Wednesday, October 29, 2008

"Vergetarianism"... What's that!?

Two years ago, I began experimenting with some simple changes in my diet with the hope of reducing my "ecological footprint". Since then, I've gone on and off for a few weeks as a vegetarian, several months as a "vergetarian" (someone who eats meat only on rare-occasion), and have currently settled in on what I've found to be the right fit for my lifestyle: giving up red meat completely and eating at least 1 meal everyday completely vegetarian. My friends have definitely noticed the difference on my caf tray over the last two months, asking me why I'm ignoring the bacon in the breakfast line and or flank steak fajitas for dinner. Their frequent questions about what the point of my dietary changes are have led us into some interesting conversations that have ranged from the numerous benefits of doing so to the claim that humans are naturally omnivores and that becoming vegetarian is downright unnatural and dangerous to human health. Because of these conversations and some articles I've recently stumbled across on grist.org and BBC, I decided to write a post about the numerous environmental and social benefits of a diet with less meat.

But first a little disclaimer: as usual, the point of a post like this isn't to try to guilt people into giving up meat, rather it's just to highlight the many reasons out there why it's a really great (and surprisingly easy) option for many people who are concerned about doing their part to reduce their ecological footprint and fight accelerated climate change.

-In America today, the typical meal now revolves around what type of meat it includes. A typical dinner has a burger at the center of the plate, with some fries on the side. Or it's got pork chops as the centerfold, with potatoes and veggies on the side-or spaghetti, with four or five meatballs on top. Only fairly recently in the course of history has industrial meat production made it possible for so many in the developed world to make meat the main course of a meal. Before feedlots, slaughterhouses, and meat packing companies existed, meat was neither cheap enough nor available enough to be the centerpiece of every meal. In this sense, the meat-centric American diet is NOT as natural as it seems today (it was historically much more of a luxury item or a side dish) and as were increasing seeing its absolutely not sustainable.

Here's a few facts and thoughts I've gathered on the subject:
As this article on grist.org points out, "In 2006, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization published a 390-page report called "Livestock's Long Shadow." The dense document came to a startling conclusion: Livestock production -- including land-use changes for pasture and crop production -- contributes more to global warming than every single car, train, and plane on the planet."

-The average quarter pound of hamburger only reaches your table after the following production costs: 100 gallons of water, 1.2 pounds of grain, a cup of gasoline, greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to that produced by a six-mile drive in an average car, and the loss of 1.25 pounds of topsoil (source: Lily's Chickens by Barbara Kingsolver).

-Or we can look at it from an input cost perspective-in other words, how much energy it takes to raise our livestock. Every time we feed livestock in order to fatten them up before sending them to our supermarkets, we lose a great deal of the grain's energy in the animals' processes of digestion and metabolism. For this reason, eating a purely vegetarian diet is far less energy-intensive than eating meat.

-Different animals convert grain feed into milk, eggs and meat more efficiently than others-AKA, not all kinds of meat are created equally. For example, it takes only 1.1kg of feed to produce 1 kg of milk, 2.8 kg of feed to produce 1kg of chicken, 7.3kg per kg of pork produced, and 20kg to produce 1kg of meat! The environmental ramifications of this are well-stated by Kingsolver above. Not to mention the human ramifications that eating so high up on the food-chain has by putting all that grain to use feeding livestock rather than directly using it to feed the millions of people out there who could use it as well (Source: Environment: The Science Behind the Stories).

So, what simple lifestyle changes can we make to reduce our impact? As this article from the Guardian points out, "In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it [eating less meat] clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said [Dr. Rajendra] Pachauri, [chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian."

For me, a "vergetarian" lifestyle has never really been about animal rights. Instead, it's about making a pretty small lifestyle change that makes quite a big difference. If I happen to be a guest at a dinner gathering without many vegetarian options, or if I'm offered a grass-fed burger at a summer grill-out, being "vergetarian" doesn't require me to offend my host or reject treating my taste buds. That's why so many people find it easier to live a "vergetarian" lifestyle rather than a vegetarian one. After all, the point of making these choices is not to punish yourself. Instead, its about voluntary simplicity, or realizing that you're often happier and healthier when you opt not to eat that 1/4 pound burger and instead take a few minutes to cook vegetarian pasta with your friends. And if you end up reducing the amount of meat you eat by 50, 70, even 90%, then you'll have made quite a difference.

So, next time you're deciding what to make for dinner, see what it's like to opt for a meal without meat or go with turkey burger rather than a hamburger. You're likely to find that this really doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice after all, and as the above points show, it can make quite a big difference in your ecological (and carbon) footprint over the long term.

Friday, September 26, 2008

First Debate Produces No Clear Winner, but Obama edges out.

Tonight was a moment I'd been waiting for for a long time: Barack Obama and John McCain facing off in their first one-on-one Presidential Debate on live television. I was a little worried yesterday that McCain might successfully postpone the debate due to the urgency of the financial crisis situation, but thankfully there was enough pressure from the American public that McCain second guessed the political dividends that this gimmick might pay towards his campaign. (Sorry Senator McCain, but Gov. Palin's still going to have to face off with Senator Biden next week, as much as you'd love to give her some more time to prepare herself).

Fortunately for politically interested Americans, the debate went forward as planned. Overall, I think most people would agree that neither candidate vastly outperformed the other tonight, nor did either of them crash and burn. According to a CBS News poll following the debate, "40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw."

Nearly half of the debate was focused on the financial crisis and the economy, and rightfully so considering talk of a possible $700 billion dollar government bailout, mortgage closures, skyrocketing unemployment rates, and high gas prices. While I expected Obama to dance circles around McCain on economic issues, I thought McCain was able to hold his own. I was surprised with how articulate McCain was in presenting his policies, even if I didn't identify with most of what he was saying.

In fact, I thought both of them did certain things quite well: specifically energizing their base of supporters. As such, Obama's main plan for getting the economy back on track was tax cuts for the middle class and 95% of working Americans, offset by closing corporate tax loopholes and repealing the Bush tax cuts on those Americans making over $250,000 a year. Also, cutting wasteful government spending and having the long-term goal of getting out of Iraq. McCain's was to concentrate entirely on cutting wasteful government spending, to lower taxes, and to have less government involvement in general. In this sense, the strategy for the night seemed to be to "play to your base."

Frankly, I was a little disappointed that both candidates expressed too much of a willingness to postpone crucial projects in order to pay for the financial crisis, specifically their potential willingness to postpone crucial energy projects. Although, Obama said he would only be willing to alter parts of his energy strategy to adjust to hard times and cited the benefits that a clean energy revolution would have for the American economy. To me, the most ridiculous part of the debate was when John McCain offered a wild solution for the financial crisis when Jim Lehrer pressed him for more details, "How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs." A spending freeze? On almost everything except the US military (which gets the largest share of US budget appropriations)? It seems that McCain's only strategy for the economy is to cut taxes and cut spending and everything else will just work itself out. I though Obama's response to this was quite accurate,
"The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under funded...Let me tell you another place to look for some savings. We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we have to look at bringing that war to a close."

As usual, environmental issues were entirely ignored by the moderator and made virtually no appearance in the debate. However, energy policy did come up several times, and in that sense Global Climate Change was at discussed. What frustrates me most is when John McCain attempts to present himself as a leader on energy innovation in the Senate. When McCain was trying to distinguish himself as the great Mavericky Maverick that he is, he mentioned how he differs for George Bush on the issue of addressing climate change. Unfortunately, as Obama rightly pointed out Friday night, McCain has voted against renewable energy 23 times over his career in the US Congress. "And if we want to talk about oil company profits, under your tax plan, John -- this is undeniable -- oil companies would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks." So as much as John McCain may be a slight improvement over George Bush on energy and the economy you can be assured that renewable energy and innovation is not his priority. Under a McCain-Palin administration we are going to see more drilling, more "clean" coal, 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, more tax breaks for oil companies, and then a little renewable energy on the side. (For more on how Obama is head and shoulders above McCain on energy and climate change see my previous two posts).

If anyone missed the debate, here's a link to the transcript online. The video can be found there also.

Next up, we'll get a chance to take a look at Senator Biden and Governor Palin going head to head this Thursday. Should be interesting.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Friedman Says Election is No Brainer for Green Issue Voters

Thomas Friedman seems to agree with my last post about what McCain's VP choice of Sarah Palin (and his recent record) says about his environmental positions. He claims that "McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil." And he's right. McCain has officially proved as of late that he's just another green-washing poser. Check out the article below if you still think McCain has even a shred of green cred.

And Then There Was One

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 2, 2008

As we emerge from Labor Day, college students are gathering back on campuses not only to start the fall semester, but also, in some cases, to vote for the first time in a presidential election. There is no bigger issue on campuses these days than environment/energy. Going into this election, I thought that — for the first time — we would have a choice between two "green" candidates. That view is no longer operative — and college students (and everyone else) need to understand that.

With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.

Given the fact that Senator McCain deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a bill extending the vital tax credits and production subsidies to expand our wind and solar industries, and given his support for lowering the gasoline tax in a reckless giveaway that would only promote more gasoline consumption and intensify our
addiction to oil, and given his desire to make more oil-drilling, not innovation around renewable energy, the centerpiece of his energy policy — in an effort to mislead voters that support for drilling today would translate into lower prices at the pump today — McCain has forfeited any claim to be a green candidate.

So please, students, when McCain comes to your campus and flashes a few posters of wind turbines and solar panels, ask him why he has been AWOL when it came to Congress supporting these new technologies. "Back in June, the Republican Party had a round-up," said Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club. "One of the unbranded cattle — a wizened old maverick name John McCain — finally got roped.
Then they branded him with a big 'Lazy O' — George Bush's brand, where the O stands for oil. No more maverick.

