Colossal squid and gigantic jellyfish: Have we lured them in?

www.cnn.com; www.nytimes.com

Life has gotten away with me – hence my hiatus from the blogging world. But I’m back, with an itch to write and report. So down to business:

A Nomura's jellyfish off the coast of Japan. Getty Images file photo, courtesy www.cnn.com.

There have been two coastal appearances of enormous animals in recent weeks, both which usually stick to deeper waters. In Japan, 6-foot jellies are wreaking havoc on the fishing industry; in San Diego, Humboldt squid are following their prey into the shallows and taunting scuba divers.

I suspect – and this is just a novice hunch – that we humans have something to do with it. Changing ocean currents due to changing global temperatures could be bringing the giants too close for comfort; or perhaps overfishing has depleted each species’ prey populations in the deep, so the animals have no choice but to come searching for food off the coast.

The Humboldt squid, courtesy www.octavarius.com.

As a marine educator, I’m constantly confronted with the question, “Why should I care about the ocean?” These stories of mass migration give a simple answer by illustrating the direct effect that humans can have on the marine environment – and, in turn, the impacts that animals can have on humans. If our actions change the ocean, then the ocean will change us, whether it be via crashing supplies of fish, massive changes in temperature due to shifts in currents, global oxygen depletion caused by negative affects on algae growth, or deep-sea monsters rising to the surface and altering the way we live.

That is why you should care – if not for the sake of the ancient species here long before us, then for what will happen to us in the end.

 

With better fuel efficiency, everybody wins

Photo courtesy www.techmrt.ttu.edu.

www.google.com/hostednews

Obama’s plans to increase fuel efficiency standards illustrate the kind of collective, far-reaching progress he talked about in his run for the presidency. This is a great start toward creating stronger environmental policy, and we will all be better for it – more money in our pockets, less pollution in the air, more jobs to be had.

The Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven wrote a great analysis of what the move means for the Obama administration. The president had a lot working in his favor this time, so the collaborative effort and the compromises from every party involved are the result of a “near-perfect storm of circumstances.” Still, he made it happen, and the plan has fantastic potential – implementing these standards would save enough oil over 6.5 years to equate taking 177 million cars off U.S. roads.

I for one am willing to pay a little more up front to save more money – and decrease pollution – in the long run. This concept is always a struggle for the general public, so it remains to be seen whether the plan will work on that end. But if we could all think this way, about everything we do, maybe we’d sacrifice a little here to save a little more there, and we’d support the changes that make long-term differences.

 

Box o’ house: tiny, efficient and inexpensive

Chad Ludeman's $100K house. Image courtesy azsustainability.com.

The interior. Image courtesy goodmagazine.com.

www.philly.com

I’m not sure it’s the prettiest thing I’ve ever seen, but this home’s concept – build small, use little, save lots – is impossible to ignore. Chad Ludeman has almost finished his demonstration project in Philadelphia, an 1100-foot home that uses all sorts of simple innovations to save energy and money (the construction costs a mere $100,000).

The idea is to buck new construction’s trend of extravagance – massive, costly, inefficient McMansions. Ludeman’s creation is the opposite: It has been dubbed the McMini, a tiny box of a house that has lots to offer. It boasts recycled drywall, heated floors, air exchangers to maintain temperature, tankless water heaters powered by solar panels, earth-friendly paints and energy efficient appliances. If you have the latest version of Adobe Flash player, you can check out some of these features here.

It sounds like Ludeman’s main goal of affordability has meant cutting some corners of quality, so upgrades may be necessary sooner rather

than later – a definite con. But if the changes could be done with the same mind for efficiency as the rest of the home, it would be worth it.I have to admit, I’m more of a traditionalist when it comes to design; but if I were moving to Philly and looking for an inexpensive two-bedroom rowhouse, I would totally live in one of these. It would be the ultimate chance to lead by example. Like the article says, it’s just what America needs – to think small for a change.

 

More consumers consider green (I’m not sure this is great news)

Photo courtesy www.enn.com.

www.enn.com

It’s great to hear that more people are considering how their purchases affect the planet. A recent study found that more than half of shoppers think about “green attributes” when choosing a product; this is a positive sign that awareness is increasing among the general public and that people see their dollar as a way to make a difference.

But isn’t it also a disturbing sign that there is a growing market for these “green attributes,” vague qualities that can easily and quickly be manipulated by the makers of all those products? If people are willing to pay more for a product they are told is better for the environment, what’s to stop manufacturers from taking advantage of that? Just as we see in the organic food industry, where people are willing to pay high prices for the word “organic” but know little about where the food comes from, products that claim to be eco-friendly may or may not be any better for the planet than the cheaper, brand-name competition, but shoppers who want to make a difference will pay more for them. It’s a vicious marketing cycle, and it is unfortunate, because it preys on the the very people who want to see things change.

As a consumer, I’ve been run through this cycle many, many times. It began with my food choices: I didn’t want to support the policies of factory farming and big agriculture, so I went vegetarian and bought organic whenever I could. But my purchases still supported many of the things I set out to protest in the first place, such as high energy use (all those expensive organics were being shipped from far away, and all those organic cereals took massive amounts of energy to be processed and packaged) and abuse of livestock (for eggs to qualify as “free range,” there need only be a little window in the chicken coop and a few minutes of outside time a day). Then it was sweatshop free clothing; then natural-based cleaners; then more efficient energy. I couldn’t find a pair of jeans that were guaranteed to have been made in a socially just manner; cleaners and soaps made big claims, but had no accountability; hybrids were worse than gas-guzzling SUVs because of the impacts of the mineral mining needed to build their batteries. And all of these products cost a lot more than the standard alternatives.

What it comes down to is this: Consumerism as we know it is a flawed system. Consumers are flooded with choices that prey on their weaknesses, and the information they have upon which to base their decisions may be conflicting, confusing and overwhelming. Many find comfort in apathy; for those who do care, even when they think they’re making good choices, it’s likely that they’re not. It’s impossible to win.

For a while, I’ve been an advocate of meeting people halfway as a means to effect real change; but I’m starting to second guess that notion. Perhaps what each of us should explore more deeply is not which brand to buy, but rather the need for buying at all. Simplifying our lives by consuming less may not be the best answer for our economy, but it will make the greatest difference in the health of our bodies, our minds, our families and our planet. Don’t get me wrong; I’m a consumer just like everyone else, and I need the same food and clothes and furniture to get by. But it is undeniable that I could get by with less.

So next time you’re comparing the “green attributes” of Comet and Seventh Generation, ask yourself if the baking soda you already have at home will suffice.

 

Manifesto for a better world

Courtesy www.worldchanging.com.

www.worldchanging.com

This great article offers 10 things we can change about society to make global sustainability a reality. It includes reducing poverty, empowering women, creating political transparency worldwide and taking control of our diets. I especially like No. 10, which calls for the end of new highway construction. While they get us to where we need to go, highways encourage suburban sprawl, discourage bicycling and walking, and keep carbon emissions pumping into the atmosphere via the millions and billions of vehicles that drive on them. Focusing instead on the streets we have will give us more opportunity to focus on our communities and support greener transport.

The article doesn’t try to fool anyone into thinking that these are 10 easy tasks – in fact, it credits their difficulty. It takes on Earth Day as a symbolic gesture that is too simple, too short and too likely to be exploited for consumerism’s sake. (As much fun as I had at the beach cleanup last weekend, I have to say I agree.) The goals listed are large and beyond the realm of any one day or any one person. They are principles that can guide the steps we take as a whole toward sustainability.

The list supports not only an environmentally sound planet, but also a peaceful one. Eliminating nuclear weapons is the list’s most obvious step toward peace, but others, such as stabilizing the poorest sixth of the planet and uniting globally on environmental treaties and political accountability, call for collective goals that encourage joint efforts among communities, states, nations, continents and beyond.

We have a long way to go before we come even close to becoming a sustainable species. But if we keep principles like these in the forefront of our minds, our actions will follow suit; this offers promise of some real change. Here’s hoping.

 

Toads go wild 2

Photo courtesy www.fosters.com.

www.fosters.com

All you readers out there must be frog lovers, because a blog post of mine from a month or so ago, Public Protects Lovin’ Toads, has driven the most traffic – people read that thing pretty much every day. So to satisfy demand, I thought I’d add Part 2, a local story about the many toads and frogs willing to risk the road for sex. I bet they’ll be out in full force over the next few days, as temperatures have warmed up and we’ve had some good rainfall. So remember: When you’re on the road, watch out for those lovin’ toads.

 

Trash talk: Volunteers take a day to clean up their act

Two volunteers pick up trash at the Peirce Island beach cleanup in Portsmouth, N.H., on Saturday. Photo courtesy www.seacoastonline.com.

www.seacoastonline.com

On Saturday, Blue Ocean Society for Marine Conservation kicked off its season in conjunction with Earth Day – and I was there! BOS hosted one of its many beach cleanups, and the 80 volunteers who showed up took 450 pounds of trash off the shore of the Piscataqua River in Portsmouth, N.H.

There was a real sense of community among the volunteers that day. It was obvious that the families and friends who came out felt good about the change they were making locally as well as the part they were playing in the worldwide effort to better the planet. A Scout group showed up, in uniform, ready to scour the rocks for litter; parents brought their little ones, wearing hats and jackets to keep out the wind and rain; and others hurried to sign up, having just heard about the event that day and wanting to do whatever they could to help.

It can be overwhelming to think about the negative impacts human actions have on the earth. But the same can be said for seeing positive impacts in motion. I found it powerful to watch so many people dedicate their day to reversing some of the problems humans create for our environment, and it was moving to be a part of it. This Earth Day, I hope we all do our part.

 

Earth Day, Onion style

Just had to share this snarky little graphic from The Onion:

Courtesy of The Onion (who else?).

 

Energy plans out the wazoo

MacKay's book is available in full, for free, at www.withouthotair.com.

www.theregister.co.uk/

Thanks to friend and former landlord Ian Katz for this little number.

The article cited above is from last year, but it gives a comprehensive synopsis of a book written by David J.C. MacKay, a professor at Cambridge University who uses hard numbers to support global energy plans. MacKay takes on power sources such as wind, solar, biofuel, hydro and nuclear, and using physics and math, he offers plans for efficient energy use for the years to come. He also takes into account how each plan might be welcomed (or not) by governments, environmental organizations and the public.  His book, “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air,” is available in full online at www.withouthotair.com.

I would like to open up the forum here and see what others have to say about MacKay’s arguments. I haven’t read the book yet; I’ve only read the article above, which gives me reason to believe that this guy knows what he’s talking about. But a full look at the real thing is on my immediate agenda. Download the document and tell me what you think.

 

The mutual fund of agriculture: Crop diversity makes more money

Photo courtesy www.heftyseed.com.

www.agronomy.org

I’m reading “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” which has me thinking a lot about how the output of U.S. agriculture makes its way to my plate. So this study, which examined high-input, monoculture farming and its profitability when compared with small-input, diversified growing practices, caught my eye. It offers empirical evidence that costwise, mixing it up makes more sense.

The study in Wisconsin found diversified and rotational cropping systems to be more profitable than the standard monoculture systems that blanket our Midwest. Ecologists have known for a while that diversifying your crops supports productivity because it more closely reflects plant growth in nature and reduces pest and nutrient problems posed by rows and rows of the same crop. This particular study focused on profitability, putting each system into economic terms. Its results suggest that diversifying crops brings in higher net returns than putting all your eggs in one basket, and it questions current government policy and its support of the simplified monoculture approach. According to www.agronomy.org, the study “indicates that governmental policy that supports mono-culture systems is outdated and support should be shifted to programs that promote crop rotations and organic farming practices.”

I’m a firm believer in supporting local and organic farms. The food is fresh and seasonal; it doesn’t require refrigerated, gas-guzzling trucks to be transported thousands of miles; more of your money goes directly to the farmer; and you can see up close what your money is supporting. Imagine what it would be like if the USDA acknowledged that our market could successfully profit from small-input farming – perhaps we would be healthier Americans supporting people we know in our communities.

From what I could see, the study didn’t consider harvesting – an aspect that monocultures probably simplify to a great extent, because you can gather up all your goods in one fell swoop. This may mean that harvesting diversified crops is more labor intensive; I’ve never evaluated harvest methods closely, so I don’t know to what extent they would affect profitability overall. Nonetheless, this study finds evidence that responsible farming can be highly effective and highly profitable, possibly more so than the mess of a system our tax dollars support now. It’s worth a good, long look by lawmakers – and by those of us who want to build community and eat good, healthy, local food.

To see the abstract of the study, as well as links to the full article, click here.