 |
| tarsands plant, Fort McMurray AB -- photo credit: Mark Ralston / AFP / Getty. from Postmedia |
Parmi ses penseurs, le bioéconomiste Georgescu-Roegen, auteur de Demain la décroissance. Entropie, écologie, économie (1979); les anarcho-libertaires Jean-Pierre Tertrais, Du développement à la décroissance: de la nécessité de sortir de l'impasse suicidaire du capitalisme (2007, ci-contre), et Alain de Benoist, Demain la décroissance. Penser l'écologie jusqu'au bout (2008); et les écosocialistes Michel Beaud, Le basculement du monde (1997), et Serge Latouche, Le Pari de la décroissance (2006).Michel Beaud
Menaces des temps présents (p.206+)
Millions of Americans need more nutritious and affordable food that can address problems of hunger, malnutrition, obesity and poverty. Yet, critics whine that our food stamp program for 40 million people that now costs $73 billion a year is "part of a long-term expansion in welfare and related programs." Chris Edwards from libertarian Cato institute says that "some government figures show that only 10 million people have a serious problem with hunger," yet the "number of people on food stamps is four times higher than the number of people with a serious hunger problem."* Percentage of high-poverty schools has increased from 12% to 17% according to a Department of Education report released this week: The percentage of schools where "students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch" has increased "from 12 to 17 percent between the 1999-2000 and 2007-2008 school years, even before the current recession was fully felt."
* 16.6 million American children live in homes with some level of hunger.
* 25% of American children did not have enough food in 2007 but lived in households that earned too much money to qualify for any government food assistance.
* 50% of all children and 90% of African-American children will need to use food stamps before their 18th birthday.
* Child hunger costs the U.S. economy $28 billion each year due to "health care, lost productivity, education system impacts, and charity system expenses."
* Pluto pointed out this week that 50 million Americans are malnourished:
Apparently, of the 300,000,000+ people in the United States, approximately 100,000,000 of them are poor -- and half of them are malnourished:
100 million people, fully one-third of the entire U.S. population, are at or below "200% of the federal poverty line of $21,834 for a family of four", which is a needs-measure made lame by the fact that no family of four can actually comfortably live on such a low annual income.
Not everyone qualifies for food stamps and food banks, as noted today by noweasels, continually face the pressures of finding enough food to feed the increasing number of Americans who need food. Additional supplementary means are needed to provide everyone with their human right to nutritious food each day.
Michelle Obama asked Will Allen of Growing Power to join her when she launched an initiative to end childhood obesity. That's because Allen started a food justice program to provide "fresh, nutritious, affordable ford to inner city residents" in those "food deserts" where big grocery chains have abandoned neighborhoods.
Using gravity for transport, water from the fish tank is drained into a gravel bed for filtration:
Here, beneficial bacteria break down the toxic ammonia in fish waste to Nitrite and then to Nitrogen, a key nutrient for plant development. On the gravel bed, we also use watercress as a secondary means of water filtration.
The filtered water is then pumped from the gravel bed to the crop growing beds. Then the water flows from the growing crop beds back to the fish tank. This is how it works:
Allen's Market Basket program provides weekly deliveries of produce to neighborhoods in Milwaukee, Madison and Chicago. Prices range from $9 to $28 for around 20-25 pounds of 12-15 varieties of produce that is designed to feed 2-4 people throughout the week.
There are so many additional benefits. Communities are brought together, old warehouses in cities are transformed into indoor fisheries and greenhouses, jobs are created and the perch population is restored. In the mid-1990s, the perch population in Lake Michigan collapsed partially due to an invasion of zebra mussels that hitchhiked on the hulls of ships.
Another program called Urban Farming creates community-based farms nationwide and so far has "planted the equivalent of 1,000 garden plots -- 20 feet by 20 feet" that bring entire communities together from all generations as well as benefitting the environment with more green. A video at the link shows the community spirit of song and dance at the groundbreaking ceremonies.
Urban Farming allows poor communities and local food banks to obtain nutritious food:
This organization has turned almost 20 derelict properties in Detroit into urban farms. Through community support and partnerships with local business, these properties are now community gardens where needy residents can grow and pick their own fresh fruits and vegetables. Any leftover food from the gardens is donated to local food banks.
In 2005, the Detroit Urban Farming program provided one ton of food to food banks and community members. This is not the first time that urban farms sustained our nation:
Urban Farming wants to eradicate hunger in this generation's lifetime, Sevelle said. There is precedent; 20 million Americans grew victory gardens during World War II and grew 40 percent of the nation's produce supply.
Gardening, on the other hand, means fresh air and exercise, and teaches kids about science, math, cooperation and patience, as well as yielding healthy foods, he said.
The broccoli, collard greens and tomatoes grown at the farm will be harvested for residents of the community, with any excess donated to food kitchens, said Ritz.
Robert Costanza's Solutions journal is well-designed, scientifically reliable, and understandable by lay readers. Its editorial board includes David Orr, Paul Hawken, Elinor Ostrom, David Suzuki, Bill McKibben, Ray Anderson, Jacqueline McGlade, Wes Jackson, Richard Heinberg, and many more.
16 April -- I got this fantastic book, How To Grow More Vegetables, Fruit and Nuts on Less Land Than You Can Imagine. It gives very detailed instructions for how to get the absolute most out of a limited number of garden beds. I'm making some changes to the way I garden and water, based on the ideas in this book.
I love this book because a) it answers so many of my questions about gardening, and b) the entire approach is centred around sustainable principles. So often I've read gardening advice that suggests we bring home tonnes of compost, organic fertiliser, straw for mulch and more, and it all seems so costly. This book focuses on how to get as quickly as possible to a "closed system" where you can recycle all nutrients on the property and not need to bring in more. There is no mention of raised garden beds or special compost bins to be built, because as the author points out, the timber used to build them is probably better put to another use - it's a waste of resources. Indeed, the entire system of gardening is focussed on using minimal resources, including water, for maximum gain.
The only thing lacking in the book, I think, is the use of of the compost pile to compost human waste (I'm talking about poo) - as this would really bring it to a closed system.
I think if you are a beginning gardener and need a way to get started that isn't daunting at all, you'd be better to get One Magic Square, which makes it feel so easy to get started and is very inspiring. But if you already grow vegies and are looking for ways to increase your yield, this book is fantastic.
Here's a few of the key ideas the book presents:
- Do a proper soil test to find out exactly what nutrients your soil really needs, then add the right amount of organic matter to balance out the nutrients (the book tells you what and how much to use). This way you can avoid low yields and yellow leaves and other plant problems, because the soil is perfectly balanced.
- Double dig the soil before every crop to aerate it, and give it a nice layer of compost on top. Be very careful not to compact the soil after digging, as this makes it harder for the plants to extend their roots. The method described loosens the soil without destroying the structure.
- Build a big, proper compost pile, and recycle all your nutrients and garden waste here. If you grow the right plants within your garden bed, they will make enough material to build the amount of compost you need to feed that amount of soil. This is more sustainable than using, say cow manure, where the cow has destroyed a piece of land in order to generate the fertiliser for your garden.
- Plant your vegies exactly the correct distance apart. Each plant has a root ball of a particular size, and by planting them as close as possible but not too close, then you create the right micro-climate beneath the leaves for healthy soil, and the plants don't need to compete for water and nutrients.
- Use a "breakfast-lunch-dinner" concept to raise plants from seed. First you plant the seeds one inch apart in a seed tray, and let them grow there for a specified amount of time, usually two weeks. This is breakfast. Then you transplant into a deeper seed tray, two inches apart, which gives the plants a fresh burst of nutrients and newly airated soil, and they grow there for a certain amount of time. This is lunch. Then finally you transplant them into the growing bed, which again has fresh compost and moist airated soil, which works as dinner for the plants. By doing this you also use less water, than you would if you'd planted directly into the growing bed. It's more work, transplanting everything, but it means you can have other food growing in the bed until the last minute, and it really shortens the time a plant needs to be in your garden bed before it starts producing food.
- Water with a soft shower head, similar to rain. Don't blast the soil with a heavy spray, as this can compact the soil. Water the soil rather than the plants, and make sure you keep all the soil moist, even in beds where nothing is currently growing. When soil dries out it is very hard to re-wet as it repels water rather than absorbing it.
My very favourite part of the book is the plans they have for sustainable gardens. They suggest that 100 square feet is a good starting size (my vegie garden is about 125 square feet of growing beds, plus I have other beds around the house for permanent crops), but to be sustainable you really need 300 square feet per person! Yikes. With the plans the authors tell you exactly what to plant, when to plant it, where to put it in the garden bed, and what to replace it with throughout the growing season. I am a bit surprised you'd get to harvest some of these vegies so quickly, so am interested to test it out for myself.
I've planned my own winter garden, using ideas from all the garden plans offered, and have planted my seeds with the last new moon. They came up beautifully and you can see them in the photo. Then just after the full moon, I transplanted them to their second tray. Fingers crossed this results in a winter full of food. With the next new moon I popped them into the garden bed. I was astonished to see how much they grew each day, compared with the previous lot of beet seedlings I put into a garden bed. I'm not sure which of the many things I'm doing differently is the key, but something's working and my beets are growing like never before.
The results
My spring garden, by the way, did indeed supply food for the summer - we've hardly had to buy vegetables since late December [mid-summer in Australia]. Even though you need more garden space for three people to be self-sufficient, our garden is very much meeting our vegetable needs already, and with a bit more careful planning and hopefully the above techniques, I hope we can continue to do that year-round. My next focus is to try and increase the flow of fruit, because we really could use more, and a more steady supply too.
27 March 2010 -- To avert the worst of climate change and peak oil, we need to change how we live. Riot for Austerity is a 90% reduction project - in joining this I am aiming to cut my emissions and use of resources to 10% of what the average American uses. This is the amount deemed necessary to leave our children and grandchildren a decent world. Care to join me?
I've been participating in the Riot4Austerity for 6 months now - with the aim of reducing my use of resources to 10% of the average. Mostly I'm using US averages since I don't know Australian averages. I can't believe half a year has gone by. I can see now as the months pass the new habits I've been trying to create have settled in and are becoming more routine - much of what I'm doing doesn't feel like a big deal any more. I've averaged my use of everything over the last 6 months and here's the results:
Target is 10% of the US national average for each category, or less.
Transportation fuel - 8%
Canada has the third highest ecofootprint in the world after the United Arab Emirates and the US. The ecofootprint is the amount of land and water that we require for consumption and subsequent waste disposal. We require 7.5 hectares per person (4 times the earth's biocapacity per person). Switzerland requires 5 hectares, China is presently at 1.8, and Bangladesh only requires 1 ha/pp. If every person on the planet lived at our level of material consumption, we would need four planets. See how you rate with this UBC calculator and tips from the Suzuki Foundation.
Carbon footprint (CO2 tonnes per person) - WikipediaA carbon footprint, on the other hand, measures the volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Like our ecofootprint, Canada also has the third highest carbon footprint in the world: 24 tonnes per person. By comparison, the UK is 11 t/pp while China is far behind at 2 tonnes per person. Per year. A more comprehensive carbon footprint not only measures immediate emissions, but the life cycle of a product. Instead of measuring only the electricity that we use to prepare our food, an extended carbon footprint would also include the energy used in the production of the food and its delivery to market. The earth's ability to absorb carbon is fast declining. Scientists estimate we have already overshot it by 30%. The oceans are close to saturation; forest cover is decreasing and fertile soils are eroding. Our lifestyle exceeds the sustainable limits of the biosphere. Our ecological debt is surging. We are no longer living off nature’s interest; we eating up our scarce biological capital.
In September 2005, the (now cancelled) One-Tonne Challenge program assessed our home carbon footprint at 3.4 tonnes of greenhouse gases per individual occupant, just over half the national average and well below the Kyoto target of 4.5. After the changes we describe below, using the same carbon calculator, it came in at about 2.5 - a reduction of more than 25%. Our home's ecological footprint in September, 2005, was 4.3 hectares per person. The latest calculation puts us at 3.5 hectares per person, slightly less than half the national average - a 20% reduction.
We have passed global peak productions in oil, fish and food and we have reached the physical limits of fertile land, freshwater and clean air. We are also close to a tipping point in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and face irreversible climate change.
Furthermore, statistical footprints cannot measure some of the less discernible damage we are inflicting on natural ecosystems. We are choking the oceans with plastic, poisoning our lakes and rivers with chemical toxins, and contaminating the subterranean water table with leachate from our garbage dumps. The extinction of countless species is unraveling the complex web of life underpinning human survival.
Curbing Consumption: The First Step Towards Sustainable Living
"Be the change that you wish to see," said Gandhi. There are no technofixes that will reduce our environmental footprint while keeping our consumer lifestyle. Changing our behaviour is far less expensive, (though more difficult) the only approach that will ensure a sustainable future for the planet, just as conservation is far cheaper than consumption. It is time for the real conservatives to stand up.
For the past 4 years, I and my wife have been engaged in a personal quest to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, to demonstrate that the targets in the Kyoto Protocol and in the (sadly defunct) One-Tonne Challenge are attainable without sacrificing quality of life.
We live in Ottawa (a cold city) in a 19 year old, 1800 square foot townhouse. We started with an energy audit of the house, which gave us a mere 66% energy efficiency rating. Most of the loss is through windows, doors and roof. Other hard-to-find exterior heat losses, such as faulty wall insulation, were located with an infrared scan. The audit took baseline readings of utilities' energy consumption, for post-refit comparison. Our home was one of the first in Ottawa to install a digital smart meter, which allows us to check how each step reduced consumption.
Armed with baseline readings, energy audit, and recommendations for improvement, we were ready to start. Focussing on low tech energy conservation, we:
replaced bulbs with compact fluorescents Food consumption: we try to buy produce from a 100 mile radius by shopping at local organic markets and by tending our own vegetable garden in the summer. We reduced our consumption of meat. A locavore vegetarian diet could cut our eco-footprint by as much as 30%.
In addition to energy-saving, we reduced our ecological footprint by almost eliminating garbage disposal -- by minimizing all purchases, recycling and composting biodegradable material. We are down to one small bag every 6 months. We also shop second-hand when possible. All products contain embedded energy (carbon emissions, processed water-- a cotton shirt, for example, has a water footprint of 2,00 litres!). Second-hand shopping is a good way to practise an important environmental R, “re-use.”
The next step
We also bought an inexpensive watt meter to measure individual appliances. Appliances using 220 volts that are wired directly into the panel require a more advanced meter, such as “The Energy Detective” which must be installed by an electrician. All appliances contain embedded energy used in the manufacturing process -- so simply replacing a relatively new fridge, for example, might not be a wise decision, financially or environmentally. Another decision involved the cost of new appliances. Bill Kemp, a renowned Ottawa area energy efficiency specialist, explains the concept of life cycle cost, which he calls “true cost” as opposed to “first cost” (or initial cost) in his book Smart Power: An Urban Guide to Renewable Energy and Efficiency. He argues that basing the purchase of appliances on their energy efficiency and buying quality (and, often, more expensive) products when upgrading will actually outperform the stock market in the long run. We have tried to apply the concept of life cycle costs to all our purchases. Already we can see a return on investment as resource and energy prices continue to rise.
Pursuing these principles, we gradually replaced our major appliances and car with:
Jo-Ann and Hugh with their airtight woodstove
Four years later
Our electricity consumption is now only 375 kilowatt hours per month, compared to the Ontario average of 750-1,000 kwh/m (varying with number of occupants, and use of electricity for space and water heating -- we use lower-cost natural gas). Because our electrical water heater is small, set at 49 degrees C and our showers and appliances are low-flow, power demand is not quite low. For two people, we use half the provincial average.
We need no air conditioning in summer. A screened wrought iron door allows cool night air to circulate through the house; fans and awnings keep the house comfortable during the day. We cook outdoors on a small barbecue or a two-burner hotplate to minimize indoor heat buildup. On smoggy days, we eat cold plates and salads because coal-fired electricity and barbecues both contribute to particulate emissions. Replacing energy-hog dryers, we use an outdoor drying rack for clothes in the summer, and the indoor rack during the winter.
To trim our carbon emissions even further, the Robertsons have signed on to renewable energy from wind and low-impact hydro at marginally higher prices from Bullfrog Power. Because so much of Ontario’s electricity is still coal-fired, this substantially reduces our carbon footprint.
In winter, our home is heated by a high efficiency natural gas furnace, complemented by a low emission airtight wood stove. We also use a gas-fired cooktop in the kitchen. Together with improved insulation, reduced air leaks, our consumption of natural gas 900 cubic meters/year and dropping steadily. The Ontario household average is 3,000 cubic meters for water and space heating alone!
Our water footprint is down to 80 litres per person per day because of rain barrels, efficient appliances and low flush toilets. The daily Ottawa consumption is 250 litres per person; the national average is about 300. More than half the City’s operating budget is spent on electricity charges to pump, clean and distribute water and then remove and treat wastewater and sewage. Imagine how happy citizens would be if their city taxes were cut by one-third!
Three years back, we replaced our 13 year old Volvo with a hybrid Prius. Our gasoline consumption has dropped by two-thirds. This and no repairs have saved us at least $3000 per year, helping to offset the capital costs of the Prius. The initial cost of $30,000 is more expensive than many cars in the family sedan category. But based on life cycle expenses, Consumer Reports recently rated the Prius “least expensive” car in this category.
Driving is still the largest part of the our carbon emissions. They are not proud of the fact that they average 25,000 kilometres per year, slightly more than the national average. The high mileage is partly for family reasons (“love miles” in the words of George Monbiot, author of Heat) and partly because they avoid flying for environmental reasons. We are all too aware that driving accounts for half of the carbon footprint of Canadians who own a vehicle.
Our first energy audit rated our house at 65 out of 100. Minor refits improved it to 72. Further improvements have now pushed its rating to 79, qualifying us for Energy Star status. We came within a whisker of the R2000 level of 80. If our 18 year old townhouse can be transformed into virtually an R2000 home, why are we as a society not demanding construction of energy efficient houses? Retrofitting is a more expensive way of improving efficiency and fighting global warming than new-build. Approximately half the greenhouse gases created by each Canadian are generated in the home.
Return on investment - sunlightelectric.com
Costs and gains
How cost effective are retrofits and renovations? What is the cost recovery period? These are legitimate questions for homeowners. Our improvements were done gradually, as regular maintenance, upgrading substandard workmanship, or replacing worn out appliances or. We had no major capital projects, such as installing solar panels. Over the past 4 years we have spent about $30,000, partly financed by government rebates and dramatically lower utility bills. We have established our own carbon fund to offset the emissions of the Prius. We use these “carbon dollars” for our energy-saving projects. Real estate consultants advise homeowners to set aside 5% of the value of the house per year for maintenance -- such as Energy Star doors and windows, and energy efficiency. Last year we had to replace the roof shingles. We chose a light colour, to reflect sunlight during the summer, thereby reducing heat build up in the attic and keep the house cooler. Our roof shines out clearly on Google Earth. At least we are safe from a heat seeking missile!
A recent CMHC study shows most home renovations are undertaken for cosmetic reasons. These may no longer 
enhance the resale price of a house, as resources become scarce. In the UK, the law will soon require that home sellers get an energy audit. Energy efficiency rather than cosmetics may soon determine home prices. So retrofit and energy-conserving appliances make both economic and ecological sense. Improvements will increase the value of a house, both short and long-term. Monthly utility costs, paid in after-tax dollars, are reduced and generally our homes are healthier and more comfortable. Unlike other possessions, homes are free of capital gains taxes when sold.
Our upgrading costs over the past 4 years were $30,000 for home improvements and $30,000 for a Prius. Neither of these expenditures is excessive by current standards for renovations and vehicles. We estimated the cost recovery periods home, appliances and car at between 3 and 12 years. But rising energy and resource prices may well shorten these periods. For us, money was not the main motive – moderating climate change by reducing our footprints may be the most rewarding result.
We do not live like ascetics. In winter, our thermostat is set at 20 degrees during the day and 17 at night. We also run an Energy Recovery Ventilator which circulates fresh air but recaptures the heat from the outgoing air. Our energy and carbon savings have not imposed a dramatic change in quality of life. So it is doable, by ordinary people. We can live more sustainably at no great cost or inconvenience. Individuals can make a difference in the battle against climate change.
Bert Horwood is a Quaker in Thousand Islands meeting, living in Kingston.
There is more. I live for 5 months at a cottage and thus maintain two residences; almost two thirds of my car mileage is from driving back and forth. To get closer to zero carbon, I'll have to change to one residence. Sadly, my supermarket and credit union do little or nothing to lower my carbon. Neither the theatres I attend, nor the space my Quaker Meeting rents, use sustainable power or practice significant carbon reduction, except for tokens like low energy light bulbs. Most of the charities I normally support make only cosmetic changes, or develop grandiose plans with little action. There are some outstanding exceptions, especially among environmental legal organizations. Perhaps lawyers realize, more keenly than others, that you can not urge a practice on others which you do not yourself embrace. Some organizations indulge in "greenwashing," making small but well-publicized cosmetic changes to appear to be reducing emissions.
The work of Mike Nickerson provides an example of this. He says it is "a question of direction" and that we know what directions will lead to longterm well-being. Mike lists eight criteria which can guide positive future patterns of living:
