September 11, 2008
Granite State Greenery: AMC Huts Showcase Green Tech
Hello, all!
Just back from a hike through some of the AMC huts along the Appalachian Trail. We headed up the Bridal Path Trail up to Greenleaf hut and then on up a total of 3600 feet to Mount Lafayette (5,260ft) and across the Garfield Ridge Trail to Galehead hut, passing the summit of Mt. Garfield (4,500 ft) along the way.
Had a great time, some serious weather though, like fog, hurricane force winds (80+mph), torrential rain, thunder, lightning and a snow advisory.
The Garfield Ridge Trail was substantially more difficult than I remembered, especially around Mt. Garfield, where it turns from a trail to a rock climbing expedition. It made Agony Ridge below Greenleaf feel like a cakewalk.The weather thankfully cleared for a bit along the way and we had some fantastic views.
We made it to Galehead a bit after dark. The Galehead crew gave us a tour of all the green tech at the hut—composting toilets, kitchen compost, wind power, solar, on-demand hot water for the kitchen, etc.
You can find more pictures of our trip on FLICKR: Greenleaf to Galehead and I'm going to try to do a post with more details on how the huts of the White Mountains make little choices that make big differences to keep their impact on the environment low.
Posted by sorsha at 3:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 13, 2007
Baby Bust? Perpetuating The Planet Instead Of The Species
Who wouldn't want a cute little baby of their very own - one with their own superior genes and extraordinary good looks? Someone to instill one's values and wisdom, your own genetic legacy.
Well, Alan Weisman, author of The World Without Us (http://www.worldwithoutus.com), for one. Weisman's new book asks and answers the question: How would the world be different without humans? What would change?
The short answer? A lot, and for the most part, good. But different. His website has a nice little flow chart to talk us through the resulting person-free planet, from the collapse of human-made buildings to the hoards of domestic cats roving the new wilds 100 years after we're gone (makes me think of that X-Files episode).
But why should we care what happens when we're gone? Well, for one thing, what's left is our legacy and Weisman shows us that we have some control over it. He illustrates how some of our more lasting impacts are not the ones we would necessarily prefer to leave behind as a testament to our existence.
While most of Weisman's book focuses on the changes that would occur after we all kick the bucket (if a bucket falls on the planet and no one is alive to hear it...) he also talks a bit about what we can do now. His suggestion: lessen our impact by lessening our numbers - have fewer children. The children we do have will have more value and the abundance of resources available to those who are still around would be more than sufficient to play out the existence of our species in style.
[Weisman] makes his own pitch, moderate in comparison: Let's cut the birth rate to one child per couple, for a few generations at least. The population would dwindle by about 5 billion people over the next century, he says, ensuring the habitability of the Earth for the 1.6 billion who remained.
...What's the environmental cost of having a child? In the crudest terms, you've added another version of yourself into the world, which means you're potentially doubling your carbon-dioxide emissions over the total life of your family. That's a high estimate, since our kids won't spew as much greenhouse gas as we do—automobiles, appliances, light bulbs, and everything else will become more efficient in coming generations. But these marginal improvements aren't going to make our babies carbon-neutral. They'll just contribute to global warming at somewhat lower rates than we do.
Our other green lifestyle choices can't even begin to offset the cost of adding a brand-new CO2-emitter to the population.
...
... the birth of every additional child in the developed world can have a major impact on the cost of keeping global warming in check. According to studies published over the last decade, this amounts to as much as $10,000 to $20,000 per baby. In fact, policies that promote family planning—in the United States or elsewhere—might well be more efficient than other means to reduce CO2 emissions, like a Kyoto-inspired carbon tax.
Despite these findings, Earth-advocacy groups almost never raise the issue of family size, focusing instead on lifestyle choices with more modest environmental rewards.
...
They have good reason to be squeamish. The anti-life implications of Weisman's book are likely to alienate some moderates, as well as any social conservatives who might otherwise be drifting green.
...
As a global solution for climate change, Weisman's depopulation plan may not have much of a chance...But that's no reason to neglect birth rates from the personal calculus of living green.
More At: Slate.com: Global Swarming
One interesting aspect of all this is that if one group of people decided to go baby-neutral, then that gives them a distinct disadvantage in terms of future numbers. This can be said for any group - whether it's green-minded people or a specific culture, race or way of life. If all Inuit people decided to stop having children, their already threatened way of life might very well end altogether. Similarly, if all green-eyed people decided not to have kids, wouldn't that genetic trait be forcefully deselected evolutionarily?
Russian Relations
This is exactly the situation the Russian Federation appears to be struggling with these days. The largest country in the world by a landslide, Russia has a very small and dwindling population, due to low birth rates and substantially shorter life expectancies than the western world. Three years ago, the government decided to take an interesting policy to help solve their demographic crisis:
Yesterday was National Conception Day in the Ulyanovsk province of the Russian Federation. Citizens are urged to take the day off and make some little Russians. Those who succeed can hope for prizes like SUVs and apartments for their new family units.
Officials in the Russian province of Ulyanovsk urged residents on Wednesday to take the day off work and make patriotic love, with prizes for producing a child on Russia Day nine months hence.
Sergei Morozov, governor of this province 900 kilometres (560 miles) east of Moscow, dreamt up the idea as a way of helping to pull Russia out of its demographic crisis.
It is not his first such scheme, as prizes including fridges, televisions and an off-road vehicle were offered to anyone who gave birth on the last Russia Day on June 12.
...
The tradition of awarding prizes for giving birth dates back to Soviet times, when women could be named "Hero Mothers" for having especially large families.
But boosting the population level has grown more urgent as Russia's population has slumped from 149 million in 1992, just after the Soviet collapse, to just over 142 million today.
President Vladimir Putin has made fixing the problem a national priority, signing a law recently that grants mothers 250,000 rubles (about 9,555 dollars, or 7,000 euros) for having a second child.
...
The day of action was to end later in the evening with an exhibition "Create a family and Save Russia."
More At: AFP: Patriot babies: Russian province holds 'Conception Day'
What also seems ironic to me is that there are so many children around without parents, in need of homes. Taking on a child who is already in the world is not only a noble thing to do, it provides an infant-minded couple with a wanted child without exasterbating the population problem and solving some other problems all in one go. Parents can still teach their values to a child, even one without their genes. So why isn't the Russian Federation looking to their neighbor China for some influx of population - I expect the answer lies in protecting a racial identity (160 different ethnic groups and indigenous peoples make up the Russian demographics according to Wikipedia) as well, but the issue is certainly more complex than that.
All these musings lead me to a couple of conclusions. On the individual level, taking the impact of your future children and their children into account when you consider your personal impact on the planet is a valid thing to do. That said, unless it's a large and all-encompassing, balanced effort, a severe pause in procreating by any one group could have unintended and negative impacts as well. Movements that do not take diversity into account may only succeed in extinguishing themselves.
Still, the current sort of genetic arms race cannot sustain itself and overpopulation looms in our immediate future if we do not take action somehow. Waiting may take our choices away, when nature begins to make these decisions for us.
Posted by sorsha at 6:50 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 14, 2007
Local Légumes: From Regional Raspberries To Civic Cabbages
We Californians are spoiled when it comes to many things - the mediterranean-like climate alone makes the Central Valley ideal for producing a variety of crops almost all year long. However, this summer I've had a rather rude awakening - the rest of the country doesn't have it so good. It seems now like Santa Cruz, California, is the epicenter of organic living, sustainable farming, and a year-long spread of fresh, yummy produce.
Let's start back in late March, early April... my husband and I were considering purchasing a piece of property in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. After deciding we liked the house itself, we did some local research, including going to the local markets. Ironically, the organic rasberries we saw in the markets of New Hampshire were from: *heh* Santa Cruz county, California.