"One of McCain's last independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," added Pope, "yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding big oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts. While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, 'The jury is still out on global warming.' She's the one hanging the jury — and John McCain is going to let her."

Indeed, Palin's much ballyhooed confrontations with the oil industry have all been about who should get more of the windfall profits, not how to end our addiction.

Barack Obama should be doing more to promote his green agenda, but at least he had the courage, in the heat of a Democratic primary, not to pander to voters by calling for a lifting of the gasoline tax. And while he has come out for a limited expansion of offshore drilling, he has refrained from misleading voters that this is in any way a solution to our energy problems.

I am not against a limited expansion of off-shore drilling now. But it is a complete sideshow. By constantly pounding into voters that his energy focus is to "drill, drill, drill," McCain is diverting attention from what should be one of the central issues in this election: who has the better plan to promote massive innovation around
clean power technologies and energy efficiency.

Why? Because renewable energy technologies — what I call "E.T." — are going to constitute the next great global industry. They will rival and probably surpass "I.T." — information technology. The country that spawns the most E.T. companies will enjoy more economic power, strategic advantage and rising standards of living. We need to make sure that is America. Big oil and OPEC want to make sure it is not.

Palin's nomination for vice president and her desire to allow drilling in the Alaskan wilderness "reminded me of a lunch I had three and half years ago with one of the Russian trade attachés," global trade consultant Edward Goldberg said to me. "After much wine, this gentleman told me that his country was very pleased that the Bush
administration wanted to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. In his opinion, the amount of product one could actually derive from there was negligible in terms of needs. However, it signified that the Bush administration was not planning to do anything to create alternative energy, which of course would threaten the economic growth of Russia."

So, college students, don't let anyone tell you that on the issue of green, this election is not important. It is vitally important, and the alternatives could not be more black and white.

Friday, August 29, 2008

VP picks and the Race for the White House

The last week of the Obama vs. McCain race for the White House has been an exciting one. Now that both nominees have picked their running mates and we are in the intermission between the Democratic and Republican conventions, the end of the Bush Administration finally seems to be coming into sight. So what, if anything, do the candidates VP picks say about their environmental positions? More specifically, what do their VP picks say about how they will address the most pressing environmental challenges of the 21st century: accelerated and extreme climate change and energy insecurity.

Let's take a look at Sarah Palin first. According to the McCain campaign, Gov. Palin "has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources." They claim she is equally as "mavericky" as John McCain and will be willing and able to help squeeze the influence of oil companies and other special interests out of our system while moving America on its path towards energy independence. Yet, when you take a look at Gov. Palin's record and her history on environmental and energy issues, you can't help but come to the conclusion that a McCain/Palin white house would be business as usual when it comes to energy and global warming.
Here's some interesting facts on Gov. Palin that point to her being much more of a Dick Cheney like VP (with his connections to Halliburton) than the type of energy reformist the McCain campaign claims she is and that this country needs.
-Opposes a windfall profits tax on oil companies
-Is the chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a multistate panel "that promotes the conservation and efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas resources while protecting health, safety and the environment"
-Proposed eliminating Alaska's Gas Tax
-Wants to open ANWR to drilling
-Palin's husband is also an oil production operator for BP.

Do we really need another Vice President with such deep ties and loyalties to Big Oil?

By the way, here's a nice little quote I stumbled upon from Gov. Palin: "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute [global warming] to being man-made."
Seriously? But wait, I thought John McCain prided himself on differing from his party on the issue of Climate Change?

All of this just points to the fact that John McCain does not seem to be truly concerned about accelerated and extreme climate change, energy innovation, or having the influence of oil companies whispering into his ears and those of his administration. The greatest evidence of this is his recent reversal of his opinion on offshore drilling and the "Drill here, drill now, pay less" dogma he and his colleagues have been shoving down the throats of the American people. John McCain continues to erode whatever semblance of environmental credibility and potential he may have ever had.

What about Joe Biden's record?

-For starters, Joe Biden has been a longtime leader in the Senate on Climate Change issues. In 1986 he introduced the very first bill designed to limit global warming pollution, the Global Warming Protection Act.
-Cited the energy crisis as America's top priority in his primary campaign for the white house last year.
-He is endorsed by the environmentally-minded League of Conservation Voters with an 83% lifetime voting score on environmental issues.
-During his time on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden has been a harsh critic of the oil industry and oil subsidies.

With 35 years of experience in the Senate, Biden now chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. As Joseph Romm pointed out in a recent article for Grist , achieving a comprehensive, binding, international treaty on Climate Change will be one of the most difficult and important task facing the next administration. This is where Biden's experience will truly prove salient. "The great challenge...will require not merely strong domestic action by the world's richest country, the one that has admitted by far the most cumulative amount of carbon dioxide. It will also require global leadership by us, the ability to negotiate one-on-one and collectively with every major country in the world...The Democratic team now has onboard...one of the most qualified people in the country to help lead that effort from the White House, which is where it must be lead from."

Or, you can hear it from Biden himself, "I would be most capable of getting this country back into an international climate regime, getting us back to the table the fastest and with the most prospect for success, because of my extensive engagement in foreign policy...To deal with global warming, you have to change the attitude of the world, particularly China and India, the two largest developing nations. But in order to do that, to have any credibility, you have to begin here in the United States by capping emissions, increasing renewable fuels, establishing a national renewable portfolio standard, requiring better fuel economy for automobiles."

When it comes to energy issues, global warming and the environment, John McCain used to seem like at least a decent moderate choice. Fortunately for swing voters concerned about these issues, he's making the decision making process a lot easier by showing that his true loyalties lie more closely with his special interest supporters than the American people. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has proven his commitment to addressing these issues with his selection of a running mate with a long-standing, positive, environmental record.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Ditch the Lawn and Ditch Summer Mowing.

(I actually wrote most of this post a week ago but got sidetracked and didn't post it until now).
The past week, I’ve been visiting my parents back up in Northern Minnesota and helping them out with some work around the house. This of course, meant getting reacquainted with my childhood enemy, the Toro lawnmower. Growing up, my brother and I used to hate mowing the lawn-we had a pretty decent sized lawn to tackle and thought we’d much rather be playing soccer on our lawn than trimming it. While I’m still not a fan, the good news is that my parents have expanded their garden so much since my siblings and I moved out that it takes about half the time it used to.

Anyways, this got me to thinking again about the environmental impacts and implications of lawns in America and all the great alternatives to cookie-cutter lawns that exist out there. If being more green, saving money on mowers, maintenance and gas, or avoiding the weekly summer mow interest you, then read on!

I’ll begin with a quick bit from grist.org about the environmental impacts of lawns in America:
“First of all, lawns are an environmental nightmare. Lawns are America's single largest irrigated crop. They cover over 49,000 square miles, three times the area covered by corn, the next biggest crop. (By contrast, concentrated solar power plants covering an area 1/6 that size could provide 100 percent of U.S. electricity.) They drink up between 30 and 60 percent of urban freshwater and are doused with more than $5 billion in fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and $700 million in synthetic pesticides a year (numbers as of 1993; hard to find anything more recent, but we can assume those numbers have gotten much larger via the housing boom). Most of the water and fertilizers are wasted through poor doseage and timing; both wash into overburdened sewage systems. America's lawnmowers burn 800 million gallons (and spill more than an Exxon Valdez's worth) of gas a year in horribly
inefficient engines, producing up to 5 percent of total U.S. air pollution.
So anything that can replace lawns -- drought resistant landscaping, stones or gravel, or, yes, a food garden -- is a blessing.”-David Roberts, Grist columnist.

That said, what are some other options for lawn-care? Here are a few things you can do to reduce your impact while mowing or options for lawn replacement.
Option A:
Replace it. There are many things you can replace your lawn with: a vegetable garden, flower garden an orchard, native grasses, a stone paths, butterfly gardens, moss, etc. Anything that reduces the amount of surface area you have to mow will be a benefit in many ways. My parents have successfully cut out probably 40% of our lawn’s surface area and replaced it with strawberry and blueberry plants, numerous vegetable plots, flowers, trees, bushes and other shrubs. If you take the gardening route, obviously this has numerous other benefits: including having fresh, locally produced, produce right in your backyard.
-Moss also makes an excellent, very low maintenance option as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/garden/01moss.html?_r=1&ex=1210305600&en=93604bf920ba0613&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin
-Or try a Raingarden: http://sustainablecommunitysolutions.com/2008/07/30/of-rain-barrels-and-rain-gardens/

*Here’s a few suggestions for how to get rid of the old grass before replacing: http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2002/09/19/umbra-lawnkill/index.html


Option B: Keep it, but green it: Okay, there’s a reason why so many Americans love lawns, and realistically for many of us they aren’t going anywhere. Especially for those who have no public parks nearby for their kids or pets to run around in. But, at least reduce your lawns nasty impact. Here’s a few things to do: Reduce the frequency of your mowing. Use a push mower if you have a smaller lawn. Lay off the pesticides. Don’t water: this will simply make your lawn grow faster and force you to cut it more quickly. If you’re in a dry climate, let your lawn grow out longer to prevent burning and browning.

All right, that’s it for my rant on lawns. The next post will probably be a little less practical and a little more political.

Friday, August 15, 2008

End of the Internship

Well, my seven and a half week stint with the Center for Sustainable Living officially ended earlier this month. It went by extremely quickly, and I found that it is very difficult to jump in and try to tackle large projects in a new community. Over the summer, I had a successful crash-course in small-time community organization and advocacy, building many connections with community members and learning much about local politics, the environmental blogosphere and community living. I learned that what sounds good on paper or works in one community oftentimes meets roadblocks and delays along the way. Unfortunately, with the short time-line we had, even small delays could sideline entire projects.

