Group items tagged

Columnist Charles Blow begins by comparing the haves and have nots to climate change: "Is income inequality becoming the new global warming? In other words, is this another case where the facts of an existential threat lose traction among a weary American public as deniers attempt to reduce them to partisan opinions?" I suspect you can guess how he answers that question: as he gloomily concludes, "If denial is a river, it runs through doomed societies." Maybe it's time to better understand denial in all its forms, not just denial of anthropogenic environmental change, if we want to understand why such serious threats receive so little action.

Map-based interface comparing human quality of life (primarily related to health, education, and income, but including other measures as well) in different parts of the US. Turns out, surprise surprise, that there are some huge differences from place to place, suggesting the necessity of situated research to explain these differences.

This is a really great site and the video graphs life expectancy and average incomes. Its a nice hopeful trend in many respects but you can look at it in any number of ways. Healthy people and higher incomes are good things in general but obviously require more resources to create. A lot of good information on the website in general, have fun with it!

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.

An article about walmart's attempt to buy more local produce and educate small farmers. This is a new aspect of their sustainability goals that they are trying to focus on now.

The biggest question I have is what standards they are using to make their judgments on what is "local", "sustainable", or such like. Local is within state borders, but will Wal-Marts on the borders of states be subject to that same criteria, and unable to access markets just a few miles away? I tried to dig through their website, but as of yet have found mostly press releases... Just some thoughts relating this to the symposium - I'd welcome comments, I'm just trying to figure out what this could lead to: For all those who attended the symposium (particularly the banquet), this timing couldn't have been better. Last night the VP of Bon Appetit said that "when Wal-Mart says change, people change". Wal-Mart is also an expert at driving prices down, even on luxury items. If the high price of specialty local or organic foods are indeed bifurcating the market, and keeping lower incomes out of the alternative food movement, Wal-Mart is a force that can change that. That said, Wal-Mart is also very good at driving down prices at the expense of the producer. While many of the people behind Wal-Mart support the alternative food movement, sometimes very directly, this could be the economic equivalent of getting hugged to tightly by a gorilla. Its size could crush a lot of aspects of the alternative food movement (like independent producers). And if there is a serious drive to cut costs, migrant labor exploitation and other cost-cutters could become pretty serious. It is all about what Wal-Mart is actually measuring... Either way, this will be a good one to watch, in my opinion. The Wal-Mart fortune has actually been pretty supportive of environmental agriculture and community issues for longer than most people think. They've been demonized, fairly, for a lot of issues related to the destruction of local economic communities and such, but here is one organization that has been largely supported off the Wal-Mart fortune: http://www.icfdn.org/abo

Looks a lot like GIS to me. But what's this? Not using a broad tract system to generate region averages, but instead more detailed and neighborhood specific system? These maps only show racial segregation, but its a promising basis for the improvements for which Davidson advocates in EJ analysis.

Here's Portland's map: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4982015862/in/set-72157624812674967/ This is an important and significant perspective. Compared to other cities, we're not working with a lot when we talk about diversity and segregation in regards to environmental justice. Comparing our EJ mapping to EJ mapping in cities with much more significant segregation would be interesting! (Who wants to do some more GIS mapping for fun over fall break??)

This (http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?chicagodots) is Bill Rankin's website, the cartographer who first produced one of these detailed maps in 2009 and inspired Eric Fischer to produce all the others (found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/72157624812674967/with/4981417821/). Check out the downloadable files on Rankin's website (there's one for race and one for income); he includes includes a traditional GIS map of the same data for comparison. (I recommend saving them to your computer and viewing them at a smaller scale to see the patterns more easily.) This is from his website: "There are indeed areas where changes take place at very precise boundaries... But transitions also take place through gradients and gaps as well, especially in the northwest and southeast. Using graphic conventions which allow these other possibilities to appear takes much more data, and requires more nuance in the way we talk about urban geography, but a cartography without boundaries can also make simplistic policy or urban design more difficult - in a good way."

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.