plug it in, plug it in

The history of the electric car is vast. We had EV’s as early as the 1890′s, Ford and Edison were in a partnership for an expansion in the 20′s and then the 70′s oil embargoes really started getting people talking. It should be mentioned that there was an equal lack of movement over the last ten years. However, the EV is back and its seems to be in full gear.

The biggest limitation to the boom: where do we all plug in our new cars? Well, an Israeli born investor, Shai Agassi, seems to have the solution:

(he) and his company, Better Place, come in. They are promoting a vision of an electric transportation future that includes a widespread charging network, with battery exchange stations (where, for longer trips, depleted packs are exchanged for new ones in just a few minutes), and their auto-company partners are planning to produce the electric cars and trucks that will be plugged into those stations.

Agassi, a former software entrepreneur, has been traveling throughout the world, targeting what he calls “transportation islands,” either actual islands or densely packed urban areas with plentiful commuters in a small area. He’s signed up nations (Israel, Denmark, Japan, Australia), states (Hawaii) and even cities (San Francisco) as partners. In some, but not all of those locations, Better Place is cooperating with the Renault-Nissan Alliance.

The difference in his system is that he has modeled it off of the cell phone industry: “The first is that we build the network ahead of the cars. The second is that the battery is part of the infrastructure — you own the car, but we own the batteries. Down the road, when there’s a magic battery with twice the capacity of the one in your car, we can swap it at no cost to you. And the third idea is that drivers will buy miles and pay as they consume them.”

There are limitations, however. The first one being that the battery used in EV’s needs to be improved. Research needs people and money. Will either of this exist given that cheap oil is back. There is also the criticism that we need to collectively move away from oil. Under the proposal, it will cost the individual $600 per year to charge up to 18,000 miles. That may not seem like a lot, but with rising costs in every sector, this may be an unreachable goal, leaving the electric car, like the Prius to the elite and not the people that need cost savings. Also, would you want to buy something, and invest that money, in something that has not been proven to work?

Obviously, there are logistics that need to be worked out. This is not to diminish a good idea, but it is to highlight what is truly realistic. There is an immediate need to move to alternative energies. And, since we know there is resistance to change, the reasons for “why not” will be quicker on the tongue than “why”. The creators of these ideas and models need to be able to answer those questions with definitive answers, not claim that “research is being done” or “money is needed.”

The article is via Yale 360 and can be found HERE.

news in food

Here are a handful of interesting links in food news for this week

Growing More Corn for Ethanol Makes Pest Control Harder, via the NY Times

Critics say turning more acreage over to corn to make fuel can lead to higher prices for other crops, increased soil erosion and other negative effects.

In a report in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Douglas A. Landis of Michigan State University and colleagues show that increasing the corn acreage can reduce the abundance of insect predators that control aphids, the most significant soybean pest in the United States.

Let’s Ask Marion Nestle: Are The USDA’s Organic Standards A Sham?, via Huffington Post

Cheating is the Achilles’ heel of organics. The entire organic certification system is based on trust. If trust goes, the organic industry collapses like a house of cards. Organics means two quite different things. To people who care about the food system, organics is about growing crops and raising animals using methods that are good (for the health of people and animals), clean (for the environment), fair (to the people who produce the food), and sustainable (meaning renewing–not wasting or destroying–the earth’s natural resources).

To everyone involved in raising and selling organic foods, organics is a business. This business commands higher prices if–and only if–buyers believe that the food is produced according to those criteria and is better for their health and that of the planet.

(edit. note: really good article)

Will Obama Integrate Food, Farming & Health Policies?, via ENN

Diet-related diseases continue to escalate – specifically in our children. Researchers predict that as a result of the continued rise in overweight, the children of today will have a shorter lifespan than their parents. Overweight and obesity alone have translated into skyrocketing health care costs which are bankrupting families and the health care system.

Likewise, the number of family farms and acres used for growing food is falling, while the cost of farm inputs are increasing. Subsidized crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat have flooded supermarkets with more processed, packaged “food-like” substances. Often, these foods are of low nutritional value and high in sugar, fat and salt.

A dichotomy exists between agriculture policies and Dietary Guidelines for Americans – yet, ironically, both are overseen by the USDA. Current food and farm policies stand in the way of making healthy food the easiest choice.

nothing honey

Don’t let claims on honey labels dupe you, according to Seattle PI. More than likely, if it is American honey, it is NOT organic honey.

You may be paying more for honey labeled “certified organic” or feel reassured by the “USDA Grade A” seal, but the truth is, there are few federal standards for honey, no government certification and no consequences for making false claims.

For American-made honey, the “organic” boast, experts say, is highly suspect. Beekeepers may be doing their part, but honeybees have a foraging range of several miles, exposing them to pesticides, fertilizers and pollutants on their way back to the hive.

In their investigation it was found that much of honey is illegally and purposefully mislabeled. Part of this is because of lack of government checks on honey farmers, part of it is due to packagers who sell cut-rate foreign honey, which usually has little problem slipping past overstretched customs inspectors. (note: who knew honey was such a corrupt industry?)

As you would expect, the conclusion and final recommendation: if you buy your honey from a farmer’s market where you can talk to the person who is caring for the bees, you do not have to worry. Otherwise, you are trusting a label in an industry that is untrustworthy.

warming warning

Some scientists across the pond think next year is going to be warm. And, what is meant by that is that they think it will be the warmest year on record.

The average global temperature for 2009 is expected to be more than 0.4 degrees celsius above the long-term average, despite the continued cooling of huge areas of the Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Nina.

Currently the warmest year on record is 1998, which saw average temperatures of 14.52 degrees celsius – well above the 1961-1990 long-term average of 14 degrees celsius.

No one knows what triggers weather events like El Nino or La Nina. What they all agree on, however, is that they play an important role in global weather patterns and are affected by climate change, due to the their strong affect on global surface temperature.

In any case, all indications point to the likeliness of storing your coats.

The article is via Reuters and can be found HERE.

california dreaming

Two bits of environmental news bits came out of California today that are of interest.

Bush eyes oil reserves off California coast, via ENN

The federal government is taking steps that may open California’s fabled coast to oil drilling in as few as three years, an action that could place dozens of platforms off the Sonoma, Mendocino and Humboldt coasts, and raises the specter of spills, air pollution and increased ship traffic into San Francisco Bay.

The bans that protected both of the nation’s coasts beginning in 1981, from California to the Pacific Northwest to the Atlantic Coast and the Straits of Florida, ended this year when Congress let the moratorium lapse.

Brown Takes on “Audacious” Bush EPA Plan, via NBC

California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed suit in federal court to block an “audacious attempt” by the Bush Administration to gut provisions in the Endangered Species Act mandating scientific review of federal agency decisions that may threaten endangered species and their habitat.

The new regulations, initially proposed by the departments of the Interior and Commerce in August 2008 and made final on Dec. 16, largely eliminate a requirement in the Endangered Species Act that mandates scientific review of the agency decisions that could affect endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

The changes allow federal agencies to undertake or permit mining, logging and other commercial activities on federal land and other areas without obtaining review or comment from federal wildlife biologists on the environmental effects of such activities.

took you long enough

Many WEEKS after its own advisory board accused the FDA of approving Bisphenol-A for use well before adequate testing was done, and without consideration of possible dangers, the agency has finally decided to reconsider the issue.

The FDA approved Bisphenol-A for use based on a TWO multigenerational studies by research groups that had received grant money from the American Plastics Council. Since the green light that BPA was supposedly safe for use in food packaging and water bottles, many independent studies have been issued in which the findings were not so positive.

In September, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that adults with high levels of BPA in their urine were more prone to heart and liver disease and diabetes.

More than 200 animal studies have linked ingesting minute amounts of the substance to a range of reproductive problems, brain damage, immune deficiencies, metabolic abnormalities, and behavioral oddities like hyperactivity, learning deficits and reduced maternal willingness to nurse offspring.

The FDA’s position was that this data lacked specifics as to how the study was overseen, and lacked raw data. However, it was noted by many that the FDA never requested to see extensive versions of the published articles.

Manufacturers of the plastics still contend, despite the data otherwise, that BPA is safe. Rather than pulling the BPA products from shelves, they have created BPA-free products to be marketed side by side. The manufacturers position is that they would like consumers to “make the best decisions for their families.” There is one issue with this: if consumers are unaware or being lied to about safety and efficacy, how can they make the best decisions?

And, so that you are unaware, BPA is not only found in plastic.

More than 2 billion pounds of BPA are produced each year. According to the Can Manufacturers Institute, more than 22 billion cans to be used for food and more than 100 billion cans for beer and soft drinks were produced last year. John Rost, a chemist and chair of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, says “the vast majority” of them are lined with a resin coating containing BPA.

A study by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has shown that BPA exists in 93% of urine in the sample population tested. Given that statistic, and the potential harm listed above, don’t you think it is time you stop using and buying products with potential BPA exposure?

If you are reading this, you have no excuse for not knowing about the harm done from this material.

The full report came from the NY Times, HERE.

leavin’ on a jet plane…

There are mixed emotions today as the search for an environmentally friendly fuel for airplanes took a leap forward with the world’s first flight powered by a second-generation biofuel, derived from plants that do not compete with food crops.

Air travel contributes 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and is one of the fastest rising contributors to climate change, but the search for a greener alternative to kerosene jet fuel has been problematic. So while it seems like a great thing that a successful flight occured, it does not mean that the search for sustainability is over.

The two-hour test flight, by Air New Zealand, which took the Boeing 747 over the Hauraki Gulf, showed that the jatropha biofuel was suitable for use in airplanes without the need for any modifications of the engines.

The search for alternative fuels has been arduous. Airlines cannot use standard first-generation biofuels such as ethanol because these would freeze at high altitude. However, environmentalists argue that manufacturing biofuels can produce more emissions than they absorb when growing, and can also displace agricultural crops and push up the price of food. In fact, “Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace UK’s climate change campaign, warned against overinterpreting the results of the test flights. When Air New Zealand announced its biofuel plans in November, he said: ‘We need a dose of realism here, because this test flight does not mean an end to the use of kerosene in jet engines. The amount of jatropha that would be needed to power the world’s entire aviation sector cannot be produced in anything like a sustainable way, and even if large volumes could be grown, planes are an incredibly wasteful way of using it.’”

While there does seem to be a solution on the horizon, it is nothing like the solution of reduction. At this time in history, it seems ludicrous for people to not be able to see the world. However, the limitation of travel by plane may be the only thing that will save the world. In order to make air travel carbon neutral, we (globally) would have to reduce our travel by 60%. The ocean and (current) plants on our planet are able to absorb a certain amount of CO2, about 2 billion tons a year. But, humans emit 6 billion tons a year. Meaning, every year, we have a surplus of 4 billion tons of CO2. And, as I have explained before, it will take 10 years for that amount to reduce to 2 billion tons. All the while, each year, we are emitting more. Can you even imagine what two billion tons are?

I understand that in this era, travel sometimes is necessary. If you do find yourself in a plane, consider buying a carbon offset. And, please, remember it is a luxury, not a necessity.

The article about the New Zealand flight can be found HERE.

Be warned: stinging likely

Massive swarms of jellyfish are blooming from the tropics to the Arctic, from Peru to Namibia to the Black Sea to Japan, closing beaches and wiping out fish, either by devouring their eggs and larvae, or out-competing them for food.

They are called ‘jellytoriums’. An example of how bad they are: in Japan one colony is 500 million strong and each more than two metres in diameter.

Though the reasons for the rise of jellyfish vary from region to region, in many cases we have ourselves to blame, says Richard Brodeur, an NSF scientist and research fishery biologist with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In some oceans, climate change is fuelling their growth “because a lot of jellies grow faster and produce more young in warmer waters,” Dr. Brodeur says. In other places, overfishing of large predatory fish such as tuna is the main cause. A major problem, he says, is the introduction of new species – such as those in the Black Sea – through the release of ballast water from regions as far away as the Great Lakes.

 

Farming is also an issue: Fertilizer runoff causes algae to bloom, soaking up the water’s oxygen and rendering vast areas inhospitable to almost all life – except jellyfish, which “can survive in very low-oxygen conditions where fish cannot,” Dr. Brodeur says. The result is “dead zones,” more than 400 worldwide, covering 25,000 hectares, the NSF says.

The fix: introducing other marine life that are predators to the jellyfish. Aside from that, they are here to stay and growing.

Full article can be found HERE.

under the sonar…

Interesting that the US Navy and the NRDC have come to an agreement about sonar testing and the whales, and yet, the NRDC is not talking about it.

The Navy said Saturday the deal reached with the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups requires it to continue to research how sonar affects whales and other marine mammals.

This agreement comes a month after the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the US Navy, which was not a surprise to anyone. The original complaint, filed by 5 plaintiffs including the NRDC, sought a court order to limit mid-frequency sonar, which is the method of choice for detecting submarines, because it was felt that the sonar contributed to the deaths seen amongst whales and dolphins. Federal courts had ruled in favor of the NRDC, but when taken up by the Supreme Court, the tables were turned, siting that national security against terrorism was more important than whales.

The Navy said the settlement, which was reached Friday, calls on it to spend $14.75 million over three years on marine mammal research topics of interest to both the Navy and the plaintiffs.

The Navy said the long-range research program it adopted under the settlement is basically the same as the one it set out to follow in August 2005, two months before the lawsuit was filed.

As a result of the settlement, the plaintiffs have requested that the lawsuit be withdrawn.

Many critics feel that this is a case where the whales and the environment have lost. While the settlement calls for further research into the effects of sonar on marine mammals, it is limited in stating what must be done with said research and subsequent testing. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

You can find the original article, via MSNBC, HERE.

so you want to eat organic?

There is an inherent trust between the consumer and the provider, especially when it comes to food. I trust that my water is clean. I trust that when I go to a vegan restaurant, it is just that, meatless. I trust that when I go to Whole Foods to get organic produce, that it is truly organic.

Unfortunately, however, the last one, just doesn’t seem to be the case.

The Sacramento Bee has revealed that the largest producer of organic fertilizer was spiking its product with ammonium sulfate, therefore making it non-organic. This fertilizer was used in California organic farms through out most of 2006 and into 2007. Companies as large as Earthbound, the main lettuce supplier to Whole Foods, were affected by this deceit, unknowingly. One of the saddest things is that state officials were aware of the discrepancy, but kept it a secret from the farms until their investigation was complete.

Organic farming started with small operations that rejected modern agriculture’s huge, chemical-dependent fields in favor of diversified plots fertilized with old-fashioned compost, manure and cover crops. Today, organic farms still do without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. But much else is radically different.

Sales of organic products have soared from $5 billion nationwide a decade ago to $24 billion today, according to the Organic Trade Association. California accounts for nearly 60 percent of the U.S. harvest of organic produce.

The biggest organic operations now cultivate thousands of acres and sell to mainstream buyers like grocery chains.

Many critics of big chains, like Whole Foods, is that they have turned organic produce into just as much an industrial process and regular agriculture. In fact, in many organic farms, the environmental footprint is equal to the footprint created in industrial agriculture; the biggest emission coming from the transportation of the compost. Just like in most other industries, the desire to remain competitive and keep prices low, out weighs the desire to be ethical and grow high quality produce.

You can avoid this whole dilemma by purchasing your produce from a Farmer’s Market. In these cases, you meet the farmers, one on one, and can ask what they are using for growth supplements, if anything. Most of the time these people also have smaller farms to grow just what is required for their weekly trips to the market, instead of having to supply a mass demand to huge chains.

Unfortunately, this fertilizer situation is a rude awakening to reevaluate where we get our food. As consumers, we must demand that our food meets the quality we desire. And, if you cannot ensure that in a larger chain, than the best solution is using a smaller purveyor.

The article, via the Sacramento Bee, can be found HERE.

Next Page »