Group items tagged

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

I found this discussion very applicable to Environmental studies symposium.  It discusses not only why Americans do not eat healthy as well as how much energy americans waste by throwing away foods.  Annually America throws away as much energy in food as Switzerland uses for all energy purposes.

Recent stats suggest general food shopping patterns that do not, shall we say, reflect the prevalent sentiment expressed by participants in last week's Symposium. One trend, for instance, is that food is now frequently purchased in big-box and convenience stores: "Amazon.com and other online retailers carry basics, from mouthwash to large bags of dog food. Target and Wal-Mart have a full grocery lineup at certain stores, and though there are few locally, both discounters are set on expanding into more urban markets. Convenience stores -- seeing double-digit sales growth in recent years -- are stocking salads and whole fruit."

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.

Rice is responsible for feeding half the world, or more than 3.5 billion people. And along its path from paddy to plate, it influences (and is influenced by) a ton of things. This reminds me of other studies we've read that follow one particular item from a diverse range of perspectives. Fun read for an international food perspective very much rooted in the East - perhaps something to chew on for next years symposium?

The theme of our symposium seemed to be: eat regionally, not locally. This article reiterates that with a particular focus on urban agriculture. What seems like a uber-progressive change, may not be the best for farmers and land use, and (this article claims) it wouldnt even work, regardless.

An interesting new academic journal, related to a lot of the issues brought up in the symposium this year. Looks to be pretty pro-agrarian. Peer reviewed, legitimate sources with a cause. Could have interesting stuff in the future. "Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development! JAFSCD is an international, online, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on agriculture and food systems and bridges the interests of development professionals (including activist farmers and businesspeople), educators, consultants, and the academic community. While kindred journals focus on critical sustainable food production practices, community food security, and the sociology and political economy of food and agriculture, there has not been a journal supporting the community of practice that is rapidly integrating and evolving around these issues. We look forward to fostering an applied research literature where these interests meet - and may sometimes collide - and the nascent field of agriculture and food systems as a whole advances."

For those interested in reading more of what Guthman has to say, here is a short preview and a few portions of the book she will be publishing soon. One interesting thing to note was how she makes efforts in her final chapter to refute both organic-idustrial complex apologists and the movement of a Jeffersonian agrarianism. "The conclusion of the book, chapter 8, is effectively a retort to both positions. In addition, I ask if there are other, more productive roads toward a more ecologically benign and socially just agriculture." Much like her visit her, she seems to end with more questions than answers. I was glad she provided at least a few answers here, though I wish she had defended them a bit more strongly. I look forward to the book coming out. If anyone would be interested in getting a few copies of this book, sharing them around, and perhaps casually discussing some of her ideas sometime let me know.

Another fantastic TED talk. Right in time for the ENVS symposium, this talk by Michael Pollan touches on two ideas that he has written about extensively: the theory behind his book The Botany of Desire, and his concerns with our current food system. Here he combines the two ideas into a thought provoking twist on permaculture. I was so excited to hear him say "beyond organic agriculture" -- a concept that for a long time I've wished more people could understand.

I would majorly reccomend watching this. Many people have thought about this, I'm sure, but it doesn't hurt to hear the idea so well expressed. It is natural for us to think of things as anthrocentric, and there are a thousand examples of humans assuming that the things more like them are inherently superior (even within our own species), and getting beyond that is a great way to really change one's perception of the world. I think that is a healthy thing to do every once in a while. Also a lot of implications for animal rights, from a philosophical standpoint.

Two quick thoughts: first, Botany of Desire is a great introduction (without getting into theory) to the ANT approach we recommend in ENVS, and second, if you're into Pollan you should definitely attend Julie Guthman's keynote on Wed eve this week to hear why she definitely is not!

Not totally environmental, but it definitely relates to the symposium. I feel like we talked about ethics and economics a lot more than safety, but here is a compelling look at another issue in today's food system. Complete with photo gallery: http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/In-Pictures/From-Field-to-Fork-The-foreign-and-domestic-food-chain

The Oregon Sustainability Center, to be housed on PSU campus, embodies the utopia of high-tech self-sufficiency unlike no other contemporary structure around, and may possibly be unique in the U.S. today. But at what cost? And, is this the utopia we want to pursue??

This is the topic of an article that I posted to the Symposium2011 diigo group. (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/07/07greenwire-bold-public-private-venture-aims-to-make-ore-c-32109.html?pagewanted=all) Originally I posted it due to it's relevance to the "future of cities" topic. Portland often comes up in discussions about progressive cities, and this is merely one more reason for it to do so. The questions you bring up here about cost and utopian attitude I think are particularly relevant to the broader question of cities and would be really interesting for us to explore further. In my discussion with Micah earlier today, for example, we talked about Portland in general being a sort of utopia. Specifically we were discussing the tendency of highly motivated and concerned people to move to Portland away from other places that might actually be in greater need of their work. I asked "what's more important: investing in a model of the ideal to generate enthusiasm and prove it can be done, or spreading efforts out to places less conducive to the changes?"

I'll say it publicly, with the hopes of getting some debate on this: I don't think you've proven it can be done if it is in the model of the ideal (operating under the assumption that most places are specifically not the ideal, and are not neccesarily conducive to the changes). Just because something can be done in an ideal place does not mean it can be spread out. I see it as more likely that when something is done succesfully in a place that is antagonistic to it, something is really right with whatever that something may be. While answers are naturally specific to the issue or solution in question (so I apologize for the vague language), I'm of the mind that a lot of the things Portland has done to make things "work" may not be easily replicated outside of Portland, as much because of structure as because of culture. This is a debate where it is particularly difficult to make broad assumptions, of course, and there will be exceptions to either and any side, but I lean towards making changes where the changes are not conducive. I welcome opposition though, I'm curious what others think coming from other regions and from Portland itself.

For the cities symposium, some interesting ways to make urban design a bottom up, but intentional process (distinct from top down intentional or bottom up unintentional - 10 points to whoever comes up with a link showing some top down unintentional, though perhaps we could count side effects of a policy that creates forced moves in design somewhere else in a city). Fun to look at, though I wonder what sort of people find this appealing, and what sort of folks might find this threatining, obtrusive, or messy - our own Portland is one of the examples.

In lieu of ENVS symposium, I'm very interested in how the physical environment shapes the people that live there. This article discusses the role of place in the recent Wall St. protests and other movements around the world.