Dear EarthTalk:
Is the
dairy industry really trying to stop soy milk makers from
calling their products “milk?” They must feel very
threatened by the preponderance of soy milks now available
in supermarkets.
- Gina Storzen, Weymouth, MA
“The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) would like to stop soy
drinks from being labeled "milk," arguing that the terminology is
misleading. Soy proponents argue, however, that consumers know the
difference between soy milk and dairy milk, that soy milk is less
fatty than dairy milk, and that NMPF's efforts are a ploy to hurt the
soy industry, which is rapidly gaining market share at the expense of
dairy products.”
Indeed, just this past April the
National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), a trade group representing
dairy farms, petitioned the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to
crack down on what it calls “the misappropriation of dairy terminology
on imitation milk products.” NMPF has been asking for such a ruling
for a decade, and argues that the soy industry’s “false and
misleading” labeling is now more common than ever.
According to NMPF president and CEO,
Jerry Kozak, the FDA has let the issue slide so that the meaning of
‘milk’ and even ‘cheese’ has been “watered down to the point where
many products that use the term have never seen the inside of a
barn.”
Furthermore, Kozak adds, the use of
“dairy terminology” on non-dairy products can lead people to think
they are eating healthier than they really are, especially because
non-dairy products “can vary wildly in their composition and are
inferior to the nutrient profile of those from dairy milk.”
The website FoodNavigator-USA.com
reports that on the other side of the Atlantic, the European Dairy
Association (EDA) has also called for the term ‘soy milk’ to be
replaced with ‘soy drink’. EDA also suggests other options including
‘soy beverage’, ‘soy preparation’ and ‘soy-based liquid’. It’s no
wonder the soy industry isn’t quick to give up the milk moniker, given
how catchy the alternatives could be!
Jen Phillips of Mother Jones
magazine takes issue with the dairy industry’s sense of ownership when
it comes to terms like ‘milk’, ‘cheese’ and ‘dairy’. “The word ‘milk’
has lots of uses and has been used for non-dairy milks like coconut
for a long time,” she reports, adding that consumers already know that
soy milk isn’t dairy milk. “Instead,” she writes, “the move to ban
‘milk’ from non-dairy products is a transparent ploy by the NMPF to
hurt the soybean industry that, thanks to increasingly
health-conscious consumers and ethanol production quotas, is growing
stronger every year.”
She also disagrees with Kozak’s claim
that dairy milk is healthier than soy: “Actually, soy milk and dairy
aren’t that different nutritionally, except for that milk is fattier,”
she says, explaining that a cup of vanilla soy milk has 30 fewer
calories than a cup of two percent cow’s milk. And while dairy does
have twice the protein, soy milk has 10 percent more calcium. “It’s a
bit of a toss-up nutritionally, but I'm lactose-intolerant so I’ll
choose the ‘milk’ that doesn't make me gassy and crampy.”
Phillips adds that, since 90-100
percent of Asians and 50 percent of Hispanics—two of the fastest
growing immigrant populations in the U.S.—are lactose intolerant,
“NMPF might want to think less about fighting soy and more about how
they’re going to deal with people who can’t drink milk to begin
with.”
Dear
EarthTalk:
Many people oppose dams because they change the flow of rivers and
affect the migrating patterns of fish and other species, but aren’t
they also a great renewable energy source? -
Ryan Clark, Milton, WA
"Hydroelectric dams are among the cleanest sources of electrical power
in the world, but they also take a heavy environmental toll by
destroying landscapes and nearby ecosystems and preventing salmon and
other fish from swimming upstream . Pictured: the Center Hill
Hydroelectric Dam near Cookeville, Tennessee."
Image
courtesy: "George Green, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers."
Hydroelectric dams are among the greenest and most affordable
electricity sources in the world—and by far the most widely used
renewable energy sources—but they also take a heavy environmental toll
in the form of compromised landscapes, ecosystems and fisheries.
