| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| Let's make this clear: Vertical farms don't make sense
October 26, 2009 at 5:07 pm
|
| 
The inside of a skyscraper is, literally, the most expensive "land" in the world. So it probably isn't the best place to grow our food. The idea of vertical farming (growing food in high-rise buildings in the middle of cities instead of out on farms) has been gaining a lot of interest lately. Most recetly, it showed up on BoingBoing, one of our favorite blogs. We've seen a few of these proposals, and we've been following the concept for some time. It seems EcoGeeky enough, but a quick glance at the actual economics of farming shows that this isn't ever going to work. At first, it seems to make all the sense in the world. Moving production of food into population centers to eliminate shipping. Creating highly efficient "food factories" that allow land elsewhere to be freed from cultivation. But when you look at some of the practicalities behind constructing buildings like these, vertical farms make no sense. As the Vertical farm Project itself notes: "The Vertical Farm must be efficient (cheap to construct and safe to operate)." And a vertical farm is the opposite of efficiency. A farmer can expect his land to be worth roughly $1 per square foot...if it's good, fertile land. The owner of a skyscraper, on the other hand, can expect to pay more than 200 times that per square foot of his building. And that's just the cost of construction. Factor in the costs of electricity to pump water throughout the thing and keep the plants bathed in artificial sunlight all day, and you've got an inefficient mess. Just looking at those numbers, you need two things to happen in order for vertical farms to make sense. You need the price of food to increase 100 fold over today's prices, and you need the productivity of vertical farms to increase 100 fold over traditional farms. Neither of those things will ever happen. And as much as I hate to burst bubbles, the main claim to the efficiency of vertical farms (the elimination of transportation costs) is not vaild. Even if most of the calories we consume were to be grown inside of cities, almost all of it would be shipped out for processing (most of the food we eat isn't fresh veggies...you may have noticed.) None of this is to say that we think farming will remain forever as it is today. EcoGeek is glad that there are many changes coming to agriculture, some of which will increase yields enough to keep prices low while feeding the 10 billion people the Earth will house by 2050. And with the right technologies, we should be able to do this without harming the Earth too much. We're not even saying that farms will remain outside. Building multi-level (not necessarily muti-story) automated farming units on inexpensive land within 100 km of food processing plants, for example, might make a lot of sense. But if you're going to make farming more efficient, you aren't going to do it by moving it into the most expensive land in the world. Science-fiction author (and former EcoGeek of the Week interviewee) Tobias Buckell also saw the article and offered his own comments on the topic, as well. 'Vertical farm' articles on EcoGeek  |
| Nine adventurous pumpkin recipes (forget pie)
October 26, 2009 at 2:30 pm
|
| | Halloween is all about pumpkins (and costumes). But pumpkins aren't just for jack-o'-lanterns and pumpkin pie. In fact, if you're leaving the pulp, the seeds and even the rind on the kitchen floor, you're missing out. Pumpkins are a superfood: The meat is a top source of both Vitamin A and Beta Carotene, and its seeds are a top source of iron. Here you'll find recipes for a variety of delicious pumpkin dishes that go way beyond typical. And don't stop with traditional orange pumpkins. While sweet and delicious, pumpkins and winter squash come in a variety of forms, from the familiar -- butternut and acorn squash, for instance -- to the decidedly strange heirloom varieties. Many of these pumpkin recipes start with pumpkin puree. There's no reason you have to buy canned puree -- especially if you've just carved pumpkins for jack-o'-lanterns. (Three pounds of pumpkin will produce about three cups of puree.) Here are three ways to make pumpkin puree. Whether or not you're ready to puree, get your creative (and salivary) juices flowing by checking out these recipes: Photo: Istock
5 Sweet Pumpkin Recipes Pumpkin Seed Brittle Recipe
Frosted with salt, this sweet and savory brittle is sure to please. Place in a pretty tin to give as a gift this holiday. Ginger Pumpkin Flan Recipe
Try this unforgettable twist on a traditional dessert. Pumpkin Tart with Pecan Crust Recipe
Straight out of Peter Berley's 'Flexitarian Table', this unique recipe mixes two traditional fall dessert staples into an entirely new creation. Mocha Pumpkin Cheesecake Recipe
Mocha. Pumpkin. Cheesecake. Enough said. Pumpkin Milk Shake Recipe
In his classic style, the Green Cheapsakate suggests making use of your entire pumpkin, with predictably unusual recipes. (pickled pumpkin rinds anyone?) Photo: Alton Brown
4 Savory Pumpkin Recipes Pumpkin Ravioli with Kale Pumpkin Seed Pesto Recipe
Master the art of ravioli making with this seasonal video recipe. Heirloom Pumpkin with Blue Cheese Crostata Recipe
The ideal holiday salad, this dish offers the best of harvest flavors -- green apples, heirloom pumpkin and tangy yet smooth blue cheese. Baked Acorn Squash with Red Quinoa and Pumpkin Seed Stuffing Recipe
This recipe features two tricky-to-use fall and winter veggies, pumpkin and acorn squash. Crudités with Pumpkin Sage Pâté Recipe
This vegan pâté that's perfect to serve as a holiday appetizer. Photo: Istock. See more pumpkin recipes. Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc More from The Daily Green 19 of the Most Creative Homemade Halloween Costumes 10 Superoods for Strong Muscles 12 Surprisingly Smart Uses for Oatmeal 10 Immune-Boosting Superfoods 8 Strange Heirloom Pumpkins (and How to Cook Them) |
| Would you bungee jump for the environment? 5 creative climate demonstrations
October 26, 2009 at 9:19 am
|
| Organizers of the 350 Day of Climate Action are calling the over 5,000 rallies and protests in 181 countries "clearly the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history." 350 is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million, that some leading scientists say represents a safe level for life as we know it on Earth. The level today stands at 387 ppm. "Parts per million CO2 sounds too obscure an idea to attract crowds on six continents, but there were thousands of people in the streets from Togo and Ethiopia and Paraguay to Seattle and London and Sydney," said 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben. Here are some of the highlights:
Table Mountain, Cape Town, South Africa Climbers hung a giant 350 banner on the cliffs of Table Mountain, South Africa.
Israel, Palestine, Jordan A 3, 5, and 0 on the Israeli, Palestinian, and Jordanian shores of the Dead Sea, highlighting the importance of coming across political boundaries to solve a common crisis.
Cebu, Philippines As another typhoon bears down on the Philippines, students at Cebu made a giant 350 to call for action on climate change.
Johannesburg, South Africa Bungee jump toward 350 from a retired coal plant in in Johannesburg South Africa.
Kunar Province, Afghanistan The photo was taken in the remote Korengal Outpost in the Korengal Valley, Kunar Province, eastern Afghanistan. All the men are part of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division based out of Fort Carson, Colorado. The vehicles in the background are no longer in use as the soldiers here walk everywhere when they go on key leader engagement with the local villages elders.
More from The Daily Green 350 Species Endangered By Global Warming 15 Things You Can Do to Help The Environment 11 Powerful Environmental Messages Home Winterization Tips, to Save Energy and Money Amazing Wildlife Photos Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc |
| Ask Umbra on canned and frozen foods
October 26, 2009 at 12:25 am
|
| Q. Dear Umbra, For those times when fresh vegetables are not available, are canned or frozen veggies the way to go from a sustainable and nutritional standpoint? Assume that we recycle in our household. Cheers! Mark L.
Sanford, Fla. A. Dearest Mark, I thought you Floridians would just live on fresh oranges and lemons all winter. Scurvy must have its opposite, I suppose, and one never hears of orange casserole or orange stew. On the sustainability front, there is no clear and dominant difference between canned and frozen veggies—or, to say that another way, studies differ. The major ding on frozen food is the energy you use to keep it frozen; for canned, it's the energy used to make the cans. Based on what I read, I would recommend that if you cannot purchase fresh vegetables for some reason, you purchase high-quality processed vegetables with no additives, that you eat frozen vegetables within two weeks, and that you religiously recycle your steel cans. Of course, you should first be buying whatever fresh produce is available in wintry Florida. Grade A frozen foods are harvested when ripe and quickly taken to the freezing plant, where they are (even more quickly) flash frozen at extremely low temperatures. The modern industrial freezing process retains almost all the original nutritional value of the food (according to nutrition guru Marion Nestle's helpful book What to Eat). Good to go on the nutrition angle. But it's important to have an efficient freezer. One study using 1970s data found that the longer frozen foods sit in the freezer, i.e., are using energy in storage, the more they fall behind canned goods in the efficiency smackdown. The canned goods are a bit less nutritious, but a study that looked closely at this issue found the differences between frozen and canned carrots to be insignificant. Carrots in syrup, or whatever they might put carrots in, would of course fall in to the category of dessert or a processed food, and cannot be favorably compared to fresh. As you know, the ecological issue with canned carrots is the steel can itself, which has high embodied energy costs. If a study assumes the recycling of the steel can, then canned vegetables can compete favorably with frozen vegetables on the sustainability index. (One health consideration is that BPA is often used in the linings of such cans.) All this to say, the two forms of commercial preservation are ecologically comparable, so we can all put this issue out of our minds and focus on eating our recommended daily allowance of fruits and vegetables. As we discussed last week vis bike helmets, it is ecologically important to remain in good health and away from hospitals. Fruits and vegetables help us achieve this goal. They also help us eat low on the food chain, an even more vital objective in the sustainable kitchen. Five a Day-ly,
Umbra Related Links: A $4 billion push to make affordable housing green Ask Umbra on bike helmets Ask Umbra's video tips for Climate Action Day |
| Worried about ingesting trace metals from cookware and food?
October 25, 2009 at 2:57 pm
|
|  EarthTalk is a Q&A column from E/The Environmental Magazine Dear EarthTalk: I recently had a tissue mineral analysis indicating that my levels of the nutritional element molybdenum were off the chart. I believe this may be leaching from my stainless steel cookware. Is this element toxic to my body? -- Barbara, Fruitland Park, FL Having trace amounts of molybdenum in our bloodstreams is not only normal but beneficial. The element piggybacks onto bacteria to help us metabolize proteins and grow new cells, and also helps keep our vertebrae and tooth enamel strong. But too much of it can indeed be toxic. Health care practitioners worry more about miners exposed to molybdenum dust on a daily basis than they do about everyday folks with occasional and incidental exposure via cookware and ingested foods. Few if any cases of acute toxicity in humans have been documented, though animal studies have shown that ingesting small but frequent amounts can lead to diarrhea, growth retardation, infertility, low birth weight and even gout. It has also been shown to negatively affect the lungs, kidneys and liver. But most of us need not fear, as the amount of molybdenum we get naturally from eating foods like green beans, eggs, sunflower seeds, wheat flour, lentils and cereal grain is not enough to cause any severe health reactions, and, again, is an important building block component of our diets. In fact, a deficiency of molybdenum in one stretch of northern China -- where the element does not occur naturally in the region's soils -- has been linked to a higher-than-normal rate of esophageal cancer. Additional amounts of molybdenum could be getting into your foods from stainless steel cookware, but manufacturers insist that if their products are not dinged and pocked from overuse or abused with abrasive brushes or detergents during clean-up they shouldn't leach much of anything into the food cooking inside. Of all the elements used to make stainless steel, molybdenum is one of the most able to tolerate high heat without expanding, softening or otherwise breaking down. That's largely why it is approved for use in food-grade products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Incidentally, its heat tolerance is also why it is used in the making of missiles, aircraft, rifle barrels, light bulb filaments and furnace components. While it is unlikely that the amount of molybdenum in a normal human diet is enough to cause severe health reactions, no one would fault someone with reason for concern to take precautions. For starters, if you do have too much molybdenum in your systems, add some tungsten (sodium tungstate) into your diet, which naturally reduces the concentration of molybdenum in human tissues. With regard to cookware, switching away from stainless steel might be a good idea for anyone with high molybdenum levels in their bloodstreams. No cookware is perfect, but cast iron and anodized aluminum seem to be the top choices today for cooks concerned about leaching elements. While cast iron is known to leach some iron into food, iron deficiencies were far less common before World War II when most of our grandparents cooked with it. And anodized aluminum is an ideal non-stick, acid- and scratch- resistant surface which locks-in aluminum that could otherwise leach into food. GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it here or via e-mail. Read past columns here. Check out the recent book Earthtalk: Expert Answers to Everyday Questions about the Environment More from The Daily Green Latest Toxic Toy Recalls: Purses, Pen Cases, Wooden Toys and More Can Organic Detox Foot Pads Really Make You Feel Better? 11 Surprising Facts and Myths About Microwave Ovens The 13 Coolest Things Made from Recycled Bottles Morphing The Green Nursery Into An Eco-Preschooler's Haven
Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc |
| Cigarette butt litter is more than just annoying
October 24, 2009 at 5:26 pm
|
|  Dear EarthTalk: Has anyone ever studied the environmental impact of discarded cigarettes? I'm constantly appalled at the number of drivers I see pitching their butts out their car windows. -- Ned Jordan, via email It's true that littered cigarette butts are a public nuisance, and not just for aesthetic reasons. The filters on cigarettes -- four fifths of all cigarettes have them -- are made of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that is very slow to degrade in the environment. A typical cigarette butt can take anywhere from 18 months to 10 years to decompose, depending on environmental conditions. But beyond the plastic, these filters -- which are on cigarettes in the first place to absorb contaminants to prevent them from going into the lungs -- contain trace amounts of toxins like cadmium, arsenic and lead. Thus when smokers discard their butts improperly -- out the car window or off the end of a pier or onto the sidewalk below -- they are essentially tossing these substances willy-nilly into the environment. Studies done by Johns Hopkins University, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and even the tobacco industry itself show that these contaminants can get into soils and waterways, harm or kill living organisms and generally degrade surrounding ecosystems. While individual discarded cigarette butts may be small, they add up to a huge problem. Some 5.5 trillion cigarettes are consumed worldwide each year. The non-profit Keep America Beautiful reports that cigarette butts constitute as much as one-third of all litter nationwide when measured by the number of discarded items, not volume. According to the Ocean Conservancy, a non-profit that advocates for stronger protection of marine ecosystems, cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item found on America's salt and freshwater beaches, according to feedback received by hundreds of thousands of volunteers taking part in the group's annual Coastal Clean-up event. While the tobacco industry may have its hands full just trying to stay afloat in the maelstrom of ongoing bad publicity, critics say it should be doing more to prevent cigarette butt litter. "Just as beverage manufacturers contribute to anti-litter campaigns, and have invested in public education on litter issues, so too should the tobacco industry," says Kathleen Register, founder and executive director of Clean Virginia Waterways, a non-profit that has spearheaded the fight against cigarette butt litter in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. She adds that cigarette manufacturers "need to take an active and responsible role in educating smokers about this issue and devote resources to the cleanup of cigarette litter." Register suggests a number of strategies, including putting anti-litter messages on all cigarette packaging and advertisements, distributing small, free portable ashtrays, and placing and maintaining outdoor ashtrays in areas where smokers congregate. She also suggests putting an extra tax on cigarette sales, with proceeds going toward anti-litter education efforts and to defray the costs of cleaning up butts. "Picking up littered cigarette butts costs schools, businesses and park agencies money," she says. "By taxing smokers for anti-litter educational efforts, some of the costs of cleaning up cigarette butts will shift onto smokers." One way or another, Register hopes, smokers will learn that the Earth is not one giant ashtray. EarthTalk is a Q&A column from E/The Environmental Magazine GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it here or via e-mail. Read past columns here. Check out the recent book Earthtalk: Expert Answers to Everyday Questions about the Environment
More from The Daily Green
Cigarette Butt Litter Has Become a Major Polluter Meet the Bank We Don't Hate AltUse: Tapping the Wisdom of Crowds on Alternative Uses for Everyday Products Are The Biting Mites Plaguing The Heartland A New Invasive Species? 6 Commuting Tips to Help You Survive Terrible Traffic Tuesday
Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc | | | 
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment