according to the San Francisco Chronicle last month, California's agricultural department has been receiving more attention than they expected for a plan to spray urban areas in northern California with a pesticide to prevent a threatening moth infestation ("State plans Bay Area pesticide spraying," Feb. 15, 2008). i don't mean to be alarmist, because the preventative measures appear to be less frightening than the steps the state might take if an infestation takes hold, and i doubt the moth would be any better for organic farming than conventional. the pesticide currently in use primarily contains a moth pheromone, along with other ingredients, but if the moths become widespread, they may be harder to manage without stronger pesticides, or significant crop (and profit) loss.
what concerns me more broadly, however, is the ubiquitousness of toxic chemicals in our everyday environments -- while each compound may not be a huge risk by itself, or in small quantities, the reality is that we are surrounded by many different chemicals (plasticizers, pesticides, preservatives, solvents in household products, etc.), few of which are actively managed or strongly regulated in either their use or their disposal. in the article on the moth pesticide, the Chronicle describes how patients in Santa Cruz county reported multiple symptoms after their neighborhood was sprayed while people were outside and directly exposed to the chemicals. given the high rates of asthma among children today, it's disturbing that officials aren't more concerned about continuing to increase the levels of industrial and other pollutants. additionally, when it comes to the toxic load of chemicals in our environment, educating the public is necessary but not sufficient, as toxicity, health, and environmental exposure are complex issues requiring in-depth study and understanding of the multiple factors involved.
i respect that a widespread pest infestation could present an enormous threat to both small and large farming operations and local food production, but perhaps we need more public involvement and discussion over how best to respond, and in general, greater oversight when it comes to adding potentially dangerous compounds to the physical environment.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
2/08/2008
cheap corn and the lure of ethanol
yesterday's news drew attention to two new studies in Science on the problems of biofuels as a panacea for the damage wrought by reliance on fossil fuel energy. i don't find it that surprising that burning more biomass isn't a great way to reduce carbon emissions, even if the plants' growth is supposed to offest their greenhouse impact by absorbing CO2. by taking into account the effect of converting existing cropland to biofuel farming, one of the studies found that "corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%." both studies suggest that to offset greenhouse gases (GHG), biofuels will have to come from waste products and abandoned agricultural land: "[i]n contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages" (Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, Fargione et al).
it's unfortunate that even a hardy cover crop like switchgrass might not be as promising a solution as it looks (though the studies do suggest that integrated properly, such perennials could provide efficient biofuel with low carbon impact), but i also take this as a reminder of the negative consequences of enormous federal corn subsidies. corn-based ethanol has been an attractive fuel alternative because it creates a potential new market for all that cheap corn grown in the midwest, which has long outpaced demand. ethanol offers American agribusiness a new market for their undervalued product, while promising the political expedience of claiming to reduce our "dependency on foreign oil." but unless biofuels can be shown actually to reduce carbon emissions, they only people they'll benefit are big corporations, at the expense of the rest of us.
it's unfortunate that even a hardy cover crop like switchgrass might not be as promising a solution as it looks (though the studies do suggest that integrated properly, such perennials could provide efficient biofuel with low carbon impact), but i also take this as a reminder of the negative consequences of enormous federal corn subsidies. corn-based ethanol has been an attractive fuel alternative because it creates a potential new market for all that cheap corn grown in the midwest, which has long outpaced demand. ethanol offers American agribusiness a new market for their undervalued product, while promising the political expedience of claiming to reduce our "dependency on foreign oil." but unless biofuels can be shown actually to reduce carbon emissions, they only people they'll benefit are big corporations, at the expense of the rest of us.
9/13/2007
in the news -- plastic still bad; pastured poultry taking off
two recent articles in Salon.com track the dangers of plastics:
"Two words: Bad plastic
Scientists now fear a chemical used in baby bottles and CDs, food cans and dental sealants, can disrupt fetal development and even lead to obesity." -- Salon covers the ongoing controversy over the use and dangers of bisphenol A, an endocrine disruptor found in polycarbonate plastics that just may be more dangerous at low levels of exposure, especially for developing fetuses. yet another reason to avoid plastic water bottles and other light, clear plastics (unfortunately, bisphenol A is also used in the plastic linings of canned goods).
"Plastic bags are killing us
The most ubiquitous consumer item on Earth, the lowly plastic bag is an environmental scourge like none other, sapping the life out of our oceans and thwarting our attempts to recycle it." -- Salon reminds us that plastic bags just create permanent litter that won't biodegrade, and that tends to blow away into lakes and oceans, only to break down into smaller pieces of plastic that can re-enter the ecosystem when eaten by marine animals. very few plastic bags get recycled, and those that do aren't remade into more plastic bags, but into further products which can't be reclyced. the best solution is to bring your own bag when shopping (canvas bags are great for groceries, but i also have a small nylon bag that can be stuffed into an integral pouch and fits perfectly into my purse), and when you do take plastic, save the bags and return them to the store (most supermarkets will take plastic bags and recycle them, whereas most curbside recycling will not).
of course, better consumer behavior alone can't change the habits of clerks that put your items into plastic bags by default -- i'd like more stores to provide bags only on request, since half the time, the cashier has already bagged my purchases by the time i remember that i really don't want yet another plastic bag. as usual, it would be nice if the bag-production industry would take more responsibility for the lifetime of their products, instead of relying on consumer concern alone to solve environmental crises.
in more upbeat news, the SF Chronicle reported last week about the growing demand for pastured chicken, as met by Soul Food Farm in Northern California:
"Raising poultry the new-old way" -- it's nice to read about chicken farmers using Joel Salatin's method of rotational grazing to maintain both land and animal health (a project Michael Pollan discusses at length in The Omnivore's Dilemma). the Chronicle appears to have started a regular series called "Food conscious" that looks promising overall.
Scientists now fear a chemical used in baby bottles and CDs, food cans and dental sealants, can disrupt fetal development and even lead to obesity." -- Salon covers the ongoing controversy over the use and dangers of bisphenol A, an endocrine disruptor found in polycarbonate plastics that just may be more dangerous at low levels of exposure, especially for developing fetuses. yet another reason to avoid plastic water bottles and other light, clear plastics (unfortunately, bisphenol A is also used in the plastic linings of canned goods).
The most ubiquitous consumer item on Earth, the lowly plastic bag is an environmental scourge like none other, sapping the life out of our oceans and thwarting our attempts to recycle it." -- Salon reminds us that plastic bags just create permanent litter that won't biodegrade, and that tends to blow away into lakes and oceans, only to break down into smaller pieces of plastic that can re-enter the ecosystem when eaten by marine animals. very few plastic bags get recycled, and those that do aren't remade into more plastic bags, but into further products which can't be reclyced. the best solution is to bring your own bag when shopping (canvas bags are great for groceries, but i also have a small nylon bag that can be stuffed into an integral pouch and fits perfectly into my purse), and when you do take plastic, save the bags and return them to the store (most supermarkets will take plastic bags and recycle them, whereas most curbside recycling will not).
of course, better consumer behavior alone can't change the habits of clerks that put your items into plastic bags by default -- i'd like more stores to provide bags only on request, since half the time, the cashier has already bagged my purchases by the time i remember that i really don't want yet another plastic bag. as usual, it would be nice if the bag-production industry would take more responsibility for the lifetime of their products, instead of relying on consumer concern alone to solve environmental crises.
in more upbeat news, the SF Chronicle reported last week about the growing demand for pastured chicken, as met by Soul Food Farm in Northern California:
5/19/2007
plastic world
a scary heads-up -- this article documents how literally tons of plastic debris are accumulating in the world's oceans, disintegrating but not biodegrading, and leaching organic pollutants into the environments, and our food chain. the article further suggests some of the many possible links between the various chemicals given off by plastics and rampant health problems in the US such as cancer and diabetes.
in some ways, this news isn't surprising -- we've known for many years that plastic does not biodegrade, and at the same time, it's become increasingly ubiquitous to postindustrial living. i'm trying to imagine how i would eliminate disposable plastic from my life, and realizing that even after the most basic trip to the grocery store, i'd return home with shrink-wrapped cheese (made with carcinogen-laden PVC), plastic containers of yogurt (#5, polypropylene, notoriously difficult to recycle partly because there's no aftermarket), plastic bagged organic lettuce (so much for the value of organic!), and plastic inserts in cereal, oatmeal and cracker boxes -- even if i remember to bring my reusable cloth bag. shopping at a farmer's market or buying from a CSA helps with plastic-free produce, but it remains endemic to the way most of us obtain our food (to say nothing of eating out -- how many restaurants still use styrofoam containers for take-out and doggie-bags?).
while i'm feeling renewed motivation to cut down on plastic all together, consumer action really isn't a sufficient solution. while many cities now offer curbside recycling (although notably, Chicago's program is still appallingly flawed and ineffective), it's unclear how much plastic makes it to a recycling plant -- numbers 1 and 2 are apparently the easiest to recycle, again, because there's a market for the recycled material, but plenty more is shipped overseas, handsorted, and unless easily recyclable, probably tossed (often creating hazardous working conditions and environmental contamination in the process). a longterm solution requires substantial government regulation (and business self-regulation) to ensure that producers, not consumers, take responsibility for the lifecycle of their goods -- using nontoxic materials that can be endlessly reused without causing further ecological damage or health problems. while we can all contribute to reducing demand for plastics as retail consumers, we can probably be most effective as political constituents putting pressure on businesses and legislators to make more far-reaching changes.
but ultimately, i keep asking myself -- if plastics don't biodegrade, why do we still conceive of plastic products as disposable?
in some ways, this news isn't surprising -- we've known for many years that plastic does not biodegrade, and at the same time, it's become increasingly ubiquitous to postindustrial living. i'm trying to imagine how i would eliminate disposable plastic from my life, and realizing that even after the most basic trip to the grocery store, i'd return home with shrink-wrapped cheese (made with carcinogen-laden PVC), plastic containers of yogurt (#5, polypropylene, notoriously difficult to recycle partly because there's no aftermarket), plastic bagged organic lettuce (so much for the value of organic!), and plastic inserts in cereal, oatmeal and cracker boxes -- even if i remember to bring my reusable cloth bag. shopping at a farmer's market or buying from a CSA helps with plastic-free produce, but it remains endemic to the way most of us obtain our food (to say nothing of eating out -- how many restaurants still use styrofoam containers for take-out and doggie-bags?).
while i'm feeling renewed motivation to cut down on plastic all together, consumer action really isn't a sufficient solution. while many cities now offer curbside recycling (although notably, Chicago's program is still appallingly flawed and ineffective), it's unclear how much plastic makes it to a recycling plant -- numbers 1 and 2 are apparently the easiest to recycle, again, because there's a market for the recycled material, but plenty more is shipped overseas, handsorted, and unless easily recyclable, probably tossed (often creating hazardous working conditions and environmental contamination in the process). a longterm solution requires substantial government regulation (and business self-regulation) to ensure that producers, not consumers, take responsibility for the lifecycle of their goods -- using nontoxic materials that can be endlessly reused without causing further ecological damage or health problems. while we can all contribute to reducing demand for plastics as retail consumers, we can probably be most effective as political constituents putting pressure on businesses and legislators to make more far-reaching changes.
but ultimately, i keep asking myself -- if plastics don't biodegrade, why do we still conceive of plastic products as disposable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)