My first thought: I didn't come 3,234 miles (says Google Maps) to eat my own (I believe I used the word "freakin") California raspberries. And they've not traveled well. And, oh, look, they're almost $8 for a pint?!
Now I've spent most of the summer in New Hampshire and the produce has gotten better as the Northeastern growing season has produced its first crops for the summer, the peaches from New Jersey aren't bad. I've had some fantastic lettuce, blueberries and apples from some family friends' gardens in Vermont, and my herb gardens are out of control due to all the rain.
Still, I haven't found great produce in regular supply, but I know it's around. Farmers' Markets are around but not as close as I would like. However, recently I have been looking into CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) in the area.
Basically, a CSA is a program where people in an area buy "shares" of a farm's produce for the year. Sometimes you have the option of actually doing a little community work on the farm as well. In return for your share, you receive a portion of the farm's bounty, usually weekly. Most CSAs are organic in nature, but they may include fruits, veggies, eggs, and even fresh meats - depending on your region. The produce is brought to you super-fresh and virtually free of packaging.
Growing seasons vary greatly in the United States. For example, in Santa Cruz, CA, the CSAs may run for 33 weeks - from March to November. However, in New Hampshire, they tend to run July through October, which is only half as many weeks. Think of it as a farm subscription.
A great resource I came across while searching for CSA's was LocalHarvest, a web directory of farmer's markets and CSAs, and other organic retailers. I could research some of the CSAs in my area and even see what kinds of produce they grow yearly. One last note - CSAs work on the principle of paying for your subscription in advance. From what I've seen, this generally works out to between $15-40 a week, so don't let the overall subscription numbers phase you immediately.
Posted by sorsha at 2:27 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
May 18, 2006
Yes, We May Have No Bananas
When we drove up to Kahakuloa Head on Maui, we passed a little stand that has been claimed to have the best banana bread in the world. Now, I don't know if I'd call it the best, but it was certainly very good.
I cannot imagine a world without bananas. After all, it's the world's most popular fruit crop. According to wikipedia, bananas rank fourth after rice, wheat and maize in human consumption. It's considered a staple food in some cultures, providing much-needed vitamins, fiber and nutrients like potassium and iron. It's used medicinally for everything from blood pressure and stroke to constipation and PMS. There's no question that eating bananas is one of the most dietarily efficient ways to get your daily doses naturally.
One large banana, about 9 inches in length, packs 602 mg of potassium and only carries 140 calories... 2 grams of protein and 4 grams of fiber... 2 mgs of sodium. ... 36 grams of carbs...Vitamins and minerals are abundant in the banana, offering 123 I.U. of vitamin A ...B vitamins are present with .07 mg of Thiamine, .15 mg of Riboflavin, .82 mg Niacin, .88 mg vitamin B6, and 29 mcg of Folic Acid...13.8 mg of vitamin C. On the mineral scale Calcium counts in at 9.2 mg, Magnesium 44.1 mg, with trace amounts of iron and zinc.
More At: Nutritional Benefits of Bananas
Having spent much of my teenage years reading ingredient listings during a phase when I hated bananas, period, I may be slightly more aware than the average consumer on how many things actually contain them. You'll be hardpressed to find a smoothie that doesn't contain bananas. They're often used as a low-cost filler ingredient in things with other tropical fruits, like Häagen-Dazs tropical fruit sorbet and other fruit juices. You'll find them not only in desserts and as raw fruit snacks, but in curries, dried as chips, and fried, boiled, baked, sauteed, not to mention set afire.
But now the banana may be under threat.
Go bananas while you still can. The world's most popular fruit and the fourth most important food crop of any sort is in deep trouble. Its genetic base, the wild bananas and traditional varieties cultivated in India, has collapsed.
Virtually all bananas traded internationally are of a single variety, the Cavendish, the genetic roots of which lie in India...threatened by pandemics of diseases such as that caused by the black sigatoka fungus. The main hope for survival of the Cavendish lies in developing new hybrids resistant to the fungus, but this is a difficult and time-consuming task because the seedless modern fruit does not reproduce sexually and has to be bred from cuttings.
