How Meat Contributes to Global Warming
Most of us are aware that our cars, our coal-generated electric power and even our cement factories adversely affect the environment. Until recently, however, the foods we eat had gotten a pass in the discussion. Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the meat in them cause more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and the like to spew into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy, thereby warming the earth's surface. Because gases vary in greenhouse potency, every greenhouse gas is usually expressed as an amount of CO2 with the same global-warming potential.)
The FAO report found that current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.
In truth, every food we consume, vegetables and fruits included, incurs hidden environmental costs: transportation, refrigeration and fuel for farming, as well as methane emissions from plants and animals, all lead to a buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Take asparagus: in a report prepared for the city of Seattle, Daniel J. Morgan of the University of Washington and his co-workers found that growing just half a pound of the vegetable in Peru emits greenhouse gases equivalent to 1.2 ounces of CO2 as a result of applying insecticide and fertilizer, pumping water and running heavy, gas-guzzling farm equipment. To refrigerate and transport the vegetable to an American dinner table generates another two ounces of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases, for a total CO2 equivalent of 3.2 ounces.
But that is nothing compared to beef. In 1999 Susan Subak, an ecological economist then at the University of East Anglia in England, found that, depending on the production method, cows emit between 2.5 and 4.7 ounces of methane for each pound of beef they produce. Because methane has roughly 23 times the global-warming potential of CO2, those emissions are the equivalent of releasing between 3.6 and 6.8 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere for each pound of beef produced.
Raising animals also requires a large amount of feed per unit of body weight. In 2003 Lucas Reijnders of the University of Amsterdam and Sam Soret of Loma Linda University estimated that producing a pound of beef protein for the table requires more than 10 pounds of plant protein with all the emissions of greenhouse gases that grain farming entails. Finally, farms for raising animals produce numerous wastes that give rise to greenhouse gases.
Taking such factors into account, Subak calculated that producing a pound of beef in a feedlot, or concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) system, generates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2 pound for pound, more than 36 times the CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emitted by producing asparagus. Even other common meats cannot match the impact of beef; I estimate that producing a pound of pork generates the equivalent of 3.8 pounds of CO2; a pound of chicken generates 1.1 pounds of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases. And the economically efficient CAFO system, though certainly not the cleanest production method in terms of CO2-equivalent greenhouse emissions, is far better than most: the FAO data I noted earlier imply that the world average emissions from producing a pound of beef are several times the CAFO amount.
Solutions?
What can be done? Improving waste management and farming practices would certainly reduce the "carbon footprint" of beef production. Methane-capturing systems, for instance, can put cows' waste to use in generating electricity. But those systems remain too costly to be commercially viable.
Individuals, too, can reduce the effects of food production on planetary climate. To some degree, after all, our diets are a choice. By choosing more wisely, we can make a difference. Eating locally produced food, for instance, can reduce the need for transport though food inefficiently shipped in small batches on trucks from nearby farms can turn out to save surprisingly little in greenhouse emissions. And in the U.S. and the rest of the developed world, people could eat less meat, particularly beef.
The graphics on the following pages quantify the links between beef production and greenhouse gases in sobering detail. The take-home lesson is clear: we ought to give careful thought to diet and its consequences for the planet if we are serious about limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Nathan Fiala is a doctoral candidate in economics at the University of California, Irvine, focusing on the environmental impact of dietary habits. He also runs evaluations of development projects for the World Bank in Washington, D.C. In his spare time he enjoys independent movies and sailing. His study of the environmental impact of meat production on which this article is based was recently published in the journal Ecological Economics.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger&page=2
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Seed bank for the world threatened by financial crisis
By Georgina Cooper
ARDINGLY, England (Reuters) - A seed bank that is trying to collect every type of plant in the world is now under threat from the global financial crisis, its director says.
The Millennium Seed Bank Project aims to house all the 300,000 different plant species known to exist to ensure future biodiversity and protect a vital source of food and medicines, director Paul Smith said.
The project is on track to collect 10 percent of the total by 2010 but the financial crisis is drying up funding, casting serious doubts on future collections, he said.
About half the funding comes from the National Lottery and the rest from corporate donations.
But with businesses tightening their belts in the economic downturn and preparation for the 2012 London Olympics sapping lottery money, the pot is about to run dry.
Smith hopes government money and international groups will come through with the nearly 10 million pounds per year needed to keep the bank going. But if that does not happen, new collections and research will stop, he said.
"We would say that this is an exceptional bank and that the assets within it, the capital that we have built up, is unique and we can't squander this," Smith told Reuters Television during a tour of the facility south of London.
Each seed costs about 2,000 pounds to collect and store.
The Millennium Seed Bank Project is the only project of its kind in the world which aims to collect and conserve all the planet's wild plant diversity, Smith said.
Human activities, such as clearing forests, have put flora and fauna at risk. Because most of the world's food and medicines come from nature, protecting plant species is critical, scientists say.
For example, it was only 30 years ago that Catharanthus roseus, a small pink plant also known as the Madagascan periwinkle, was found to contain compounds used in cancer drugs.
"Thirteen million hectares of forest are cleared every year -- that's an area the size of England -- and of course the plant species which occur there are going the same way," Smith said.
There are 1,400 other seed banks in the world that store about 0.6 percent of the world's plant diversity. The Millennium Project run by Kew Gardens -- one of the world's oldest botanical gardens -- aims to collect the rest, he said.
Managing the deposits involves far more than simply filing them away for safekeeping. Seeds from across the globe arrive at the bank in packets of all sizes, where they are catalogued, tested and experimented on.
They are separated from husks, cleaned and dried again before final storage in an underground vault at minus 20 degrees Celsius, where they can last for up to thousands of years. The vaults are designed to withstand a nuclear accident.
A third of the planet's plants are categorized as threatened with extinction, which could have dramatic effects on human life, trade and the environment, Smith said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50S4FB20090129?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
ARDINGLY, England (Reuters) - A seed bank that is trying to collect every type of plant in the world is now under threat from the global financial crisis, its director says.
The Millennium Seed Bank Project aims to house all the 300,000 different plant species known to exist to ensure future biodiversity and protect a vital source of food and medicines, director Paul Smith said.
The project is on track to collect 10 percent of the total by 2010 but the financial crisis is drying up funding, casting serious doubts on future collections, he said.
About half the funding comes from the National Lottery and the rest from corporate donations.
But with businesses tightening their belts in the economic downturn and preparation for the 2012 London Olympics sapping lottery money, the pot is about to run dry.
Smith hopes government money and international groups will come through with the nearly 10 million pounds per year needed to keep the bank going. But if that does not happen, new collections and research will stop, he said.
"We would say that this is an exceptional bank and that the assets within it, the capital that we have built up, is unique and we can't squander this," Smith told Reuters Television during a tour of the facility south of London.
Each seed costs about 2,000 pounds to collect and store.
The Millennium Seed Bank Project is the only project of its kind in the world which aims to collect and conserve all the planet's wild plant diversity, Smith said.
Human activities, such as clearing forests, have put flora and fauna at risk. Because most of the world's food and medicines come from nature, protecting plant species is critical, scientists say.
For example, it was only 30 years ago that Catharanthus roseus, a small pink plant also known as the Madagascan periwinkle, was found to contain compounds used in cancer drugs.
"Thirteen million hectares of forest are cleared every year -- that's an area the size of England -- and of course the plant species which occur there are going the same way," Smith said.
There are 1,400 other seed banks in the world that store about 0.6 percent of the world's plant diversity. The Millennium Project run by Kew Gardens -- one of the world's oldest botanical gardens -- aims to collect the rest, he said.
Managing the deposits involves far more than simply filing them away for safekeeping. Seeds from across the globe arrive at the bank in packets of all sizes, where they are catalogued, tested and experimented on.
They are separated from husks, cleaned and dried again before final storage in an underground vault at minus 20 degrees Celsius, where they can last for up to thousands of years. The vaults are designed to withstand a nuclear accident.
A third of the planet's plants are categorized as threatened with extinction, which could have dramatic effects on human life, trade and the environment, Smith said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50S4FB20090129?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Monday, January 26, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Study Says Wild-Harvested Plants and Animals are Now About 20 Percent Smaller
Honey, we shrunk the food -- really, really fast
by Katherine Harmon
Policymakers may not intend to keep us trim when they're pondering how to manage fisheries and other wild food resources. But a new study indicates that our current food-harvesting practices are making the stuff we eat smaller—very quickly.
The study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that plants and animals being harvested aggressively around the world from the wild (rather than from farms) are changing more than two and a half times faster than would be expected under natural conditions.
"Two and a half times is pretty big," says Stephan Munch, an assistant professor of fisheries ecology at Stony Brook University in Long Island, N.Y.
Scientists have long assumed that humans can—and do—affect the plants and animals that live around us (with pollution and by introducing invasive species). But this new work, which analyzed data from dozens of other studies, found that our intense food-gathering practices have substantially changed the size and breeding schedule of at least 29 species in as few as 20 years.
Unlike, say, wolves or lions, which target the smallest, weakest members of a group, humans tend to select the biggest and juiciest ones—be it caribou or cod—for our meals or trophies. As a result, the study says, plants and animals harvested from the wild are now about 20 percent smaller than they were just generations ago—and, in the case of the bighorn sheep than they were just three decades ago.
These animals are also reproducing at younger and younger ages, because mature individuals are more likely to be caught. When animals reproduce earlier, they often have fewer offspring, which means there will be an even smaller population in the future, according to the study.
Researchers aren't sure whether a change in the genetic pool or plasticity (individual adaptation to the environment) is responsible for these changes. But lead study author, Chris Darimont, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz (who started the research at Canada's University of Victoria), is more concerned about the outcome.
"We’re changing the face of biodiversity at very rapid rates," he says. And any shift in animal size can alter predatory-prey relationships, impacting entire ecosystems.
The next big question, says Munch, is how long it will take for these altered populations to change back.
It's "kind of like this great experiment that hasn't been tried yet," Darimont says, because these species are still being harvested intensively. He hopes that will change soon, though, because as Munch points out, "No one wants to have very, very tiny cod that mature in two years."
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=honey-we-shrunk-the-foodreally-real-2009-01-15
by Katherine Harmon
Policymakers may not intend to keep us trim when they're pondering how to manage fisheries and other wild food resources. But a new study indicates that our current food-harvesting practices are making the stuff we eat smaller—very quickly.
The study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that plants and animals being harvested aggressively around the world from the wild (rather than from farms) are changing more than two and a half times faster than would be expected under natural conditions.
"Two and a half times is pretty big," says Stephan Munch, an assistant professor of fisheries ecology at Stony Brook University in Long Island, N.Y.
Scientists have long assumed that humans can—and do—affect the plants and animals that live around us (with pollution and by introducing invasive species). But this new work, which analyzed data from dozens of other studies, found that our intense food-gathering practices have substantially changed the size and breeding schedule of at least 29 species in as few as 20 years.