Hydroelectric dams have been an important component of America’s
energy mix since the powerful flow of rivers was first harnessed for
industrial use in the 1880s. Today hydroelectric power accounts for
seven percent of U.S. electricity generation—and some two-thirds of
the country’s renewable power—according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Globally, about 19 percent of electricity comes from hydroelectric
sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that China
is the world’s largest producer of hydroelectricity, followed by
Canada, Brazil and the U.S. Some two-thirds of the economically
feasible potential for hydro power remains to be developed around the
world, with untapped resources most abundant in Latin America, India
and China.
Of course, despite the inexpensive and emissions-free power, many
environmentalists consider hydroelectric dams to be man-made
abominations that prevent salmon and other fish from swimming
upstream, divert otherwise natural riparian settings, and
fundamentally change the character of surrounding ecosystems. Green
groups including American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice,
the Endangered Species Coalition, Friends of the Earth, National
Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club are pushing the federal
government to mandate the removal of four dams along the Snake River
in Washington State that help the region have the lowest power-related
carbon footprint in the country. The dams have decimated once teeming
salmon runs, and upstream forest ecosystems have suffered accordingly.
But the Bonneville Power Administration, the quasi-federal utility
that runs the dams and distributes the electricity they produce, says
that keeping them going is crucial even as wind plays an increasingly
larger role in the region’s electricity mix. Since hydro power can be
generated and released when most needed, it is an important resource
for backup power when intermittent sources like wind (and solar)
aren’t available.
The scheduled removal of two century-old dams on the Elwha River in
Washington State’s Olympic National Park beginning in 2011 may well
serve as test cases for larger dam removal projects in the Pacific
Northwest and beyond. Planners hope wild salmon numbers will rebound
as a result, and that other wildlife—such as bald eagles and black
bears—will follow suit.
President Obama has committed $32 million to modernize existing
hydropower dams, increase efficiency and reduce environmental impacts.
“There’s no one solution to the energy crisis, but hydropower is
clearly part of the solution and represents a major opportunity to
create more clean energy jobs,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
told reporters last year. “Investing in our existing hydropower
infrastructure will strengthen our economy, reduce pollution and help
us toward energy independence.”
CONTACTS: U.S. Geological Survey, www.usgs.gov; U.S. Energy
Information Administration, www.eia.doe.gov; Bonneville Power
Administration, www.bpa.gov.
Dear EarthTalk:
What are
some simple things I could do to green the office I work in?-
James Raskin, Framingham, MA
“The average office worker uses 10,000 sheets of copy paper a year.
One no-brainer way to green up one's office is to refrain from
printing when you can, use both sides of a sheet, and recycle so that
the recycling industry will have raw material.”
Image courtesy: “Thinkstock.”
No matter how green your office may be
already, there is surely room for improvement somewhere. Here are 10
suggestions to help get you and your co-workers further along on the
path to office sustainability:
(1) Take your Office’s Green
Footprint: The website TheGreenOffice.com, an online retailer
specializing in green office products, makes available a free Office
Footprint Calculator to gauge what kind of effect you and your
co-workers are having on the environment and identify how to make
improvements.
(2) Save Trees: The average
office worker uses 10,000 sheets of copy paper a year. Refrain from
printing when you can, use both sides of a sheet, and recycle so that
the recycling industry will have raw material.
(3) Power Down: Artificial
lighting accounts for almost half of all office electricity use. Turn
off lights that are not being used. Better yet, install motion sensors
that do it automatically when no one is in the room. Also, shut down
computers overnight, and set them to go into sleep mode when sitting
idle.
(4) Minimize E-Waste: Upgrade or
repair the office computers instead of junking them. So-called
“e-waste”—toxin-leaching computers and electronics—is a huge problem
all over the world now.
(5) Telecommute: Encourage
workers to work at home when possible to save car trips. For those who
must come to the office, encourage bicycling if it is safe. Also some
firms now subsidize employee public transit costs to discourage
driving. And online video tools like Skype can help cut down on
business trips.
(6) Green Screen Your Suppliers:
Ask your vendors how they are greening their operations. Just posing
the question can start them thinking, the precursor to action. Demand
recycled paper and soy-based inks from your printers, and buy only
green office supplies—which are now widely available.
(7) Clean Greener: Make sure
your cleaning service uses non-toxic, green friendly products—if they
don’t, offer to supply them—so that you can breathe easy when you’re
trying to get your own work done.
(8) Eco-Renovate: If you need to
renovate or upgrade anything, greenest options abound, including
non-toxic paints, natural fiber carpeting, energy efficient windows
and Energy Star-rated office equipment.
(9) Drink Tap Water: Having big
jugs of water lugged in and out every week by the bottle water company
is not only unnecessary but a big waste of energy. Most tap water is
safe to drink; if yours isn’t or you’re not sure, put filters on the
kitchen spouts or buy filtered water pitchers and keep them in the
office fridge.
(10) Put Your Heads Together:
Form a committee to organize and monitor your office’s green
practices, to ensure that your office’s green goals don’t fall away if
one or two committed employees move on, and to reinforce the
importance of doing the right thing across the organization.
Dear EarthTalk:
I always thought cotton was eco-friendly, but I recently
heard otherwise. What’s so bad about cotton? And where can I
find organic cotton clothing?
-- Jamie Hunter, Twin Falls, ID
“The Organic
Trade Association (OTA) considers cotton “the world’s
dirtiest crop” due to its heavy use of chemical insecticides
and fertilizers. Fortunately, there are now thousands of
organic cotton retailers, including some of the big box
stores. The OTA’s Organic Pages Online lists vendors (and
links to their websites) by product type. Pictured: An
organic cotton T-shirt by Tiny Revolutionary.”
Image
courtesy: “Tiny Revolutionary.”
There’s
a lot “bad” about conventionally grown cotton—cotton grown with the
aid of synthetic chemicals, that is. The Organic Trade Association
(OTA), a nonprofit trade group representing
America’s burgeoning organic cotton industry, considers cotton “the
world’s dirtiest crop” due to its heavy use of insecticides. The
nonprofit Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) reports that cotton
uses 2.5 percent of the world’s cultivated land yet uses 16 percent of
the world’s insecticides—more than any other single major crop.
Three of the most acutely hazardous insecticides, as determined by the
World Health Organization, are well represented among the top 10 most
commonly used in producing cotton. One of them, Aldicarb, “can kill a
man with just one drop absorbed through the skin,” says OTA, “yet it
is still used in 25 countries and the U.S., where 16 states have
reported it in their groundwater.”
Conventionally
grown cotton also uses large amounts of nitrogen-based synthetic
fertilizer—almost a third of a pound, says the OTA, to grow one pound
of raw cotton. To put that in perspective, it takes just under one
pound of raw cotton to make one t-shirt. Researchers have found that
the fertilizers used on cotton are the most detrimental to the
environment, running off into freshwater habitats and groundwater and
causing oxygen-free dead zones in water bodies. The nitrogen oxides
formed during the production and use of these fertilizers are also a
major part of the agricultural sector’s greenhouse gas emissions.
This
is all true despite that the use of sprayed insecticides is quickly
decreasing with the advent of genetically engineered cotton seeds that
have insecticides bred right into them. A third of global cotton
cropland and 45 percent of world cotton production now uses
genetically engineered seeds. This poses a whole other set of issues,
as some scientists fear that the proliferation of such “Frankenseeds”
can lead to pest immunities and even the unleashing of so-called
“super pests” that can resist virtually any pesticide.
Organic cotton farming eschews
synthetic chemicals (as well as genetically engineered seed) in favor
of time-tested natural alternatives that ward off pests, replenish and
maintain soil fertility and generally optimize growing conditions
without compromising the environment or our health. “Composted manures
and cover crops replace synthetic fertilizers; innovative weeding
strategies are used instead of herbicides; beneficial insects and trap
crops control insect pests; and alternatives to toxic defoliants
prepare plants for harvest,” says the Sustainable Cotton Project (SCP),
a nonprofit that helps cotton farmers in California’s Central Valley
discover the economic, environmental and health benefits of avoiding
synthetic chemicals.
For consumers able to pay a little
more, there are now thousands of organic cotton retailers. The OTA
reports that American farmers increased plantings of organic cotton by
26 percent in 2009 over 2008, while sales of organic cotton fiber grew
10.4 percent (to $521 million) during the same time. The OTA’s Organic
Pages Online lists vendors (and links to their websites) by product
type; many sell online as well as through retail chains. Even some big
box stores now offer organic cotton items. So keep your eyes peeled
and be a part of the solution by opting for organic cotton next time
you stock up your drawers.
Dear EarthTalk:
I know
that local food has health and environmental benefits, but
my local grocer only carries a few items. Is there a push
for bigger supermarkets to carry locally produced food?
- Maria Fine,
Somerville, MA
“Locally-produced foods are now more widely available than ever. To
find local food near you, visit
www.localharvest.org , which lists organic food sources by zip
code.
Pictured: the Kootenay Country Store Co-op in Nelson, British
Columbia.”
Image Courtesy: "Donkeycart, courtesy
Flickr."
By eating locally sourced foods, we
strengthen the bond between local farmers and our communities, stay
connected to the seasons in our part of the world, promote crop
diversity, and minimize the energy intensive, greenhouse-gas-emitting
transportation of food from one part of the world to another. Also,
since local crops are usually harvested at their peak of freshness and
typically delivered to stores within a day, customers can be sure they
are getting the tastiest and most nutritious forms of the foods they
like.
Luckily for consumers and the
environment, local produce and other foods are now more widely
available than they have been for decades. The first national grocery
chain to prioritize local producers, perhaps not surprisingly, was
natural foods retailer Whole Foods, which was buying from local
farmers and ranchers since it opened its first store in 1980 in
Austin, Texas. Today each of the company's 270-plus stores in 38 U.S.
states prioritizes local sourcing—so much so that its customers take
it for granted. Whole Foods’ relationships and distribution
arrangements with local producers serve as models for the leading
national grocery chains, many of which are beginning to source some
produce locally when the season is right.
Some are taking more initiative than
others. Perhaps most notable is Walmart. Back in 2008 the company
committed to sourcing more local fruits and vegetables to keep produce
prices down and provide affordable, fresh and healthy choices. Today
more than 2,800 Walmart Supercenters and Neighborhood Markets across
the country rely on a diverse network of small local growers to
provide produce—making Sam Walton's company the nation’s largest
purchaser of local produce. During summer months, at least one-fifth
of the produce available in Walmart stores is grown within the same
state as the given store.
The company’s Heritage Agriculture
program encourages farms within a day’s drive of one of its warehouses
to grow crops that the company would otherwise have to source from so
far away that freshness would be jeopardized and the fuel burned and
greenhouse gases emitted in the process would be substantial. While
the Heritage program currently accounts for only four to six percent
of the company's total domestic produce sales, the company is aiming
for 20 percent within the next few years.
Other big grocery chains aren’t far
behind. Safeway, one of the top three grocery chains in the country,
prides themselves on local sourcing, getting nearly a third of its
produce nationwide from local/regional growers. In heavy agricultural
regions like California, the figure can be as high as 45 percent. The
company has also made a big push into organic products, just like its
biggest competitor, Walmart.
If the chain grocer near you doesn’t do
a good job stocking locally sourced food, there are alternatives.
Community Supported Agriculture programs, in which consumers
“subscribe” to the produce of a given farm by paying monthly dues that
entitles them to a box of fresh produce every week, are more popular
than ever, as are local farmers’ markets, food co-ops and independent
natural foods markets. To find local food near you, visit the Local
Harvest, which lists organic food sources by zip code and offers a
wealth of resources for those looking to learn more about where their
food comes from and how it is produced.
Dear
EarthTalk:
How are wild turkeys faring in the U.S.? Occasionally I'll see some
crossing the road, but how well could they be doing with all the
development going on around them? -
Harley Barton, Hingham, MA
“By
the early 1900s, only 30,000 wild turkeys roamed the continental U.S.,
having been exterminated across almost half their former range. Today,
as many as seven million roam the countryside across every U.S. state
except Alaska . Pictured: Wild turkeys photographed near Little River,
Georgia.”
Image
courtesy: “Vicki DeLoach, courtesy Flickr.”
No
one can be sure how many tens of millions of wild turkeys roamed what
was to become the continental United States when the Puritans dined on
them at the first Thanksgiving in 1621 near Plymouth Rock, but there
were obviously enough of the birds to make them easy prey. By the late
1700s turkeys across the frontier were being harvested with reckless
abandon. The food shortages that accompanied the Civil War accelerated
demand for wild turkeys, and their numbers started to dwindle to
startlingly low levels. By the early 1900s, only some 30,000 wild
turkeys remained; the birds had been extirpated across almost half of
their former range.
But
things started to turn around for wild turkeys in the 1920s. For
starters, millions of acres cleared by the pioneers began to
regenerate into the type of woodland habitat where the birds could
thrive. But the real boost for wild turkeys came in the form of
legislation. At the urging of hunters, state wildlife agencies, and
the firearms industry, Congress passed the landmark Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) in 1937, which placed
an excise tax on guns, ammo and other hunting gear. A portion of the
billions of dollars raised from the law have been and continue to be
allocated toward restoring wildlife habitat across the country.
By
1959, wild turkey numbers jumped sixteen fold, topping half a million
birds across the U.S. A 1973 wild turkey census by the then newly
formed National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) turned up something like
1.3 million birds. NWTF, which was founded by hunters to aid in turkey
conservation efforts, would turn out to be instrumental in shepherding
the wild turkey's recovery by channeling hundreds of millions of
dollars in charitable donations and grants into habitat recovery and
bird relocation projects. Although the birds will likely never return
to the population levels pre-dating white settlement, they haven't
been healthier in 300+ years. These days as many as seven million wild
turkeys roam the countryside and can be found in every U.S. state
besides Alaska.
Of
course, our success in restoring habitat for wild turkeys has also
been beneficial for a wide range of wild animals. Conservations credit
the visionary Pittman-Robertson Act (along with the hard work of
dedicated wildlife managers) as instrumental in the recovery of not
only wild turkeys but also once struggling populations of white-tailed
deer, pronghorn antelope, wood duck, beaver, black bear, Canada goose,
American elk, desert bighorn sheep, bobcat, mountain lion, and several
species of predatory birds.
Besides the animals and biodiversity benefitting from species
recovery, hunters can also rejoice, especially given that it has been
their money that has funded many of the projects to restore habitat
where they hunt. Turkey hunting is traditionally an autumn pursuit,
culminating at Thanksgiving, of course, but each state has its own
laws regarding when and where turkey hunting is allowed. NWTF provides
a free online state-by-state “Fall Turkey Hunting Guide” with hunting
season dates and other pertinent information to help hunters plan
their next trip wherever it may take them in the continental U.S. The
website also serves as an invaluable resource for information and
resources pertaining to conservation, hunting and other topics related
to wild turkeys.
CONTACT:
National Wild Turkey Federation, www.nwtf.org.
Dear EarthTalk:
My neighbor told me to pour bleach down my drains every week
to keep them clear. Is this safe to do? -
Trish Osterling, via e-mail
“Bleach is a useful cleaner and disinfectant, but pouring it down the
drain will not do anything to help keep the drains clear. In fact, you
could cause a dangerous chemical reaction if it comes into contact
with other household products you might be using.”
Image courtesy: Wikipedia
Bleach is a useful cleaner and disinfectant, but pouring it down the
drain will not do anything to help keep the drains clear. In addition,
you could cause a dangerous chemical reaction if it comes into contact
with other household products you might be using.
Common household bleach, also known as chlorine bleach, is a liquid
compound of sodium hypochlorite, which is a combination of sodium
chloride (a salt) with water and chlorine. It’s often used to whiten
laundry or to disinfect kitchen surfaces. Bleach is also an ingredient
in other household cleaners, like those used for bath and toilet
cleaning. (A different sort of bleach, known as oxygen bleach, is used
for laundry stain removal and does not have the same
disinfecting/cleaning properties as chlorine bleach.)
According to the Household Products Database at the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS), chlorine bleach is corrosive to the
eyes; injures skin and mucous membranes on contact; and is harmful if
swallowed. Bleach is “a lung and eye irritant,” warns the Washington
Toxics Coalition (WTC), a Seattle non-profit that advocates for green
friendly household products. Even used alone, fumes from chlorine
bleach can irritate the lungs, so it should not be used by people with
asthma or lung or heart problems, says the group. It is also
“reactive” with ammonia and acids, forming more harmful fumes.
“One
of the most common home accidents is the mixing of products containing
chlorine bleach with those containing ammonia,” says WTC. The
combination creates chloramine gas, which is highly irritating to the
lungs. Since many cleaning products contain ammonia, the inadvertent
mixing must be avoided. Mixing bleach and acids results in the release
of chlorine gas, according to the New Jersey Department of Health and
Senior Services, exposure to which can cause coughing and breathing
problems, burning eyes and, at high levels, vomiting, pneumonia and
even death. Products containing acids include vinegar, some glass and
window cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners, drain cleaners and rust
removers. An “incompatibility chart” listing many chemicals that will
react with bleach is available at the Chlorine Institute’s cl2.com
website.
Bleach alone is not necessarily hard on the environment. When use as
directed, it will break down mostly into salt water in wastewater
treatment or septic systems, says WTC. A dilution of bleach in water
is effective as a disinfectant, and can be scrubbed onto non-porous
food-contact surfaces like plastic cutting boards or refrigerator
shelves and left to air dry. The Clorox Company recommends a solution
of one tablespoon bleach per gallon of water for sanitizing.
So,
what are the better ways to keep drains clear? Home drains in the
kitchen and bath generally get clogged by grease, food waste and hair,
none of which will be effectively dispersed by bleach. WTC recommends
carefully pouring a kettleful of boiling water down the drain to free
up a slow drain, or using mechanical methods such as a plumber’s
snake, plunger or hose-end bladder to clean a clogged drain.
Dear EarthTalk:
I heard that some
wind farms use fossil fuels to power their generators when the wind
won’t. Doesn’t that defeat their whole renewable energy purpose? Why
not let the wind power it or not? Also, I've heard that the
low-frequency sounds generated by these turbines can harm people and
animals. Is this true? -
Ryan Lewis, Plainwell, MI
“Some wind energy companies have developed back-up systems that can
spin turbines even when the wind isn't blowing, thus optimizing and
keeping consistent the power output. Colorado-based Hybrid Turbines
Inc., for example, makes systems that marry a natural gas-based
generator to a wind turbine. Even with that fossil fuel usage, the
electricity produced is much cleaner than burning coal.”
Image courtesy:“Jorge
Lascar, courtesy Flickr.”
Indeed, one of the major drawbacks to
wind power is the fact that, even in windy locations, the wind doesn’t
always blow. So the ability of turbines to generate power is
intermittent at best. Many turbines can generate power only about 30
percent of the time, thanks to the inconsistency of their feedstock.
In order to overcome this Achilles’
heel of intermittent production, some wind companies have developed
back-up systems that can spin turbines even when the wind isn’t
blowing, thus optimizing and keeping consistent the power output. For
example, Colorado-based Hybrid Turbines Inc. is selling wind farms
systems that marry a natural gas-based generator to a wind turbine.
“Even if natural gas is used, the electricity produced…is twice as
environmentally clean as burning coal,” reports the company. Better
yet, if a user can power them with plant-derived biofuels, they can
remain 100 percent renewable energy-based.
While some wind energy companies may
want to invest in such technologies to wring the most production out
of their big investments, utilities aren’t likely to suffer much from
the intermittent output if they don’t. Even the utilities that are
most bullish on wind power still generate most of their electricity
from other more traditional sources at the present time. So, when wind
energy output decreases, utilities simply draw more power from other
sources—such as solar arrays, hydroelectric dams, nuclear reactors and
coal-fired power plants—to maintain consistent electrical service. As
such, reports the American Wind Energy Association, utilities act as
“system operators,” drawing power from where it’s available and
dispatching it to where it is needed in tune with rising and falling
power needs.
But just because generating wind power
all day long isn’t imperative doesn’t mean that suppliers aren’t doing
all they can to maximize output. To wit, turbine manufacturers are
beginning to incorporate so-called Active Flow Control (AFC)
technology, which delays the occurrence of partial or complete stalls
when the wind dies down, and also enables start-up and power
generation at lower wind speeds than conventional turbines. The
non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists lauds AFC for these
capabilities, which in turn can help system operators create a more
reliable electric grid less dependent on fossil fuels.
As to whether or not noise from wind
farms can harm people and wildlife, the jury is still out. New
York-based pediatrician Nina Pierpont argues in her book, Wind
Turbine Syndrome, that turbines may produce sounds that can affect
the mood of people nearby or cause physiological problems like
insomnia, vertigo, headaches and nausea. On the flip side, Renewable
UK, a British wind energy trade group, says that the noise measured
1,000 feet away from a wind farm is less than that of normal road
traffic. Here in the U.S., a Texas jury denied a 2006 noise pollution
suit against FPL Energy after FPL showed that noise readings from its
wind farm maxed out at 44 decibels, roughly the same generated by a 10
mile-per-hour wind.
Dear
EarthTalk:
What does it mean when one uses the phrase, “building a
green economy?” I’ve heard it repeated a few times lately
and would like to have a better understanding of the concept.
-
Rosie Chang, Islip, NY
“In a
recent speech to Congress, President Barack Obama said: "To
truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save
our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to
ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind
of energy.”
Pictured: A wind farm takes shape in Langdon, North Dakota.”
Image
courtesy: P. Roth, courtesy Flickr
The phrase “building a green economy”
means different things to different people, but in general it refers
to encouraging economic development that prioritizes
sustainability—that is, working with nature and not against it in the
quest to meet peoples’ needs and wants—instead of disregarding
environmental concerns in the process of growing the economy. The
primary way governments around the world are trying to “green” their
own economies today is by increasing investment in—and, by extension,
creating jobs in—industries on the cutting edge of non-polluting
renewable forms of energy, such as solar and wind power.
President Obama has repeatedly invoked
his vision of a green economy as a tool for helping the U.S. lift
itself out of recession and position itself as an economic powerhouse
in a carbon-constrained future. The American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) of 2009, the $787.2 billion stimulus package that Congress
signed into law in 2009, was chock full of provisions to boost
renewable energy, energy efficiency and environmental restoration
initiatives. Examples include $4.5 billion to convert government
buildings into high-performance green buildings, $8.4 billion for
investments in public transportation, and tens of billions of dollars
more for research into new technologies to amplify existing efforts.
ARRA also earmark $11 billion for the implementation of the “smart
grid,” a new approach to power distribution that will bring more clean
energy sources into the mix and promote energy efficiency.
Infusing such huge amounts of cash into
sustainability-oriented projects is one way the Obama administration
hopes to “green” the U.S. economy while simultaneously pulling the
country out of recession. “To truly transform our economy, protect our
security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we
need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of
energy,” Obama told Congress a few months ago.
Of course, Americans aren’t the only
ones bent on building a green economy. During the 1980s and 1990s,
while the American government was largely asleep at the wheel on
environmental issues, countries such as Denmark, Germany, Spain and
Japan were already busy investing in wind and solar research and
implementation. And while these nations’ ongoing efforts are nothing
to sneeze at, economists point out that what is most needed is action
on the part of the world’s fastest growing economies—China and India.
A recent report by the consulting firm
McKinsey & Company found that China—which surpassed the U.S. as the
world’s largest generator of greenhouse gases three years ago—has
great potential for building a green economy over the coming decades.
According to McKinsey, by 2030 China could reduce its oil and coal
imports by up to 40 percent and its greenhouse gas emissions by 50
percent by investing upwards of 1.5 trillion yuan ($220 billion in
U.S. dollars) per year in both existing and new green technologies.
China has begun to see the light with regard to reducing emissions,
increasing energy efficiency and embracing renewable alternative
energy, but it has yet to make significant financial commitments,
which will be key to both warding off catastrophic climate change and
building a truly global green economy.
Dear
EarthTalk: I am a bartender in Sacramento and I would
love to be able to use some sort of locally made
or sustainable version of sugar. What’s out there?-
Ryan Seng, via e-mail
"The
rerouting of South Florida’s fragile water table to irrigate
thirsty sugar plantations contributed to the decimation of
the Everglades, one of the nation’s most unique and diverse
ecosystems. Pictured: A Florida sugar cane and coconut
vendor prepares some raw sugar cane."
Image
courtesy: Ashe-villain, courtesy Flickr
It sure would be nice if we
could obtain all of our food and drink items from local
sources, but sugar provides an excellent example of why such
a desire may remain a pipe dream in the United States for a
long time to come. The sugar we consume that is produced
domestically comes from sugar cane grown in Hawaii and the
Southeast and sugar beet from the Upper Midwest, Pacific
Northwest, California and elsewhere. However, it is likely
milled and refined hundreds if not thousands of miles from
where it is harvested, and then shipped all over the
country—causing untold greenhouse gas emissions—in various
sized packages for our consumption in our coffee, on our
cereal and, for some of us, in our cocktails.
Massive government subsidies and land
giveaways to the sugar industry in the American Southeast beginning in
the early 18th century established a market for American-grown sugar
despite the fact that the region’s climate was not tropical enough to
grow cane efficiently. To add insult to injury, the rerouting of south
Florida’s fragile water table to irrigate thirsty sugar plantations
contributed to the decimation of the Everglades, one of the nation’s
most unique and diverse ecosystems—and now the subject of a
multi-billion dollar restoration effort.
While you might be hard pressed to find
commercially available local sugar anywhere in the U.S., you could
make your own. “Years ago, when sugar was an expensive commodity, many
people of lesser means made their own sugar from sugar beets,” reports
writer Kat Yares on the eHow.com website. “Every farm and every home
garden had a spot reserved for beets, and a day was set aside to cook
the beets down into sugar.” While very few of us grow our own food
these days, growing sugar beets and making sugar from scratch can be a
fun, educational and tasty project for parents and kids or for foodies
intent on local sourced, preservative-free ingredients. Yares explains
the whole process in her “How to Make Sugar from Beets” article on
eHow.com.
If that all sounds like too much work,
perhaps you can settle for store-bought organic sugar, which may not
be local but which is at least produced without chemical pesticides
and fertilizers. Florida Crystals, Hain, C&H, Domino and others each
offer organic sugar varieties in many traditional grocery stores
coast-to-coast. There are even more choices at natural foods specialty
stores (like Whole Foods). Believe it or not, there are even vegan
sugars out there—that is, sugars not processed with animal-derived
bone char in the refinement process.
While sugar itself may be a staple item
for many cocktails, some interesting alternative natural sweeteners,
some of which may be locally sourced in your region, do exist. Agave
nectar, honey or even maple syrup are some options that might just
give that Tom Collins the extra kick it needs to make it stand out
from the other bartender’s drinks down the street—or in your breakfast
cereal, for that matter.
In 1963, former US Senator Gaylord
Nelson began to worry about our planet and talked to other lawmakers and
the US President. The President spread the message but enough people did
not understand the seriousness of the concern. Senator Nelson came up
with an idea and thought of setting up a special day for spreading
Environmental concerns. He wrote to kids and 22nd April 1970, the first
EARTH DAY was held. All over the world people joined the mission. It is
required to tackle the day to day rising problems and concerns related
to environment - the imbalance is all due to natural calamities and man
made problems.
Here are 10 Personal
actions that make bring about a difference to save Environment. You may
draw and color Earth with your own ideas and list down all that you can
do to save environment. Maybe, grow some plants or explore nature. Think
of the forests, know the animals or birds, paste pics of animals or
collect feathers; think of the seas and paste pics of different fishes n
species of ocean world in your scraps or get to know of earthquakes,
volcanoes or cyclones. Know the consequences of war. Just the food you
eat, music you listen and learn how environment play a role in your
life. It's time about to learn to use things with utmost care - reduce
electricity - energy is getting short supplied so flip off the lights of
room, television, computers, etc when not in use. Close the taps when
you don't need water, walk down or travel on bike if you need to go to
short distances instead of using car, use dust bins for the waste and
not scatter things around....Save trees, save water, save
energy....Little beginnings take to higher results. It's Earth Day - 365
days!
Kidsfreesouls is Kids NIE
(Newspaper in Education) with Extensive Use of Contents in Classrooms
Worldwide. It promotes Literacy & Academic Achievement.
Contents of this site
may be used for Educational, Information or Entertainment Purpose. It should not be
reproduced in any other way without written permission of theEditor (ilaxi patel), Kidsfreesouls, Ahmedabad.
(India)