More At: A future with no bananas?
Now while the actually extinction part may be a bit overly dramatic, it is true that the genetic diversity of the banana has suffered over time, and diseases have caused a lot of trouble especially in third-world nations that depend on the banana crop to stay cheap and sustainable.
For instance, in central Africa, people eat about 1000 pounds of bananas per year. For reference, according to the US Census, Americans eat about 275lbs of fruit - all fruit including OJ, apples, etc.
Ugandans use the same word "matooke" to describe both banana and food.
In the past, the banana was a highly sustainable crop with a long plantation life and stable yields year round. However with the arrival of the Black Sigatoka fungus, banana production in eastern Africa has fallen by over 40%.
More at: Wikipedia: Bananas
It's not surprising that the more common a crop becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes with regard to diseases and fungus and other plagues of that sort. This news on the banana is interesting on its own, but it also got me thinking about another aspect of the situation. If you were paying attention above, you might have caught the fact that it's difficult to breed new disease-resistant hybrids because the seedless modern fruit does not reproduce sexually.
We live in an age where we're trying to control produce. We don't just want it bigger, we want it uniform. We grow mangoes and apples so they fit into those plastic boxes perfectly. God forbid we have misshapen fruit, because no one will buy it. We grow citrus with thicker skins so they last longer on the way to market. Strawberries are bigger and more beautiful than ever, even if they taste like sour lemons.
A common and popular type of agricultural control are the "seedless" varieties. Seedless grapes, watermelons, and oranges are very popular. They're easier to eat. I love my seedless clementines. It takes careful breeding of plants to get those species in the first place. The more popular they become, the more likely they are vulnerable to the same problems that the bananas are having now. Losing banana crops is bad enough, but imagine grape and citrus crops suffering from something similar. Now you're effecting the wine and OJ market, much closer to your home and your wallet.
Posted by sorsha at 10:19 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 17, 2005
If You Can't Give A Man A Fish, He May Resort To Lion...
Many people seem to think that distasteful subjects like the bush-meat trade as an African problem. What they fail to realize is that every thing we take from Africa tends to have a profound effect. Fishing has long been a way many poor countries have been able to feed themselves. Foreign fishing vessels from the European Union find fishing off the waters of Africa too tempting to pass up. Often they're given carte blanche in terms of quotas, and overfishing has become a serious problem. Now Science magazine has published a study that shows a strong link between overfishing off the coast of Africa and the increase in the bush-meat trade. This is not just a matter of hurting the small fishing communities along the African coast. Large fish often feed the locals there, but smaller fish like anchovies and sardines are often dried and traded to inland communities for rice, corn, bananas and timber. In short, overfishing has far-reaching economic effects in these poor African countries.
So next time you're eating tuna at a bistro in Paris or Rome or London, consider where that fish may have come from. By making wise choices on the menu, you can help avoid supporting overfishing of threatened fish species, not to mention exploitation of third world countries and the perpetuation of the bush-meat trade, which affects lions, leopards, hyenas, zebra, monkeys, hippos, giant hogs, and antelopes!
The European Union's taste for West African seafood may be causing more Africans to kill wild animals for food—including lions, leopards, and hippopotamuses—a new study suggests.
Researchers say dwindling fish stocks due to trawling by foreign fishing fleets is a key cause of the increase in the "bush meat" trade in Ghana.
The study, published tomorrow in the journal Science, claims to be the first to provide strong evidence of a link between local fish supply and bush-meat hunting.
...
"If people aren't able to get their protein from fish, they'll turn elsewhere for food and economic survival," he said. "Unfortunately the impacts on wild game resources are not sustainable."
More at: African Bush-Meat Trade Linked to EU Overfishing
See Also: "Bushmeat Hunting, Wildlife Declines, and Fish Supply in West Africa" in Science - 12 November 2004 Issue.
Posted by sorsha at 7:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack