Archive for the ‘Environmental Issues’ Category

Portugal’s Wave Farm

Thursday, January 1st, 2009

Deutsche Welle had an exciting article recently about the world’s first commercial wave farm in Portugal. The Scottish company Pelamis Wave Power uses three three-meter thick “water snakes” placed in the sea bed to create energy from the ebb and flow of ocean waves, and can generate more than two megawatts of electricity. As the reporter says, energy collected from the coast of Alaska would be enough to offset al of Iraq’s oil production. Listen to the article here: http://www.dw3d.de/dw/article/0,2144,3826553,00.html

On a planet that is one third water, the potential of creating water from waves is truly enormous! Of course, care must be taken that sea beds, water ways and animal habitat are not destroyed in this process, and, as the engineer interviewed says, this wave power is simply another option in electricity generation, but developments like this, companies that are actually actively pursuing these technologies, despite potential failure, are very exciting. I’ve been reading about wave power for years, but this is one of the first times the technology is creating real energy. Now we see the “potential” we’ve been dreaming of working itself out in real life. The oil-free (or oil-greatly reduced) world we imagine can actually come about with diverse technologies like these.

The Bicycle Strikes First and Delivers

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

For further evidence of the importance of bicycles in Germany:

Exhibit One, Deutschepost letter carriers and their bright, yellow (or sometimes green) cycles.

 

A regular letter carrier about her regular day.

A regular letter carrier about her regular day.

 

Exhibit Two, Bicycle Infantry.

Remember in Hemmingway’s A Farewell to Arms, when he writes of the silently gliding German cycle-troops?

Common Sense of Plastics

Sunday, December 7th, 2008

I will never forget Bellingham’s plastic bag problem, especially because it is so contrary to everything else in Bellingham. In the city you could be fined for leaving your dog waste; you had to bag it. And that’s what the dog-walkers of Bellingham did. They bagged the waste, and then left the bag. Apparently the fine for littering was less than that for dog poo. It’s quite ridiculous when you’re walking or riding and all along the path are plastic bags after plastic bags, tied and left. Apparently poo is beyond some people to handle, after you’ve already put it in the bag.

I would recommend, instead of wrapping the waste in plastic and leaving it, thus littering and preventing proper decomposition, that you just kick it to the side. Use a stick if you need to. Allow the waste to decompose and avoiding littering. Don’t worry, the only people that’ll see you are the ones who saw you litter anyways.

The second offense of improper plastic bag use came (unfortunately) from KMRE, the local radio station. They have segments throughout the day of various educational lessons. We love KMRE, but were put off by the silliness of one of their recommendations.

This particular lesson had to do with the proper handling of a dead bird you found in your yard. As we understood it, this was a sign of the End Times. The recommendation was that you only touch it with plastic gloves and wrap it in three layers of plastic. If you were sentimental, you could bury it. If you weren’t, throw it in the trash.

I don’t know where to start. Three layers of plastic? It’s a bird. Get a shovel, dig a hole and use a stick to push the bird in if you’re that terrified of it. Throw it in the trash? Sometimes people are very far removed from the natural cycle of things, and they wonder why they feel out of sync, why the world isn’t operating the way they want it to. They ignore what natural processes nature has already established to take care of animals which have died, and instead, decide to make up their own rules.

Burying an animal doesn’t have to do with sentiments. It doesn’t even have to be buried. You should not interrupt the natural cycle of decomposition. That bird has a purpose to serve in death just as it did in life. If you don’t want your dog or your children playing with it, bury it. Either way allow it to decompose.

This is also connected to what I dislike about this whole “Green” movement. It’s just a buzz word people are using to sound like they’re being protective, or concious, but then you see what people are doing on an every day basis and you have to say, “Wait…what?” If you’re going to do “Green” things, then be aware that the proper way to do things would be to recongize and respect the natural forces already in play. The “Green” movement started millions of years ago with the earth. We didn’t create it. We don’t create the rules for it. Respect it and stop wrapping stuff in plastic.

‘No-Impact Man’

Tuesday, November 11th, 2008

I’ve just read through some posts by No Impact Man (see noimpactman.typepad.com), an exciting and inciteful blog by a man who attempted to live for a year with no negative environmental impact. He and his wife, with their baby, reduced their consumption, ate local, walked or cycled, washed clothes by hand, and composted their poo, and actually found that they liked their new life and became healthier. Yay for them!

Reading No Impact Man is a happy experience after reading other environmental writers who all seem to say that one thing is no worse than the other and we cannot actually do anything different to live more environmentally sustainability. Many writers draw out long calculations and “facts” to show that washing a clay mug is just as bad (in terms of greenness) as taking another plastic one that you’ll toss out and will sit in a landfill for hundreds of years. Same thing for baby diapers, plastic shopping bags, etc. Now, yes, one must consider all the factors when deciding the sustainability of a given action, and those factors are seemingly endless, but doesn’t it all get to the point of being a huge cop-out? People don’t want to change the way they live, so countless “experts” come on the air to tell them that it doesn’t really matter: one is as bad as the other. Don’t inconvenience yourself, just use the plastic diapers. Actually–ha!–someone once made the argument to Nick that it was just as “bad” for him to ride a bicycle as the man to drive his car because Nick had to eat more because he rode, which used up more resources and made his use comparable to the car driver. What?!

Naturally, I am opposed to waste, of water, food, resources. I can’t…you know…with my husband in the shower because I think of all that wasted water (and he thinks I’m rediculous for it!). But the opposite of the “it’s all the same” attitude is the one that implies we should never use any resources. Yes, we must reduce our consumption, especially of consumer products, packaged food, TVs, phones (my 12-year-old sister’s had three this year!), endless loads of new clothes, shoes, toys, and even our wasteful use of water, electricity, natural resources. But I really don’t think there is anything wrong with using water to wash our clothes or dishes. That doesn’t mean we should waste loads and loads of it, but we’ve got to live! I will take shorter showers to conserve, but I’m not going to stop showering altogether, and I don’t want to be made to feel guilty for washing my dishes in hot water. No, the plastic, one-use cup is not the same as the clay mug, not in terms of resource use, fossil fuel consumption, and pure volume of items to fill the rubbish bin.

We’ve got to acknowledge that both our consumer systems and our way of life needs to change, not just one or the other. If we really want to save water, we need to save all those gallons and gallons flushed and polluted down the toilet each day. We have electricity, and it is certainly a delight to have, so let’s not do away with it, but rather drasticly reduce the amount we use and get it from better sources. No one needs to have the heater turned to 70 degrees, or even 60–that’s why we have sweaters. Our apartment is supplied with an average sized refridgerator-freezer, but ours never has more than 10 items in it, because we buy fresh food. Think of all that wasted energy! Not to mention the giant water heater. We could reduce our consumption significantly (but we’re moving this week)–so could everyone else! It surely is true that if we quit debating these rediculous plastic cup issues and instead accepted the responsibility of changing the way we live, we’d be almost there already! So go turn down your heater already!

Green Denmark

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

The Guardian ran an article in September about Denmark’s green energy island, including this photo of farmer Jorgen Tranberg sitting on his windmill.  The New Yorker also published an article on the same topic. In a short amount of time, the island has radically changed its energy policy and now creates enough electricity to sell back to the mainland. Its innovations include huge off-shore windmills and central heating systems that create heat from straw that would otherwise be burned in the fields, and piping that heat directly into the homes of the community.

This is truly exciting information in the world of environmental issues, proving that fossil fuel- and nuclear-free energy is not only possible, but is working effectively right now. What I don’t quite understand, though, is why this sort of progress is still all but impossible in America. Here, there is a growing push for off-shore oil drilling, not windmills (honestly, is “Drill, Baby, Drill” a serious request?), yet people still say they don’t want wind power because it will obstruct their views. In a receint speech, John McCain seemed to indicate that the saftey of nuclear plants is irrelevant; there is a renewed call for what is remarkably deemed “clean coal”. But really, why is America making achingly slow progress toward energy independence? Because the current system relies on a few big companies and resources: because there is loads of money in it!

Imagine if individuals or even cities were able to create their own power; coal and oil companies would lose their hold. At the same time, we would each gain control of our own needs, and the country as a whole would be much safer having discarded the need to import and even make war for foreign oil.

