SeafoodSource.com: Who cares about sustainability?

Who cares about sustainability? by Nicki Holmyard

…

It’s safe to say that the majority of people do care about sustainability, but they don’t care enough to sort it out for themselves and want someone else to do it for them. So perhaps it is just as well that the environmental organisations are powerful enough to make the supermarkets, restaurants and suppliers care. This should not make us apathetic or underestimate the educational work still to be done, but it should make us aware that being preached at too much can turn off consumers.

…

Organic Can Feed the World by Maria Rodale

Organic Can Feed the World by Maria Rodale

(September 2010) — You probably buy organic food because you believe it’s better for your health and the environment but you also may have heard criticism that “organic cannot feed the world.”

Biotech and chemical companies have spent billions of dollars trying to make us think that synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are necessary to feed a growing population. But science indicates otherwise.

…

Ned Breslin: Thinking Beyond the 2015 MDGs

Ned Breslin: Thinking Beyond the 2015 MDGs

…

Young girls like Anita, a 10-year- old from Mozambique, continuously miss school to instead scoop water from the top of a dirty puddle.  She hoists it on her head and returns home, passing the school where her friends are learning. And as she turns for home she passes one of those handpumps that failed, keeping her out of school.

…

Untapped Bouldering Potential: Gowdy Playground, Peabody, MA

If your a climber in Massachusetts and like to go bouldering you’ve no doubt heard of Lynn Woods. There’s been a lot of development there over the past few years and it continues today. I’ve been gone for two years and have no idea the current extent of the development besides what’s on Lynn Woods Bouldering .com, but I’m sure it’s been productive. That place is huge, and I’m sure more boulders will be found and more problems sent as time ticks by. Today I decided to explore an area in the same vein as Lynn Woods but just to the north called Gowdy Playground. Its actually located in Peabody but right on the Lynn line. A few years back I went in through Troy Street in Peabody and only found a few good sized boulders, but today I went in at Sunset Drive in Lynn and found a bunch. I spent about an hour bushwhacking through the woods all the way to the utility corridor that cuts through the middle of the area and looped back around. Below you’ll find photos of what I found. Keep in mind that the loop I did was relatively small compared to the area and there must be dozens upon dozens of boulders in there just waiting to be climbed on. I found some very faint trails, but most of these boulders don’t have any nearby trails. My plan is to head back after the leaves start falling and take some more pictures. Today I only had my crappy phone camera, but I think you’ll get the idea.

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

From Gowdy Playground Boulders_2

Letter to the Globe: The Waste of Recycling by Jeff Jacoby

Today in the Boston Globe there was an editorial written by Jeff Jacoby entitled The Waste of Recycling. Mr Jacoby has been know to write ridiculous things in the past that show how little he actually thinks about things, but this went a bit too far. Here is a sample quote:

Add up all the energy, time, emissions, supplies, water, space, and mental and physical labor involved, and mandatory recycling turns out to be largely unsustainable — an environmental burden, not a boon.

He finishes things off with a touch of conspiracy. Yes Mr. Jacoby, Big Brother it must be. I usually don’t get so flustered at idiotic opinion pieces but this one got me mad. People will actually believe his garbage. So, I wrote a letter to the editor. Here is what I wrote:

Dear Globe,

Mr. Jacoby has missed the point of recycling. We recycle to close the source material supply loop. For example, to make plastic from scratch we require petroleum, which is a finite material. In other words, it will eventually run dry. If we recycle the waste plastic, it returns to the beginning of the cycle as source material. I agree it requires more energy to recycle, but we as a people must get in the habit to ensure sustainability of our source materials into the future. We must also remember that using energy is not inherently unsustainable. Eventually the extra trucks and added facilities will run on renewable, sustainable energy and the oil to make our plastic will be gone. Also, we do not recycle to keep garbage out of the landfill. We recycle to keep source material in positive supply. Lets not forget recycling is just one third of the sustainable source material mantra: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. Raw source material is finite, and we’re running out.

I encourage you to read Jacoby’s piece where at the end he actually seems to be encouraging us to throw things in the landfill with the confidence that there won’t be any problems as the decades tick by because, well gee, the EPA is in charge. What about when the oil runs dry? or the forests are gone? What about when the raw materials of the earth begin to dwindle? Will the EPA be there to help us mine our landfills for the plastic we threw away decades, if not centuries before?

VBS: Prostitutes of God

VBS has done it again. Vice Guide to Travel opens our comfy American eyes to the realities of the world. This documentary takes us into rural India where in just one small region tens of thousands of young girls in one area become prostitutes in the name of a god and are their family’s only hope for survival.

Here is link to the first episode of four. As of today, three are available. I’ve also included links to some of the other episodes of Vice Guide to Travel that do what nobody else has done. Keep it up Vice!

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/prostitutes-of-god-episode-1

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-1-of-3

Food & Water Watch: Stop Frankenfish

Take Action at Food & Water Watch!

People of Oregon, SAY NO to Nestle! (Don’t let them take your water!)!

Press Release
Food & Water Watch
September 1, 2010

Comment Period Begins for Controversial Water Exchange That Would Bring Nestlé Water Bottling Plant into the Gorge

Portland, Ore. – Today marks the start of a 30-day public comment period on a controversial water exchange that would allow Nestlé to bottle and sell water currently being used by endangered fish from the Columbia River Gorge. Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) is considering an application from Cascade Locks and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for a water exchange that would allow the town to sell ODFW’s spring water to Nestlé to bottle.

“Citizens from the Gorge and across Oregon are deeply concerned about the social and environmental impacts of selling our water to a multinational corporation,” said Lori Ann Burd, Restore Mt. Hood Campaign Manager and Staff Attorney for Bark. “This water comes onto state land from Mt. Hood National Forest, so it really belongs to all of us, and Nestlé’s plan is not an appropriate use of this precious resource.”

Earlier this summer, a United States Geological Service (USGS) report that found ground water levels are falling across the entire Columbia Plateau, a region that includes Cascade Locks. According to the USGS, groundwater levels in the Eastern Columbia Plateau have steeply declined over the past 25 years in 80 percent of the nearly 500 wells measured. Although the sampling did not include Cascade Locks’ groundwater, this study suggests a shrinking supply of water, a resource once thought to be inexhaustible in the region.

“In an area that has always been water-rich, this USGS report is a wake-up call that the abundant supply of water Oregonians have taken for granted is diminishing,” said Julia DeGraw, the Northwest organizer with Food & Water Watch and Keep Nestlé Out of the Gorge. “We should not sell our finite water supply to a corporation with a long history as a bad actor.”

Nestlé has asked ODFW to approve an agreement that would exchange part of ODFW’s water at Oxbow Springs with an equivalent amount of well water from the city of Cascade Locks. Nestlé would then buy both the city’s well and spring water to bottle under its Pure Life and Arrowhead labels, pumping an average of 167 million gallons of water out of Cascade Locks every year. While the financial details of the deal have not yet been disclosed, Nestlé has paid an average of $.00225 per gallon where it has brokered similar deals in other areas. A gallon of Nestlé’s spring water sold in single-serve plastic jugs sells for $5.30.

The lack of facts on the ground is a serious concern for Keep Nestlé out of the Gorge, a coalition of 15 environmental and social justice organizations. “How can we know what a sustainable withdrawal of water is when we don’t have a map or adequate baseline data on the city of Cascade Locks’ groundwater?” said DeGraw. “Approving it would be an irresponsible move that could cause serious damage to Cascade Locks’ municipal drinking water source. OWRD should deny this application. “

Clean, cold water from the spring is crucial for endangered fish living both inside the fish hatchery and in nearby Herman Creek, but scientists have not yet determined whether or not they would be adversely impacted by this proposal. In addition, the water bottling facility would introduce up to 200 truck trips a day to rural roads, increasing traffic and smog in the Gorge and potentially affecting tourism in Cascade Locks.

Public comments on the Nestlé water exchange should be sent to the Water Resources Department; Attn: Transfer Section, 725 Summer St. NE, Suite A, Salem, OR 97301-1266, Transfer Number 11109. Public comments will close on Sept. 30, after which point it will decide whether or not to approve the exchange.

The Keep Nestlé Out of the Gorge coalition members include Food & Water Watch, Alliance for Democracy, Bark, Environment Oregon, Trout Unlimited, Columbia Group Sierra Club and Columbia Riverkeeper. More details about the Cascade Locks water exchange can be found athttp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/NoNestleinOR or on the Keep Nestlé Out of the Gorge Facebook page.

The World Bank and our Water. Want to know more?

Corporate Accountability International wrote up a nice piece on where and how the World Bank has played a leading role in muddling up drinking water for poor countries. Understanding of how the World Bank loans money and it’s relationship to gigantic transnational corporations like Veolia and Suez sheds some light on the top of the largest hurdle towards reliable, sustainable water for everyone. The abridged stories of Armenia, Malawi, Turkey, and the Philipines are told in this quick read. I encourage you to take a look. More information on each country can be found on CAI’s water page.

Download the Thirsty-For-Change PDF

or get it at the website: http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/privatization

NRDC: Evaluating Sustainability of Projected Water Demands Under Future Climate Change Scenarios

Not so long ago I mentioned the report put out by the NRDC entitled Evaluating Sustainability of Projected Water Demands Under Future Climate Change Scenarios. It was published this past July and was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. out of Lafayette, CA. I had a chance to read it while I was on vacation hiking and mountain biking in the west Kootenay Mountains of British Columbia. (Trip Reports coming soon!).

First, here are the links again to the documents:
Tetra Tech Climate Report 2010

Water Risk Fact Sheet

The main use of this report is for water supply management planning. It is a comparison between all the counties of the Lower 48 in order to indicate where the most work needs to be done. It is a baseline comparison to guide future decisions concerning water supply as precipitation and temperature patterns change over the next 20 to 40 years. The reason I want to make this clear is because at first glance the results seem really scary. For example, on page iv maps are shown depicting the Water Supply Sustainability Index for the year 2050. One of these maps is for the scenario of “no climate change effects”. This particular map shows much of California to have either an “Extreme” or “High” risk to water sustainability. This is scary since California is where much of our food is grown. Well, it turns out it’s not as scary after all, although we do need to be very concerned.

First off, this report does not consider “future enhancements in water use efficiency” and does not consider “changes in the rates of use that might be related to climate change.” (pg. 2) In other words, its a business-as-usual scenario where water use practices continue along their present trajectory. To give an example of why this matters let’s look at the two largest uses of water: thermoelectric and irrigation. Thermoelectric is simply the water used to cool off the heat generating process of making electricity. According to the report thermoelectric accounts for about 40% of our total water use here in the Lower 48 and irrigation accounts for 36%. There is an important difference in these major uses. This difference is that irrigation is typically consumptive and thermoelectric is not. This means that after we use water for thermoelectric cooling it can be used again for something else. It doesn’t mean that we do, just that it can be. In terms of water use efficiency, there are incredible improvements to be made in the re-use of water used for thermoelectric cooling. The most significant of which would be incorporating the used water into an industrial ecological process. In other words, in the future we will see a lot more re-use of cooling water for industrial or manufacturing use after it has done it’s cooling. It might even be able to be used for irrigation if a suitable industrial hydrological cycle can be designed. It is also possible that irrigation water could be collected after use removing it from the consumptive use category. This has been demonstrated with hydroponic systems and subsurface collection. Since irrigation and thermoelectric are the two largest uses of water, advancements such as these would significantly improve our water use efficiency. This report shows us the areas of the country where advancements such as these must be implemented to ensure a sustainable supply.

There are also a few things in the report that I question, and maybe others can comment on as well. My first concern is that the areas analyzed are counties. In a study dealing with sustainability of water supply it makes sense to look at the hydrologic cycle for a given watershed as opposed to political boundaries. I understand that counties were analyzed because this report will likely determine appropriations for managing the risk of each county, but it is a disservice in accurately portraying the actual risk to each individual watershed. An example of why this matters is the export of water from one watershed to another. Looking at counties this may not be represented accurately or even at all. Exportation of water from a watershed causes desertification of two watersheds by depleting one water source and inciting development of another. Desertification of the first watershed happens when water is removed from the local hydrologic cycle. A good example of this is Owens Lake in California. Desertification of the second watershed happens when development surpasses its carrying capacity. Development increases because water is being imported from another watershed, so more people can live there. This increases impervious area thus increasing runoff and decreasing recharge while encouraging supplemental groundwater mining which further reduces the volume of water in the local hydrologic cycle. A good example of this is the city of Los Angeles and the surrounding communities.

Another concern I had with this report is that it made the assumption that growth would only occur for domestic supply and thermoelectric cooling and not irrigation, aquaculture, or livestock. This is odd since the population is growing which means we’ll need more food, which means we’ll need more water. It is true that we import lots of food, but this is essentially importing water (food is mostly water), and a close look at the sustainability of water supply shows us that importing and exporting water to and from watersheds is a bad idea. To me, it seems that it would be prudent to assume an increase in water use for irrigation. Now, I should point out that developments in maintaining a sustainable food supply involve a reduction in water withdrawals for irrigation due to embracing natural systems such as permaculture, etc. but for a business-as-usual look we need not take this into account especially if they are not taking into account advancements in water use efficiency. On page 8 the reasons behind holding irrigation water use constant do not make sense to me, so maybe someone can shed some light? The only real reason I can grasp is that we are importing more and more food from China. If that is the case, what about Chinese water use sustainability? Shouldn’t that be a factor in our own sustainability? I think so.

The rest of my concerns with the report are minor so I won’t bring them up, but feel free to comment and let me know if you had concerns.

The development of the sustainability index is a great idea and could be adapted for use at larger and smaller scales. I do think the criteria needs a second look for two reasons. First is the seemingly arbitrary threshold of 25% given in criteria number one. Why is it that the risk to supply is greater if more than 25% of available precipitation is used? I’m just curious as to where this number came from. The second is the criteria does not seem to take into consideration time to recharge for groundwater supply. It says that the risk to water supply is greater if we withdraw greater than 25% of available precipitation from an aquifer. Well, what if the aquifer is a fossil aquifer and takes thousands of years to recharge? what if it is a quickly recharging aquifer that can handle more withdrawal than just 25% of available precipitation? These questions are important. For example, if this criteria deems a county at low risk, then a bottling plant starts sucking water from a fossil aquifer at a rate lower than 25% of available precipitation say good bye aquifer! With that all said, I do understand that a line needed to be drawn, but again, how was that line drawn?

Overall I’m glad this report was published and I think it will get into the right hands. The NRDC has a lot of political clout and hopefully this report will be read by leaders of the counties at greatest risk. Even if those leaders don’t believe in climate change, this report still highlights a need to take action to work towards more sustainable water supply systems. Hopefully this report will also guide legislature to creating water rights laws that take into account the future of our country and not just the interests of the user. We are all stakeholders in these issues. Water is life.