Greenwashing

I was recently asked to research certain aspects of “green building” and “sustainable development” practices and report back on my findings. My starting point was a reference pamphlet from an association of practicing California planners that sketched out the model community of Terramor, located in Orange County, CA. My B.S. detectors were promptly activated once began to read the article in depth. First of all, there is no such thing as sustainable development. Development by its nature consumes resources and is ultimately not sustainable. (How much and what type of resources consumed varies, depending on the project.) Secondly, the “green” aspects did not amount to much more than window dressing.

Here is a brief description of Terramor, courtesy of their web site:

Eco-friendly, green, culturally creative, Terramor
celebrates the home as nest and embodies 360º Living, a balanced approach that
respects nature and the ideals of a shared world. Choose from 12 unique
neighborhoods surrounded by natural open spaces and connected by village trails.
More than a place, Terramor is a fulfilling lifestyle.

Sounds great. Now let’s look at the reality. Terramor does offer the following “green” adaptations:

1. All homes will meet California's Energy Star requirements, and exceed Title 24 energy usage reduction standards by at least 20%


2. Most homes will feature photovoltaic cells


3. An 110V outlet for charging electrical vehicles will be conveniently located at the front of every garage


4. Outdoor lighting will be low voltage, fluorescent on automatic timers


5. Building designs will provide natural cross-ventilation in all primary rooms.


6. Homes will feature solar shade components.

Other strategies to be utilized include passive solar shading (no mention of whether this will conflict with the PV system), use of recycled and natural construction supplies and the reduction of waste during construction. Once complete, all homes will have a recycling center.

The community will be “connected” via a network of paths of trails and open space so that residents could jog or stroll around without encountering a road. If Junior at home would rather download music and game online all day instead of exercising, every home will also be connected to Terramor’s high speed intranet.

As gosh-darn environmentally friendly as this subdivision purports to be, it amounts to little more than a greenwashing of your ordinary suburban subdivision.

Why? Because the developer and builders have merely dressed up their subdivisions with a number of mostly superficial energy and resource conservation strategies. No real hard choices were made or true impact reducing strategies adopted. In fact, even what few “green choices” they did make could have been expanded on with little effort. While the electrical component appears to be well covered, the heating component was all but ignored. For example, photovoltaic solar panels will be common throughout the development, most water heating still appears to be accomplished by natural gas fired conventional water heaters. Where’s the solar water heater? How about standard tankless water heaters Nor was there any discussion on space heating systems, though given that this is Southern California, winter heating needs seldom amount to much anyway. Passive solar heating strategies have likewise fallen by the wayside. A number of the building styles appear all but ignorant of time-tested ways of capturing or reducing solar gain.

Maybe that three car garage got in the way.

In the grand scheme of things, the measures taken by Terramor are minor. This development still follows the conventional model of suburban development. Differing land uses are still separated from each other. Mixed use development is entirely absent. While many houses appear to hide their garages, the car is still paramount to life in Terramor. Like virtually every other development in this country since the end of World War II, these subdivisions are still established around the hierarchical street pattern that flows from cul-de-sacs to collectors to arterials. As a result transit service here, like so many other suburban locations, is infeasible. With little to no commercial activity present in the community, you can bet the residents will still have to drive to their jobs, the store and just about everywhere else. The path system, while nice, will mostly remain a recreational feature.

The residences themselves are clownish distortions of conventional suburban architecture, which is not an easy achievement. At sizes approaching 5,000 square feet apiece, calling them environmentally sensitive is a joke, even if they are sporting spiffy PV panels and a recycling center. None of these units come close to being self sufficient in energy needs and even if they did, the energy investment in all of that space is still a colossal misuse of natural resources, energy and labor. I mean, with an average family size of four occupying one of these behemoths that’s around 1200 square feet per person.

After the fourth bedroom, it becomes clear the builder is out of ideas to name these useless rooms. The culture room? The tower room (see left)? Come on—is this really necessary? What does one do with a tower room anyway? Ward off marauding youngsters from the nearby townhome development? Appreciate the view of the neighboring subdivision?

Terramor, like many other “green” or “sustainable” communities out there, is joke. All it is sprinkling of good, environmentally sound ideas and strategies that lull or snooker the well-meaning, but ignorant homeowner into paying extra for the same old suburban crap. In the end, the developer can market him or herself off as a “progressive community builder” (or some other nonsense like that) while Johnny and Sally Homeowner can contemplate in their new culture room how they did their part to help the environment.

But it’s not just residential developers that greenwash. Huge Fortune 500 firms do this all the time. Walmart has built several “Green” stores around North America, complete with a ridiculous looking wind turbine and make it a showpiece for public consumption. Meanwhile in community after community, they continue to build their traditional grey structures that perpetuate everything that is wrong with this line of thinking.

General Electric is another participant in green washing. Has anyone caught their recent Eco-Magination P.R. blitz that features dancing jungle animals (when was the last time you saw an elephant in the rainforest anyways) and those very “hot” looking Clean Coal miners? I am not even going to get into what the oil companies are up to… Again you have another great example of an environmentally destructive or energetically wasteful firm engaged in a green snow-job to the ever docile public.

In the end, no amount of green washing will forestall the consequences of the coming energy crisis nor gain these firms or consumers any protection their inevitable impacts. All these strategies really do is take an ugly picture palatable for mass consumption. Or as the old cliché goes, it’s akin to putting lip stick on pig.

Hint folks…it’s still a pig.

The "Planning" Process

This may strike some people as surprising and others as the truth, but in reality there really isn’t a planning process. Or at least one that lives up to what one might consider an honest, forthcoming and beneficial process. What we do have in most jurisdictions is a process to more efficiently develop, produce or consume our natural resources while reconfiguring the landscape for the most profitable end use possible. For the most part, the planners ensure this process occurs in a more orderly fashion while producing fewer near term conflicts. In the grand scheme of things, we are just not that important, at least in terms of truly planning for the future.

In most colleges, future planners are taught the rational model of planning. In short, it goes somewhat like this:

1. Define the Problem.


2. Clarify values


3. Select goals


4. Formulate Alternatives (possible solutions)


5. Project the consequences of those alternatives


6. Select the best alternative


7. Develop implementation plans


8. Review and evaluate

The elements and order may vary slightly, but the result is generally the same. In most democratic societies, opportunities for public participation exist at almost every step. The process sounds good in theory but all too often, reality sets in. Good or worthy ideas fall by the wayside so that the most economic or expedient solution can be implemented. Let’s reexamine the process from a realist/cynic’s point of view.

1. Define the problem. In order to define a problem, you have acknowledge that it even exists. Not only that, but if multiple parties are involved a general agreement or consensus is required. In my case, I cannot even get my agency to own up to the fact that there is an energy “problem” looming in the future. More conventionally, various participants have different opinions on the same problem. For example, traffic congestion is viewed by residents as an irritant, environmentalists as a source of pollution, businesses as a waste of money and resources, and local governments as unwelcome side effect of growth which now needs attention.


2. Clarify Values. If owning up to a problem can be difficult, deciding on values—or overarching goals—is worse. At this point, philosophical points of view enter the picture. Reducing congestion may be the assumed goal, but a person’s or organization’s point of view will reflect in what they think should occur. An environmentalist may value the protection of a natural resource (habitat) as paramount and seek non-construction solutions. The Chamber of Commerce may view economic growth as paramount and promote capacity increasing solutions. Residents tend to value reduced congestion as long as it does not mean widening in their neighborhoods. Political and ideological thinking also clouds this phase. Right-leaning individuals may value private sector solutions while left-leaning individuals may gravitate towards a governmental solution. As the planning process is ultimately an extension of the political process, the values of the politicians in charge are also inherently important.


3. Goals. Assuming some consensus can be arrived at, goals are developed. Some of these may work well together, while others are mutually exclusive. Businesses and residents may both seek a new road, though for differing reasons. Environmentalists and neighborhood activists may both oppose a new road, again for differing reasons. End goals can and will differ. Increased public transit and wider roads may solve the same problem, but yet are unrelated to each other. It is at this point that the question of finances gets asked. Is this goal feasible? Will the developer pay for it? Will we be able to publicly finance it? Good goals may fall out of discussion for a lack of financing possibilities.


4. Alternatives. If goals are the free-floating ideas then the alternatives are the nuts-and-bolts plans for implementation. Most of these originate from the planners and engineers themselves and are polished up for public consumption. In many cases these professionals are wedded to one or two real alternatives and will write the lousiest or worst scoring alternatives so that the “preferred” alternative looks great in comparison. I should know. I have been a part of this more than once. I have seen the agency (or developer) go into a project set on doing one alternative. By law, most jurisdictions require at least three. So two loser proposals are written and ‘voila’ you have a viable ‘solution’. When a presented plan faces criticism, many planners face a reluctance to accept that their idea may be flawed or need adjusting. In many cases the alternative gets rammed through as a result.


5. Consequences. Here is another subject area that gets short shrift when push comes to shove. Planners and developers are loathe to project or examine the consequences of a proposal if it makes the project look bad. Well, duh. Who would? This area is symptomatic of a larger human nature problem, the inability to place long term [sustainability] in front of short term [gain]. Just about everybody is guilty of this offense and as a result we inevitably create a larger mess, err- problems for future planners to resolve.


6. Alternative Selection. Don’t even get me started. By the time the process gets this far, the agency’s or developer’s planned alternative is going to be pursued come hell or high water. Nothing short of a successful law suit (or in some locales, ballot action) will alter the intended outcome. I have seen this time and time again from both sides of the table. The more determined and deep pocketed the instigating party is, the more likely he or she will realize a successful outcome.

Once the process gets this far, it is all over but the shouting. The last two steps are formalities and are—more frequently than you might realize—often ignored. Good comprehensive or general plans will over time be undone by subsequent variations asked for (and almost always received) by developers. In addition, developers fail to live up to promised improvements and jurisdictions fail to enforce conditions of approval.

Every step of the way, the process is vulnerable to influence by the wealthy or powerful. In most locales, the wealthy developer or firm will ultimately prevail, should they make it worth their while to expend significant amounts of time and financial expense to see it through. A company here spent easily in excess of two million dollars, three full-blown Environmental Impact Reports, and countless technical studies over the course of 20 years before ultimately prevailing at the supervisor level. They just simply wore down their opposition (which had nowhere near the same level of funds) in the process.

It doesn’t matter how “green” a jurisdiction may be, if a wealthy company or individual feels that project X or use Y will make a profit and they have the resources to see it through, they will almost always prevail. Most companies of course take local opposition levels into account, which explains why Coastal California sees far fewer invasive (mines, factories, large developments) projects than points inland where local governments are less hostile or outright welcoming. But if some entity wants it real bad, they will usually get it.

The exceptions to this rule are those firms stopped at the ballot box or by the courts. Walmart tried and failed to overrule Inglewood’s decision to stop their project via a referendum. They were also stopped in Bakersfield by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for inadequately discussing the consequences of their alternative (building a Super Walmart).

Politicians can and do monkey up the process as well. Whether it is out for philosophical or political reasons, at behest of the developer or in fear of another jurisdiction’s sanctions, they can usurp the process by unduly influencing the direction of a project through the application of pressure on staff or handling of the matter during public hearings. The strength of pressure can range between mild persuasion to public berating to outright dismissal (of at will employees). On more than one occasion, I have witnessed this political pressure (on mine or other’s projects) override my judgement, which was based on factual evidence in favor of pursuing a path that had political support.

Finally, members of the public do factor into “process” as well. Just not how you might think. Public involvement generally comes in two forms: activist and ordinary citizen involvement. Ordinary citizen involvement seldom goes beyond the occasional letter of support or opposition to a particular project and in the grand scheme of things does little to affect the course of the project. As discussed in a previous response, a planner is lucky to get much of a turnout of people from this category. The activist on the other hand, stands a better chance of affecting the planning process, though not usually through modification of an intended plan. As discussed above, plans are usually pursued whether or not there is strong support for them or not. What few changes that do occur on behest of an activist group usually amounts to no more than window dressing.

Where an activist group does pack the most wallop is when they can back their criticisms up with a strong legal foundation. In those situations, they are a force to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, most of that force’s impact is felt in the pre-planning development stage where a company gauges whether or not they wish to proceed with a particular project in light of a potential challenge. One of my project applicants is prepared to withdraw his project if it faces any form of public opposition, rather than invest a seemingly endless amount of money to keep it going.

Taking all of this into account it is easy to understand why I have a low regard for the process I work under. My actual job description and duties have little bearing on what I actually end up doing. By job description and specific request, I was asked to research the availability of key resources over the next 30 years. When my results ran counter to the stated plans, I had to find other resources that we were critically short on (but had a possibility of finding a solution to) and try and develop a solution for instead of changing the plans themselves. Any public findings of my research would need to support the General Plan process and not run counter to it.

What a crock of …

From Walmart to Sustainability

One consequence of the end of cheap oil will be the end of the big-box retailing model. What this means for our cities and towns across this country is that we will soon be blessed with a surplus of cheaply built retail buildings with no real apparent post petroleum-era usage. Lacking any sort of intrinsic architectural value or scrap value for that matter, most will likely wind up slowly decaying monuments to our collective stupidity, surrounded by acres of battered pavement.
.
Or maybe not…we could unplan the Walmart first.
.
With prompt attention, that old Walmart could become the newest farm. It may sound counterintuitive but I can envision something positive growing out of the wreckage of our consumerist culture. Hopefully it would certainly come in the nick of time, given the extreme vulnerability of our globalized food distribution system.
.
Deconstructing the Big Box
.
Typically these buildings often range in size from 100,000 to 210,000 square feet of enclosed space, surrounded by acres of parking. Included within the property are a number of valuable metals, plastics, glass and concrete that would be suitable for re-use in emerging local manufacturing and construction operations. Anything that would have value to others in the community should be salvaged. Such parts could include:

* Lights and wiring for reuse elsewhere in the community, in lieu of new production
* Large HVAC systems for reuse or parts stockpile for surviving businesses in the community.
* Store shelving and nonstructural construction could be melted down for component metals.
* Unneeded cinder block and ceiling tiles could be reused or recycled as well.

Once stripped, the roof could be cut up (construction is flimsy enough this could be accomplished by hand) and skylights installed. A lot of them in fact. If formal skylights are not available, simple glass constructions could be placed over the newly cut openings. The design ideally would be simple to construct and operate.
.
The renovations wouldn’t have to be terribly elaborate. Just sufficient to keep the captured winter heat in and the elements out. Unlike a retail store, water leakage could be tolerated. The skylit portion wouldn’t have to cover the whole structure, just the central half to three quarters of the building, where the main crops would be grown. The areas around the walls would be utilized for small livestock quarters and fish hatcheries as well as agricultural support functions such as storage, food processing and office use.
.
Adaptive modifications
.
Since the HVAC system was stripped out early in the process, some ventilation would be required for the summer months. This could be accomplished by opening the sky light windows and by cutting large openings in the walls to draw in outside air. As fan use requires comparatively small amounts of electricity, summer time ventilation would require substantially less energy than the original HVAC system. These openings could be closed during winter time periods to retain heat. The whole ventilation setup could be manually operated and controlled (including the seasonal covers) to reduce the dependence on automated arrangements.
.
Water management is equally critical in any reuse scenario. Water ideally should be captured from the outside and channeled inside to water storage units, ideally built along the periphery of the building. This would serve two functions. It would capture water for later use in irrigation while providing needed thermal mass to help keep inside temperatures more level. The storage containment could conceivably be created by building a parallel wall along the inside of the outer wall, at least half way to the roofline, if not higher. By careful salvage of cinderblock from the subject building and other abandoned structures, sufficient quantity of cinder block could be had at minimal energetic, time or labor expense. Only a batch of cement for mortar use would be necessary at this point. Once stored, the water could ideally be distributed to the various cultivated areas via drip irrigation systems. Should this prove unavailable, human labor and a cheap hose will suffice.
.
Bringing in the Agriculture
.
As noted, the central section would be utilized for the cultivation of crops. Since the store’s foundation precludes easy access to growing soil below, an alternate arrangement will have to be created and used. Several non-traditional cultivation methods, such Ecological Synergy or Biointensive methods utilize raised beds. After the flooring has been stripped down to the foundation, any conceivable building material from wood to concrete could be used to form the beds that will later contain the composted growing media. Again, perfection would not be required, a simple containment setup would do just fine needed.
.
The solid concrete foundation would provide some advantages in fact. It would preclude tunneling rodents from raiding the crop. It would trap water better. It would also provide a good foundation for agricultural support services such as livestock raising (particular for fish hatcheries), food processing (like milling, shucking, canning or packing) and general storage (food or equipment). In cases where openings for drainage or larger plants like trees might be needed, those could be drilled through. By and large, by leaving the foundation in place, precious energy could be expended elsewhere.
.
Outside the box
.
Nor would all of the action be limited to the inside. Outside of the building, the acres of parking would also be dramatically altered. Again—like inside—cultivation would occur with BioIntensive or Ecological Syn agricultural techniques to better utilize the existing space. Unlike with the harder interior concrete foundation, the asphalt paving could be more easily upended and removed by hand. An ideal strategy would be to remove the pavement under the raised beds, while retaining it between the beds to allow all weather access across the property.
.
The light posts would gain a new function in our adaptive farming scenario. They would become support posts for screens, if needed. If you go to any major hardware store you will see some examples of this sun screen over their garden section. Such a setup could be strung up between the existing light posts whenever cultivation required more shaded crops
.
Outdoor uses would not necessarily be limited to raised beds however. Whole sections of pavement could be removed to allow the cultivation of orchard or vine crops across the property. In areas where climate permits, rice cultivation could also occur in what used to be the parking lot.
.
Sounds interesting, but…
.
At this point, some of you are undoubtedly wondering why? Why go through the hassle, why worry about retrofitting a Walmart or Target. To this, I’d respond that it would be a relatively easy way to squeeze a small but respectable amount of food production on what would have previously been wasted land. Even if the eventual number of people fed by such a setup remains small, it would be better than nothing at all. It would also allow those in more northern latitudes to maintain access to a supply of warmer climate crops that may not be accessible to them in the future. Unlike the creation of a greenhouse system from scratch, this setup would utilize a wealth of previously available building materials without being dependent of imported products or goods.
.
Another benefit originates out the fact that big box establishments are located in suburban locations, closest to the residents in need of food supplies. Instead of traveling across the country via airplane and truck, that head of lettuce will travel at most, across town probably by foot. Thus, big box farming would potentially introduce some modicum of food security (and variety) to a local population without being dependent on outside inputs.
.
Finally, this form of farming would depend far more on human labor rather than on the use of machines to succeed. With such a variety of crops being cultivated in as complex of an arrangement as has been described here, more people would inevitably be required to farm this arrangement. This is a good thing. With the collapse of the oil-driven economy, there will be a lot of individuals with time on their hands.

.

Final words

.

Ours is not the first civilization faced with a potential interruption of their food supply. Cuba and North Korea faced an (artificial) peak of energy supplies during the 1990s. Cuba responded by increasing urban agricultural activities ranging anywhere from vacant lots to roof tops.

.

North Korea? Two million starved to death.

.

Every bit helps. Even converting a Walmart...

Trash Talking Civilization

Every living creature produces one or more by-products during their existence. It is just a fact of life that the plant produces oxygen as part of photosynthesis, a tiger converts ingested meat into excrement or anaerobic bacteria transforms carbohydrates to hydrocarbons. It is also a fact of life that when waste materials build up to excessive levels, the life form that created them often is seriously impacted by their actions. In a closed system this relationship usually is fatal. Fish living in an uncirculated fish tank will consume all of the dissolved oxygen and pollute their water to a point where the tank conditions cease to support any life. By installing a pump and filter system, we artificially increase the fish tank’s carrying capacity.
.
Our use of waste treatment strategies similarly extends our carrying capacity, especially in our largest, densest urban areas. Without it our natural and economic wastes would accumulate to levels that would endanger our health.
.
Human generated waste management is a serious matter. In the US, we generate some 231 million tons of waste materials in any given year. Only 30% of that is recovered. Californian rates are somewhat higher as the state has begun to sanction municipalities that fail to recycle at least half of their waste stream. The law mandating this elevated diversion rate, AB939 has caused some jurisdictions (including mine) fits trying to reach the mandated target rates. Only now, under the risk of fines, have we begun to take this issue seriously.
.
The motivating factor behind this of course, is the dwindling amount of space at many landfills across the state (and country). More than one jurisdiction has faced that tricky question on how to handle waste matter once landfill capacity has been reached. New sites are usually difficult to permit and more often than not, located well away from the major urban area generating the trash. In a number of locations, that trash is exported out of the region altogether, to an area with sufficient capacity. In some cases this turns out to be poorer rural areas or third world countries.
.
Other countries have faced the trash issue and taken a variety of approaches from extensive reuse/recycle programs to dumping trash at sea. In recent years, many locations have begun tapping into the potential energy embodied in the waste by constructing elaborate methane collection systems that channel the gas to a generating unit that burns off the gas to create electricity. (One of our county landfills now does this) Other places incinerate the trash itself to reduce the size and harness the produced heat to generate electricity. As energy prices continue to climb, these strategies will become ever more popular.
.
But household solid waste is only half the picture. We, of course, also produce waste materials. Each year the USA produces 6.9 million tons of (dried) sewage waste that also needs to be properly disposed of. Like solid waste, there are multiple ways to handle human waste. While a sizable number of individuals rely on septic systems, most sewage treatment needs are handled by large municipal operations that treat the incoming waste for pathogens, concentrate and remove solids and discharge the now cleaner water. An area of controversy remains over the disposal of the remnant solid materials also known as biosolids. Industry advocates insist the spreading of these materials over farmlands is a safe and effective tool, while opponents cite the possibility of trace pathogens and industrial chemicals (many of which are toxic) as a reason why they should not be applied to farmlands, especially those producing food for human consumption. If biosolids are not spread over the landscape, they are primarily disposed of in a landfill or incineration unit. In past decades they were also dumped at sea.
.
Both strategies for waste disposal discussed here also have something else in common. They are energy intensive. In 2000, municipal systems consumed approximately 21 billion kWh of electricity while privately operated facilities consumed roughly twice that. Solid waste disposal strategies are entirely dependent on diesel to fuel the tens of thousands of garbage trucks that ply our streets each day. The larger the urban area, the more sophisticated these waste control strategies have to be. Without either, waste and trash would accumulate in densely populated areas and increase the risk of pest infestation and disease transmission. When either of these waste removal strategies fails (whether due to equipment failure in the case of a treatment plan or labor problems for garbage removal) health concerns quickly manifest themselves.
.
To put it simply, we are just as dependent on cheap energy to rid our settlements of our waste materials as we are to get the raw materials to us in the first place.
.
Removal of this energy subsidy calls into question the viability of our waste handling strategies. Just as it is doubtful if we can maintain regional and global supply networks of food and water, it is equally questionable whether or not we can continue to treat and remove the millions of tons of waste our society produces each year. This problem is almost as serious as the input question and deserves our attention.
.
We need a lower energy, more holistic approaches to waste management. The continued linear flow of nutrients from field to plate to toilet to treatment facility to landfill is not sustainable. Nor is mass treatment and biosolid application on agricultural lands. Just as food should be produced close to home, so should our waste. Ideally the issue of sewerage treatment would be handled within each household, via a composting toilet if possible, with the compost removed for eventual application near the community. The Chinese used to practice a less sophisticated version of this (look up night soil) for millennia resolving the issue of nutrient flows. A more sophisticated version of this would accomplish the same thing but with less risk of illness. Likewise, grey water should be treated close to home, if at all possible. The use of garbage disposals must be eliminated in favor of composting. What remains of our commercial and industrial sectors also must learn to reduce or treat their waste and not send it on down the line.
.
Now I recognize this will not always be possible to accomplish, especially with multifamily residences or large urban conurbations, but in the end if we are to continue living in concentrated settlements of any size, a low energy form of sewage treatment has to exist. The status quo will not cut it.
.
Nor will our solid waste strategies continue to remain sustainable. The dependence on once or twice weekly pick of refuse will become ever more difficult for municipalities to maintain. Commercial establishments will be forced to pay higher and higher rates for private haulers to service their needs. Unlike the issue of human waste, the best strategies for coping with solid waste will undoubtedly originate from the development of more re-useable forms of packaging, more recycling of various products, less packaging for other products and the elimination of most forms of globalized trade that require sophisticated packing and presentation. Similarly, the shift from a consumptive to a steady state economy would also go a long way to reducing the consumerist purchases so typical of many shoppers.
.
Instead of milk products, mass produced in mega dairies, processed in large centers and distributed to multiple states in plastic containers, we could return to local dairies and reusable glass bottles.
.
Instead of cheaply made plastic toys from China, packed in plastic packaging and sent to the US, we could return to the hand crafted toys more common of the pre-industrialized era.
.
Substitutions like this would inevitably reduce trash production.
.
So would more efficient manufacturing processes and more recycling of nonsalable portions. Or more durably made products. Or fewer products altogether. Each would no doubt, play a part.
.
Some of these strategies probably come off as idealistic. That’s a fair enough argument. My point in this piece isn’t in really to promote these concepts as “must do” ideas. Rather, it was my intention to describe how the business as usual methods will not cut it. I still stand by those statements. The maintenance of our civilization is due in part to our ability to remove wastes from our system before they result in disease or death. Unfortunately as our civilization grew more complex, so did our waste management strategies.
.
Like other carrying capacity increasing strategies, large scale treatment options are dependent on cheap energy. Without them, many of our largest cities will become as healthy to us as that uncirculated fish tank is to the fish.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resources used:

http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleid=5579

http://biosolids.org/docs/history%20of%20biosolids.pdf

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS04-14.pdf

Passport Cuisine

Here’s a few questions to ponder before you sit down for dinner. What nationality is your food? What country did it originate from? No, not the meal but its core ingredients…because chances are that your food came from just about everywhere.
.
Take for example, this picture. This was a good representative sample of what I ate today. Can you guess how many countries were involved? While you ponder that, let’s take a peek at the Unplanner’s globalized eating habits and tally up the ecological damage wrought from eating across the planet.
.
For breakfast I ate oatmeal with bananas. Being somewhat health conscious, I am well aware of the benefits of oatmeal and fresh fruit. My oatmeal as usual, originates from the US Midwest, grain capital of the world, via Chicago. Today’s bananas were Panamanian. While the oatmeal was probably trucked over here, bananas were flown in. Not counting the sugar I sprinkled on, breakfast traveled 5500 miles to get to my plate.
.
Lunch was not my usual sandwiches. Today I had an extra nutritious, pre-packaged burrito. Okay so it wasn’t extra nutritious, but it was convenient. It also traveled some 250 miles from the LA area via a frozen food truck and personal vehicle to get to my office microwave. Of course the factory didn’t just make the burrito from scratch, so who knows where all the component ingredients originated from. Not wishing to speculate, I will only charge myself 250 miles. That’s okay because for snack I had a fresh apple…
.
Now, I know apples are grown in substantial quantities here in the US, but alas, I wanted a fresh one. So I picked what was currently available, a Chilean Gala apple and consumed nearly 5000 more miles worth of food.
.
Dinner was simple: fish, rice and salad. It certainly wasn’t local, not by a long shot. The prepackaged salad (because making salad is sooo hard…) was picked and packed not far from me in Monterey County. At slightly less than 175 miles, it perhaps was the most local item I ate all day. I more than made for that with my balsamic vinegar dressing which was produced in Italy, packaged in Spain and imported to Fresno, for a whopping 7000 total miles of travel. Fortunately most of that was by ship. My fish on the other hand had nothing to do with ships whatsoever. It was raised on a farm more than 7500 miles away in southern China (see picture) and flown directly here. My rice in comparison was US grown and packaged. Rice-a-Roni, that San Francisco treat is apparently not San Franciscan any longer, but it still originates from within the US. For a lack of more information, I will charge myself 500 miles for this side.
.
Finally, not content with my global jaunt I also snacked on a Duvalin, that Mexico City candy (1500 miles) and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The bread is apparently from the LA area as well (250 miles) while the jam originated from Ohio (3000 miles). The Organic peanut butter originated from—Canada?? Yes you read that right, Canada. It was packaged in Canada from peanuts grown in warmer climates, most likely the US South. Hopefully, I say because peanuts are also grown for export from Africa, Argentina and Brazil. Let’s assume 5000 miles for the peanut butter. It’s a good thing I had water to drink instead of washing it down with milk produced only 4 miles from my house, but trucked down to LA, bottled and returned for nearly 400 extra miles of travel.
.
So all in all, I ate food from eight countries that traveled a whopping 35,675 collective miles to my plate via truck, train, boat and plane before being picked up and driven home by me in a personal vehicle.
.
While this arrangement makes perfect sense economically, it is utterly insane from an energetic standpoint and ultimately not sustainable. Throughout human history, man has sustained himself on the slight energetic surplus gained from localized, labor intensive food production. Cultivation was demanding and required a significant percent of the population to be involved agricultural production. Industrialization totally rearranged this set up. Machinery replaced the labors of man and beast and chemical manipulation brought forth a bounty the likes of which had never been before. All of this of course occurred at a huge energetic cost.
.
But the manipulation of global food production was not limited to the farm. Packers, distributors, processors and grocers are all now participants in our globalized supply chain. Everything now revolves around reducing costs and improving output from the farming level on up to your local supermarket. Whole regions of the world have transitioned from subsistence level agriculture to cash crop production, often displacing original inhabitants. Small mom and pop family farms and markets have given way to today’s factory farms and SuperWalmarts.
.
Food has never been cheaper, more plentiful and always in season, thanks to our globalized market place. Strawberries in January? No problem. Fresh fish in Kansas? No problem. Our distribution network ensures that a demand in one part of the world is always supplied from somewhere else. It also ensures that no one starves. A drought in the Midwest one year or a freeze in the San Joaquin Valley the next year does not result in mass starvation in those areas. Food from elsewhere will fill the gap. Even areas experiencing catastrophic droughts, such as Niger, still can receive food aid that will ultimately save the population from a greater famine.
.
At the same time today’s food has never been more expensive, in terms of energetic requirements. All of the chemical and mechanical processes involved in modern food production are energy intensive. So is the massive amount of transportation that is required to move this bounty from one part of the world to another. All of this is thanks to cheap energy.
.
Once the supply of cheap energy dries up, the global supermarket will become a thing of the past. The implication of this change is very disturbing and extends far beyond whether or not a shopper in Topeka will still be able get fresh strawberries in January. The problem is unfortunately much more fundamental than that. In an energy-deprived future the more fundamental question has to be asked: will we have any reliable form of food distribution at all? With large tracts of the world engaged in one form of monoculture or another, what will we all end up having for dinner, absent a coherent transition to localized cultivation of produce and grains?
.
That’s of course if we still have the energy to cultivate in the first place.
.
In all likelihood, the regions that survive the Great Unraveling will be those areas that mastered the switch from the industrialized model of corporate agriculture to a labor intensive cultivation of whatever that needs to be consumed locally by their residents. Those that fail to adapt will die off. It’s that easy.
.
And for those of you that wish to continue to see strawberries in January, my suggestion to you would be to build a green house.