Unlike, say, wolves or lions, which target the smallest, weakest members of a group, humans tend to select the biggest and juiciest ones—be it caribou or cod—for our meals or trophies. As a result, the study says, plants and animals harvested from the wild are now about 20 percent smaller than they were just generations ago—and, in the case of the bighorn sheep than they were just three decades ago.
These animals are also reproducing at younger and younger ages, because mature individuals are more likely to be caught. When animals reproduce earlier, they often have fewer offspring, which means there will be an even smaller population in the future, according to the study.
Researchers aren't sure whether a change in the genetic pool or plasticity (individual adaptation to the environment) is responsible for these changes. But lead study author, Chris Darimont, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz (who started the research at Canada's University of Victoria), is more concerned about the outcome.
"We’re changing the face of biodiversity at very rapid rates," he says. And any shift in animal size can alter predatory-prey relationships, impacting entire ecosystems.
The next big question, says Munch, is how long it will take for these altered populations to change back.
It's "kind of like this great experiment that hasn't been tried yet," Darimont says, because these species are still being harvested intensively. He hopes that will change soon, though, because as Munch points out, "No one wants to have very, very tiny cod that mature in two years."
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=honey-we-shrunk-the-foodreally-real-2009-01-15
Valuing the Priceless
Geneva, 12 December 2008 - Is it true that the service of pollination, provided mainly by bees for free, is estimated to be at least worth US$ 4 billion a year to the agricultural sector in the US alone? Or that coral reefs provide ecosystem services vital to off-shore fisheries and shoreline protection worth as much as US$ 600,000 per square kilometer? Or that the world’s protected areas (accounting for only 12% of total land surface) sustain a rapidly growing eco-tourism sector, support local livelihoods, and overall produce benefits for society in excess of US$ 4,000 billion a year?
The answer is yes, but here is the paradox: 20% of the world’s coral reefs and 35% of all mangroves have been destroyed, and two-thirds of all ecosystem services degraded, some perhaps beyond repair. Surely the economic incentives to sustainably manage and invest in conserving ecosystems and the services they provide, like water, food and fiber, should be well recognized. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is no.
One of the main underlying causes fuelling this paradox is the undervaluation of ecosystems and ecosystem services. For many ecosystems and their services, markets simply do not exist and thus lack convenient price tags. As a consequence, their over-use and degradation appear to carry very low to zero costs.
Such a clear flaw in the current accounting system seriously challenges business and its license to operate, as business can only function if ecosystems and the services they provide are healthy and balanced. Businesses not only impact ecosystems and ecosystem services, but also depend on them, and the implications of their degradation and loss are becoming clearer.
Not only does the loss of ecosystem services pose business risks, for example, through higher input costs, new government regulations, reputational damage, changing consumer preferences, and more rigorous lending policies, it also presents new business opportunities, including demand for new products, services and technology, and new revenue streams from managing and selling natural assets.
Recognizing and accounting for the full value of ecosystems, as well as the potential costs associated with the loss of ecosystem services, is required in order to reach the goals of efficient resource allocation and optimal decision-making.
Economic valuation is one approach that lends its support to this challenge by quantifying ecosystem relationships and expressing them in a monetary unit that is directly linked to a company’s bottom line. There are many ecosystem valuation toolkits and guidelines, but they have been developed for policy-makers and natural resource planners and managers. Geared towards project implementation by the public sector or as part of development assistance, they have limited applicability to business.
The WBCSD is looking to fill this gap through the development of a corporate guide to ecosystem and ecosystem service valuation with the aim of supporting the business license to operate in a changing ecosystems world.
http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzI5MDM
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Could genetically modified crops be killing bees?
With reports coming in about a scourge affecting honeybees, researchers are launching a drive to find the cause of the destruction. The reasons for rapid colony collapse are not clear. Old diseases, parasites and new diseases are being looked at.
Over the past 100 or so years, beekeepers have experienced colony losses from bacterial agents (foulbrood), mites (varroa and tracheal) and other parasites and pathogens. Beekeepers have dealt with these problems by using antibiotics, miticides or integrated pest management.
While losses, particularly in over-wintering, are a chronic condition, most beekeepers have learned to limit their losses by staying on top of new advice from entomologists. Unlike the more common problems, this new die-off has been virtually instantaneous throughout the country, not spreading at the slower pace of conventional classical disease.
As an interested beekeeper with some background in biology, I think it might be fruitful to investigate the role of genetically modified or transgenic farm crops. Although we are assured by nearly every bit of research that these manipulations of the crop genome are safe for both human consumption and the environment, looking more closely at what is involved here might raise questions about those assumptions.
The most commonly transplanted segment of transgenic DNA involves genes from a well-known bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has been used for decades by farmers and gardeners to control butterflies that damage cole crops such as cabbage and broccoli. Instead of the bacterial solution being sprayed on the plant, where it is eaten by the target insect, the genes that contain the insecticidal traits are incorporated into the genome of the farm crop. As the transformed plant grows, these Bt genes are replicated along with the plant genes so that each cell contains its own poison pill that kills the target insect.
In the case of field corn, these insects are stem- and root-borers, lepidopterans (butterflies) that, in their larval stage, dine on some region of the corn plant, ingesting the bacterial gene, which eventually causes a crystallization effect in the guts of the borer larvae, thus killing them.
What is not generally known to the public is that Bt variants are available that also target coleopterans (beetles) and dipterids (flies and mosquitoes). We are assured that the bee family, hymenopterans, is not affected.
That there is Bt in beehives is not a question. Beekeepers spray Bt under hive lids sometimes to control the wax moth, an insect whose larval forms produce messy webs on honey. Canadian beekeepers have detected the disappearance of the wax moth in untreated hives, apparently a result of worker bees foraging in fields of transgenic canola plants.
Bees forage heavily on corn flowers to obtain pollen for the rearing of young broods, and these pollen grains also contain the Bt gene of the parent plant, because they are present in the cells from which pollen forms.
Is it not possible that while there is no lethal effect directly to the new bees, there might be some sublethal effect, such as immune suppression, acting as a slow killer?
The planting of transgenic corn and soybean has increased exponentially, according to statistics from farm states. Tens of millions of acres of transgenic crops are allowing Bt genes to move off crop fields.
A quick and easy way to get an approximate answer would be to make a comparison of colony losses of bees from regions where no genetically modified crops are grown, and to put test hives in areas where modern farming practices are so distant from the hives that the foraging worker bees would have no exposure to them.
Given that nearly every bite of food that we eat has a pollinator, the seriousness of this emerging problem could dwarf all previous food disruptions.
About the writer:
John McDonald is a beekeeper in Pennsylvania. He welcomes comments or questions about the bee problem at mactheknife70@hotmail.com.
Author’s Postscript:
The e-mail responses to my original article whether genetically modified crops be killing honeybees that had been published in the San Francisco Chronicle, was universally positive from laypeople and beekeepers. Most researchers, however, rejected the idea out of hand.
I concluded the article with the suggestion that matching colonies should be sited in farm and non-farm regions in order to determine whether, indeed, agricultural practices were the basis for the die-off. (The new die-off has been virtually instantaneous throughout the country, not spreading at the slower pace of conventional classic diseases.)
When it appeared that others weren’t interested in this experiment, I undertook to do my own investigation at my own expense. Because my own bees had died the previous winter, it was necessary to establish new colonies. I established eight colonies in new wooden hives in order to prevent disease transfer from the old hives in case there was a pathogen remaining.
The new colonies arrived late in May because of cold weather at the nursery where they are grown and required the feeding of sugar syrup continually until the hives were in their experimental locations on July 6. Two locations were chosen to fill the need for farm and non-farm sites: one here in Centre County, Pa., in a valley with rolling farmland; the other in Forest County, Pa., adjoining the Allegheny National Forest, an area with no agriculture within foraging range of honeybees. I chose the date of placement to avoid any possible exposure of the bees to Centre County corn pollen. Corn flower tasseling started on July 19.
At both sites the flowers of goldenrod provided ample pasturage, with the honey flow commencing in the middle of August and tapering off by the second week in October. Medium-depth empty honey storage supers (a super is the part of the beehive used to collect honey) were put on the hives at this time in addition to the three brood chambers already there. By the simple expedient of lifting the hives from behind, progress could be roughly monitored.
This monitoring showed that the hives of the farmland bees, while numerous, were not gaining weight. Meanwhile, the non-farm colonies steadily gained weight. This part of the experiment was terminated Oct. 14 with the removal of the honey storage supers, with these results: The farmland bees had not even started to work in the honey supers and will require extensive feeding before winter sets in. The non-farm bee colonies produced, in total, nearly 200 pounds of extra honey in addition to about 150 pounds per hive stored in the over-wintering brood supers. These colonies will be left in place to see whether the die-off of last season is repeated. These results should encourage new research to determine what factor or factors are present in farm country to cause such a discrepancy in honey production.
Editor’s note:
John McDonald’s well researched article is an attempt to show that there is enough evidence to warrant investigating the role that genetically modified crops might have played in the large bee die-off observed the previous fall and winter. He also suggests that the role of genetically modified crops be investigated as a possible cause of the collapse.
source: www.agoracosmopolitan.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18206234
http://persianoad.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/nvironmental-destruction-and-biotechnology-could-genetically-modified-crops-be-killing-bees/
Over the past 100 or so years, beekeepers have experienced colony losses from bacterial agents (foulbrood), mites (varroa and tracheal) and other parasites and pathogens. Beekeepers have dealt with these problems by using antibiotics, miticides or integrated pest management.
While losses, particularly in over-wintering, are a chronic condition, most beekeepers have learned to limit their losses by staying on top of new advice from entomologists. Unlike the more common problems, this new die-off has been virtually instantaneous throughout the country, not spreading at the slower pace of conventional classical disease.
As an interested beekeeper with some background in biology, I think it might be fruitful to investigate the role of genetically modified or transgenic farm crops. Although we are assured by nearly every bit of research that these manipulations of the crop genome are safe for both human consumption and the environment, looking more closely at what is involved here might raise questions about those assumptions.
The most commonly transplanted segment of transgenic DNA involves genes from a well-known bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has been used for decades by farmers and gardeners to control butterflies that damage cole crops such as cabbage and broccoli. Instead of the bacterial solution being sprayed on the plant, where it is eaten by the target insect, the genes that contain the insecticidal traits are incorporated into the genome of the farm crop. As the transformed plant grows, these Bt genes are replicated along with the plant genes so that each cell contains its own poison pill that kills the target insect.
In the case of field corn, these insects are stem- and root-borers, lepidopterans (butterflies) that, in their larval stage, dine on some region of the corn plant, ingesting the bacterial gene, which eventually causes a crystallization effect in the guts of the borer larvae, thus killing them.
What is not generally known to the public is that Bt variants are available that also target coleopterans (beetles) and dipterids (flies and mosquitoes). We are assured that the bee family, hymenopterans, is not affected.
That there is Bt in beehives is not a question. Beekeepers spray Bt under hive lids sometimes to control the wax moth, an insect whose larval forms produce messy webs on honey. Canadian beekeepers have detected the disappearance of the wax moth in untreated hives, apparently a result of worker bees foraging in fields of transgenic canola plants.
Bees forage heavily on corn flowers to obtain pollen for the rearing of young broods, and these pollen grains also contain the Bt gene of the parent plant, because they are present in the cells from which pollen forms.
Is it not possible that while there is no lethal effect directly to the new bees, there might be some sublethal effect, such as immune suppression, acting as a slow killer?
The planting of transgenic corn and soybean has increased exponentially, according to statistics from farm states. Tens of millions of acres of transgenic crops are allowing Bt genes to move off crop fields.
A quick and easy way to get an approximate answer would be to make a comparison of colony losses of bees from regions where no genetically modified crops are grown, and to put test hives in areas where modern farming practices are so distant from the hives that the foraging worker bees would have no exposure to them.
Given that nearly every bite of food that we eat has a pollinator, the seriousness of this emerging problem could dwarf all previous food disruptions.
About the writer:
John McDonald is a beekeeper in Pennsylvania. He welcomes comments or questions about the bee problem at mactheknife70@hotmail.com.
Author’s Postscript:
The e-mail responses to my original article whether genetically modified crops be killing honeybees that had been published in the San Francisco Chronicle, was universally positive from laypeople and beekeepers. Most researchers, however, rejected the idea out of hand.
I concluded the article with the suggestion that matching colonies should be sited in farm and non-farm regions in order to determine whether, indeed, agricultural practices were the basis for the die-off. (The new die-off has been virtually instantaneous throughout the country, not spreading at the slower pace of conventional classic diseases.)
When it appeared that others weren’t interested in this experiment, I undertook to do my own investigation at my own expense. Because my own bees had died the previous winter, it was necessary to establish new colonies. I established eight colonies in new wooden hives in order to prevent disease transfer from the old hives in case there was a pathogen remaining.
The new colonies arrived late in May because of cold weather at the nursery where they are grown and required the feeding of sugar syrup continually until the hives were in their experimental locations on July 6. Two locations were chosen to fill the need for farm and non-farm sites: one here in Centre County, Pa., in a valley with rolling farmland; the other in Forest County, Pa., adjoining the Allegheny National Forest, an area with no agriculture within foraging range of honeybees. I chose the date of placement to avoid any possible exposure of the bees to Centre County corn pollen. Corn flower tasseling started on July 19.
At both sites the flowers of goldenrod provided ample pasturage, with the honey flow commencing in the middle of August and tapering off by the second week in October. Medium-depth empty honey storage supers (a super is the part of the beehive used to collect honey) were put on the hives at this time in addition to the three brood chambers already there. By the simple expedient of lifting the hives from behind, progress could be roughly monitored.
This monitoring showed that the hives of the farmland bees, while numerous, were not gaining weight. Meanwhile, the non-farm colonies steadily gained weight. This part of the experiment was terminated Oct. 14 with the removal of the honey storage supers, with these results: The farmland bees had not even started to work in the honey supers and will require extensive feeding before winter sets in. The non-farm bee colonies produced, in total, nearly 200 pounds of extra honey in addition to about 150 pounds per hive stored in the over-wintering brood supers. These colonies will be left in place to see whether the die-off of last season is repeated. These results should encourage new research to determine what factor or factors are present in farm country to cause such a discrepancy in honey production.
Editor’s note:
John McDonald’s well researched article is an attempt to show that there is enough evidence to warrant investigating the role that genetically modified crops might have played in the large bee die-off observed the previous fall and winter. He also suggests that the role of genetically modified crops be investigated as a possible cause of the collapse.
source: www.agoracosmopolitan.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18206234
http://persianoad.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/nvironmental-destruction-and-biotechnology-could-genetically-modified-crops-be-killing-bees/
Cities May Sprout Vertical Farms
Proposed high-rise greenhouses could help solve a looming food crisis, professor says.
Farming would seem to be a horizontal occupation. Iowa corn or Kansas wheat pokes up from flat fields that stretch to the horizon.
That’s why the idea of “vertical farms” seems ripe for humor. When its biggest advocate appeared on the faux news show “The Colbert Report” earlier this year, comedian Stephen Colbert prefaced the interview by guessing it would have something to do with corn that grows sideways or perhaps “Chia blimps” that float overhead.
Such teasing hasn’t deterred Dickson Despommier, the Col umbia University professor of public health. He sees putting crops into skyscrapers as a better way to feed a hungry world. Professor Despommier’s website, verticalfarm.com, features architectural concepts of high-rise buildings that could grow fresh produce in urban areas while at the same time being much more environmentally sustainable than conventional agriculture. [Editor’s note: The original story misspelled Dr. Despommier’s first name.]
The trouble is, he concedes, none of the beautiful drawings would work exactly as shown. “They all look pretty,” he says. “[A]t least it means they’re thinking in the right direction.”
What’s needed before millions of dollars are spent to construct or renovate an existing 30-story building into a vertical farm, Despommier says, are prototypes just a few stories high. They should be built at leading agricultural universities and tinkered with until the concept is proved. “Once it does, drive it out of the showroom and take it home,” he says.
While Despommier has won admirers around the world for his innovative thinking, skeptics still wonder how he’s going to handle the problem of solar energy – bringing necessary light to the interior and lower floors of his agri-towers. “As soon as you go vertical, you compound that problem of getting that [solar] energy to the plant,” says Gene Giacomelli, director of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Center at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Dr. Giacomelli likes the audacity of vertical farms, but says a lot of problems must be solved first. Despommier, he says, “is a forward thinker. He’s challen ging all of us to try to make it happen.”
The challenges also include finding and training indoor “farmers” who can operate what is likely to be a complex system. “There’s nobody at the moment,” Giacomelli says. The technical problems aren’t insurmountable – crops are being grown indoors at the South Pole, albeit at great expense, he says. But, he adds, “There are many more ways to fail [at indoor agriculture] than to grow a crop correctly and succeed.”
The world is going to need vertical farms because conventional agriculture can’t handle what’s to come, Despommier says. By mid century, the world is expected to add another 3 billion people, pushing its population close to 10 billion. Feeding all those extra mouths will require finding an area of agricultural land larger than Brazil – without cutting rain forests needed to stabilize the world’s climate.
Heading skyward, under the controlled conditions of an indoor greenhouse, has many advantages, Despommier says. “You can control nothing outdoors, and you can control everything indoors,” he says. That means no floods, wildfires, hailstorms, tornadoes, or droughts. Plant diseases and pests are more easily controlled, too, meaning less need for herbicides and pesticides.
And indoor agriculture is more efficient. One indoor acre of strawberries can produce as much as 30 outdoor acres can. In general, indoor acreage is four to six times more productive, in part because of the year-round growing season. “Outdoors, you might get one crop [per year]; indoors, you might get four or five crops per year,” Despommier says.
By bringing high-rise agriculture to urban areas, transportation costs are eliminated, and the produce is fresher.
The problem of bringing light to the plants could be solved through artificial lighting, powered by solar, wind, or other methods, Despommier says. All cities have a huge source of unused energy: human sewage. It could be burned to create a significant energy source.
“It’s not a perpetual [motion] machine because you’ll have to supplement from the outside,” he says. But the energy requirements would still be lower than those of conventional farming, with its use of heavy machinery, fertilizers, and long-haul transportation.
Critics remain far from convinced. “The notion of filling a building [with plants] and artificially supplying the light for the plants … from any kind of energy system is one of the weirdest ideas I’ve ever heard of,” says Richard Register, author of “EcoCities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature.” “It’s not serious agriculture. It’s just not…. It’s an intellectual plaything.”
A better answer is to develop, over time, more compact, energy-efficient cities along the European model, he says. That would free up land near urban areas for conventional agriculture with “100-percent-free solar energy” falling on it. Urban community gardens and high-intensity conventional commercial gardens could also supply part of the need.
Despommier’s students, in fact, first looked at using rooftop gardens to feed Manhattan. They found that farming on flat rooftops could supply only about 2 percent of the island’s food needs. That’s when Despommier hit upon using some of the city’s abandoned buildings to create vertical greenhouses.
He received further inspiration from a children’s book his wife gave him. “Old MacDonald Had an Apartment House,” by Judi Barrett, tells the story of an apartment building supervisor who fills his building with vegetable plants and farm animals as tenants. While Despommier doesn’t see cows or pigs moving into vertical farms anytime soon, he thinks aquaculture could be part of the mix.
“You can start with mollusks – mussels and clams,” he says. Shrimp, striped bass, catfish, and flounder are other possibilities – or chickens, ducks, and geese. “This will have to be done in a way that’s agreeable to consumers, so consumers will set the standard,” he says.
The first working vertical farms are likely to be built outside the United States, Despommier says, where the need is greatest. He’s received interest from Shanghai, China, and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, and is currently on a trip to India to address the Indian Institute for Architecture in Bangalore.
Next spring, a class at the Massa chu setts Institute of Technology will look into the idea. Some 15 to 20 seniors majoring in civil and environmental engineering will form teams and create design projects to see just how vertical farming might be accomplished.
“The potential for doing something is great, but frankly I don’t know yet what’s going to happen,” says Herbert Einstein, the engineering professor who will conduct the class at MIT. “If there’s something viable, hopefully we’ll know more by the end of the spring term.”
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/12/24/cities-may-sprout-vertical-farms
Farming would seem to be a horizontal occupation. Iowa corn or Kansas wheat pokes up from flat fields that stretch to the horizon.
That’s why the idea of “vertical farms” seems ripe for humor. When its biggest advocate appeared on the faux news show “The Colbert Report” earlier this year, comedian Stephen Colbert prefaced the interview by guessing it would have something to do with corn that grows sideways or perhaps “Chia blimps” that float overhead.
Such teasing hasn’t deterred Dickson Despommier, the Col umbia University professor of public health. He sees putting crops into skyscrapers as a better way to feed a hungry world. Professor Despommier’s website, verticalfarm.com, features architectural concepts of high-rise buildings that could grow fresh produce in urban areas while at the same time being much more environmentally sustainable than conventional agriculture. [Editor’s note: The original story misspelled Dr. Despommier’s first name.]
The trouble is, he concedes, none of the beautiful drawings would work exactly as shown. “They all look pretty,” he says. “[A]t least it means they’re thinking in the right direction.”
What’s needed before millions of dollars are spent to construct or renovate an existing 30-story building into a vertical farm, Despommier says, are prototypes just a few stories high. They should be built at leading agricultural universities and tinkered with until the concept is proved. “Once it does, drive it out of the showroom and take it home,” he says.
While Despommier has won admirers around the world for his innovative thinking, skeptics still wonder how he’s going to handle the problem of solar energy – bringing necessary light to the interior and lower floors of his agri-towers. “As soon as you go vertical, you compound that problem of getting that [solar] energy to the plant,” says Gene Giacomelli, director of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Center at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Dr. Giacomelli likes the audacity of vertical farms, but says a lot of problems must be solved first. Despommier, he says, “is a forward thinker. He’s challen ging all of us to try to make it happen.”
The challenges also include finding and training indoor “farmers” who can operate what is likely to be a complex system. “There’s nobody at the moment,” Giacomelli says. The technical problems aren’t insurmountable – crops are being grown indoors at the South Pole, albeit at great expense, he says. But, he adds, “There are many more ways to fail [at indoor agriculture] than to grow a crop correctly and succeed.”