Honestly, does Bellingham really need a larger library parking lot? The city of Bellingham could purchase 190 windmills similar to Jorgen Tranberg’s second-hand one for the cost of the library’s underground parking, or could purchase five land-based wind turbines, thus generating enough energy to power 2,950 homes (at Danish levels of usage). All this begs the question: Is it more important step toward energy independence or not to have to walk an extra block to pick up library books?

Our proposal: Following Denmark’s lead, Bellingham could launch a windmill project in which individuals, companies and the city itself could purchase shares in turbines, thus receiving a return on their investment when PSE buys (and then re-sells) the energy. Sustainable electricity plus energy independence plus effective community action. And if you take up your bicycle instead, you’ll never miss that underground parking.

Self-Sufficiency

Sunday, October 12th, 2008

I’ve just woken up to The Thomas Jefferson Hour on the clock radio, set to KMRE, a lovely station I love for it’s simplicity. On the show, recorded in Bismark, a farmer portrays Thomas Jefferson in interviews, expounding upon Jeffersons agrarian values. I also value living close to the earth in this way, taking account of the earth’s economy in all actions, to the point of forgetting the money economy. I suppose those values are the point of this blog: how do we attempt to live those values now, in the city, removed from the farm. For the record, Nick and I attempted to start a community farm and eco-village a few months ago, but the interest was not such to get the project off the ground. The heart of that project and of the radio show this morning was self-sufficiency; we also try to make it the heart of our lives.

First, why is it important to us to sustain ourselves? While working on projects for the last weeks, I’ve listened to a lot of radio shows, mostly on NPR, and its filled with the words “financial crisis”, oh god, oh god! Honestly, we’ve not been affected by this at all (although we haven’t yet looked at our bond fund statements), but it does bring up the issue: Our economy is centered on mostly non-existant money (watch Zeittgeist Addendum for more on this–it’s a fabulously shocking show). With the economy’s instability, as well as the growing scarcity of the oil upon which modern life is built (or one’s desire not to use that oil), comes the distant but real possibility that the American system for creation and distribution of products will fail. I ‘normal’ American produces nearly nothing of his or her own use, purchasing everything from TVs to packaged food to Chinese-made, poorly machine knitted T-shirts and other clothes (the cheapness of clothing is my particular issue), all of these products causing exploitation an many points of their creation. If this system fails and there are no cans of tomatoes or fresh foods or bakery bread, if Target doesn’t sell clothes and shoes and laundry soap, if one cannot run a car, it seems everyone would starve.

Of course, systems always have the posibility of failing, and we cannot constantly live our lives in the fear that they will. However, my self-sufficiency is not founded on that fear, but rather a belief in the importance of creating for oneself, of relying on oneself at least for something greater than the earning of money. I want to produce something real.

So, then, how are we self-sufficient. Firstly, what we do not do: As I said, we live in the city, in a poorly-made apartment, lacking any land, so we do not grow our food (except for the pots and pots of failed tomatoes–it was far, far too cold in our little balcony). We don’t create our electricity, although it is certainly our goal for the future. Instead, we have reduced our use of electricity and oil and we purchase our food from directly from the farmer. So I am able to create our meals from raw ingredients. I also create our soaps and laundry soaps, knit and (I’m learning to) sew our clothes. I don’t weave the cloth, but I do spin the yarn. Nick bakes our bread, and together we have lovely journies by bicycle. This is a very limited list of accomplishment. To see the full possibilities, pick up a copy of John Seymour’s Self-Sufficiency book. The point is, though, that some of the things, we create for ourselves. We are not completely reliant on the American distribution system, and we’ve been able to eliminate many opportunities for exploitation of ourselves and others from our life. By doing these things, we feel less like slaves to wages and consuming and more like real humans with an undeniable connection to the earth and the life around us, as well as to each other. Our motivation for this blog is to show how we accomplish those things, and a few of the many, many possibilities for other people, ways in which you can become more self-sufficient without needing to (although it would be wonderful) go back to the land.

WSJ: The Cost of Corn-fed Cattle

Monday, September 1st, 2008

Wall Street Journal: The Cost of Corn-fed Cattle

I can’t remember what I was looking for when I found this video, but it’s definately interesting. Everyone is aware of the current rise in food costs, connected with the (lack of) corn and shipping, but I didn’t imagine this would happen to cattle.

I’m just going to refer to this video when people ask why we eat organic. If this continues people might finally have natural chocolate milk.