Moral licensing as explained in the Sunday, July 18th 2010 Washington Post article by Michael S. Rosenwald is one way to describe the seemingly perplexing behaviors that humans engage in. His headline example of swearing by solar heat and driving a Hummer is eye catching, but seemingly unlikely- they didn’t sell many Hummers. Another example of moral licensing is as the commonly attributed cause for the statistic that Prius drivers drive more total miles. However, I prefer to frame this as green budgeting. Instead of driving more miles because they have a Prius, the people whose lives require or include lots of driving and are concerned about sustainable living or the environment choose to drive a Prius. Then there is me; I drive less than 4,000 miles a year, but have a hybrid. Clearly, it makes no economic sense. It is a limited budgetry excess to stay within my conceptual green budget. The life I live (now) requires that I own and drive a car. The hybrid is how I deal with that fact.
In order to live your values, you need to know what your values are and how to go about living them. Seemingly inconsistent choices may result from limted knowledge, information and insight on a topic or simply be part of the trade offs people make in balancing all their life choices. My green budget is an imperfect way to measure my environmental impact to the earth both positive and negative. My true goal is to live a rich and joyous life that is sustainable in all ways. To live sustainably, all aspects of your life- work, entertainment, everyday living, life choices, vacations have to be intergrated into a sustainable plan. Choices have to be made to achieve this, but there really is no sustainable framework to measure and evaluate all those choices. Some have tried to frame sustainable living solely as measured by carbon footprint, but that ignores water, the caring for renewable resources and the allocation of limited resources.
If you will recall, last spring Wal-Mart committed to reduce the carbon footprint from the life cycle of Wal-Mart’s products and supply chain by 20 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent over the next five years. In part this will be accomplished by having Wal-Mart use their leverage with their supply chain to influence the environmental practices, transportation, and storage of their supplying manufacturer. Part of this reduction will be accomplished by Wal-Mart’s customers who will be educated in more sustainable use of a product. A typical example of customer education is recommending that customers use cold water to wash laundry instead of hot. Some of reduction in Wal-Mart’s carbon impact is smoke and mirrors, but some is truly real. Wal-Mart will engage in an examination and improvement in how things are done in their supply chain and store management, but all decisions will be made based on how much carbon will be saved. The smallest carbon footprint is not always the right answer.
On Wednesday, July 28th 2010 the Wall Street Journal ran an article by Libby Copeland “In Search of the Green Cookout.” In this article she compares the traditional cookout with full fat beef, traditional hot dogs, plastic plates, table cloth and cutlery and conventionaly made ingredients for Smores and condiments to a “green” cookout. The green cookout featured grass fed beef, organic and grass fed hot dogs, disposable plates made from fallen palm leaves, bamboo cutlery, organic ingredient for smores, and green recycled paper table cloth. No measurement was made as to the different impacts these two cookouts would have, but the underlying assumption was merely a substitution of products. Green is achieved by shopping and spending more money. Buying a greener disposable plate or an organic marshmallow is not the answer.
For my most recent cookout, I, too, used grass fed beef. Several times a year, I buy bulk beef from Polyface farms. I drive the 38 mile round trip in my hybrid to pick up the meat at the drop off location. Of course this required that I have a large freezer to store the meat and despite being energy star it still uses electricity. To give my grass fed steaks full flavor (and minimize the formation of carcinogens) I marinate the meat in my own red wine and herb mixture for at least one day. Silly me, since we were cooking out in the backyard I used my everyday plates, my stainless steel cutlery, my casserole dishes to serve the organic Greek pasta salad I made using whole wheat pasta and the bounty of Jimmy Phillips garden, a friend who grows organic vegetables and always plants too much. (His heirloom tomatoes are to die for and free!) For a table cloth I used one of the cotton/poly mix tablecloth I bought years ago when I got the table for the deck and really did not want to iron a table cloth.
There are lots of compromises and tradeoffs in my cookout and life. The basic belief I have is that the greenest product is the one I already own. Reusable is better than disposable; though the disposable versus cotton diaper wars/ discussion highlighted the different ways to evaluate that decision. My choice for sustainably and naturally raised beef from Polyface is about healthful eating and humane treatment of the animals. Years ago, as part of my job I evaluated the environmental impact of CAFOs and farms in the northwest. After a few inspections of both conventional farming operations and alternative and organic farming operations the extra cost seemed more than worthwhile. I have not eaten conventionally raised food since. Thought I have not developed a way to calculate the various impacts on the earth of buying sustainably raised meat and storing it in my freezer for months at a time versus other choices, it is a choice I make. The reality is my husband expects to eat meat (or fish) every day and for health reasons and what I saw in the northwest I buy grass fed, pasture raised meat and wild fish. I embrace the philosophy that the Salatins have used for Polyface Farms, though I really do not know where my choice of meat fits into my green budget.
In a world with imperfect knowledge, we guess sometimes in silly ways and engage in green budgeting which may include a big dose of self delusion or advertised enhanced corporate illusions. In a pilot study performed on dairy suppliers, the Environmental Defense Fund analyzed the costs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with a gallon of milk, from dairy farm to distribution center. By gathering and looking at the data, the Environmental Defense Fund identified the easily achieved improvements that “best practices” farm management can have in energy used to produce milk. Simple changes in fertilizer and manure management, at dairy processing facilities can achieve significant improvements in energy efficiency and even in the product itself, such as making milk shelf-stable. It is not always the product that matter, but how that product comes to be that is important. Best management practices, BMPs, can deliver more than a reduced carbon footprint; they can protect the watershed, streams and rivers. Soil and Conservation Districts nationwide have been aware of the improvements in environmental stewardship that can be achieved though simple improvements in farm practices; however, these organizations have not had any leverage to encourage farmers and dairy operations to implement these practices or adequate budget to develop farm plans. Some conservation districts certify farms that have embraced BMPs. Look for products from local farms that have embraced BMPs.
Sustainable living is not about buying the right product, though that is a small part of it. Sustainable living is the sum total of all aspects of your life and all the decision and tradeoffs you make. What is your life’s work, where you live, what things you choose to buy or not buy, medical care versus treatment, healthful living, activities you engage in, exercise, vacations, eating out, cooking at home, hobbies, all the activities and choices you make in your life. The little things you choose to do, recycle, compost, water or fertilize your garden, the temperature you choose for your home, and how you maintain your heating and air-conditioning units. We protect, use or abuse the earth’s resources in every aspect of our lives, but have no clear way to measure and evaluate our choices and so we find that we engage in perplexing behaviors trying to make choices without a clear framework for decision making.
Showing posts with label Polyface Farms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polyface Farms. Show all posts
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Rethinking Organic
Recently, I read “Organic Inc.” by Samuel Fromartz. The book did two things, first it allowed me to understand the origins of organic food and how the concept of organic food has evolved with the regulation of the market and industry. The insight Mr. Fromartz provided to the organic food industry and farming made me rethink my position on organic food. Though traditionally, before the government stepped in to regulate the market, organic foods were grown under natural conditions (without the use of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides; and either not processed, or processed without the use of additives). Now, under standards adopted by the U.S. Agriculture Dept. (USDA) in 2000 and fully effective in 2002, organic food is food grown, raised and processed without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and antibiotics may not be used in raising organic foods, in addition, the use of irradiation, biotechnology, and sewer-sludge fertilizer is also banned. Food whose ingredients are at least 95% organic by weight may carry the "USDA ORGANIC" label; products containing only organic ingredients are labeled 100% organic.
However, under the government regulations the word "organic" refers strictly to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution. Farmers who grow organic produce and raise organic meat don't use conventional methods to fertilize, control weeds or prevent livestock disease. The USDA organic label means that the food was produced using organic methods sanctioned by the USDA. So far there has not been any hard evidence that organic food is more nutritious of better for you. Food health studies are exceedingly difficult to run long term. So to a large extent the health benefits of not eating fruits, vegetables and grains with pesticide residue and meat without antibiotics and feed grain or grass without pesticide residue has to be taken on faith.
