Oh, Those Transgenic Crops!

You know those crops that are genetically engineered so growers don't have to use as much pesticide? Well, they've been something of a concern for some time now. Among other things, the Environmental Protection Agency has been concerned about "superbugs" or pests that are resistant to the genetically engineered plants. In addition, there's been the matter of cross-pollination with other, um, natural plants (for lack of a better term).

So now, (according to this article) along with the admission from Monsanto (who engineers these plants) that maybe there is a wee bit of a problem with "superbugs," it turns out the Bt toxin in the plants is polluting the waters of Indiana (the study area -- and God knows where else).

Needless to say, this is all more than a little ironic, given that the whole point of developing Bt toxin in these plants is to avoid pesticide use, thus avoiding pesticide runoff into the very same waters that are being polluted by the Bt from the plants.

Ah, yes, and there are other little problems with these crops that the article goes into (I'll let you read the gory details yourself). Ultimately, it leads up to this summation:

"The fun part? No one has any idea yet of the effects of long-term, low-dose exposure to Bt on fish and wildlife. Perhaps it's high time somebody did a study on that since, as the researchers dryly observed, the presence of Bt toxin 'may be a more common occurrence in watersheds draining maize-growing regions than previously recognized.' Apparently.

"So. Not only do genetically engineered crops have worse yields than conventionally bred crops, cost more, lead to pesticide resistance, contaminate other plants with their transgenes, possibly cause allergies and even organ damage, but now we also learn that the plants themselves are possibly poisonous to the environment."

*sigh* What is it they say about best-laid plans?

What You Can Learn From Picking Up Trash

Okay, we all know that littering is bad. It makes the landscape ugly and causes American Indians to cry. (We know this from old commercials.) We use trash cans (don't we?) and (I hope) generally try to avoid cluttering our environment up.



Here, however, are "five not so obvious things" someone from Recycle Match learned from picking trash up by hand. (And had I noticed that the Ocean Conservancy was having their 25th annual International Coastal Clean-up last Saturday, I would have posted this sooner. Sorry. :-/)

The first one is: "Most people in cities believe that there is a filtration system in the storm sewer that collects whatever trash blows down there. Not true." Hmm ... okay. I'd agree. That is a not-so-obvious thing.

But I especially like No. 3: "Everyone has experienced a gust of wind making off with some piece of trash at some point. But if you think about it, there are nearly 7 Billion people in the world. If we assume it has happened to each of us once, even if it’s just a candy wrapper, that’s a lot of trash."

It's like we are ALL responsible in our own small way. We can keep our planet clean, one candy wrapper (or bottle cap or plastic bag or whatever) at a time.

The rest seem, well, kind of obvious to me. But, hey, that's just me. :)

So, anyway, check out the list. Whether obvious or not, I like the conclusion:

"Whether you are a company or just one person – we can all work to achieve zero waste. After all, if you are not for zero waste, how much waste are you for?"

Good question.

The 2nd Annual Green Books Campaign

Eco-Libris is seeking bloggers to participate in the 2nd Annual Green Books Campaign: On November 10, 200 bloggers will simultaneously publish reviews of 200 books printed on recycled paper or FSC-certified paper. The campaign will use the power of the Internet and social media to promote books that are printed in an eco-friendly manner.

According to Eco-Libris: "The first campaign took place last November when over 100 bloggers simultaneously published reviews of more than 100 books printed on recycled or FSC-certified paper. This campaign also involved 40 publishers from the U.S., Canada and the U.K. You can see the books and bloggers that participated on the campaign's page. The campaign was very successful -- more than 15,000 readers were exposed to the campaign and it received very positive feedback from publishers, bloggers and readers. Therefore, we decided to run it again this year, but this time with 200 bloggers! This year we are also collaborating with Indigo Books and Music, the largest book retailer in Canada, to increase the campaign's exposure and impact.

"Just like last year, the idea is to have 200 bloggers, who review books on a regular basis, to simultaneously publish their book review of a 'green book' of their choice on Wednesday, November 10 2010. Our goal also hasn't changed: To use the power of the internet and social media to promote 'green' books and increase the awareness of both readers and publishers to the way books can be printed printed in an eco-friendly manner."

The first step is to choose a "green" book you would like to review from the list of books available. (Please note they recommend increasing the magnification of the web page up to (at least) 125% to see all the details.) The books will be assigned on a first come-first served basis. Once a book is taken, the name of the blog will appear next to it in the column 'assigned blog'.

Eco-Libris describes itself as "a green company working to green up the book industry by promoting the adoption of green practices in the industry, balancing out books by planting trees, and supporting green books." It's Web site is http://www.ecolibris.net.

If you're interested or would like more details, just get in touch with Raz Godelnik of Eco-Libris at raz@ecolibris.net.

I'll be participating on my book review blog, The Book Grrl. I'll be sure to include a link to the review on this blog, too, for anyone who might be interested.

And (FYI) I've chosen to review THE THREE FATES OF HENRIK NORDMARK. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Unlimited Renewable Energy That’s Grid-Ready and Cheaper Than Coal

That's the headline on this brief item, which describes and depicts a "spindrift energy device." The device has been entered into what looks like an inventors' competition to create new renewable energy technologies.

The sum and substance of the description is (verbatim): "We have designed a hydrokinetic electrical power generation device that is simple, inexpensive, low-maintenance and durable. We estimate that it will generate electricity at 1.5 cents/kWh, versus 3.0 cents/kWh for coal and 3-40 cents/kWh for existing renewables. And, this technology can scale without limit."

Can this be? Is it too good to be true?

Not according to the comments (scroll down and read them). They're hailing the invention as a stroke of genius.

So is there a catch? I was thinking it might be cost -- that always seems to be an issue. But not in this case, apparently.

When asked in a comment to compare this device to others using similar technologies, the inventor said (and I quote):

"DIFFERENCE ONE: Spindrift devices are ultra-simple, only 3 moving parts. This has several implications. First, they will be very low-cost, providing a very low capital cost per kW. Second, they will be very low-maintenance. The only expected maintenance will be adding a few drops of oil to the alternator bearings every year, and possibly replacing the turbine every 10 years (if cavitation is more of a problem than anticipated). The efficiency of these devices, and their low-maintenance requirements, will help them to to deliver power at a cost far below that of coal-fired electrical power, currently the cheapest electrical power in wide-spread use. DIFFERENCE TWO: Spindrift devices will be able to survive the worst storms at sea, even hurricanes. These devices, from the outside, are just concrete buoys bobbing up-and-down - much like navigational buoys. The shaft, and attached propeller, coming out of the bottom of each buoy will be well-protected. Spindrift devices will ride the waves of storms without damage. LOW-COST, LOW-MAINTENANCE, DURABILITY" (Italics added.)

Oh, my. Sounds like we might have a winner.

Electric Cars: More Hype Than Hope?

Well, after all the excitement in the news about electric cars, this article dashes quite a lot of cold water on all of that.

Between being underpowered, overly-priced and all those pedestrians and pets who'll get squashed because they run so silently, the electric car may have a few bugs to work out.

In addition:

"Recently, Britain's state-controlled BBC, quoting electric car maker Mitsubishi, said the cost of ownership of battery cars is actually more than regular cars when you figure in depreciation, so the argument about running costs is lost. The transmission of electric power from generation to use is enormously inefficient, with some experts saying only just over 30 percent of the original power is actually available for use, the rest draining away during transportation; so much for increased efficiency. The power generated mainly comes from coal fired power stations so the zero emissions claim goes out the window, although in France, where upwards of 80 percent of electricity is generated by nuclear power, this claim does resonate."

There's a lot more of this kind of thing in the article. It really doesn't offer much hope that electric vehicles are viable for anything other than commercial use.

According to Professor Garyl Rhys, president of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff University, "I think a lot of politics is involved in full electric vehicles. Why buy an electric vehicle, when the other (green) choices would appear to be a much more reassuring option for the vehicle buying public. There's still going to be many, many years of life left in the internal combustion engine, albeit alongside batteries or fuel cells or whatever. Internal combustion engines, despite all the hype are not on the verge of disappearing and most people expect it to still be very much in use in 2050."

Rhys says he can't "really see electric vehicles before 2025 having much of a market share until you start getting really viable batteries. That's what we await; the long promised breakthrough in energy storage of batteries and the charging infrastructure. As for an energy storage breakthrough, there's nothing on the horizon before 2025."

And it seems the New York Times agrees that we aren't quite there when it comes to electric cars.

News like that will defuse your Volta and blow away your Leaf.

And in More Food-Related News ...

Little did I know when I posted this op-ed questioning the sustainability of locavore practices, that it would end up sparking a food fight. (The op-ed, that is, not my post.)

While a philosophy that embraces supporting local farmers and reducing energy usage from transporting food over longer distances seems like a good idea, others argue otherwise.

Locavore critics include Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Pat Roberts of Kansas, who "wrote a letter questioning the Department of Agriculture's $65 million Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food program, which they said was using public funds to 'prop up urban locavore markets.'

"The effort, they wrote, 'doesn't appear geared toward conventional farmers who produce the vast majority of our nation's food supply, but is instead aimed at small, hobbyist and organic producers whose customers generally consist of affluent patrons at urban farmers markets.'"

Okay, so the detractors are Republicans from states with affected constituents, who throw around terms like "affluent patrons" and "hobbyist" like so much confetti. Are there other (i.e., less political) reasons to be concerned about the locavore trend?

Apparently, so. According to the article, a couple of scholars have also raised an alarm about it.

"[E]conomist Hiroko Shimizu and University of Toronto geographer Pierre Desrochers are finishing a 2011 book, tentatively called IN PRAISE OF THE 10,000 MILE DIET, that argues locavorism is a misleading marketing fad that, among other problems, ignores the threat it poses to the current affordability of food and to the economic health of developing countries.

"Food security can suffer if 'you put all your eggs in one local basket and something goes wrong,' Desrochers said from his Toronto office. 'I also have a problem when local food activists want to promote food that is either not economical or cannot compete with foreign food in that area.'"

And how do locavores respond? Like this:

"Locavores respond to the claims of elitism by citing the thousands of people across the country who use food stamps at farmers markets — the Daley Plaza market recently took in $890 of food stamps in a day. They also say the $65 million USDA program is dwarfed by the $12 billion in subsidies awarded to big conventional commodity farmers last year and that energy usage is only one factor in their decision to consume local products."

Um, okay. So people use food stamps at farmers markets. And the USDA program is tiny by comparison to big ag subsidies. Can we get back to the sustainability issue? And if energy usage is just one factor in determining it, what are the others?

Oh, here's something:

"A recent white paper from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School reported that healthier crop varieties, richer sustainable soil, riper harvesting, shorter vine to fork times and less handling can give local sustainable produce 'distinct advantages' in nutrition over conventionally grown produce shipped long distances."

How "distinct" are those advantages, I wonder. Anyway, other factors include better taste and creating a sense of community with local growers. A sense of community that even locavores admit can come with a higher price tag. (Thus, the need of some buyers to use food stamps?)

Even so, locavore supporters are reportedly looking for ways to make locally-grown food more affordable.

Which all seems quite warm, fuzzy and nice, but what about Desrochers' point? Having all your eggs in one local basket does seem to be, well, potentially problematic. I suspect the "right" answers may be highly dependent on circumstances within any particular country's economy. Anyway, read the article. It explains it in more detail. And feel free to weigh in on the debate.

And, while we're on the topic of sustainable food production, should this place be named Trader Joe's or Traitor Joe's?

Agropolis: Growing Food in a Warehouse is Good?

I became aware of Agropolis after reading this article in Grist about them. Apparently, their approach is to convert large buildings into places where food can be grown and sold.

As the article states, it's "the soil-free, pesticide-free, and travel-free concept grocery store, urban farm, and restaurant, all rolled into one."

The article's headline summarizes the main concept: "It (almost) can't get more local than growing at the grocery store."

Based on the Agropolis Web site, that does seem to be main idea. The Web site states as follows:

"AGROPOLIS is a concept for the next wave of hydroponic, aeroponic, aquaponic farming – growing vegetables without the use of soil. Initially, it will be a combined farm/restaurant/concept store, where people come to eat food they can see was grown on the premises. You walk into the store and on all the walls, and through the back wall into a room beyond, you see nothing but green – the vegetables sold in the store being grown on site. Underneath your feet you will see tilapia swimming in the aquaponics fishtank, the nutrients they process going directly to feed the plants. The store is an ecosystem unto itself. What we offer to consumers is a different experience with food. You will never have a tomato fresher than one you just saw being picked, or a lettuce more local than one where you stand next to the room in which it was grown. That is the value we offer."

Hmm ... I wonder how much energy is being consumed to create these places? And what the person who wrote the op-ed blogged about here would think of this.

Free Range Does Not Equal Good?

I happened to be doing a little research on the poultry industry for a mystery novel I'm writing. The third in a series starting with this one, actually. In any case, I came across this Web site for the Eastern Shore Sanctuary Blog, which had a post titled Free Range = Misery.

Well, that got my attention. I checked the video.



It starts off showing a farm animal sanctuary. Very nice, but it gets kind of ugly about halfway through, then turns positively graphic. Hard to stomach.

It also led me to this video.



Not pretty.