The world is going to need vertical farms because conventional agriculture can’t handle what’s to come, Despommier says. By mid century, the world is expected to add another 3 billion people, pushing its population close to 10 billion. Feeding all those extra mouths will require finding an area of agricultural land larger than Brazil – without cutting rain forests needed to stabilize the world’s climate.
Heading skyward, under the controlled conditions of an indoor greenhouse, has many advantages, Despommier says. “You can control nothing outdoors, and you can control everything indoors,” he says. That means no floods, wildfires, hailstorms, tornadoes, or droughts. Plant diseases and pests are more easily controlled, too, meaning less need for herbicides and pesticides.
And indoor agriculture is more efficient. One indoor acre of strawberries can produce as much as 30 outdoor acres can. In general, indoor acreage is four to six times more productive, in part because of the year-round growing season. “Outdoors, you might get one crop [per year]; indoors, you might get four or five crops per year,” Despommier says.
By bringing high-rise agriculture to urban areas, transportation costs are eliminated, and the produce is fresher.
The problem of bringing light to the plants could be solved through artificial lighting, powered by solar, wind, or other methods, Despommier says. All cities have a huge source of unused energy: human sewage. It could be burned to create a significant energy source.
“It’s not a perpetual [motion] machine because you’ll have to supplement from the outside,” he says. But the energy requirements would still be lower than those of conventional farming, with its use of heavy machinery, fertilizers, and long-haul transportation.
Critics remain far from convinced. “The notion of filling a building [with plants] and artificially supplying the light for the plants … from any kind of energy system is one of the weirdest ideas I’ve ever heard of,” says Richard Register, author of “EcoCities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature.” “It’s not serious agriculture. It’s just not…. It’s an intellectual plaything.”
A better answer is to develop, over time, more compact, energy-efficient cities along the European model, he says. That would free up land near urban areas for conventional agriculture with “100-percent-free solar energy” falling on it. Urban community gardens and high-intensity conventional commercial gardens could also supply part of the need.
Despommier’s students, in fact, first looked at using rooftop gardens to feed Manhattan. They found that farming on flat rooftops could supply only about 2 percent of the island’s food needs. That’s when Despommier hit upon using some of the city’s abandoned buildings to create vertical greenhouses.
He received further inspiration from a children’s book his wife gave him. “Old MacDonald Had an Apartment House,” by Judi Barrett, tells the story of an apartment building supervisor who fills his building with vegetable plants and farm animals as tenants. While Despommier doesn’t see cows or pigs moving into vertical farms anytime soon, he thinks aquaculture could be part of the mix.
“You can start with mollusks – mussels and clams,” he says. Shrimp, striped bass, catfish, and flounder are other possibilities – or chickens, ducks, and geese. “This will have to be done in a way that’s agreeable to consumers, so consumers will set the standard,” he says.
The first working vertical farms are likely to be built outside the United States, Despommier says, where the need is greatest. He’s received interest from Shanghai, China, and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, and is currently on a trip to India to address the Indian Institute for Architecture in Bangalore.
Next spring, a class at the Massa chu setts Institute of Technology will look into the idea. Some 15 to 20 seniors majoring in civil and environmental engineering will form teams and create design projects to see just how vertical farming might be accomplished.
“The potential for doing something is great, but frankly I don’t know yet what’s going to happen,” says Herbert Einstein, the engineering professor who will conduct the class at MIT. “If there’s something viable, hopefully we’ll know more by the end of the spring term.”
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/12/24/cities-may-sprout-vertical-farms
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Hair of Tasmanian tiger yields genes of extinct species
All the genes that the exotic Tasmanian Tiger inherited only from its mother will be revealed by an international team of scientists in a research paper to be published on 13 January 2009 in the online edition of Genome Research. The research marks the first successful sequencing of genes from this carnivorous marsupial, which looked like a large tiger-striped dog and became extinct in 1936. The research also opens the door to the widespread, nondestructive use of museum specimens to learn why mammals become extinct and how extinctions might be prevented.
"Our goal is to learn how to prevent endangered species from going extinct," said Webb Miller, a Penn State professor of biology and of computer science and engineering and a member of the research team that includes scientists from the United States, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Germany. "I want to learn as much as I can about why large mammals become extinct because all my friends are large mammals," Miller said. "However, I am expecting that publication of this paper also will reinvigorate discussions about possibly bringing the extinct Tasmanian Tiger back to life."
The team's research relies on new gene-sequencing technology and computational methods developed by Miller and Stephan C. Schuster, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Penn State. The new methods involve extracting DNA from the hair of extinct specimens, not from bone, which has been used in previous studies of extinct species. The team's work reveals that hair is a powerful time capsule for preserving DNA over long periods and under a wide range of conditions. "I think of hair as a shrine for ancient DNA," Schuster said. "It is sealed so well that not even air or water are able to penetrate the DNA stored inside. Most importantly, bacteria cannot reach the DNA as long as the structure of the hair remains sound."
"Tasmanian Tiger" is a common name of the extinct thylacine species (Thylacinus cynocephalus), which is more closely related to kangaroos and koalas than to dogs or tigers. The last known specimen died in a Tasmanian zoo in 1936. Thylacines have played a central role in discussions about the possibility of bringing extinct species back to life, but despite the availability of many bones and other remains, previous attempts to read thylacine DNA had been unsuccessful.
Miller, Schuster, and their colleagues were the first to report the genome-wide sequence of an extinct animal, the woolly mammoth, in November 2008. They next collaborated with Anders Goetherstroem, at Uppsala University in Sweden, to target the Tasmanian Tiger because, like the mammoth, it was a coveted goal of ancient-DNA researchers, who considered its sequencing unfeasable due to the inadequate quality of the DNA available from specimens. "The speculation was that the only reason we were able to extract DNA from mammoth hair is that the mammoths had remained frozen in the Arctic permafrost, but our success with the Tasmanian Tiger shows that hair can protect DNA for long periods under a variety of environmental conditions," Schuster said.
In their new paper in Genome Research, Miller, Schuster, and their colleagues describe the completion of the mitochondrial genome sequences of two Tasmanian Tigers, one at the Smithsonian Museum and the other at the Swedish Museum of Natural History. One specimen was prepared by a taxidermist as a skin and the other one was submerged in ethanol. The team extracted DNA from small amounts of the hair of both specimens, then used their methods to sequence independent copies of each region of the DNA molecule from many different fragments of DNA in the hairs. The scientists assured the high fidelity of their results by independently determining each position in the sequences an average of 50 times.
The scientists sequenced all the DNA in the hair samples from the two Tasmanian Tigers, including mitochondrial DNA, which is the focus of the Genome Research paper, and nuclear DNA, which the team plans to analyze in future work. "This study, in which we sequenced the complete mitochondrial genome of the thylacine species, also shows that it is feasible to sequence its complete nuclear genome," Schuster said.
The new gene sequences permitted the team to accurately determine how the Tasmanian Tiger is related to other marsupials. They compared the sequences to a mitochondrial genome sequence they determined from a living reference species, a marsupial called a numbat. "The two thylacine sequences were extremely similar to each other, with only 5 differences in 15,492 nucleotides," Miller reports. The researchers say this similarity suggests that, as the species neared extinction, there was too little genetic diversity to resist bacterial and other environmental stresses. "Low genetic diversity is appearing as a common theme in the extinct species being studied by our team," Schuster said.
The research also revealed that two previous sequences in public databases, both labeled as Tasmanian Tiger mitochondrial genes, were incorrect. "Our Smithsonian specimen was the male offspring of the female animal named as the source of the earlier data, so the mitochondrial sequences, which are inherited only from the mother, should have been identical, but our analyses showed they are over 10 percent different," Schuster said.
The new study shows that the methods pioneered at Penn State are potentially useful for a new discipline involving the genome analysis of samples originating from museum archives, which Schuster calls "Museomics." "The collections dating back several hundred years and now housed in the world's museums of natural history are the treasure troves of science," Schuster said. "We hope to add DNA-sequence data to the taxonomic data provided by many of the important specimens that define the species we know today."
The team's experience in this study indicates that museum directors can be enthusiastic collaborators with genome scientists because the analysis of a specimen's hair does not damage the appearance of the museum's collections. "Whatever hairs fall off a specimen provide enough material for sequencing the animal's DNA," Schuster said. In contrast, sampling bone involves drilling holes in the museum's collection, which curators are understandably reluctant to permit. "The advantages of obtaining DNA from hair makes Museomics possible on a wide scale," Schuster said.
Miller and Schuster said their future research plans include studies of the world's only remaining large marsupial carnivore, the Tasmanian Devil. "Our preliminary genetic research with the Tasmanian Devil indicates that its genome may have alarmingly less genetic diversity than did the woolly mammoth and the Tasmanian Tiger when they became extinct, so we now have directed a portion of our research program to studying the Tasmanian Devil in the hope of preventing this magnificent mammalian species from becoming extinct."
From: Barbara K. Kennedy, Penn State
http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/39066
Sunday, January 11, 2009
California Scientists Create E.Coli-based Fuel That's Much More Efficient Than Ethanol
U.S. scientists say they can turn E.coli, a strain of bacteria present in the human digestive tract, into a fuel that is twice or three times more efficient than ethanol. The scientists, attached to theUniversity of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) managed to create a strain for the first time that generates alcohol with five carbon atoms per molecule instead of the regular two or three. That´s important because the larger, longer chain molecules contain more energy, something of a "holy grail" for the fuel industry.
The scientists published the results of their studies in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). They speculated that in the near future they might be able to create alcohol molecules with eight carbon atoms.
E.coli, which is mostly found in dangerous quantities on polluted beaches, can be altered so that each cell can generate "long-chain alcohol". The bacteria that result from this process excrete a type of fuel that can be used in the airline industry. Gas and other petroleum products also stand to benefit from the excretion process.
This energy efficiency in turn is a significant factor in helping reducing global warming. "We wanted to create larger, longer-chain molecules because they contain more energy," the researchers comment in their study, adding that they proved that humans are not limited by what nature creates.The researchers point out that they believe E.coli is best suited to be used with organic materials in the same way that ethanol is extracted from an organic (food) product like corn. "This is significant in the production of gasoline and even jet fuel," the scientists assert. By comparison, ethanol has only two carbon atoms per molecule.
The E.coli´s genetic system is relatively well known. The authors of the study said they also liked it in particular because it grows quickly and can be engineered easily. But the scientists added that their method opens the door to many more possibilities because it can be used on many different organisms. That means that manufacturers of polymers for instance gain from the insights produced, as does the drug manufacturing industry.
http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/39036
Friday, January 2, 2009
Food needs 'fundamental rethink'
A sustainable global food system in the 21st Century needs to be built on a series of "new fundamentals", according to a leading food expert.
Tim Lang warned that the current system, designed in the 1940s, was showing "structural failures", such as "astronomic" environmental costs.
The new approach needed to address key fundamentals like biodiversity, energy, water and urbanisation, he added.