In the past I have bought organic where I thought it mattered to protecting my family from exposure to chemicals. Like strawberries, lettuce, apples, vegetables especially root vegetables where the outside of the fruit and vegetable is eaten. Other than that, I tried to buy only American grown produce, vegetables, herbs, beans and grains (though occasionally I do buy a couple of bananas). In terms of meat, I purchase organic, grass fed and pastured beef, pork, lamb and free range chicken. We only eat wild caught fish. I started buying grass fed beef back in the day when I was doing environmental evaluations of farms, dairies and concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs). I will not go into the highly gross details of that work that have resulted in me barely ever eating meat. However, my concerns for the animal welfare, mad cow disease, and environmental impact of CAFOs pushed me to buy my meat from the first sustainable farm I inspected. In addition grass fed beef (and other animals) is lower in saturated fat and better for you. This was confirmed by Marion Nestle, author of “What to Eat” and Professor of nutrition at NYU School of Public Health. I asked her at a lecture I attended and she said that grass fed beef was as low in saturated fat as chicken.
Organic crop land is less productive than conventional farm land. Organic farming also requires more labor to keep weeds down. The average corn crop yield per acre in organic farming is 17 percent lower than down in traditional farming. Results range between 5 percent for corn to 35 percent for rye. For potatoes, root vegetables and turnips, crop yields are on average 14 percent lower than in traditional farming. In various fruits the yield was reported to be around 20% per acre lower with organic. That reduction in yield is basically why organic food sells for a premium. This loss of yield is an expense of organic farming, though there is a cost savings in not utilizing chemicals and in having soil retain its fertility through organic techniques of crop rotation. The chemical pesticides add to the cost of the crops in conventional farming, and conventional farming requires more irrigation water than organic farming.
Not only does conventional farming utilize more water, but the pesticide runoff impacts both surface and groundwater. The true cost of water is not expressed in the irrigation water charges in many places and the cost of the pesticide impact to water is not yet known and only recently have we begun to think about that impact. These days I am buying American grown organic to do my tiny part to protect the health of the soil, surface and groundwaters at least in my “neighborhood.”
However, under the government regulations the word "organic" refers strictly to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution. Farmers who grow organic produce and raise organic meat don't use conventional methods to fertilize, control weeds or prevent livestock disease. The USDA organic label means that the food was produced using organic methods sanctioned by the USDA. So far there has not been any hard evidence that organic food is more nutritious of better for you. Food health studies are exceedingly difficult to run long term. So to a large extent the health benefits of not eating fruits, vegetables and grains with pesticide residue and meat without antibiotics and feed grain or grass without pesticide residue has to be taken on faith.
In the past I have bought organic where I thought it mattered to protecting my family from exposure to chemicals. Like strawberries, lettuce, apples, vegetables especially root vegetables where the outside of the fruit and vegetable is eaten. Other than that, I tried to buy only American grown produce, vegetables, herbs, beans and grains (though occasionally I do buy a couple of bananas). In terms of meat, I purchase organic, grass fed and pastured beef, pork, lamb and free range chicken. We only eat wild caught fish. I started buying grass fed beef back in the day when I was doing environmental evaluations of farms, dairies and concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs). I will not go into the highly gross details of that work that have resulted in me barely ever eating meat. However, my concerns for the animal welfare, mad cow disease, and environmental impact of CAFOs pushed me to buy my meat from the first sustainable farm I inspected. In addition grass fed beef (and other animals) is lower in saturated fat and better for you. This was confirmed by Marion Nestle, author of “What to Eat” and Professor of nutrition at NYU School of Public Health. I asked her at a lecture I attended and she said that grass fed beef was as low in saturated fat as chicken.
Organic crop land is less productive than conventional farm land. Organic farming also requires more labor to keep weeds down. The average corn crop yield per acre in organic farming is 17 percent lower than down in traditional farming. Results range between 5 percent for corn to 35 percent for rye. For potatoes, root vegetables and turnips, crop yields are on average 14 percent lower than in traditional farming. In various fruits the yield was reported to be around 20% per acre lower with organic. That reduction in yield is basically why organic food sells for a premium. This loss of yield is an expense of organic farming, though there is a cost savings in not utilizing chemicals and in having soil retain its fertility through organic techniques of crop rotation. The chemical pesticides add to the cost of the crops in conventional farming, and conventional farming requires more irrigation water than organic farming.
Not only does conventional farming utilize more water, but the pesticide runoff impacts both surface and groundwater. The true cost of water is not expressed in the irrigation water charges in many places and the cost of the pesticide impact to water is not yet known and only recently have we begun to think about that impact. These days I am buying American grown organic to do my tiny part to protect the health of the soil, surface and groundwaters at least in my “neighborhood.”
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Sustainable Living with a Lifecycle Approach
The carbon footprint and IPAT approach failed to encompass the balance with which we live with the earth. When I lived in the city I did not often think about all the resources of the earth pulled to support the city entity itself. I never considered if urban living was more or less sustainable than country or suburban living. Certainly, when we worked in the city, living within walking distance of work seemed more sustainable. The work I did in environmental evaluations and redevelopment of Brownfield properties was clearly improved use or re-use of the land and a sustainable form of land use. How does the work you do contribute to the sustainability of your life? What is the cost of supplying cities with power, water and food? Is the ecological impact of a city greater than the ecological impact of the individuals merely because of the concentration of population? These are truly tough questions, and I do not have the simplicity of an answer that measuring a carbon footprint would. Truly measuring your ecological footprint and choices accurately might require some of the computing power of NASA.
All resources are finite. As humans our resources consist of money, time, passion and energy. In the end, where, how and when we deploy these resources will determine our comfort and happiness with our lives. Living within your personal means, financial means and your ecological means would be a sustainable life. The problem is how to determine what is or should be your ecological means, what is sustainable in a dynamic and interconnected environment. A useful model in sustainable living could be a great tool in decision making. In the real world of finite resources, careful consideration must be given to how and when we expend our resources. Recently, I came across an article by Phillip E. Savage, PE of the University of Michigan, “What Does It Mean To Be Green.” In the literature cited was a book, “Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living,” written/published in 1991 by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Thanks to the internet excerpts from the book were available to read as well as a summary of the book. It appears to be a guide to the principles and actions of sustainable living on this earth. The first part of the book was even called “principals of sustainable living.”
There is a “popular adoption” of the book called “Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Survival.” That is the book I ordered. The book summary reads in part, “The principles of sustainable living are respect and care for the community of life, improvement in the quality of human life, conservation of the earth's vitality and diversity, reduction of nonrenewable resource depletion, (and) maintenance of the earth's carrying capacity… Changes in community attitudes and practice in the care of their own environments, a national framework for integrating development and conservation.” Sounds like powerful and encompassing view that I hope has not been made obsolete with the passage of 18 years. Hopefully, I will find universal principles to evaluate choices.
Until I find a truly workable model of sustainable living I will try to stumble through life’s choices, balancing wants and desires with resources and trying to make good choices for us and the earth. Following a systematic plan to reduce the non-renewable the energy footprint of our home and lives. Living within the limits of the hydraulic system of the Culpeper Basin. Acting as responsible stewards of the watershed. Making responsible choices on how we spend the money we have available. For example, I will admit that for health and taste reasons (and because I evaluated the environmental impact of CAFOs in the northwest and Texas) I buy meat from what my husband refers to as the meat underground. Every six weeks or so, I drive my little hybrid on a 35 mile roundtrip to pick up my meat order from the appointed pickup location that the husband always describes this as “under a bridge by the river.” It is actually at the end of a cul-de-sac. My meat is more expensive than what could be bought in groceries (with the exception of the grass feed organic meat at Whole Foods that I buy when we are in California). My meat co-operative is a relatively local Shenandoah Valley Farmer, Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms. Just recently, Mr. Salatin and Polyface Farms received a Heinz Family Foundation Award for helping to bring about a cleaner, greener and more sustainable plant. After reading that in the local “Co-op Currents” I feel really good about all the money I spend on meat. Since I calculated that I have about 28,000-30,000 more meals to cook for my husband, they might as well be tasty, healthy and sustainable.
By the way, just in case you care, Salatin rotates his livestock’s location on the farm, so that different species are helped by the proximity of the other animals. He uses portable infrastructure and equipment, and does not use chemicals or fertilizers, instead using composting and pigs as aerators. He is too ornery and libertarian to jump through hoops for organic certification, so you take it or leave it with his guarantee. For anyone who has not spent time at concentrated feed lots or by their official government name “concentrated animal feeding operations, CAFOs, I recommend Michael Pollen’s excellent book, “An Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Food.”
All resources are finite. As humans our resources consist of money, time, passion and energy. In the end, where, how and when we deploy these resources will determine our comfort and happiness with our lives. Living within your personal means, financial means and your ecological means would be a sustainable life. The problem is how to determine what is or should be your ecological means, what is sustainable in a dynamic and interconnected environment. A useful model in sustainable living could be a great tool in decision making. In the real world of finite resources, careful consideration must be given to how and when we expend our resources. Recently, I came across an article by Phillip E. Savage, PE of the University of Michigan, “What Does It Mean To Be Green.” In the literature cited was a book, “Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living,” written/published in 1991 by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Thanks to the internet excerpts from the book were available to read as well as a summary of the book. It appears to be a guide to the principles and actions of sustainable living on this earth. The first part of the book was even called “principals of sustainable living.”
There is a “popular adoption” of the book called “Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Survival.” That is the book I ordered. The book summary reads in part, “The principles of sustainable living are respect and care for the community of life, improvement in the quality of human life, conservation of the earth's vitality and diversity, reduction of nonrenewable resource depletion, (and) maintenance of the earth's carrying capacity… Changes in community attitudes and practice in the care of their own environments, a national framework for integrating development and conservation.” Sounds like powerful and encompassing view that I hope has not been made obsolete with the passage of 18 years. Hopefully, I will find universal principles to evaluate choices.
Until I find a truly workable model of sustainable living I will try to stumble through life’s choices, balancing wants and desires with resources and trying to make good choices for us and the earth. Following a systematic plan to reduce the non-renewable the energy footprint of our home and lives. Living within the limits of the hydraulic system of the Culpeper Basin. Acting as responsible stewards of the watershed. Making responsible choices on how we spend the money we have available. For example, I will admit that for health and taste reasons (and because I evaluated the environmental impact of CAFOs in the northwest and Texas) I buy meat from what my husband refers to as the meat underground. Every six weeks or so, I drive my little hybrid on a 35 mile roundtrip to pick up my meat order from the appointed pickup location that the husband always describes this as “under a bridge by the river.” It is actually at the end of a cul-de-sac. My meat is more expensive than what could be bought in groceries (with the exception of the grass feed organic meat at Whole Foods that I buy when we are in California). My meat co-operative is a relatively local Shenandoah Valley Farmer, Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms. Just recently, Mr. Salatin and Polyface Farms received a Heinz Family Foundation Award for helping to bring about a cleaner, greener and more sustainable plant. After reading that in the local “Co-op Currents” I feel really good about all the money I spend on meat. Since I calculated that I have about 28,000-30,000 more meals to cook for my husband, they might as well be tasty, healthy and sustainable.
By the way, just in case you care, Salatin rotates his livestock’s location on the farm, so that different species are helped by the proximity of the other animals. He uses portable infrastructure and equipment, and does not use chemicals or fertilizers, instead using composting and pigs as aerators. He is too ornery and libertarian to jump through hoops for organic certification, so you take it or leave it with his guarantee. For anyone who has not spent time at concentrated feed lots or by their official government name “concentrated animal feeding operations, CAFOs, I recommend Michael Pollen’s excellent book, “An Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Food.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)