Evolution strikes another blow to industrialized farming as round-up resistant weeds proliferate:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-05/roundup-resistant-superweeds-invade-us-fields
The article ties in Monsanto's "RoundUp Ready" GMO crops and speculates that GMOs in general will take a hit. That's probably taking it a bit too far. The problem is not the GMOs, but the proliferation of a single pesticide which these particular GMOs aided. On the plus side, the weeds are a more easily handled side-effect than a virulent pest specific to some RoundUp Ready crop would have been. 90% of a single year's crop of soybeans could have been destroyed in such a nightmare scenario.
Meanwhile, Target and Walmart are fighting to be (among other things) the most eco-friendly big-box store:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1634995/hip-scorecard-faceoff-walmart-vs-target
Walmart seems to have the edge, but the encouraging point is that big-box chains, long time foes of environmentalists, are doing more than green-washing a few products.
Showing posts with label corporate responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate responsibility. Show all posts
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Monday, April 27, 2009
Micromanufacturing
I was listening to a report on the first Maker Faire in England recently and was intrigued by a comment of one of the interviewees. He mentioned that industrial quality manufacturing equipment is become small enough for hard-core hobbyist to have in a garage. He mentioned a neighbor who makes electronic components to sell to device manufacturers.
The idea of garage based manufacturing brings up some concerns, and I think, some opportunities. Much manufacturing, particularly electronics, involves using many unsavory or downright dangerous materials. Garage enthusiasts are probably not regulated as much as corporations and can get away with improperly disposing of waste products. I'm sure many tinkerers do, because if you don't handle these things regularly, you're likely not going to have the proper systems to get rid of it.
On the other hand, I see a huge opportunity here for ideas like green chemistry. This is the idea that, if we take the time to figure them out, many chemical manufacturing processes that currently produce toxic waste, can be redesigned to be safer. However, the status quo is hard to change since most manufacturers already haves systems for handling the dangerous stuff.
Most people doing regular manufacturing on their own property are going to be extra careful about what they use. If there are safer ways to make something, they'll jump on it. At least that's what I'm hoping. Maybe the democratization of manufacturing will spur the development of green manufacturing practices.
The idea of garage based manufacturing brings up some concerns, and I think, some opportunities. Much manufacturing, particularly electronics, involves using many unsavory or downright dangerous materials. Garage enthusiasts are probably not regulated as much as corporations and can get away with improperly disposing of waste products. I'm sure many tinkerers do, because if you don't handle these things regularly, you're likely not going to have the proper systems to get rid of it.
On the other hand, I see a huge opportunity here for ideas like green chemistry. This is the idea that, if we take the time to figure them out, many chemical manufacturing processes that currently produce toxic waste, can be redesigned to be safer. However, the status quo is hard to change since most manufacturers already haves systems for handling the dangerous stuff.
Most people doing regular manufacturing on their own property are going to be extra careful about what they use. If there are safer ways to make something, they'll jump on it. At least that's what I'm hoping. Maybe the democratization of manufacturing will spur the development of green manufacturing practices.
Monday, February 2, 2009
A mark against frozen foods
In an effort to reduce impact, we've tried to avoid buying too much fresh produce that's not produced locally. It's certainly not the 100 mile diet, but that vast majority of the produce we ate this winter was either canned (mostly by us) or frozen. It seems to me that you'd get better tasting food for less energy if you preserve produce at it's peak and ship it preserved rather than try to ship fresh food around the planet.
There are some obvious costs to preserving food. Canning requires a fair bit of heat, and frozen foods require refrigeration. But it gets worse for frozen foods. Apparently, even the non-CFC refrigerants are nasty and being emitted in mass by supermarket freezers. They don't kill the ozone layer, but the are potent greenhouse gasses. Wonderful. At least there are alternatives, it's just that most places don't use them.
There are some obvious costs to preserving food. Canning requires a fair bit of heat, and frozen foods require refrigeration. But it gets worse for frozen foods. Apparently, even the non-CFC refrigerants are nasty and being emitted in mass by supermarket freezers. They don't kill the ozone layer, but the are potent greenhouse gasses. Wonderful. At least there are alternatives, it's just that most places don't use them.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
BPA is everywhere!
My Podcast directory is a little backlogged. I read a biography of Mo Berg, MLB catcher turned OSS agent, a while back and remember the description of his apartment in which months or years worth of unread newspapers and magazines were stacked. He insisted on going through them in order and not skipping anything. I'm approaching that with my podcast list.
The point being, the November 21st Environment report just popped up on my playlist. In it we hear that although many dangerous chemicals enter our body through items we purchase and bring home, most of us don't know it. We also hear about a report that BPA leaches out of any kind of plastic in the microwave.
The continual denial of industry spokespersons is laughable at this point. Even if each case is small, people eat lots of stuff from microwaves and much of it is heated in plastic. That's going to add up really quick. If you add up all the BPA in all the Campbell's microwave soups and released the same amount into the water supply of a small city (maybe the same size as the number of soup eaters), you'd hear something about it.
The point being, the November 21st Environment report just popped up on my playlist. In it we hear that although many dangerous chemicals enter our body through items we purchase and bring home, most of us don't know it. We also hear about a report that BPA leaches out of any kind of plastic in the microwave.
The continual denial of industry spokespersons is laughable at this point. Even if each case is small, people eat lots of stuff from microwaves and much of it is heated in plastic. That's going to add up really quick. If you add up all the BPA in all the Campbell's microwave soups and released the same amount into the water supply of a small city (maybe the same size as the number of soup eaters), you'd hear something about it.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Irrationality
I was flipping through AM radio on the way back from work on Wednesday (because my walkman/phone is broken) and, out of curiosity, listened to a few minutes of a right-wing rant against everything climate change. There were a few nuggets of truth mixed in with a whole barge-load of rubbish.
My first thought was remembering how I wish that the issue weren't so narrowly focused on climate-change. Sustainability is about everything on this planet. Climate change is about a single nutrient cycle (carbon) and one hell of a bad outcome if we mess with it too much.
Next, the host went on about how China and India refuse to accept caps until they match the per capita carbon output of the west. This was used to argue that caps will needlessly hamper our economy. However, the alternative is continue to increase our output so that we stay ahead of the developing world. Otherwise I don't see how letting the indians catch up to us is any better than meeting them in the middle. At some point in the future we'll all be on equal terms, it may as well be on a livable planet.
Finally, I noticed how emotional the arguments are. The scientific community is worried about climate change because it has constructed a bunch models, crunched endless numbers, and performed numerous experiments that say we are doing our best to bump the climate out of the stable state it's been in for a few millenia into a completely unknown region that will likely be warmer.
The thing is, the earth is so complex that it just might get cooler instead. However, if you shift the chemistry as much as we are doing, something will change. Our food production system will be challenged severely and if we can't respond sufficiently, billions could die or be displaced. The problem is, since our current state is so stable, once things start changing, it'll be too late to stop. So all this arguing over whether Katrina and the floods and fires can be linked to climate change is pointless. The details don't matter because (look up chaos theory) we can't predict the exact outcome even if we had them all right (which we don't).
The details don't matter for another reason, though. Models, predictions, and robust scientific theories aren't going to spur the kind of change we need. People are not rational. Science is the application of rational thinking to the natural world. It turns out this is useful. It is also very hard because people are not rational. To change behavior and future outcomes, sustainability needs to be sold with broad, sweeping, emotionally-charged arguments.
There is this idea among those who wish to keep the status-quo that capping emissions will hurt the bottom line. This idea is not limited to greenhouse gasses. Chemical plants that produce waste products fight regulation worrying that it will cost more to clean up than they can afford.
In the short term these fears are probably real, but in the broader view, there is no reason why emitting no waste products would cost more than emitting lots. Look at the word waste. Why do we want to waste stuff. Let's use all the resources we have as fully as possible, not just as little as we need to to make a quick buck.
I have lots of thoughts on how an unchecked market leads to these self-destructive short-term solutions (ask John Nash) and how governing bodies need tilt the balance so companies take the long view. I am not an economist though, so they are just my thoughts. Anyway, no-one cares about the details.
Sustainability means to many that resources are limited, therefore we should conserve them. People need to see the positive side of sustainability. Dumping gasses into the air, chemicals into the waters, and trash into the land is waste. That's not a judgment, that's the definition of the word. These are waste products. Waste is bad. Companies should be made to feel the cost of the waste they produce. This won't cost anything overall, we are just shifting the cost from society back to the producers of the waste.
My first thought was remembering how I wish that the issue weren't so narrowly focused on climate-change. Sustainability is about everything on this planet. Climate change is about a single nutrient cycle (carbon) and one hell of a bad outcome if we mess with it too much.
Next, the host went on about how China and India refuse to accept caps until they match the per capita carbon output of the west. This was used to argue that caps will needlessly hamper our economy. However, the alternative is continue to increase our output so that we stay ahead of the developing world. Otherwise I don't see how letting the indians catch up to us is any better than meeting them in the middle. At some point in the future we'll all be on equal terms, it may as well be on a livable planet.
Finally, I noticed how emotional the arguments are. The scientific community is worried about climate change because it has constructed a bunch models, crunched endless numbers, and performed numerous experiments that say we are doing our best to bump the climate out of the stable state it's been in for a few millenia into a completely unknown region that will likely be warmer.
The thing is, the earth is so complex that it just might get cooler instead. However, if you shift the chemistry as much as we are doing, something will change. Our food production system will be challenged severely and if we can't respond sufficiently, billions could die or be displaced. The problem is, since our current state is so stable, once things start changing, it'll be too late to stop. So all this arguing over whether Katrina and the floods and fires can be linked to climate change is pointless. The details don't matter because (look up chaos theory) we can't predict the exact outcome even if we had them all right (which we don't).
The details don't matter for another reason, though. Models, predictions, and robust scientific theories aren't going to spur the kind of change we need. People are not rational. Science is the application of rational thinking to the natural world. It turns out this is useful. It is also very hard because people are not rational. To change behavior and future outcomes, sustainability needs to be sold with broad, sweeping, emotionally-charged arguments.
There is this idea among those who wish to keep the status-quo that capping emissions will hurt the bottom line. This idea is not limited to greenhouse gasses. Chemical plants that produce waste products fight regulation worrying that it will cost more to clean up than they can afford.
In the short term these fears are probably real, but in the broader view, there is no reason why emitting no waste products would cost more than emitting lots. Look at the word waste. Why do we want to waste stuff. Let's use all the resources we have as fully as possible, not just as little as we need to to make a quick buck.
I have lots of thoughts on how an unchecked market leads to these self-destructive short-term solutions (ask John Nash) and how governing bodies need tilt the balance so companies take the long view. I am not an economist though, so they are just my thoughts. Anyway, no-one cares about the details.
Sustainability means to many that resources are limited, therefore we should conserve them. People need to see the positive side of sustainability. Dumping gasses into the air, chemicals into the waters, and trash into the land is waste. That's not a judgment, that's the definition of the word. These are waste products. Waste is bad. Companies should be made to feel the cost of the waste they produce. This won't cost anything overall, we are just shifting the cost from society back to the producers of the waste.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Trader Joe's veggies
TJs is one of the things that will ease the transition to life in New England. In the winter, (and fall and spring) when good local produce is hard to come by, they will still have their great frozen goods. Another post will discuss the trade offs involved in getting good produce. Local is always good, but setting up a climate controlled greenhouse to grow strawberries in Massachusetts in winter will possibly use more energy than growing them in Chile and shipping them en masse. New Zealand makes this argument about their sheep. The third option is to freeze or can local produce in season. Canned is likely the best option from an energy standpoint, but it doesn't taste as good. Freezing takes energy to maintain, but not only do folks like TJs do it better than I can, but their (I'm guessing here) large scale freezers are probably more efficient than the little thing above my fridge.
On a slightly related note, I've always thought it was odd that TJs wrapped all their fresh veggies in so much plastic. It seems like such a waste and put a ding in my glowing image of them. I just noticed the other day that the plastic is made from corn and is compostable. Cool. I am definitely setting up a compost heap in the new place. I want to take and old oil drum and turn it into a rotating composter.
technorati tags:personal-sustainability
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Factory Heating
A couple weeks ago, Living on Earth covered the ongoing restoration and reuse of an enormous old factory building in Lawrence, MA. Sounds like Lawrence faced, on a larger scale, a similar situation to the one Hopedale is in now. The old mill in Lawrence is being, re-used as office space. I worked in a restored red-brick mill in Cambridge a few years back. It was a really nice space to be in. These buildings generally have large windows and lots of red brick. In the hands of a good architect, it's hard to go wrong aesthetically.
What's important in restoring these buildings is to try to preserve the sense of community that still exists in these towns. Turning the Draper building into office space just moves Hopedale closer to being another suburb of Boston, albeit with nice architecture. To be fair, architecture can give life to an otherwise boring place, but the town has much more going for them in terms of history and local culture.
The Lawrence mill is having a huge geothermal heating and cooling system installed. This is an extremely efficient way to climate control a space and efficiency is critical for a gigantic old building. The LOE coverage does not draw a clear line between this kind of geothermal installation and one that would actually generate electricity. he one in Lawrence still requires an electric pump to transfer the heat. The distinction is the same as between solar water heaters and photovoltaic solar panels. in both cases the former reduces overall energy costs, but does not produce usable power. They are also generally cheaper. When I was growing up in Texas, the electric company was advertising heat pumps, which I gathered were just smaller versions of what's going in at the Lawrence mill. I'm a bit surprised that such a system is still newsworthy.
Energy use should be significant portion of any plan to restore the Draper Building. Poorly implemented, it could be a huge energy hog. It's a large, old building. Done well, it could be an example of good design. I would argue for some sort of green certification. Maybe a green roof could be used to reduce heating/cooling costs. The dam that creates the Hopedale Pond is on one wall of the factory (it's an old mill), and could be used to power the pumps in a geothermal heating/cooling system.
What's important in restoring these buildings is to try to preserve the sense of community that still exists in these towns. Turning the Draper building into office space just moves Hopedale closer to being another suburb of Boston, albeit with nice architecture. To be fair, architecture can give life to an otherwise boring place, but the town has much more going for them in terms of history and local culture.
The Lawrence mill is having a huge geothermal heating and cooling system installed. This is an extremely efficient way to climate control a space and efficiency is critical for a gigantic old building. The LOE coverage does not draw a clear line between this kind of geothermal installation and one that would actually generate electricity. he one in Lawrence still requires an electric pump to transfer the heat. The distinction is the same as between solar water heaters and photovoltaic solar panels. in both cases the former reduces overall energy costs, but does not produce usable power. They are also generally cheaper. When I was growing up in Texas, the electric company was advertising heat pumps, which I gathered were just smaller versions of what's going in at the Lawrence mill. I'm a bit surprised that such a system is still newsworthy.
Energy use should be significant portion of any plan to restore the Draper Building. Poorly implemented, it could be a huge energy hog. It's a large, old building. Done well, it could be an example of good design. I would argue for some sort of green certification. Maybe a green roof could be used to reduce heating/cooling costs. The dam that creates the Hopedale Pond is on one wall of the factory (it's an old mill), and could be used to power the pumps in a geothermal heating/cooling system.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Not all that evil
It's getting harder and harder to hate WalMart. At least as an environmentalist. They've jumped on the organic foods bandwagon and in doing so helped put organics on the map. They've made a commitment to greening their operations. Most recently, they've announced a program to illuminate the environmental impact of consumer electronics. This is really promising, and I hope that something similar becomes standard. It would be great to see the electronics industry start to go green.
There are still some good reasons to hate WalMart (working conditions, suburban sprawl, homogenization of culture, and so forth), but they have the power to effect real change. We should expect the same of all the other major corporations. Not just their competitors, but other corporations, particularly those whose brand is their most valuable asset. At the moment, it seems like pressuring corporations to change is likely to be as effective as writing a letter to your representatives. So do both.
There are still some good reasons to hate WalMart (working conditions, suburban sprawl, homogenization of culture, and so forth), but they have the power to effect real change. We should expect the same of all the other major corporations. Not just their competitors, but other corporations, particularly those whose brand is their most valuable asset. At the moment, it seems like pressuring corporations to change is likely to be as effective as writing a letter to your representatives. So do both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