Professor Lang is a member of the UK government's newly formed Food Council.
"Essentially, what we are dealing with at the moment is a food system that was laid down in the 1940s," he told BBC News.
"It followed on from the dust bowl in the US, the collapse of food production in Europe and starvation in Asia.
"At the time, there was clear evidence showing that there was a mismatch between producers and the need of consumers."
Professor Lang, from City University, London, added that during the post-war period, food scientists and policymakers also thought increasing production would reduce the cost of food, while improving people's diets and public health.
"But by the 1970s, evidence was beginning to emerge that the public health outcomes were not quite as expected," he explained.
"Secondly, there were a whole new set of problems associated with the environment."
Thirty years on and the world was now facing an even more complex situation, he added.
"The level of growth in food production per capita is dropping off, even dropping, and we have got huge problems ahead with an explosion in human population."
Fussy eaters
Professor Lang lists a series of "new fundamentals", which he outlined during a speech he made as the president-elect of charity Garden Organic, which will shape future food production, including:
•Oil and energy: "We have an entirely oil-based food economy, and yet oil is running out. The impact of that on agriculture is one of the drivers of the volatility in the world food commodity markets."
•Water scarcity: "One of the key things that I have been pushing is to get the UK government to start auditing food by water," Professor Lang said, adding that 50% of the UK's vegetables are imported, many from water-stressed nations.
•Biodiversity: "Biodiversity must not just be protected, it must be replaced and enhanced; but that is going to require a very different way growing food and using the land."
•Urbanisation: "Probably the most important thing within the social sphere. More people now live in towns than in the countryside. In which case, where do they get their food?"
Professor Lang said that in order to feed a projected nine billion people by 2050, policymakers and scientists face a fundamental challenge: how can food systems work with the planet and biodiversity, rather than raiding and pillaging it?
The UK's Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, recently set up a Council of Food Policy Advisers in order to address the growing concern of food security and rising prices.
Mr Benn, speaking at the council's launch, warned: "Global food production will need to double just to meet demand.
"We have the knowledge and the technology to do this, as things stand, but the perfect storm of climate change, environmental degradation and water and oil scarcity, threatens our ability to succeed."
Professor Lang, who is a member of the council, offered a suggestion: "We are going to have to get biodiversity into gardens and fields, and then eat it.
"We have to do this rather than saying that biodiversity is what is on the edge of the field or just outside my garden."
Michelin-starred chef and long-time food campaigner Raymond Blanc agrees with Professor Lang, adding that there is a need for people, especially in the UK, to reconnect with their food.
He is heading a campaign called Dig for Your Dinner, which he hopes will help people reconnect with their food and how, where and when it is grown.
"Food culture is a whole series of steps," he told BBC News.
"Whatever amount of space you have in your backyard, it is possible to create a fantastic little garden that will allow you to reconnect with the real value of gardening, which is knowing how to grow food.
"And once you know how to grow food, it would be very nice to be able to cook it. If you are growing food, then it only makes sense that you know how to cook it as well.
"And cooking food will introduce you to the basic knowledge of nutrition. So you can see how this can slowly reintroduce food back into our culture."
Waste not...
Mr Blanc warned that food prices were likely to continue to rise in the future, which was likely to prompt more people to start growing their own food.
He was also hopeful that the food sector would become less wasteful.
"We all know that waste is everywhere; it is immoral what is happening in the world of food.
"In Europe, 30% of the food grown did not appear on the shelves of the retailers because it was a funny shape or odd colour.
"At least the amendment to European rules means that we can now have some odd-shaped carrots on our shelves. This is fantastic news, but why was it not done before?"
He suggested that the problem was down to people choosing food based on sight alone, not smell and touch.
"The way that seeds are selected is about immunity to any known disease; they have also got to grow big and fast, and have a fantastic shelf life.
"Never mind taste, texture or nutrition, it is all about how it looks.
"The British consumer today has got to understand that when they make a choice, let's say an apple - either Chinese, French or English one - they are making a political choice, a socio-economic choice, as well as an environmental one.
"They are making a statement about what sort of society and farming they are supporting."
Growing appetite
The latest estimates from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that another 40 million people have been pushed into hunger in 2008 as a result of higher food prices.
This brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, compared to 923 million in 2007.
The FAO warned that the ongoing financial and economic crisis could tip even more people into hunger and poverty.
"World food prices have dropped since early 2008, but lower prices have not ended the food crisis in many poor countries," said FAO assistant director-general Hafez Ghanem at the launch of the agency's State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008 report.
"The structural problems of hunger, like the lack of access to land, credit and employment, combined with high food prices remain a dire reality," he added.
Professor Lang outlined the challenges facing the global food supply system: "The 21st Century is going to have to produce a new diet for people, more sustainably, and in a way that feeds more people more equitably using less land."
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Celestial Show Set for New Year's Eve
by Robert Roy Britt
space.com – A delightful display of planets and the moon will occur on New Year's Eve for anyone wishing to step outside and look up just after sunset.
Venus, brighter than all other planets and stars, will dangle just below the thin crescent moon in the southwestern sky. It'll be visible -- impossible to miss, in fact -- just as the sun goes down, assuming skies are cloud-free.
Soon thereafter, Mercury and Jupiter will show up hugging the south-southwestern horizon (just above where the sun went down) and extremely close to each other. Jupiter is very bright and easy to spot; Mercury is faint and harder to see, but it'll be apparent by its location just to the left of Jupiter.
Jupiter and Mercury will set less than an hour after the sun, so timing your viewing just after sunset is crucial. You'll also need a location with a clear view of the western horizon, unobstructed by buildings, trees or mountains.
All the planets, along with the moon and sun, traverse an arc across our sky called the ecliptic, which corresponds to the plane in space that they all roughly share. For this reason, you could draw an imaginary line from the general location of Venus and the moon, down through the other two planets, and the line would point to where the sun went down. This line could also initially help you find Jupiter and Mercury.
Weather permitting, you can get a preview of the sky show on Tuesday, Dec. 30. On this evening, the planets will be in nearly the same place they'll be on Dec. 31, but the moon will be midway between Venus and the Mercury-Jupiter pairing.
One last trick:
Venus is so bright you can see it during daylight if you know where to look. Given Venus' proximity to the moon on New Year's Eve, this would be an excellent moment -- just before sunset -- to use the moon to help you find Venus and gain bragging rights for being one of the few people to be able to claim seeing more than one planet during the daytime (Earth being the other one).
Responses to plastic pollution
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2008/12/29/news0424.htm
After seeing through the dreadful negative effects, movements have already been launched against plastic pollution. For instance, a United States law, implementing an international agreement called MARPOL Annex V, became effective on December 31, 1988. It prohibits the disposal of plastics into the marine environment and requires ports to provide reception facilities for ship-generated plastic wastes. More recently, in response to increasing public concern over environmental hazards caused by plastic, many countries are conducting various solid waste management programmes including plastic waste reduction by development of bio-degradable plastic materials. Intensive research is going on for making the bio-degradable plastic. Some bio-degradable plastic materials which are under development include: 1. PHAs 2.Polylactdes 3.Alipahatic polyesters 4. Polysaccharides 5. Co- polymers. PHB is an example of 100% bio-degradable plastic. Approximately a dozen of inherently bio-degradable plastics are now in the market, with range of properties suitable for various consumer products. Besides, biotechnological processes are also being developed as an alternative to existing route or to get new bio-degradable biopolymers. In the mean time, a number of developed and developing countries across the world have formulated land enforced law banning on plastic bag use and other plastic products, such as plastic bag use in Bangladesh from 1st March 2002, plastic bags and other non-reusable plastic products in India, plastic bags in Somalia from 2005, free distribution of single-use plastic bags and disposable cutlery and dishes in Taiwan from January 2003. To discourage the use of plastic products, some countries have already raised increased tax on plastic products including Denmark from 1994, Germany from January 2002, Ireland from March 2002, South Africa from May 2003, and Switzerland from 2002 while some other countries are highly considering a plus tax on plastic products including United Kingdom, Kenya and Australia (Monir and Ahmed, 2005).Reduction Strategies:Reducing plastic pollution is a little bit complicated job. It needs to make wide sense and awareness of the problem even to the individual level and to act to counter it accordingly. However, here are some control strategies that we can take to reverse the tide of toxic, non-biodegradable pollution so that it will not overtake our planet, the only home of living beings.
Personal Level:
- Take no plastic bags from the grocer's self.
- Refuse plastic bags at the check-out counter.
- Don't buy plastic sandwich bags.
- Buy beverages in sustainable containers like glass bottles or cans.
- Use water purifying device rather than to use plastic water bottle.
- Make a habit of thinking about what comes with each thing that you buy.
- Look for and reward Earth-friendly packaging choices, such as- buy greeting cards in paper boxes instead of clear plastic shells. Use pens that refill instead of landfill.
- Remove plastics from your office and business farms.
- Building the habit of keeping plastic out of water ways. - In case of shopping, use own bags or recycled paper bags.
- Always remember litter generates litter. We should not dispose of plastic in the sewerage system.
- At the beach dispose of plastic and other litter in the bins provided. If these facilities are inadequate, contact the local authority responsible and lodge a complaint. Take your litter back home with you if there are no receptacles on the beach. Pick up any plastic litter you may see on the beach or in the rock pools in the vicinity in which you are sitting or walking.
- In the street never throw plastic or other litter out of your car or drop it on the pavement or in the gutter.
Organizational and Institutional level:
- The plastic that can't be recycled not to be produced in the first place.
- Plastic wrappings and bags should carry a warning label stating the dangers of plastic pollution.
- Reduce the amount of plastic used in packaging which is usually immediately thrown away.
- The Fishing community should not throw away waste lines, net or plastic litter in water.
- Building a better recycling infrastructure. Only about three percent of plastics are recycled according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.
- Recycled plastic can be used to make things like trash cans, park benches, playground equipments, decks and kayaks.
- Special fleece-like fabrics used in clothes and blankets can be made out of recycled plastic bottles.
- Practice and promote proper disposal of plastics in home and at the beach.
National (Government) level:
- All nations should adopt a "zero plastic waste" policy.v Govt. should accelerate research into alternatives.
- To subsidize the makers of bio-plastics.
- Support and promote support for recycling schemes.
- Draft a law to control the use of plastic products. Ban the use of single-use disposable plastic products (cup, plate, bottle, box and cutely etc.).
- Raise plus tax on plastic products.v Reduce tax on environment-friendly alternatives to plastic products.
- In special areas, completely ban the use of polythene and plastic products, for instance in parks, by the sides of lakes, government offices and institutions.
- Raise public awareness concerning the harmful effects of plastic products and the benefits of their alternatives through the use of TV, radio and newspapers.Role of Media and Environ concerned
NGOs:
- Launch public awareness building programs against plastic products including seminars, symposium, human chain and workshop etc.
- Re-use of plastics should be encouraged.
- Through the mass media and directly inform of the members of the public and government about the harmful effects of the use of one time disposable plastic products.
- Work with the government to ensure enactment and enforcement of a law banning the use of one-time disposable plastic products, all polythene bags and the increase of taxes on the raw materials imported and used for plastic products.
Concluding Remarks:
To size up, plastic pollution is one of the worth-mentioning concerning environmental issues of today to the outside world and a potential threat to Bangladesh as well. Toxic plastic pollutes air, water and soil, kills wildlife, poisons seafood and sea floor, poses serious health hazards and could even exacerbate global warming. Even it could be creating new habitats that don't virtually suit living beings down to the ground. Under these circumstances, the problem of plastic pollution is serious and requires further urgent study. Yet, we should not go without realizing the eternal truth that plastic is not itself a problem. Rather it is more useful, popular and really fantastic because of its some appealing qualities which can be produced with relatively little damage to the environment. But truly problems are with us; problems are improper production process, uses and careless and unthoughtfully disposal of plastics and plastic products to the environment. Now, we all should build up a habit of thinking more in general as conscious consumption is not only good for the Earth but also for us and take necessary steps for plastic waste reduction, reuse and recycling. So let us brood over the issue in our own ways, do the duties and discharge responsibilities normally and ethically bestowed on us from our respective platforms towards a plastic pollution free environment and launch a campaign essential to a green and peaceful future in non-violent way.
(Muhammad Selim Hossain is B.Sc. (Hon's) final year student of the Dept. of Geography and Environment, University of Dhaka.)
http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/38956
Commentary by: Erin Brennan
When I look at the amount of plastic all around me, I sometimes shutter. I purposely avoid purchasing products that are prepackaged or come wrapped in plastic if at all possible, but still, it is everywhere. I have gotten rid of most of the plastic in my house, replacing it with ceramic or glass and even stainless steel. I do not buy water in plastic bottles, not only because of the plastic problem, but also due to the fact that plastics leech nasty xenoestrogens that I just do not want to consume.
I am appalled though, when I go to the grocery and people are still taking plastic bags and still asking for things to be double bagged. Some stores have begun offering biodegradable plastic bags, but even these are likely made from non-organic or even genertically modified corn. Most large grocery chains offer reusable grocery bags for about $1, many of them made from recycled plastic bottles. I wonder when the US is going to get with it and ban plastic bags, and paper bags, for that matter. For less than $1, anyone can purchase a large bag that can be used again and again. We are lagging behing the rest of the world on this matter. It is time for the leaders of the US to step up and admit that plastics are harmful - to humans and the environment - and to institute use reduction strategies.
This is no longer an issue that concerns only hippies and out-of-the-loop environmentalists. This concerns the general public and the world at large. We are faced not only with the problem of what to do with the mountains of plastic waste that we have created, but now we must also deal with the environmental and HEALTH ramifications of our actions. Plastics release chemicals and xenoestrogens into ecosystems and are causing birth defects and reproductive problems. This is not limited to only lowly animals on the food chain, easy for us to forget about. No, worldwide, birth defects to the genitals of male HUMAN babies have risen sharply. Plastics, and harsh chemical fertilizers are the cause of this. For more on this, read: Concern for the Male Population.
Get reusable grocery bags here:
http://www.rawganique.com/HAhsb3.htm (Hemp Bags)
http://www.reusablebags.com/ (Variety)
http://www.chicobag.com/ (Nylon ultra durable, attaches to keys)
Get stainless steel water bottles here:
Genetically Modified Crops Reach 9 Percent of Global Primary Crop Production
From: Worldwatch Institute
Published December 5, 2008 12:04 PM
Washington, D.C. - Genetically modified crops reached 9 percent of global primary crop production in 2007, bringing the total GM land area up to 114.3 million hectares, according to Worldwatch Institute estimates published in the latest Vital Signs Update. The United States continues to be the global leader in production, accounting for half of all GM crop area.
GM production has been on the rise since the crops were first introduced more than a decade ago, and it now includes 23 countries. But controversy over the benefits of genetic modification continues, including questions about the technology's ability to deliver on promises of enhanced yields and nutrition.
"GM crops are definitely not a silver bullet," said Alice McKeown, a researcher for the Worldwatch Institute. "They sound good on paper, but we have yet to see glowing results."
Even as GM crop area expands, tensions are building. The European Union is expected to offer new guidance on the crops by the end of the year. Meanwhile, a new scientific study funded by the Austrian government suggests that a popular variety of GM corn reduces fertility in mice, raising questions about the technology's safety.
"There are still many unanswered questions about GM crops," said McKeown. "But the good news is that we have solutions to food security and other problems available today that we know work and are safe for humans and the environment, including organic farming."
Published December 5, 2008 12:04 PM
Washington, D.C. - Genetically modified crops reached 9 percent of global primary crop production in 2007, bringing the total GM land area up to 114.3 million hectares, according to Worldwatch Institute estimates published in the latest Vital Signs Update. The United States continues to be the global leader in production, accounting for half of all GM crop area.
GM production has been on the rise since the crops were first introduced more than a decade ago, and it now includes 23 countries. But controversy over the benefits of genetic modification continues, including questions about the technology's ability to deliver on promises of enhanced yields and nutrition.
"GM crops are definitely not a silver bullet," said Alice McKeown, a researcher for the Worldwatch Institute. "They sound good on paper, but we have yet to see glowing results."
Even as GM crop area expands, tensions are building. The European Union is expected to offer new guidance on the crops by the end of the year. Meanwhile, a new scientific study funded by the Austrian government suggests that a popular variety of GM corn reduces fertility in mice, raising questions about the technology's safety.
"There are still many unanswered questions about GM crops," said McKeown. "But the good news is that we have solutions to food security and other problems available today that we know work and are safe for humans and the environment, including organic farming."
Bush's Environmental Legacy on GMOs
From: Organic Consumers Association
Published December 8, 2008 10:25 AM
In a few hundred thousand years, after all weather effects of 21st century climate change have disappeared from the earth's surface, after our quietly smoldering nuclear waste has been extinguished, two destructive impacts traceable to George Bush's policies will yet remain.
The first is extinctions. Species that have died out, including the subset resulting from Bush's environmental policies, will forever deprive our evolving biosphere of their contribution.
The second is genetically modified organisms (GMOs) -- animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses, who's DNA have been mixed and mangled by insertions from foreign species. Once released into the ecosystem, by intention or accident, the genetic pollution self-propagates. No recall by the Obama administration can clean up Mexico's indigenous corn varieties, now contaminated by our genetically modified (GM) corn. No executive order can remove or even identify the wild mustard plants now carrying altered genes bestowed on it by the pollen from its cousin, GM canola.
We all know stories that illustrate the exponential effects of invasive species. Here's my favorite, recalled in my book Genetic Roulette:
"On Christmas Day 1859, the Victorian Acclimatization Society released 24 rabbits into the Australian countryside so that settlers could hunt them for sport and feel more 'at home.' The rabbits multiplied to well over 200 million, spreading out over 4 million square kilometers. That Christmas present now costs Australian agriculture about $600 million per year." http://geneticroulette.com/
Will GMOs of today show up as the "Australian rabbits" of the future? While their impact on our ecosystem and diet is largely unstudied, that has not stopped the current and past administrations from presiding over the release of millions of acres of GM crops. Not only does each plant carry a gene from bacteria or viruses, its DNA has hundreds or thousands of mutations resulting from the disruptive process of genetic engineering. Reports suggest that the side effects of GMOs are quite dangerous. http://geneticroulette.com/
Bush policies institutionalize GMO contamination
If we were to ban GMOs today, as is more than justified, some contamination from commercialized GM food crops will nonetheless carry forward in the gene pool of those (and related) species. This includes contaminants from our largest farmed GM crops, including soybeans, yellow corn, cotton, and canola, as well as the smaller crops: Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and crookneck squash. Newly added--in this year's harvest--are GM sugar beets and white corn. There are also GM tomatoes and potatoes no longer on the market, but whose genes and seeds, to some degree, continue to persist "out there." But the dirty laundry list actually includes over 100 different experimental GM crops, field trialed at more than 50,000 sites in the US since 1986.
Although the government is supposed to make sure that these trials won't contaminate the surrounding environment, a 2005 report by the USDA Office of Inspector General harshly condemned the USDA's abominable oversight. "Current regulations, policies, and procedures," said the report, "do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology." The agency's weaknesses "increase the risk that regulated genetically engineered organisms will inadvertently persist in the environment."
But George Bush's pro-biotech response was to further weaken the agency's GMO oversight--and he's trying to do it quickly, before Obama steps in. The proposed ruling makes gene escape more likely, even from GM crops designed to produce pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/www.aphis.usd...
Monsanto admits more contamination
As a backdrop to Bush's rushed proposal, Monsanto just admitted that an acre of its field trialed, not-yet-approved GM cottonseeds, was inadvertently harvested and mixed with approved cotton. It then entered our food chain as animal feed and cottonseed oil. Oops.
But the FDA, EPA, and USDA employed another of the Bush administration's institutionalized abdications of GMO oversight. They declared the cottonseed contamination safe, in spite of insufficient data to support their claim.
If Bush gets his new USDA rule into effect, let's hope Obama heeds the advice of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which "recommends that the new administration make revocation, revision and strengthening a top priority." http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/GE-contamination...
No that won't fully clean up our altered gene pool. But it will start to contain the runaway long-term genetic pollution that is now out of control.
Published December 8, 2008 10:25 AM
In a few hundred thousand years, after all weather effects of 21st century climate change have disappeared from the earth's surface, after our quietly smoldering nuclear waste has been extinguished, two destructive impacts traceable to George Bush's policies will yet remain.
The first is extinctions. Species that have died out, including the subset resulting from Bush's environmental policies, will forever deprive our evolving biosphere of their contribution.
The second is genetically modified organisms (GMOs) -- animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses, who's DNA have been mixed and mangled by insertions from foreign species. Once released into the ecosystem, by intention or accident, the genetic pollution self-propagates. No recall by the Obama administration can clean up Mexico's indigenous corn varieties, now contaminated by our genetically modified (GM) corn. No executive order can remove or even identify the wild mustard plants now carrying altered genes bestowed on it by the pollen from its cousin, GM canola.
We all know stories that illustrate the exponential effects of invasive species. Here's my favorite, recalled in my book Genetic Roulette:
"On Christmas Day 1859, the Victorian Acclimatization Society released 24 rabbits into the Australian countryside so that settlers could hunt them for sport and feel more 'at home.' The rabbits multiplied to well over 200 million, spreading out over 4 million square kilometers. That Christmas present now costs Australian agriculture about $600 million per year." http://geneticroulette.com/
Will GMOs of today show up as the "Australian rabbits" of the future? While their impact on our ecosystem and diet is largely unstudied, that has not stopped the current and past administrations from presiding over the release of millions of acres of GM crops. Not only does each plant carry a gene from bacteria or viruses, its DNA has hundreds or thousands of mutations resulting from the disruptive process of genetic engineering. Reports suggest that the side effects of GMOs are quite dangerous. http://geneticroulette.com/
Bush policies institutionalize GMO contamination
If we were to ban GMOs today, as is more than justified, some contamination from commercialized GM food crops will nonetheless carry forward in the gene pool of those (and related) species. This includes contaminants from our largest farmed GM crops, including soybeans, yellow corn, cotton, and canola, as well as the smaller crops: Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and crookneck squash. Newly added--in this year's harvest--are GM sugar beets and white corn. There are also GM tomatoes and potatoes no longer on the market, but whose genes and seeds, to some degree, continue to persist "out there." But the dirty laundry list actually includes over 100 different experimental GM crops, field trialed at more than 50,000 sites in the US since 1986.