Therefore, we didn’t fully accomplish several of the community projects I had hoped to, but I've had the chance to get the ball rolling on several projects that have been researched and can be pursued in the future. Some of the projects still in the making include: Pedestrian Only Street Days (which was greeted with both excitement and skepticism from community members and which we decided a better goal for this would be the summer of 2009 rather than 2008 since there is much organizational and advocacy work to be done for this) a free school, where environmental workshops could be taught to interested community members, and several composting projects, including holding a community compost bin sale and continuing to guide Bridgewater Elementary School on their goal of teaching their kids to separate and compost their food waste at school.

I'm hoping to follow up on Pedestrian Only Street Days throughout the school year and hopefully it can kick off the following summer. The goal of this is to get people outside, to build social capital and community well-being, and to promote non-motorized types of transportation. If realized, it would consist of blocking off a section of downtown Northfield (on Division from 2nd-5th Street) to automobile traffic on a monthly, bi-monthly or weekly basis during the summers. Basically: More walking, more talking, less driving. I envision live music, street vendors, sidewalk dining, maybe some of kind of themed workshops on biking, pedestrian safety, etc. on Thursday evenings. Other cities (Toronto, Bogota) have had a lot of success with similar programs and I could see it being a huge hit in Northfield, but there's still a lot of organizing work to do. Even NYC has been trying this out with a huge chunk of Manhattan: . And so has San Fransisco: http://carfreeusa.blogspot.com/2008/08/come-out-to-play-in-san-francisco.html

The internship overall was a great experience. I learned an incredible amount about a wide range of topics and was fortunate enough to have the opportunity and freedom to pursue many different projects. Thanks especially to the CSL, Nate, Kris and Scott for that. I've decided to keep this blog-at least for now. I'm gonna to write in it as often and for as long as I feel is possible into the school year as long as people are reading it and finding it somewhat useful or enjoyable. From this point on I'm going to be writing almost entirely about whatever environmental and politic issues are pertinent or related things that come to my mind. Hope it's enjoyable!

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

City Council a Disaster

I attended my first Northfield City Council meeting Monday night and frankly, it was pathetic. I've heard a lot about some of the issues that Northfield city politics have been facing: an incompetent mayor (who at least appeared to be sober at this week's meeting), a possible suit from the city administrator, city council members stepping down, etc. This however, was a much higher level of incapability that I ever expected.

It was an hour and a half filled with procedural confusion, bickering, personal attacks, and utterly childish behavior that was downright inexcusable. [I expect Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann could have had an easier time getting along, or at least being civil. (New "We Campaign" Ad anyone?....Hah!)] Much of this appeared to revolve around the mayor's need to feel like he was in charge: he repeatedly interrupted any council member he disagreed with and was utterly incapable of compromising with anyone...on anything.

At one point, Contented Cow owner Norm Butler stood up and declared, "I have never seen such passive-aggressive behavior in my life." And he was right.


I understand that local politics can be frustrating: after all, a lot of time and effort has to go into procedural issues, hearing every citizen's voice, discussing, drafting proposals, voting, etc. It's not exactly the most efficient process and it likely never will be. However, I have witnessed Duluth City Council meetings before, and while they may have had some conflicts of their own or seemed to have droned on for hours, at least they were led by a group of (mostly) adults.

I had attended the meeting in hopes of hearing a discussion about the Northfield Energy Task Force's recommendations about energy issues, global climate change, etc. as well as a discussion about non-motorized transit. However, after an hour and forty minutes of wanted to shoot myself in the foot to at least have something to distract me from the pain of what I witnessing, I had to get up and leave. And for how much I care about the issues, that is really too bad.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Home Composting

I've received several requests for advice from people interested in learning how to start a compost at home. While I'm by no means an expert on the subject, fortunately it doesn't take one to start your own compost. In fact, it's surprisingly easy. Here's some suggestions and links for how to get started:

The first thing people need to decide is where to place the outdoor aspect of the composting, which is usually some kind of a bin. (I have seen some farmers and people who aren't as concerned with aesthetics just making a pile or heap right in their backyard without a bin. This works great too, but typical homeowners seem to like some kind of a bin or container to put it in). The backyard is usually the best place to put your bin, and it should be in a location that is close to your house and convenient to reach during the winter months since you will be adding to it several times a week even when its freezing out. If you don't have a backyard, then a compost bin in your basement works just fine.

If you choose to use a bin, getting one is the next step. They can be bought online at such sites as http://www.composters.com/?gclid=CMrG_ubw1pQCFSCcnAodEV6QrA or possibly found at a local hardware store. (The CSL is also considering sponsoring a compost bin sale and we'll let you know if we do!) Even better, you can fairly easily build one yourself. Here's an example of one way to build your own that I found from composting101.com:

"Want to build your own? Here's one simple solution: convert old shipping pallets (which you can usually pick up for free) into a compost "repository." Use one for the bottom. Pound in metal support poles and then add pallets by slipping them over the support poles to make your bin's walls and you're all set."

Next, you'll need to need some kind of pail or container to keep in the kitchen. Keeping around old, gallon ice cream pails works great. The important thing is to have a lid to keep away fruit flies and to either line the pail with newspaper (which can be composted) or to wash it between uses to keep it fairly clean.

Here's what you SHOULD and SHOULD NOT compost:
What to compost:
From the Kitchen: fruit and vegetable scraps, plant cuttings, coffee grounds, tea bags, rice, pasta, egg shells, coffee filters, stale bread, paper towels, dryer lint (cool, huh?), hair.
From the yard: flowers, vegetables, hedge clippings, small amounts of grass, leaves, straw, small twigs or woodchips, hay.
Do NOT compost:
Dairy products, Meat, fish or bones, Fats or Oils, Diseased Plants, weeds containing seeds, sauces, ashes, pet waste (although pet hair is okay).

At this point you just need to toss food scraps into your pail (chopping larger items like corn cobs and watermelon rinds up), empty your full pails into your heap or bin, stir your pile with a pitchfork or garden tool, and cover it with some leaves, soil, or other dried yard waste. Stirring is important because it adds oxygen and covering the pile adds carbon and reduces the chance of odors or flies.

Contrary to some rumors, properly running composters should not smell unpleasant, so if this has been stopping you, don't worry. (Just remember to stay away from meat and dairy and to mix and cover your bin after every addition).

Follow these steps and after a few months the earliest additions to your pile will have broken down and will look much like soil. Take out what's ready with a shovel, load it into a wheelbarrow, and spread it wherever (garden, shrubs, trees, lawn, etc.)

That's it. It's really, really easy. And with a small amount of effort you can see garbage reductions of around 25-30% and have valuable home compost to add to your garden. I hope this helps get you started!

For more great links on composting and building your own bin, check out:
How to Start a home compost: http://www.grist.org/advice/how/2008/08/19/?source=daily
http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=441
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/Recycle/Compost/Home4.htm
Composting in small, urban backyards: http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2005/01/06/umbra-compost/index.html

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

St. Olaf Natural Lands Tour With Professor Gene Bakko

St. Olaf Biology Professor and Curator of the Natural Lands Gene Bakko will be hosting a tour this Thursday. I've been in classes that he's giving tours to before and they are incredibly informative and a great way to spend an afternoon! Here's some more information and a link to event registration for those who are interested:

https://www.stolaf.edu/alumni/events/greenyahyah.html

What: A St. Olaf Family Experience for Oles and Their Kids
When: Thursday, July 24, 2008

Schedule: • 10:00 a.m. - Sign in at Skoglund/Tostrud Center, parking circle entrance

• 10:15 a.m. - Enjoy a natural lands tour with Gene Bakko, a STOGROW tour and a hayride

• Noon - Lunch in Stav Hall

Cost: $10 for adults, $8 for children 8-15 years old and $5 for children 3-7 (under 3 are free).
RSVP: Space is limited to 70 spots, so register early!

Monday, July 21, 2008

Wellstone "Remaking America" Essay Contest

I recently submitted an essay titled "America's Energy Revolution: A Tax Incentive Approach" to an essay competition on "Remaking America" that is being held in honor of Paul and Sheila Wellstone. It's a very quick read, because the competition had a strict word requirement of between 260 and 280 words. Definitely not a lot of space to lay out a detailed plan to "Remake America", but I guess brevity is the point. I've attached it below. Let me know what you think.

America’s Energy Revolution: A Tax Incentive Approach

Currently, our economy is in shambles, gas prices are at record highs, global warming is accelerating, and Peak Oil is quickly approaching. How we get our energy is not just an environmental issue, but also an economic, national security, and social justice issue. Solutions to the energy crisis proposed by our political leaders are wholly inadequate. Instead, what America needs is a bold, innovative plan that puts us on the path to energy independence rather than oil dependence, that is not afraid to challenge the status quo in Washington, and that demands more from the American people while providing more for the American people. What we need is an energy revolution.

In order to facilitate an energy revolution, political leaders need to employ economic incentives to encourage innovation, efficiency and conservation. This must be done in two primary ways. First, we have to shift income and payroll taxes over to resource consumption taxes. In doing so, we send a message to businesses and the American public that we admire hard work and disvalue harmful forms of energy such as burning carbon-based fuels. This tax shift must reassure the public that taxes are neither being raised nor lowered but simply shifted. It must also be progressive enough to ensure that consumptive taxes do not disproportionately affect low-income Americans. Second, this tax restructuring must be coupled with tax breaks for investment into renewable energy sources and efficiency as well as subsidies for conservation programs, public transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, etc.

The time has come for us to face our energy crisis. America has the opportunity to become a global leader in clean, renewable power. We can do better. And we must.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Reflections on the CSL Board Meeting

A few weeks ago, I was able to witness my first Center for Sustainable Living board meeting. I had some ideas I was ready to present to the board at the meeting, and I was wondering going into the meeting just how my ideas would be received. After all, how often are new interns in an organization allowed to sit in on board meetings to present their ideas and ask for support? However, with a group of amazing people such as this running the CSL, I should have known better than to even have the slightest inkling of intimidation going into the meeting.

The CSL “board meeting” was the first non-profit board meeting I had ever participated in. Unfortunately, I think it might give me a misconception of what potential board meetings in my future may look like. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that most non-profit board meetings begin with homemade soup, homemade bread, spinach casserole (made with freshly picked spinach from some members’ Community Supported Agriculture farm) and pie. As such, I realized right away that the CSL does their board meetings a little differently, which of course fits right in with their style and reputation.

When we were all happily filled with mostly local food, it was time to get down to business. With several of its members on vacation and a few others unaccounted for, the attendance at the meeting was nothing to brag about-only 4 of the 10 board members were at this meeting plus myself and one guest from the community, Nate Jacobi. As such, it did become difficult to address certain issues that were being spearheaded by absent members. This, obviously makes progress for the organization more difficult, and is likely one of the reasons why the CSL is known for being sporadically active. However, this is understandable considering that the CSL is comprised not of paid, non-profit professionals but everyday, visionary Northfielders who volunteer time outside of their professional and family lives to tackle important community issues.

Despite the missing members, the meeting ran fairly smoothly and efficiently, addressing each issue that had been laid out on the previous meeting’s agenda. Despite the laid back and egalitarian nature of the meeting, I was at times reminded of the board members’ experience and knowledge of non-profit work when issues of legality, bylaws, and other matters of record came up that I didn’t quite understand the nuances of. Once all previous projects were addressed, each member had the opportunity to bring up any other new proposals to the board. When it was my turn, I was thrilled with the enthusiasm and support that was offered to each of my ideas by the board members. In addition, they were able to provide invaluable advice about who to contact in the community about composting, non-motorized transit, etc. Total time for the meeting (including dinner and bullshitting amongst friends) was about 2 hours. Not a huge time commitment for a two-month period, especially considering what could be accomplished in the community coming out of such a meeting.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

The St. Olaf Natural Lands: A True Community Asset

As part of my internship this summer, I’ve had the opportunity to spend some “unstructured reflection time” on the St. Olaf Natural Lands. The point of such reflection is not to necessarily have a goal in mind when I arrive, but to let my mind wander, and to write about the time I spend there.



Two weeks ago, four of my housemates and I all decided to go for an evening stroll through the trails that weave through the restored prairies and woodlands that surround the campus proper. Carrying a cup of hot tea, I listened to my housemates talk about their workweeks. We were all fortunate to have a former national parks employee in our midst, who pointed out invasive thistles on our right and helped us identify whatever bird species he could remember as we moved along. By the time we returned home, we all were remarking about how fortunate we were to have our own “nature center” in our backyard.


Over the past few weeks, I have continued to visit the natural lands sporadically, oftentimes ending up at the same bench overlooking a restored wetland after a good walk. I'm a little bit surprised at how unused the St. Olaf’s natural lands are in Northfield during the summer. True, Northfield does seem to have no shortage of beautiful outdoor areas to visit (the Carleton Arboretum being my personal favorite), but the St. Olaf Natural Lands provide a little something different than farmland vistas and city’s parks. They provide us with a chance to experience a totally unique aspect of the wild world around us. Unfortunately, I think sometimes people forget that St. Olaf College is a friendly member of the Northfield community and that its land can be just as much of a community asset as Ames Park or the River Bend Nature Center.


For those of you who haven’t yet checked out the Natural Lands, here’s a link to our website that describes them. http://www.stolaf.edu/academics/naturallands/

Visiting “townies” and students can find over 90 acres of restored woodlands, 150 acres of restored tall grass prairie, 15 restored wetland marshes, an extensive bluebird trail, and some good-old-fashioned biodiversity, just to name a few things. So, next time your out for a walk, or looking for a new form of summer entertainment for the kids, head to the natural lands. I guarantee you’ll leave feeling reenergized and refreshed.


More on the Natural Lands to come…

Friday, June 27, 2008

Enhancing Urban Livability and Sustainability

I recently finished a short contributing piece that will hopefully be accepted in a booklet to be put out by a non-profit organization based in India, called Shikshantar: The People's Institute for Rethinking Education and Development. The booklet will highlight inspiring stories of cities from around the world that serve as leaders for promoting sustainability, cultural vitality, and healthy living. Here's a link to Shikshantar's website if you're interested in learning more about them: http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/

My specific piece is on Curitiba, Brazil and is posted below. Many of the city's initiatives could be applied in cities across the US and some of them even here in Northfield, MN: i.e. pedestrian only zones, green tax breaks, city sponsored composting and recycling programs, etc. Hope you enjoy it!

Enhancing Livability in Curitiba, Brazil

Ryan Doyle, St. Olaf College, USA

Despite rapid immigration from its impoverished rural surroundings, innovative urban planning has led to a happier, healthier and greener Curitiba. Much of this success is due to creative planning by local city administrators who managed to instill a sense of public responsibility that serves as an example for both rich and poor cities alike. The most notable of these public figures is Jaime Lerner, who served as Curitiba’s mayor multiple times between 1971 and 1992 and is widely considered the visionary behind many of the city’s innovative programs. These initiatives include:

-A citywide limit on people’s ability to cut down trees on their own land without a permit. For every tree a resident does cut down, two more must be planted in its place, leading to the planting of 1.5 million trees since the 1970s.

-The creation of a world-renowned Bus Rapid Transit system that provides affordable, speedy, and eco-efficient transportation for about 70% of Curitiba’s daily commuters. The system’s megabuses carry up to three hundred passengers each and travel as fast as subway cars, but require about one-eightieth the construction cost. Well-placed Plexiglas tube stations create efficient boarding and departing for passengers while reducing idling time and air pollution. As a result, auto traffic has been reduced by 30% since 1974 and Curitiba boasts the lowest levels of air pollution in Brazil.

-The designation of a pedestrian only street Rua das Flores in Curitiba’s downtown shopping district has gained the support of local business that have seen their profits and sales rise significantly. Local business owners responded by sponsoring community projects, organizations and local events.

-Facing an influx of streetchildren, the city opened free municipal day-care centers, offered teenagers jobs in public gardens and parks, and set up a system that links businesses needing small chores and maintenance jobs with streetchildren needing food and employment. Young people who once took flowers and vandalized green spaces now work to maintain the beauty and livability of public places.

-Offering tax breaks to Curitiban planners who include green initiatives into their construction.

-A program allowing residents to trade collected trash for fresh food or bus tickets in crowded squatter settlements unreachable by garbage trucks. The city’s organic waste is composted for use as manure on outlying farms that produce food for the trash-for-food exchange program. Inorganic waste goes to a municipal plant built out of recycled materials where disabled people, recovering alcoholics, and immigrants sort the trash for recycling. Curitiba boasts one of the highest recycling rates in its region, and the recovered materials are sold to local industries.

These initiatives have revitalized the city and its people. They have brought a new sense of civic pride to a city that could otherwise have been doomed to join the ranks of urban slum-cities ridden with automobiles, poverty, garbage and pollution, but devoid of green space and affordable transit. In fact, 99% of Curitibans polled in 1994 said that they were happy with their town. Most importantly though, Curitibans have an extraordinary sense of civic pride and a unique willingness to sacrifice some personal comforts for the good of the city. As one citizen states, much of this is due to Lerner’s vision and example. “All of this is possible because the people of Curitiba now think they live in a First World city. This message was inbred in us by Jaime Lerner. We’re proud to live in Curitiba.”

Works Referenced

McKibben, Bill. Hope, Human and Wild. Canada: Little, Brown and Company, 1995.

“Orienting Urban Planning to Sustainability in Curitiba, Brazil.” Local Governments for Sustainability. [updated May 2002; cited 20 June 2008]. Available from http://www3.iclei.org/localstrategies/summary/curitiba2.html

Monday, June 16, 2008

Yes, I am officially joining the blog movement…

For a long time I thought blogs were reserved for artists, musicians, entrepreneurs, or people who thought strangers might want online access to the details of their personal lives. Yet my growing interest in and research into environmental news and politics has made it quite clear that blogs can serve incredibly important civic purposes too. Over the past year I’ve read my fair share of environmental and political blogs, and learned quite a bit from the successes, failures, and advice of others. Therefore, I’m starting this blog because I think it’s time for me to share what I’ve learned and what I am constantly learning more about with those who might be interested.

This blog will have very little to do with the personal details of my life. Instead it’s a way of sharing ideas and opening the possibility of conversation to millions of people who I would otherwise never know existed. In this sense, I hope it can serve as a small bridge between different sustainability efforts, both locally in Northfield, MN and across the globe. I hope it serves as a way for people to connect with each other, build knowledge, and encourage action.

This summer, I’ll be interning at a small, non-profit organization called the Center for Sustainable Living in Northfield, MN. Thanks to the support of St. Olaf College and the Center’s unique take on experiential learning, I have the opportunity to spend the summer pursuing independent sustainability projects and further exploring my personal interests in environmental politics.

Broadly defined, the main purpose of my summer work will be to investigate how civic leaders can make it easier for everyday people to live happier, healthier, and more sustainable lives. Specifically I’ll spend time investigating and posting examples of public policies and community initiatives that do/do not make it easier for everyday people to behave well. I’ll share the experiences I have in the next few months working on elementary school composting programs, holding home energy efficiency workshops for local residents, researching the likelihood of and means for implementing a plastic bag tax in Northfield, spending unstructured time exploring the parks of Northfield and the natural lands of St. Olaf, and more.

I welcome any comments or stories people would like to share. I hope at least a few readers will find this useful!