Sprouts

Here are some tips for enjoying our hot, sunny Oklahoma summers safely (again, from EWG).  Want to know how to choose the safest sunscreen?

1. Quick tips for a good sunscreen

Ingredients matter – learn if your brand leaves you overexposed to damaging UVA rays, if it breaks down in the sun or if it contains potential hormone-disrupting compounds.

Avoid these ingredients and products:

Oxybenzone

Vitamin A (retinyl palmitate)

Added insect repellent

Sprays

Powders

SPF above 50+

Look for these ingredients and product

Zinc

Titanium dioxide

Avobenzone or Mexoryl SX

Cream

Broad spectrum protection

Water resistant for beach, pool & exercise

SPF 30+ for beach & pool

2. First things first – do these before applying sunscreen

The best defenses against getting too much harmful UV radiation are protective clothes, shade and timing.

Don’t get burned. Red, sore, blistered (then peeling) skin is a clear sign you’ve gotten far too much sun. Sunburn increases skin cancer risk – keep your guard up!

Wear clothes. Shirts, hats, shorts and pants shield your skin from the sun’s UV rays – and don’t coat your skin with goop. A long-sleeved surf shirt is a good start.

Find shade – or make it. Picnic under a tree, read beneath an umbrella, take a canopy to the beach. Keep infants in the shade – they lack tanning pigments (melanin) to protect their skin.

Plan around the sun. If your schedule is flexible, go outdoors in early morning or late afternoon when the sun is lower in the sky. UV radiation peaks at midday, when the sun is directly overhead.

Sunglasses are essential. Not just a fashion accessory, sunglasses protect your eyes from UV radiation, a cause of cataracts.

3. Now put on sunscreen – here are the essentials

Some sunscreens prevent sunburn but not other types of skin damage. Make sure yours provides broad spectrum protection. Don’t be fooled by a label indicating high SPF. Anything higher than “SPF 50+” can tempt you to stay in the sun too long, suppressing sunburn but not other kinds of skin damage. are misleading. Stick to SPF 15-50+, reapply often and pick a product based on your own skin coloration, time planned outside, shade and cloud cover.

News about Vitamin A. Eating vitamin A-laden vegetables is good for you, but spreading vitamin A on the skin may not be. Government data show that tumors and lesions develop sooner on skin coated with vitamin A-laced creams. Vitamin A, listed as “retinyl palmitate” on ingredient labels, is in one-fourth of sunscreens on the market. Avoid them.

Ingredients matter. Avoid the sunscreen chemical oxybenzone, a synthetic estrogen that penetrates the skin and contaminates the body. Look for active ingredients zinc, titanium, avobenzone or Mexoryl SX. These substances protect skin from harmful UVA radiation and remain on the skin, with little if any penetrating into the body. Also, skip sunscreens with insect repellent – if you need bug spray, buy it separately and apply it first.

Cream, spray or powder – and how often? Sprays and powders cloud the air with tiny particles of sunscreen that may not be safe to breathe. Choose creams instead. Reapply them often, because sunscreen chemicals break apart in the sun, wash off and rub off on towels and clothing.

Pick a good sunscreen. EWG’s sunscreen database rates the safety and efficacy of about 1,800 SPF-rated products, including about 800 sunscreens for beach and sports. 

I hope all this information will help you enjoy the sun safely.

I flunked composting

Each year I resolve to learn to compost successfully, after years of failure, but this year might be different.  Sustainable Shawnee had as its first speaker of the year, Mr. George Dreiver from the OSU Extension.  I am going to try to follow his instructions, and I share them with you in case you are inclined to try composting.  First, why bother?  Composting is an excellent, inexpensive way to increase the productivity and workability of the soil.  It reduces and recycles yard waste which, from March to October, increases residential solid waste about 50%.  It is cheaper than going to the lawn and garden center and buying soil amendments. You can compost any plant-based material: avoid animal products and synthetic or plastic products.  The smaller the particles, the faster the compost will be  “done.”    You want to strive for a 50-50 combination of carbon and nitrogen, i.e., blend = parts grass clippings and dry leaves and branches.  In place of green vegetation, you can use urea fertilizer (1 lb. =one cubic yard of leaves). Keep the pile wet (like a wet sponge), and turn the pile frequently to provide access to oxygen. The structure of the pile should be as follows:  a layer of plant waste, a layer of fertilizer and a layer of soil. The pile size should be restricted to no more the 5 ft. high and 5 ft. wide and should be exposed to at least 6 hrs of sunlight daily.  The container should allow air flow, be accessible and resist decay.  Poles with chicken wire or even an unconfined pile  are just fine.  The pile will heat up, and when it begins to cool down, it is done.  You might want to screen the resulting “black gold” to remove particles more than 1/2 inch in diameter.  So, if your compost pile just isn’t behaving, consider these problems and their solutions:  it stinks...insufficient oxygen, so turn the pile, or it is too wet, so add dry material; it is damp but won’t heat up...too little nitrogen, so add fertilizer or grass clippings or it is too wet, so allow to dry or add dry material; it is dry and not composting...add water; it has an ammonia smell...too much nitrogen, so add sawdust or other carbon material and turn.  So there you have it.  I think I may just give up on composting because I don’t think I have enough sunlight on my yard; that’s my excuse, what’s yours?

I took 3 trash bags from the event organizers thinking there's not much trash along Bryan Rd. That was true. I had no idea what lurked in the tall grass along this seemingly benign roadway. Before it was over, I picked up three full bags of trash just along this 500 yard stretch alone. I couldn't believe the things people throw out of their cars. The empty liquor and beer bottles where no big suprise. The open container laws have increased litter along Oklahoma roads for years. Along with the liquor bottles, I found just as many five-hour energy drinks. I understand it's the latest craze to combine alcohol and energy drinks to have and I quote, "an epic night out." Unfortunately, this concoction can lead to heart attacks, strokes and is generally just bad for you. Wow. Not a good sign for Shawnee's youth. I also found several used insulin syringes right next to the street where anyone could tread on them. I suppose they could have been used for legitimate purposes but it still begs the question why throw contaminated needles out the window when you know someone could be hurt by them? I often wonder how people justify such actions.

In the catagory of totally annoying trash, I would place the dead something I found in a box and plastic bag. I never saw what exactly "it" was but it smelled REALLY bad and clearly the previous owner tossed it out very carefully (he/she included the industrial gloves worn during disposal). Nasty and quite unexpected. The number one most annoying trash of day went to the WOMAN WHO SMOKES CAPRI MENTHOLS AND THROWS ALL HER PACKAGES OUT THE CAR WINDOW! YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE! I must have picked up 20-30 Capri Menthol packages along this short distance. Clearly, she has a routine of opening one pack and throwing away the other in exactly the same place everytime. Just stop it! Why not keep a plastic bag in the car for trash? Why throw out your trash for someone else to deal with? Surely this could be a commentary on society as a whole in recent days. 

Puppy and I enjoyed the perfect weather but I do wish people would stop being so lazy and realize, for example, that even when you throw your trash out the back window into your truckbed, it's still going to blow out as you drive to become someone else's problem later. Take responsiblity. If you use it, dispose of your trash responsibly so we'll all have a nice place to live.

How lucky we are

I have just returned from a trip to Southeast Asia, including Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam and am still digesting the sights, smells and history of this amazing region.  How little I knew how little I know about these countries and I am humbled by my encounters with gentle people who have endured centuries of violence and yet seem to be moving forward and rebuilding without feelings of vengeance.  Their Buddhist culture is partly responsible for the amnesty they have extended to the Khmer Rouge, Pathet Lao and, yes, the Americans, but so is the energy it takes to survive and rebuild their lives, leaving little left for retribution.  What I do know is that we are so lucky to have been born in America.  We have many troubles, economic, environmental, societal, but our troubles pale in comparison to those in so many other parts of the world. Because we have lights, water, food and free elections, we have energy to address our problems in a way that improves the situation, that is if we don’t let the shouting and name calling paralyze us and blind us to the common ground we share.  Specifically, we are all Americans...all wanting the best for our country, and while we might differ on the solutions we advocate, we should remember our common interests.  We are coming into what promises to be a vitriolic political season, and I urge all of us to remember that dialogue produces solutions, but if the shouting is too loud, dialogue is impossible.  Out of gratitude that we are not in Cambodia or Laos, please, let us listen, do due diligence, and not respond with knee-jerk platitudes.  The complexity of the problems facing us demands that we do our homework, not just listen to media sound-bites or party platitudes.  Let’s celebrate being American, which implies creativity, compromise and compassion for all.

I would like to think that I have original ideas, but few of us do.  I have read an article by Jonathan Kay about climate change deniers that caught my eye, especially since we have a Senator who has just published a book reiterating his view that global warming is a hoax.  Here is another take on this big problem.  I paraphrase Mr. Kay's article but reproduce it in near entirety since I think it has much good to say.

Have you heard about the “growing number” of eminent scientists who reject the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the earth’s temperature? It’s one of those factoids that, for years, has been casually dropped into the opening paragraphs of conservative manifestos against climate-change treaties and legislation. A web site maintained by the office of a U.S. Senator has for years instructed us that a “growing number of scientists” are becoming climate-change “skeptics.” This year, the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation gave a speech praising the “growing number of distinguished scientists [who are] challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.” In this newspaper, a columnist recently described the “growing skepticism about the theory of man-made climate change.” Surely, the conventional wisdom is on the cusp of being overthrown entirely: Another colleague proclaimed that we are approaching “the church of global warming’s Galileo moment.”

Fine-sounding rhetoric — but all of it nonsense. In a new article published in theProceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, a group of scholars from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and elsewhere provide a statistical breakdown of the opinions of the world’s most prominent climate experts. Their conclusion: The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming “comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers in the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups … This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that [about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming].”

How has this tiny 2-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually “growing” share of the scientific community? Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers. In these electronic enclaves — where a smattering of citations to legitimate scientific authorities typically is larded up with heaps of add-on commentary from pundits, economists and YouTube jesters who haven’t any formal training in climate sciences — it becomes easy to swallow the fallacy that the whole world, including the respected scientific community, is jumping on the denier bandwagon.

This is a phenomenon that should worry not only environmentalists, but also conservatives themselves: The conviction that global warming is some sort of giant intellectual fraud now has become a leading bullet point within mainstream North American conservatism; and so has come to bathe the whole movement in its increasingly crankish, conspiratorial glow.

Conservatives often pride themselves on their hard-headed approach to public-policy — in contradistinction to liberals, who generally are typecast as fuzzy-headed utopians. Yet when it comes to climate change, many conservatives I know will assign credibility to any stray piece of junk science that lands in their inbox … so long as it happens to support their own desired conclusion. (One conservative columnist I know formed her skeptical views on global warming based on testimonials she heard from novelist Michael Crichton.) The result is farcical: Impressionable conservatives who lack the numeracy skills to perform long division or balance their checkbooks feel entitled to spew elaborate proofs purporting to demonstrate how global warming is in fact caused by sunspots or flatulent farm animals. Or they will go on at great length about how “climategate” has exposed the whole global-warming phenomenon as a charade — despite the fact that a subsequent investigation exonerated research investigators from the charge that they had suppressed temperature data. (In fact, “climategate” was overhyped from the beginning, since the scientific community always had other historical temperature data sets at its disposal — that maintained by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most notably — entirely independent of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, where the controversy emerged.)

Let me be clear: Climate-change denialism does not comprise a conspiracy theory, per se: Those aforementioned 2% of eminent scientists prove as much. Oxford University scholar Steve Clarke and Brian Keeley of Washington University have defined conspiracy theories as those worldviews that trace important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal; and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their hypothesis, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society. The radicalized warming deniers treat the subject of global warming as a Luddite plot hatched by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Al Gore to destroy industrial society. And whenever some politician, celebrity or international organization expresses support for the all-but-unanimous view of the world’s scientific community, they inevitably will respond with a variation of “Ah, so they’ve gotten to them, too.”

In support of this paranoid approach, the denialists typically will rely on stray bits of discordant information — an incorrect reference in a UN report, a suspicious-seeming “climategate” email, some hypocrisy  — to argue that the whole theory is an intellectual house of cards. In these cases, one can’t help but be reminded of the folks who point out the fluttering American flag in the moon-landing photos, or the “umbrella man” from the Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination.

In part, blame for all this lies with the Internet, whose blog-from-the-hip ethos has convinced legions of pundits that their view on highly technical matters counts as much as peer-reviewed scientific literature. But there is something deeper at play, too — a basic psychological instinct that public-policy scholars refer to as the “cultural cognition thesis,” described in a recently published academic paper as the observed principle that “individuals tend to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce one or another idealized vision of how society should be organized … Thus, generally speaking, persons who subscribe to individualistic values tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks, because acceptance of such claims implies the need to regulate markets, commerce and other outlets for individual strivings.”

In simpler words, too many of us treat science as subjective — something we customize to reduce cognitive dissonance between what we think and how we live.

In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.

The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation. It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and screaming out imprecations against Al Gore.

Rants and slogans may help conservatives deal with the emotional problem of cognitive dissonance. But they aren’t the building blocks of a serious ideological movement. And the impulse toward denialism must be fought if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet. Otherwise, the movement will come to be defined — and discredited — by its noisiest cranks and conspiracists.

The legislation, House Bill 2835, defines gray water as "untreated household wastewater that has not come in contact with toilet waste or water from a kitchen sink." The legislation directs the Department of Environmental Quality to exempt private residential gray water reuse systems that meet a series of rules. A gray water system would be used for gardening, composting or landscape irrigation. A family of 4 generates over 100 gallons per day, or 3,000 gallons per month of graywater. Why let this water go to waste when it can easily be used on your garden?

Reusing wastewater on planted areas is nothing new to agrarian cultures. It is documented that English and German farmers have used wastewater as fertilizer from as early as the 16th century. Early Greeks did the same thing, as did many Asian countries even before the days of Plato. Disease problems associated with wastewater, including pathogenic bacteria and viruses, occurred primarily through direct contact with human waste in cities. Without a doubt, disease and odor are two of the biggest concerns people have about gray water re-use. Fortunately, the proposed legislation addresses health and safety issues directly.

While gray water reuse may not be something every homeowner could afford to do, House Bill 2835 does make it possible for systems to be included in future home construction. Although it is presently illegal to use gray water for any purpose in the state, the Citizen Potawatomi Nation has been watering their golf courses without incident for several years. For more information gray water gardening, visit www.graywatergardening.com or watch this short video with practical water reuse tips. Finally, don't forget to contact your state senator to recommend passage of HB 2835. It's been a long time coming.

A while back I advocated for Meatless Mondays as a way to help the environment.  I have read an article that adds to the conundrum of whether to eat meat or not.  Food for thoought, as they say and I submit the article in its entirety.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation  this is an interesting essay by a former vegan, who now believes, based on science, that the earth could sustain nearly the same amount of meat production without using human food production land or crops, small scale, etc,

 the article is below, but link to it above,
 
I was wrong about veganism. Let them eat meat – but farm it properly

The estimates are that we could be paying $5.00 a gallon for our gasoline sometime this year.  Yes, we in the Heartland will probably be paying less than those poor folks on the East and West coasts, but we are all watching the price at the pump going up daily.  There is no easy fix to this, in spite of what Newt Gingrich says;  the Keystone XL Pipeline will not solve the problem.  It is political, economic and beyond the range of any one person's solution.  Our fossil fuels have hit their peak.  We have more, yes, but it is more expensive to extract it.  Someday, not in our lifetimes, it will be completely depleated.  Let's just hope that we have discovered and developed alternatives before then.  In the meantime, our economy and lives run on fossil fuel.  It behoves us to use it as efficiently as possible. 

Here are some tips. Only buy or fill up your car or truck in the early morning when the ground temperature is still cold. Remember that all service stations have their storage tanks buried below ground. The colder the ground the more dense the gasoline, when it gets warmer gasoline expands, so buying in the afternoon or in the evening....your gallon is not exactly a gallon. In the petroleum business, the specific gravity and the temperature of the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, ethanol and other petroleum products plays an important role.  A one-degree rise in temperature is a big deal for this business, but the service stations do not have temperature compensation at the pumps.

When you're filling up do not squeeze the trigger of the nozzle to a fast mode If you look you will see that the trigger has three (3) stages: low, middle, and high. You should be pumping on low mode, thereby minimizing the vapors that are created while you are pumping. All hoses at the pump have a vapor return. If you are pumping on the fast rate, some of the liquid that goes to your tank becomes vapor. Those vapors are being sucked up and back into the underground storage tank so you're getting less worth for your money.

One of the most important tips is to fill up when your gas tank is HALF FULL. The reason for this is the more gas you have in your tank the less air occupying its empty space. Gasoline evaporates faster than you can imagine. Gasoline storage tanks have an internal floating roof.. This roof serves as zero clearance between the gas and the atmosphere, so it minimizes the evaporation. 

Another reminder, if there is a gasoline truck pumping into the storage tanks when you stop to buy gas, DO NOT fill up; most likely the gasoline is being stirred up as the gas is being delivered, and you might pick up some of the dirt that normally settles on the bottom.

So these are little ideas to save a little money.  Little decisions and behavior changes, multiplied by millions can effect change.  These ideas will increase the change in your pocket...no small thing in these challenging times.

Think globally, act locally

In my previous blogs, I have had deep thoughts about big problems.  I am not feeling particularly deep now, so let me tell you some of the things that are going on in our community...local stuff. 

First, there is some effort being put forth to overturn the 10 year ban on billboards within the city limits.  If you believe, as I do, that our environment is improved when not cluttered by large advertising signs, please let your voice be heard.  Call your commissioner or one of the members of the planning commission.  Obviously, a business owner can and should identify his/her business, but these large, billboards only serve to punctuate the landscape with their commercial messages.  Personally, I prefer to enjoy my community without having my view and brain assaulted by some advertising. 

Next, April will be a busy month in Shawnee.  James Bryce, the operations manager of our fair city, is hoping to make it fairer.  He is re instigating the idea of a city Trash-Off in conjunction with statewide efforts sponsored by Keep Oklahoma Beautiful. 

On April 21st, individuals and groups will be fanning out throughout our city to pick up litter along roads and in neighborhoods.  Details to follow, but there will be a central meeting place where you can pick up bags and vests and receive your geographic assignment.  This is a terrific opportunity for you, your family or your club to do something tangible to clean up Shawnee and enhance its attractiveness.  That is the obvious benefit, but even more important is the sense of community built when citizens come together for a common cause.  Please put the date on your calendar, and details will be released later in the month. 

On that same day, April 21st, after you have picked up your bags of trash and deposited them  come out to St. Gregory’s for the 3rd annual Art Trek.  Local artists of all persuasion will be featured...music, dance, drama, fine art, and you will be impressed by the talent we have in Shawnee.  We are, indeed, a rich community.  I hope you will appreciate what is happening here and will join us however you can.  It is your community, too.

The debate on climate change and what to do about it rages on, but according to a Jan. 16th New York Times article by John Tierney, cooler heads are looking at practical ways to address the problem that don’t involve sacrifice.  Let’s face it, none of us in the wealthy world want to reduce our standard of living...we want to drive our cars, use our electronic devices and travel whenever and wherever we want.  An international panel of scientists from various disciplines presented a proposal in the journal Science that resulted from asking the question,”could something be done about global warming besides forcing everyone in the world to use less fossil fuel?”, and their answer resulted in a proposal that just might make a difference.  Ever since the Kyoto protocol, the idea of limiting carbon dioxide emissions seems to be the best way to counteract the greenhouse effect, and proposed regulations sound good, on paper. But nobody is honoring them. The reality is that when there is a conflict between economic growth and policies restricting CO2, economic considerations trump the environment every time.

Roger  Pielke in his book The Climate Fix says, ““People will make trade-offs, but the one thing that won’t be traded off is keeping the lights on at reasonable cost,” 

So this international panel looked at ways to slow global warming while also reducing the soot and smog that are damaging agriculture and health.

Black carbon, the technical term for the soot spewed from diesel engines and traditional cookstoves and kilns, has been blamed for a significant portion of the recent warming in the Arctic and for shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas. Snow ordinarily reflects the sun’s rays, but when the white landscape is covered with soot, the darker surface absorbs heat instead. And methane, a byproduct of farms, coal mines, oil refineries and landfills is far more powerful than CO2 in trapping the sun’s heat.  The group determined 14 ways to reduce these pollutants, like encouraging a switch to cleaner diesel engines and cookstoves, building more efficient kilns and coke ovens, capturing methane at landfills and oil wells, and reducing methane emissions from rice paddies by draining them more often.  If their 14 measures were widely adopted, the anticipated rise in the world’s temperature would be only 2 degrees F instead of the projected 3 degrees F, but the collateral benefits would be a reduction in the estimated 700,000 to 4.7 premature deaths reported each year that result from people breathing polluted air and significantly increased crop yields

These pollution control measures aren’t glamorous, and some believe that by focusing on them, the emphasis on CO2 reduction will be compromised.  I believe that for any of our environmental problems, a multi-pronged approach is the best.  After all, the problems aren’t simple, nor are their solutions.  It may be that we will ultimately have to be satisfied with managing rather than solving some of our ecological problems. In the meantime, what is wrong with breathing cleaner air?

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. is installing about 1,000 high-tech meters each day as it works to expand its smart grid system to all 780,000 customers. About 165,000 + meters now are installed in the state.

What is a Smart Meter System? The smart grid uses a secure wireless network for two-way, real-time communication with smart meters installed on the outside of customer homes. In the future, that meter could communicate with programmable thermostats or other technology inside customers’ homes. The smart meter allows OG&E to remotely read, connect and disconnect service. It is part of a secure system that allows you to see your energy use and cost information anytime on a secure website called myOGEpower.com.

OG&E will spend up to $366 million by the end of 2012 to install smart meters to help customers reduce their electricity bills by tailoring energy use to avoid peak hours, when power is more expensive.

About $127 million of that tab will be covered by federal stimulus funds. Customers are not required to change their usage patterns, but if 20 percent did, it would save enough electricity to eliminate the need for two new power plants, a savings of $400 million, Delaney said. The key to this is changing our behavior as consumers of energy. OG&E has committed to not building any new plants until at least 2020.

Pay careful attention to the line "not building any new plants until at least 2020." OG&E will be forced to build another power plant if consumers don't reduce the amount of energy they use during PEAK HOURS. Energy supplied to homes and businesses from 2-8pm is typically generated from either coal or gas-fired plants rarely from wind. If OG&E doesn't have the capacity available to meet our needs at peak times, another plant will be required. Nobody wants rolling brown or black-outs. 

What can you do?  Peak hours are from 2-8pm and are especially critical during the summer. Don't dry clothes or wash dishes, set your theromstat to 76-78F (Summer), and avoid using the oven during those hours whenever you can. Not only will you save money, your change in behavior could prevent a new coal or gas fired plant from being built in a community near you. It's worth it.

Meatless Mondays

I am cautiously optimistic that our economy is beginning to improve, but I know, too, that many families are struggling to put food on the table.  There is growing poverty in this country, and many decisions must be made based on the price of a commodity.  There  are economic consequences to every decision we make, and sometimes the current assumptions must be challenged...like it is always better to buy food that has been locally grown  (defined vaguely as coming from the same state or from less than 100 miles away, for example). It's a market segment that has about doubled  over the last decade. The world's biggest food buyer, Wal-Mart last fall and announced that it would double the amount of local food it sells (to 9 percent of all its food sales).

The idea of buying locally is not new, and farmers' markets have been big for years. It's become almost gospel that the food on our plates has traveled over 1000 miles to get to us, so it would seem logical that the best way to shrink your food-related carbon footprint associated would be to buy food from local producers. But it turns out that this assumption is wrong.

Thankfully, a couple scientists took a harder look at the data and published an analysis in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology.  Here's the essence of the article

 Food is transported a long way, going about 1,000 miles in delivery and over 4,000 miles across the supply chain.

 But 83% of the average U.S. household's carbon footprint for food comes from growing and producing it. Transportation contributes only 11% to the footprint.

 Different foods have vastly different greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity, with meat requiring far more energy to produce, and red meat being particularly egregious, requiring 150% more energy than even chicken.

So the journal article comes to an obvious conclusion: if you want to reduce your food's carbon footprint, eat less meat. In short, "Shifting less than one day per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food."

However, none of this data should dissuade anyone from eating locally also. The footprint benefits are real, even if dwarfed by food choice. And the benefits to local economies and smaller farms are very important.

But let me repeat: just moving away from meat for one day a week is more effective than buying everything you eat from local producers.  Smart, knowledgeable execs are consistently surprised when good lifecycle data trumps seemingly solid assumptions. So we shouldn't expect  to figure out the right choices all by ourselves Buying local food seems like the obvious choice — until you run the numbers. It is still the right thing to do, but reducing the amount of meat you consumer will save money and resources.

We have a lot of work to do, both in companies and in our homes, to tackle climate change and other environmental problems, but good data and analysis will let us focus on the quickest paybacks and get the most out of our efforts.

In this blog, we will attempt to present ideas and information that will help you make decisions in your own lives that reflect respect and love for your home...Earth.  Before we really get to it, though, we ask you to consider how you make your decisions and form your opinions. 

Levitt and Dubner from Freakenomics have discussed this in their podcast. They attempt to explain why smart people make dumb choices and how they make decisions about risks that they don’t know much about, and they concluded that all people tend to go along with their crowd.  We take our cues from the people we choose to believe.  They go even further to state that the more scientifically sophisticated and educated you are, the more likely you are to hold an extreme view,  of climate change for example.  Most scientists believe in climate change, but only 50 % of all people agree.  Beliefs have less to do with what we know than whom we know. 

It is difficult to hold a view very different from the dominant cultural view...you will fit in better and not be thought of as a nut.  Additionally, there is so much information out there, it is impossible for a person to know enough to make a rational unbiased decision so we seek out sources that confirm what we already believe; for example, some of us are CNN watchers, and others love Fox News.  And since we are all too busy to worry about stuff, we rely on the media, like this blog.

So this blog recognizes that anyone reading it has already formed a decision...and a good one for them.  We will try to give you food for thought and in the process assist you in making decisions that benefit you and the earth at the same time.  None of us goes it alone and our ability to acquire knowledge depends on deciding whom to trust about what.  Don’t take just anybody’s word for it.  We leave you with a final word from one of history’s best thinkers: Isaac newton.  "It is important to acknowledge our own flaws in our thinking. 

To explain all nature is too difficult for any one person or even one age. ‘Tis much better to do a little with certainty and leave the rest for others who come after you than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of anything."  In other words. don’t get too cocky, and neither will we in this blog.  Stay tuned and, please, keep reading.

Here is an example of the need to have as many facts as you can before you come to a conclusion just about anything.  A freshman at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at the Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair.  In the projct he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide" based on the following problems:

1. It causes excessive sweating and vomiting
2. It is a component of acid rain
3. It causes problems with automobile braking
4. It is found in the tumors of terminal cancer patients
5. Its accidental inhilation can kill you
6. It causes erosion
7. It can cause severe burns in its gaseous state

Of the 150  people surveyed, 143 said the substance should be banned; 6 were undecided, and only one knew that it was WATER!

The point is obvious.  We humans need to have as many facts as possible before we form our opinions.  Not all chemicals are bad; cars do not pollute more than do animals; bigger is not always better, nor is faster.  Your conclusions about almost everything you consider will make a difference in the lives your kids and grandkids can lead.  Give it some thought.

This was sent to me by a friend.  I pass it on because it illustrates how far we have come, for better or worse.    Preaching sustainability or recycling or conservation to the older generation (certainly anyone who was living during the depression or WWII) is like preaching to the choir.  They had the right idea out of necessity.  I hope we all can have the right idea because it is the right idea.  This blog is about ideas.  Please keep reading and consider.

In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. 

The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day. 

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. 

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day. 

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. 

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day. 

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day. 

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room.
And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. 

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. 

But we didn't have the green thing back then. 

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint. 

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Consider!

 

Curses and our Carrying Capacity

The 18th Century philosopher, Thomas Malthus, pronounced what is called the “Malthus Curse,” which says that since human population growth is exponential and increases in our ability to grow food only linear,  we are eventually going to exceed the number of humans that the earth can support (the carrying capacity).  The author, Jared Diamond, in an essay titled “The worst mistake humans have ever made (agriculture)” essentially agrees with Malthus. 

As of October, 2011, it was predicted that the population of the earth would hit 7 Billion.  If you look at the population growth, it shows that there were fewer than 1 Billion of us in 1800, 3 Billion in 1960 and between 1950 and 1990, the world’s population doubled.  Computer models predict  the growth of the population doubling every 40 years (the U.N. population division says that 5 babies are born every second) and that, with technological advances, we will have better birth control, fertility rates will fall and we will eventually get to zero population growth.  If technology works well, we may level off at 9 Billion by 2050. 

But can the earth keep up?  Can it debunk the Malthusian curse?  If we get to zero population growth and have figured out how to squeeze Mother Earth to produce more food, maybe the curse will be discredited.  But even now, 1 Billion of us already go to bed hungry.  If agriculture hadn’t been introduced, the capacity of the earth to support humans would have  been reached at 100 million or so, since there are only so many animals and berries naturally occurring.

Today we have experienced the green revolution where we use technology to feed ourselves; we maximize crop yields with fertilizer and pesticides which extend the capacity of the earth to produce food for us.  The current estimate of the earth’s carrying capacity is 2 to 40 billion people.  Why the wide estimates, you ask.  Life style.  Middle class Americans (you and I) consume 3.3 times the subsistence level of food required to sustain life, and 250 times the subsistence level of water.  Put another way, if everyone were like us, the earth could only support about a billion people. 

To support  40 billion people, every square inch of land would be  maximally farmed, we would be living in high rises, mining other planets and consuming  300kg  of food,and 400 liters of  water, the minimum required to sustain a life.  We would be using technology not to get more for less, but more for more.  Ideally we should be using sustainable resources, but our technology such as  fracking, is just about figuring out how to deplete things faster.  Technology is destroying out habitat.

So what is the conclusion:  optimists say Malthus was incorrect because he failed to take into account human ingenuity; but they are missing the  point of  corporate greed which  doesn’t take into account sustainability and misdirects technical advancement only to the bottom line.  Why must sustainability pay the price of the stock?  The fatal flaw in the optimists rosy picture is human greed; we are greedy and rarely want to sacrifice for a greater good.  Please think about this.

The 50-year Oklahoma Water Planning Process is one of the most ambitious and democratic activities ever undertaken by our State Government. Thousands of people from across Oklahoma were invited to share their opinions and work together to craft long-term solutions to challenging water issues. I was very proud to be apart of the process but it's not over yet. The resulting report has been submitted to the Legislature for action this year. The public has again been invited to "tell" the 16 members of the House of Representatives and Senate serving on Joint Legislative Water Study Committee what's important about water to you. The public input report includes topics like water conservation, water quality, recreational uses, water sales, water transfers and more. The chair of the committee writes,"We can assure you that as a result of these meetings and public hearings that we are familiar with the tremendous amount of public input that went into the drafting of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan and most importantly we can tell you that each of us knows and understands the importance of secure, safe and reliable water resources to every Oklahoman." While this may very well be true, it's up to the people of Oklahoma to ensure our input isn't forgotten or minimized in favor of corporate interests.

Here's what you can do. Visit OKwaterplan.info and click on "Make a Comment" in the top left hand corner. Comments can be left anonymously. The important thing is to emphasize what matters to you because rest assured, corporate lobbyists will waste no time in expressing their opinions. Rep. Kris Steele, Speaker of the House, declared 2012, "The Year for Water in Oklahoma." Let's see that it is.

In this blog, we will attempt to present ideas and information that will help you make decisions in your own lives that reflect respect and love for your home...Earth.  Before we really get to it, though, we ask you to consider how you make your decisions and form your opinions. 

Levitt and Dubner from Freakenomics have discussed this in their podcast. They attempt to explain why smart people make dumb choices and how they make decisions about risks that they don’t know much about, and they concluded that all people tend to go along with their crowd.  We take our cues from the people we choose to believe. 

They go even further to state that the more scientifically sophisticated and educated you are, the more likely you are to hold an extreme view, of climate change for example.  Most scientists believe in climate change, but only 50 % of all people agree.  Beliefs have less to do with what we know than whom we know.  It is difficult to hold a view very different from the dominant cultural view...you will fit in better and not be thought of as a nut. 

Additionally, there is so much information out there, it is impossible for a person to know enough to make a rational unbiased decision so we seek out sources that confirm what we already believe; for example, some of us are CNN watchers, and others love Fox News.  And since we are all too busy to worry about stuff, we rely on the media, like this blog.

So this blog recognizes that anyone reading it has already formed a decision...and a good one for them.  We will try to give you food for thought and in the process assist you in making decisions that benefit you and the earth at the same time.  None of us goes it alone and our ability to acquire knowledge depends on deciding whom to trust about what.  Don’t take just anybody’s word for it. 

We leave you with a final word from one of history’s best thinkers: Isaac newton.  "It is important to acknowledge our own flaws in our thinking.  To explain all nature is too difficult for any one person or even one age. ‘Tis much better to do a little with certainty and leave the rest for others who come after you than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of anything."  In other words. don’t get too cocky, and neither will we in this blog.  Stay tuned and, please, keep reading.