Although the government is supposed to make sure that these trials won't contaminate the surrounding environment, a 2005 report by the USDA Office of Inspector General harshly condemned the USDA's abominable oversight. "Current regulations, policies, and procedures," said the report, "do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology." The agency's weaknesses "increase the risk that regulated genetically engineered organisms will inadvertently persist in the environment."
But George Bush's pro-biotech response was to further weaken the agency's GMO oversight--and he's trying to do it quickly, before Obama steps in. The proposed ruling makes gene escape more likely, even from GM crops designed to produce pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/www.aphis.usd...
Monsanto admits more contamination
As a backdrop to Bush's rushed proposal, Monsanto just admitted that an acre of its field trialed, not-yet-approved GM cottonseeds, was inadvertently harvested and mixed with approved cotton. It then entered our food chain as animal feed and cottonseed oil. Oops.
But the FDA, EPA, and USDA employed another of the Bush administration's institutionalized abdications of GMO oversight. They declared the cottonseed contamination safe, in spite of insufficient data to support their claim.
If Bush gets his new USDA rule into effect, let's hope Obama heeds the advice of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which "recommends that the new administration make revocation, revision and strengthening a top priority." http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/GE-contamination...
No that won't fully clean up our altered gene pool. But it will start to contain the runaway long-term genetic pollution that is now out of control.
Beijing's New Year resolution: Scrap Polluting Cars
Published December 31, 2008 09:09 AM
(Reuters) - Beijing, beset by choking traffic and heavy air pollution, will take more than 350,000 high-polluting vehicles off inner city streets from Thursday, local media reported.
China's capital has banned cars from the roads on one out of five weekdays based on the number of license plates as part of a six-month trial in the wake of broader restrictions during the Olympic Games in August that cleared skies and eased congestion.
Drivers of high-emissions vehicles, known as "yellow-label" cars, would be fined 100 yuan ($15) if found to be driving within the city's Fifth Ring Road, a highway on Beijing's outskirts, after a three-month grace period, the Beijing News said.
The measure stands to take about 10 percent of the city's cars off the road. Beijing currently has about 3.5 million registered cars.
The government had also drafted a compensation scheme that will give drivers up to 25,000 yuan ($3,600) if they proactively give up their cars during 2009, the paper said.
The city would also provide preferential loans to shipping and transport companies to upgrade their vehicle fleets to meet low-emission standards, the paper said, citing the city's traffic bureau.
Beijing authorities have credited cleaner skies above the capital in recent months in part due to the traffic restrictions, as well as decreased emissions from shuttered factories in the city's outskirts.
Car ownership along with rising incomes has skyrocketed in Chinese cities in recent years, posing head-aches for town planners already struggling to build roads and public transport to meet burgeoning urban populations.
(Reporting by Beijing newsroom; Editing by Ian Ransom)
(Reuters) - Beijing, beset by choking traffic and heavy air pollution, will take more than 350,000 high-polluting vehicles off inner city streets from Thursday, local media reported.
China's capital has banned cars from the roads on one out of five weekdays based on the number of license plates as part of a six-month trial in the wake of broader restrictions during the Olympic Games in August that cleared skies and eased congestion.
Drivers of high-emissions vehicles, known as "yellow-label" cars, would be fined 100 yuan ($15) if found to be driving within the city's Fifth Ring Road, a highway on Beijing's outskirts, after a three-month grace period, the Beijing News said.
The measure stands to take about 10 percent of the city's cars off the road. Beijing currently has about 3.5 million registered cars.
The government had also drafted a compensation scheme that will give drivers up to 25,000 yuan ($3,600) if they proactively give up their cars during 2009, the paper said.
The city would also provide preferential loans to shipping and transport companies to upgrade their vehicle fleets to meet low-emission standards, the paper said, citing the city's traffic bureau.
Beijing authorities have credited cleaner skies above the capital in recent months in part due to the traffic restrictions, as well as decreased emissions from shuttered factories in the city's outskirts.
Car ownership along with rising incomes has skyrocketed in Chinese cities in recent years, posing head-aches for town planners already struggling to build roads and public transport to meet burgeoning urban populations.
(Reporting by Beijing newsroom; Editing by Ian Ransom)
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The Winter Solstice
Today, December 21, 2008, is the day of the Winter Solstice for the Northern Hemisphere. The actual Soltice event occured at 12:04 AM (UTC - Coordinated Universal Time). Today is the official beginning of winter.
A solstice is an Astronomical event that occurs twice a year - once in the summer, the longest day of the year, and once in the winter, the shortest day of the year. This is due to the fact that the tilt of the Earth on its axis is either greatest or least toward the sun, causing the sun to reach the northern or southern hemisphere. The word solstice is derived from the Latin sol (sun) and sistere (to stand still), because at the solstices, the Sun's apparent movement north or south comes to a standstill.
In another sense, the solstices along with the eqinoxes (which occur in the Spring and Fall) are representative of the seasons. In some languages, the solstices and exinoxes represent the changing of seasons, and in others they are said to be the center or midpoint of the season. It is also important to note that the Summer Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere is Winter Soltice in the Southern, and that the Summer Soltice in the Southern Hemisphere would be the Winter Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere.
2009 Equinox and Solstice Days and Times
Equinox (Spring) March 20 11:44
Solstice (Summer) June 21 5:45
Equinox (Autumn) September 22 21:18
Solstice(Winter) December 21 17:47
Friday, December 19, 2008
LEED Certification and Green Design
LEED Certification and Green Design
by Erin Brennan
LEED Certification is a Green Building Rating System developed by the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
LEED buildings are third-party independently certified and are "the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings," (1). LEED offers certification for new building designed to meet green standards. LEED also certifies older buildings which have been redesigned or remodeled to meet certain criteria making them more energy efficient. LEED offers certification standards for commercial interiors, schools, healthcare facilities, and retail outlets, as well as homes, apartment buildings, and condominiums. Through the U.S. Green Building Council, LEED offers neighborhood development, design, and planning focused on sustainability and smart growth (1).
LEED certification indicates a property’s sustainability by awarding points for almost any different element of 'green design'. Sustainable features such as energy-efficient lighting and low-flow plumbing fixtures, rainwater collection and reuse systems, and even bicycle racks are all given points. The points are then totaled to award different levels of LEED certification ranging from Silver and Gold to Platinum, the highest (2).
LEED programs are used by "architects, real estate professionals, facility managers, engineers, interior designers, landscape architects, construction managers, lenders and government officials," (1). Municipal and State Governments are beginning to use LEED to plan and construct public buildings from libraries to police stations. Government agencies at the federal level are using LEED as well. LEED projects are in progress in 41 countries around the world (1).
LEED certification provides third-party verification that a building or project meets both green building and performance criteria. The benefits to LEED certification are both environmental and financial in nature(1).
According to the U.S. Green Building Council,
LEED-certified buildings:
•Lower operating costs and increased asset value.
•Reduce waste sent to landfills.
•Conserve energy and water.
•Healthier and safer for occupants.
•Reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
•Qualify for tax rebates, zoning allowances and other incentives in hundreds of cities.
•Demonstrate an owner's commitment to environmental stewardship and social responsibility.
According to a study done by the CoStar Group, a Commercial Real Estate Information Group, LEED certified buildings outperform similar non-green buildings in not only energy efficiency, but sale price, rental rates, and even occupancy. Sometimes the margins are pretty large. According to the CoStar study, LEED building have rent premiums on average $11.33 higher per square food than non-green buildings and have over 4% higher occupancy rates. Additionally, buildings certified by EnergyStar (another energy efficiency rating system) sell for an average of $61 more per square foot than non-green buildings. However, LEED certified buildings astonishingly sell for an average of $171 more per square foot than non-green buildings (2). According to Andrew Florance, president and CEO of CoStar, "Green buildings are clearly achieving higher rents and higher occupancy, they have lower operating costs, and they’re achieving higher sale prices," (2).
LEED has emerged as the building industry’s top sustainability rating system above the possibly better know EnergyStar, and has become virtually synonymous with the term 'green building'. For this reason, "There’s a bit of urgency now that the value of buildings could be affected if they are not LEED-certified," says Mark Bennett, a senior attorney with the Miller Canfield law firm which specializes in green building and climate change issues (2). According to the National Green Building Finance and Investment Forum, a conference involving financial sector and property investment leaders, "If you’re building today without LEED, you’re building in obsolescence," (2).
1. U.S. Green Building Council, http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19
2. CoStar Group, http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=D968F1E0DCF73712B03A099E0E99C679
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Failing U.S. Economy is Not a Financial Problem, It's a Health Problem
by: Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor
Thursday, December 18, 2008
(NaturalNews) The shutdown of the American economy has begun. Today Chrysler announced it would shutter 100% of its factories for one month as it seeks bailout money from the Federal Reserve. The Fed, meanwhile, slashes its interest rates to zero, even while promising to print unlimited trillions of new dollars in order to "save" the U.S. economy.
Meanwhile, the state of California has announced it would halt all infrastructure projects (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us/18...), meaning that the construction and maintenance of bridges, roads and schools will be abandoned until new money can be found.
On the same day, the U.S. dollar plummeted to a 13-year low against the Yen. Investors around the world are realizing the dollar is doomed, and they're increasingly betting against it. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=...)
Earlier this week, an important international meeting of heads of state was held in Latin America. The most notable fact about this meeting is that the USA was not invited.
The power and influence of the United States of America is rapidly plummeting, and the closing down of Chrysler's factories is a major warning sign that the U.S. economy, which has long operated on financial vapor, has begun an unprecedented reconfiguration that could mean the end of the dollar as a world currency and the final gutting of America's long-doomed manufacturing industry.
Why the health of the People determines the fate of the economy
In other countries, workers are willing to work for less money, executives are aggressive and well educated, and companies aren't burdened with out-of-control health care costs that have been enforced by the Big Pharma / FDA conspiracy that seeks to keep Americans diseased and medicated.
The upshot is that, in many ways, America can no longer compete on the world stage, and it is now suffering the predictable effects of an economy built on mass consumer poisoning and the continuation of disease...
To read the rest of "The Failing U.S. Economy is Not a Financial Problem, It's a Health Problem", please visit: http://www.naturalnews.com/025120.html
Commentary by Erin Brennan
Thank you, Mike Adams, for another provocative and thrilling article. While I agree with many points that Adams makes in this article, I think that he is forgetting one key point, which I will discuss a little later. I agree that the pharmaceutical industry's reign needs to come to an end. We live in an over-medicated society, and the FDA is more than willing to push through even the most deadly drugs without proper testing (see my article "Avoiding Animal Cloning" for a great example). I agree that as a society, we are purposely kept diseased. Keeping the masses sick and medicated is a genius way for doctors and pharmaceutical companies to ensure a constant revenue flow. I also agree that healthy workers will be much more productive in the workplace and will cost companies far less in healthcare costs and sick days. I agree that more money would be available in our unstable economy if the rates of cancer and chronic disease in this country went down.
The part of this that I do not agree with however, is Adams' suggestion of how to go about making changes in the overall health of our society. I think that education is key here - along with ending the corruption of the FDA and the pharmeceudical industry. However, we can NOT force people to make healthier food choices. We can make healthier food choices more available and more affordable. We can NOT make people stop taking pharmeceutical drugs and over the counter medications. We can make alternative, holistic care and natural medicine more widely accepteded and supported, by our govenment and insurance companies alike. History has proven that you cannot take away the right of the people to choose to injest substances that are harmful to their health and well-being. Just look at the prohibition of alcohol at the turn of the last century and the current "War on Drugs" that has cost billions upon billions of dollars; Dollars which could have been spent ensuring that all Americans have access to nutritious and healthy food choices rather than soft drinks, french fries, and burgers. People seems to always resist what is forced onto them, whether it is in their own best interest or not.
We cannot expect our govenment to make an about face and suddenly start pushing natural and healthly choices in the faces of Americans, just as they have for many years with the pharmeceutical industy and modern medical care. We cannot expect that, in a short period of time, grocery stores will just rearrange their shelves, with healthy items on display and not-so-healthy items at the bottoms of the shelves. Grocery stores will begin to do so when natural, healthy food items start selling as well as oreos and cheetoes. That means that is up to us to become educated consumers. I always tell people to vote with their dollar. The dollar always seems to win in the end, and as long as Americans continue to buy into the advertisements from the junk food and pharmaceutical industries, that is what will continue to be made available.
I think that a major part of the problem is that many people operate under the misconception that eating healthier and/or taking herbs and supplements is more expensive that eating the way they currently do. Maybe this is true when you only look at the short-term cost. It costs less right now, in this moment, to buy junk food and processed food items, but when you factor in the long term costs of health care for diet and lifestyle related disease, it becomes very apparent that is not, in fact, more expensive to lead a healthier lifestyle.
I have to admit, though, even though I am a strong supporter of freedom of speech and think that everyone has the duty to educate him or herself enough to make wise decisions regarding health, etc. - I think that advertising junk foods and medications during children’s programs and allowing junk and soda machines in schools is outrageous and needs to stop. Children are very influential and may not necessarily understand why, physiologically, junk food and sodas can harm them. Adults should care enough about themselves and their children to make healthy decisions, but I think that it is safe to say that no one wants to live in a world where they are forced to eat health food. Healthier food choices should be made more affordable and available, but dramatically changing from one extreme of junk food and pharmaceutical drugs to another of naturopathic medicine and health food is not likely. The FDA has done its best to ensure that Americans believe that herbs and natural supplements are either unsafe or will not make them any healthier, despite research done in other parts of the world to the contrary. Gradual change made through education, awareness, and making better food choices available is more likely to work.
While I am hopeful, like Adams, that our government will begin to support more natural health initiatives, sadly, I lost faith long ago. I am fearful that the corruption of the FDA, the pharmaceutical corporations, and our government run so deep that the only way to recover from their virtual monopoly on "healthcare" is for the system to completely crumble before being rebuilt anew. They own the healthcare system in this country and they are not going to go down without a fight.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Concern for the Male Population
by Susanne Morrone, C.N.C.
(NaturalNews) Canada’s national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, reports something is happening to men and boys which concerns scientists and researchers: fewer boys are being born than girls. How far-reaching is this problem? In a study by Dr. Devra Davis of the University of Pittsburgh, the combined figures for U.S. and Japan is a “staggering tally of 262,000 ‘missing boys’ from 1970 to about 2000 because of a decline in the sex ratio at birth.”Scientists are also puzzled why there is a lopsided ratio of girls to boys being born in the Canada's Aamjiwnaang First Nation. Interestingly enough, this community is almost surrounded by petrochemical plants. In Canadian babies, hypospadiasis has increased by 60% since the mid-1970’s. This is a disfiguring defect, where the urinary opening is on the underside of the penis rather than its normal anatomical position. Other countries are seeing an increase in this condition as well.From 1983 to 2005, young Canadian males in the 20 to 44 age bracket have seen a 54 per cent rise in testicular cancer. Testosterone levels in U.S. men have declined by nearly 20% over the past two decades. Both fertility and virility rates are down, including the shrinking size of male gonads.There’s a definite parallel in the animal kingdom. Man-made chemical toxins frequently assault males of different species with fiercer effects. Amphibians such as male toads are being feminized.University of Florida zoologist, Dr. Theo Colborn, author of “Our Stolen Future” and president of the Colorado-based Endocrine Disruption Exchange, offered her expert opinion. She fears some chemicals are impeding normal brain development, with greater impact on males. As an example, she cites attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as two to four times greater in boys than girls. She also feels chemical exposures could explain why enrollment at U.S. and Canadian universities favors females, currently at 60 to 40 per cent.The environmental impacts of phthalates in plastic inhibit testosterone production and possibly may cause irregular genital development. Brominated flame-retardants may block the thyroid hormone critical to proper development of both the testes and the brain. University of Missouri professor, Dr. vom Saal, said, “This mishmash of synthetic hormones - leading to too much estrogen and too little testosterone and thyroid hormone - is making "a mess of sexual development in males." He conducted studies relative to sperm health comparing various geographic locations. A markedly lower sperm count in males from farming areas verses urban areas suggests pesticides are to blame.Of the world’s 100,000 registered chemicals, many are endocrine disruptors, exhibiting toxic hormonal effects along with carcinogenicity. Even in mere parts per million, these chemicals can upset the intricate working of human hormones. Xenoestrogens are found in DDT and other organophosphate pesticides, PCB’s, plastics, bisphenol A, DES, as well as mercury and uranium. They’re in our food and the air we breathe. This continuing chemical assault from pesticide applications is taking a serious health toll. There is good reason to be pro-active in lessening these assaults as much as possible, and the effects upon men and boys is obviously a major one.
Source for this story:
Canada’s National Newspaper, The Globe and Mail
“Humanity at Risk: Are The Males Going First?” September 20, 2008
http://www.naturalnews.com/025076.html
Commentary by Erin Brennan
This article highlights the scary reality that plastics and chemical waste products are endangering not only the environment and the lives of animals, but the human species as well. Plastics, waste and by-products from processing plants, and chemical pesticides all contain chemicals similar in nature to the human hormone estrogen. While we all need estrogen, some of us more than others, the xenoestrogens that can be absorbed into our bodies by exposure to plastics and chemicals can cause significant health concern. Xenoestrogens act like estrogen inside the body and can cause hormonal imbalance and a whole slew of other nasty problems. Fertility problems are common in men with elevated estrogen levels. The size of the male gonads are shrinking and many male babies are now born with birth defects of the genitals - all because of the assalt of xenoestrogens present in our environment. Similar yet more severe birth defects are threatening many species of amphibians. Amphibians, who spend a great portion of their lives in water, have skin which is very porous and allows for easy absorption of xenoestrogens which make it to the water supply. The birth defects are often so bad that whole populations are at risk because the males are unable to mate and produce offspring.
I would also like to point out that xenoestrogens are not the only culprut at work here. Phytoestrogens are present in many foods that humans regularily consume. Soy is becoming increasingly more popular in the west as processed meat and dairy substitutes, and as filler for many processed food products, including meats. Soy and soy byproducts are rich in phytoestrogens, which, like xenoestrogens, behave the same way as estrogen in the human body. I am not in favor of the consumption of soy or its byproducts, unless fermented in the case of miso, tempeh, or nama shoyu (an unpasturized soy sauce). It is also important to note that much of the soy grown today, like corn, is genetically modified. If one does choose to consume soy products, it should be only organic, fermented products. The fermentation process seems to change soy into a form more suitable for human consumption. Men and boys especially should avoid soy products.
Another issue to raise is that of the incredible amount of hormone treatments used today. The very birth control pills that so many women I know unfortunately take are showing up in measureable levels in our water supplies. Menopausal women often also take hormone replacement therapy. Animals raised in factory farms are given hormones to increase their growth rate, size, or milk production. We are surrounding ourselves with hormones and their synthetic counterparts at the detriment to our own health and well-being. This is not only an issue of environmental protection, but an issue of ensuring the future propagation of our species.
Diesel, Made Simply From Coffee Grounds (Ah, the Exhaust Aroma)
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
Published: December 15, 2008
In research that touches on two of Americans’ great obsessions — coffee and cars — scientists at the University of Nevada, Reno, have made diesel fuel from used coffee grounds.
The technique is not difficult, they report in The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, and there is so much coffee around that several hundred million gallons of biodiesel could potentially be made annually.
Mano Misra, a professor of engineering who conducted the research with Narasimharao Kondamudi and Susanta K. Mohapatra, said it was by accident that he realized coffee beans contained a significant amount of oil. “I made a coffee one night but forgot to drink it,” he said. “The next morning I saw a layer of oil floating on it.” He and his team thought there might be a useful amount of oil in used grounds, so they went to several Starbucks stores and picked up about 50 pounds of them.
Analysis showed that even the grounds contained about 10 to 15 percent oil by weight. The researchers then used standard chemistry techniques to extract the oil and convert it to biodiesel. The processes are not particularly energy intensive, Dr. Misra said, and the researchers estimated that biodiesel could be produced for about a dollar a gallon.
One hurdle, Dr. Misra said, is in collecting grounds efficiently — there are few centralized sources of coffee grounds. But the researchers plan to set up a small pilot operation next year using waste from a local bulk roaster.
Even if all the coffee grounds in the world were used to make fuel, the amount produced would be less than 1 percent of the diesel used in the United States annually. “It won’t solve the world’s energy problem,” Dr. Misra said of his work. “But our objective is to take waste material and convert it to fuel.” And biodiesel made from grounds has one other advantage, he said: the exhaust smells like coffee.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/science/16objava.html?_r=1&ref=earth
Commentary by Erin Brennan
While this solution will not solve all of the energy problems the world might have, I think that this kind of innovation is a good step in the right direction. Rather than filling up our landfills, food waste such as coffee grounds can be converted into fuel. This is exactly the lines of thinking we should be headed toward in the future - turning previously unuseable waste products into something useful and even profitable.
Living sustainably and in harmony with the planet needs to become priority. There are so many green options available today - from green design, to composting, biodegradable containers and recycling programs, to solar, wind, and geothermal energy - that everyone is given the opportunity to live more ecofriendly. Daily, we are presented with new and increasingly more innovative ideas as to how we can integrate modern technology with compassion and care for the ecological wonders around us. It is becoming increasingly more profitable for companies to "go green," and with energy costs on the rise, more individuals are seeking out ways to lower costs and increasing energy efficiency at home and on the road.
And of course, when sitting in traffic, I would rather smell the rich aroma of coffee than noxious chemical fumes coming from the car in front of me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
