for anyone doubting the power of simple, mindless, algorithmic processes see evolution) . This article highlights the use of video games to channel citizen science towards things that the science community struggles with. For reference as to how cool this is, a problem regarding the AIDs virus that scientists struggled with for over a decade was solved in 3 weeks via this system. Other neat programs like this include World Without Oil, designed to put people in the place of a post-peak oil society via a Role Playing Game, where they use their own lives as the basis. People actually enacted real world change, building gardens, biking instead of driving, and reporting on it to the public, as a result of the game. It is a really convincing way to generate change, and well worth looking at just for the concept. The same company is looking at creative ways to solve other global crisis by making "mini worlds" that encourage people to have a little more agency and creativity, so that those ideas can be translated to the real world. How neat is that?

done right, science is so not a mindless algorithmic process.

This highlights the rare but occassional shrinking city. Detroits population and economic state is declining, and the city - structurally - may actually have to get smaller. This is, as the article notes, not exactly what urban planning is traditionally oriented towards. But that does not mean it will never happen. Imagine fuel prices increasing without a good alternative coming in - people will likely begin to abandon hinterlands and outskirts and suburbs for cities, and this problem will occur even without dramatic and rare economic decline. Or just the general appeal of cities. Or Stewart Brand's defused population bomb comes true, and economic decline due to aging populations strikes many more aging cities. So it is worth paying attention to, especially since it offers space, which I like to see as opportunity. You can do a lot with that - Detroit gets a lot of urban agriculture press, and some of the first urban farms did emerge from reclaimed abandoned property where buildings had been burned down for insurance money. And the size of the space emptying out might even make it functionally scalable, which has been a major problem. Empty neighborhoods that are structurally intact are also really interesting to me - that is a lot of initial capital set up that could be utilized in the future, allowing for some groups with very little amassed wealth or capital to potentially do something with it. Who knows what, but there looks to be a lot to play with here, and it could be really cool.

This article highlights the efforts to make Asian Carp, the next big threat to the Great Lakes (and the multi-million dollar fishing and tourism industries there) the next big food hit (or at least big enough to get people to fish them out). After all, as one expert says, "there's a worldwide need for cheap protein, and I think it's one of those things that fit the bill." But I have to say, I'm a little concerned. One, I know this is not a new strategy - people tried to turn garlic mustard into the next major salad ingredient, without much luck. But I think it could end up creating even greater threats in the long run. For example, if the idea is to get rid of the fish, it isn't a sustainable model for a business to follow. Why build a plant for a fish we're trying to get rid of? When the plants are built, the question changes: why get rid of the fish? In Darwin's Nightmare we saw how an invasive fish became a boon and blessing to the local economy. The Midwest is different, but some of the same forces are at play. Second, in my eyes the most legitimate argument against invasive, non-native species is that they don't provide ecosystem function. The ecosystem concept is rooted in relationships that help carry out nutrient/energy flow, etc... and these species don't really relate to others. By giving them a functional role as a food source, we give them a little more function to a species we really care about - us. Again, the plan to actually get rid of them may backfire as their benefits appear to outweigh their costs. The question does remain, is that a bad thing?