Group items tagged

Classic environmental experiment, complete with social drama, business plots, and accusations of meddling by cultish groups. The video touches more on the idea of whether or not an alternative biosphere is possible. Interesting to note that this one relied heavily on fossil fuels - it was not entirely a closer system then, as far as my limited research tells me. Still a very intriguing experiment, for better or for worse.

As one consultant says, "It's kind of a wild west, anybody can claim themselves to be green."  Of particular interest in this article is the emphasis on third-party certification, but given the motley array of third-party certifiers out there (this is a growth market, after all), even they cannot necessarily be trusted.  I'm also reminded of our AESS conference theme last summer, "Many Shades of Green": perhaps the whole "green" label is problematic?

Interesting facts and information about the mainstream perceptions of biotech produced foods, GMO, and the like. On one side, they've got a huge percentage of the market cornered (86% I think), which likely strikes fear into the heart of many anti-biotech folk. On the other hand, you have a lot of scientists saying that GMO crops are no more likely to produce more than conventional - why then, are we doing it? To stop weeds, that are already coming back with greater resistance? However you analyze it, an interesting article (and a recommended source - people often write off the Christian Science Monitor because of the first word in its name, but its not a religious news source, it is very high quality, and they have people reporting from all over the world. They do very good analysis of global energy issues, and I would highly reccomend their coverage of China's growing green economy. They've done a lot of work on that)

"What Monsanto's fall from grace reveals about the GMO seed industry" http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-12-what-monsantos-fall-from-grace-reveals-abo-the-gmo-seed-industry

"Last month the Andhra Pradesh state passed the AP Microfinance Ordinance, "suspending operations of MFIs in the state and for all intents and purposes allowing borrowers to stop repaying their loans. The announcement of the Ordinance stressed the need to protect the poor - but the move might well, in the long term, leave them far worse off."

Its important to remember how much scientific knowledge is affected by cultural context in how it is both accepted and understood. Science cannot escape the pressures placed upon it by the cultural and societal ways of human beings, at least so far. Speaking as someone who has covered scientific research for a public audience via the PioLog and in other projects, its not fun playing the translator between the technical experts and "the common man", as it were. A lot gets lost - and its hard to know whats valuable, and what isn't. Or what wasn't even understood in the first place (I'm far from the best person to be writing about research relating to the structure of Gecko hair follicles - a problem that can be found throughout journalism. Journalists do not always understand what they're writing about, and can cast it in ways that are often far off the mark. Its an odd business). So here we have an example of science trying to use other means of communication to get across that translation. But do scientists have the time, and should they have the responsibility, of having to expend resources not only on their studies, but on communicating them - and their implications - to the public? By getting away from journalism, do we risk facing a more significant or intentional sort of bias? I don't know what the right way to share science, its process, and its results with the public is, but I do think creating alternatives to the primary model is a useful thing. The current journalistic model has its strengths, but it has its weaknesses as well. Perhaps creating multiple ways of doing this will be useful.

Recently, a politician who may take a role in our energy committe made comments against the clean air act because it shut down coal mines in the United States that couldn't meet its standards. Demand for coal on a global scale still exists, however, and now China has pollution akin to that in our industrial era. When the U.S. makes laws that help make economic actions "fair", "green", "safe", or otherwise it makes the market function better according to our values. But when other nations don't have those same regulations, business moves out, and we ship things like our waste and pollution to the third world. This video highlights a means of solving that problem. While the speaker addresses common concerns, I'm not convinced. I think he's pretty optimistic all around. How does one convince nations operating for their own good to impose limitations on themselves that might slow their growth? Easy for us to sacrifice some growth for environmental health, but a higher standard of material living matters more in impoverished areas - the conception is that taking care of environmental issues, or social issues, is a luxury derived from wealth. I really don't see a solution yet - I like what the speaker is doing, but I'm skeptical about its reliability. The store price of a good remains, I think, most people's measure of a succesful buy. Is a culture shift required to change that? More information? I'd certainly start with the latter, for the sake of doing something...

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.

Understandably, at first glance one would be skeptical because this article seems to have greenwashing written all over it. Still, it is an important step in the right direction, and as the Super Bowl isn't going anywhere we might as well applaud efforts to be aware of it's footprint.

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.

A final argument for efficiency, regardless of Jevons, and for more than just environmental reasons. Could efficiency measures - and the companies that bring them about - restore our faltering economy? Energy efficiency in the United States is, according to a few numbers I've seen, hovering around 10-13%. Even if the numbers are way off, that is a lot of room to grow - we could do a lot more, with a lot less energy (which may take some wind out of the sails of catatrophist peak oil theory, though it says nothing about peak oil in general). I am cautious about the "innovation will save the day" argument because even the best ideas get caught up in other forces, and may never surface, but this is a testimony to the fact that "innovation could save some aspect of the day, if we play our cards right." I don't want it to seem like I'm advocating for "the solution" here, but after seeing so much concern about Jevons on moodle, I wanted to step in and give conservation and efficiency measures their time in the sun. Like many of the proposed solutions, they have a place - and unlike many proposed solutions, they are palatable to citizens, governments, markets, businesses, and the political sphere alike. A penny (or kilowatt hour) saved is a penny earned. If the various critiques of Jevons that are floating around are any guide, it certainly won't do any harm.

An interesting article on the development side of "sustainable development." Perhaps economic measures are indeed overrated?

Gas companies resorting to flaring--questionable whether its efficient, or they are just lazy. It seems like the article is mainly trying to spark an interest by taking another view on an aspect of drilling for gas, and gas production. It seems crazy to partake in this, especially since the companies are too interested in the financial aspects than the practical. The product is expensive to bring to market which is why they burn it instead of take advantage of it. That seems crazy, especially now when gas production is such a popular and important topic.

In SOAN249 today we briefly touched upon genetically altered Salmon, I looked into it more tonight--here's what I read. It seems like a crazy idea, like we talked about in class the Salmon are eating and being treated not so much as fish but another species. Fish live in the ocean, and Salmon are carnivorious, the fact that we are feeding them corn and other plant based materials, furthers the absurdity of the idea. Its taking an animal and reconstructing not only the biological make up but reconfiguring the behavioral patterns and 'lifestyle'.

We all have heard the phrase "job-killing" applied to environmental regulations, and many may roll their eyes. But how exactly does one assess benefits and costs of regulations, and what sort of time/space frame will various interests allow in calculating benefits/costs? This takeoff on recent Obama decisions suggests some complexities.

A couple of weeks ago, Obama asked that the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards be withdrawn until they are up for scientific review in 2013. This article by the Economist provides a view that weighs the jobs more heavily than the environmental impacts. I know that this article is more politics-minded, but I still wish they provided a projected environmental impact or pollution data. The author instead focuses on what this move means for Obama as we near the 2012 run for presidency.

A brief article about the project PlanetSolar, led by Raphael Domjan, and its efforts to prove that solar power is a viable and wise alternative energy approach, especially in the shipping industry. Domjan has overseen the construction of a solar-powered catamaran with 5,300 square feet of solar panels and hopes that its voyage across the world will encourage a re-examination of fuel efficiency and popularize solar technology.

A Massachusetts biotechnology company claims it has found the means to produce fuel with a type of cyanobacteria that secretes diesel. They state that they can produce "15,000 gallons of diesel full per acre annually, over four times more than the most efficient algal process for making fuel. And they say they can do it at $30 a barrel." Do you think this is feasible? Could this be a step back from moving away from high emission fuels?

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?