Update on Bottled Water Use

So I’ve finally managed to track down all the campus numbers: 1.9 million bottles per year. 

There appears to be some overlap, unfortunately, so I’ve got to track down dining services and ask more questions.  If it turns out that there is overlap, there’s ‘only’ 1.4 million bottles bought on campus. That’s still 36 bottles per person in a year; probably only 4 of them get recycled. 

Puts the whole mess in perspective, doesnt it?   Recycle 5 water bottles a year, do your part for the environment. Not a big deal. 

 

Crestmont Community Garden Volunteer Opportunity this Tuesday

We have been invited by Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard assistant director, Stephanie Solomon, to volunteer at one of MHC’s organic gardens (the Crestmont Community Garden) this Tuesday from 6 to 8 p.m.  Family and friends are also welcome. 

Here’s a little bit about the MHC gardens:

“MHC’s Community Gardening Program promotes self-reliance by teaching people an economical way to grow healthy food right in their own backyards.   In this innovative program, MHC teaches our low-income patrons the life-skill of organic gardening.  Our patrons plant, tend, and harvest produce that goes directly to the MHC food pantry and to their kitchens.  Over the 7 years of this program, MHC staff & volunteers have raised over 10,000 pounds of organic produce for the MHC food pantry.”

For more information: http://mhcfoodpantry.org/indexevents.html

Please e-mail me if you’d like to come, so I can let Stephanie know how many of people to expect. If you plan to drive, let me know so we can organize carpools.

Directions to Crestmont Park, W. 16th St. : Head W on 17th St. from Walnut, pass Tri-North on left and take next left on Monroe St. Turn Rt. On 16th St. in Crestmont Park and wind around uphill and gardens will be on left parallel to gravel road.

 

 

Gender & Sustainability

So this summer I am in a Gender Studies class called “Gender and Nature.” The concepts we are taught in class often remind me of my summer internship and other past environmental endeavors so I thought it might be an interesting/different topic to blog about. And, I feel the need to point this out, but there are a lot of generalizations in here & it’s just a part of gender studies because if it weren’t for generalizations, I would have to explain thoroughly every exception, so-I don’t mean to offend- is what I’m basically getting at.

Binaries: To my understanding, binaries suggest that society generally recognizes a superior (“the touchstone, normal, dominant”), and then its inferior (“different, deviant, subordinate”). Examples of binaries are culture vs. primitive, complexity vs. simplicity, linear progression vs. cyclical progression, public vs. private, science vs. nature, expert vs. ignorant, male vs. female, and so forth.

One theory goes something like this… Females can create life by giving birth (making them close to nature), something males cannot do; therefore males have always put it upon themselves to create culture. Culture is man’s creation (who did we learn about in high school? Aristotle, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Socrates, Christopher Columbus, etc. ) and culture’s goal, no matter how you look at it, is to control nature. According to the binary, females are associated with nature, so naturally, control over women throughout the centuries by men has had a significant impact on culture to say the least. Women were at home raising children, cooking & cleaning, etc., while men were out making scientific discoveries, setting the standards, and speaking for all of mankind (very noticeable in everyday rhetoric, don’t you think?)

Okay… so what exactly does this have to do with us right now? Well, a lot, but I specifically want to focus on the linear progression vs. cyclical progression binary. Females are associated with the cyclical progression binary because 1) the creation of life is a cycle. 2) Women’s work throughout history has mostly been cyclical, for example; she cleans the home, it gets dirty, she cleans it again, and so on. Same with cooking—People get hungry; she cooks, in a few hours people get hungry again, etc.

Men’s work has generally been seen as linear because it supposedly makes progress. It goes forward into the future overcoming obstacles with technology and science and “objectivity” (in quotes because how objective can it be when it is only the words of educated, upper / upper-middle class, Western men that were historically acknowledged (and this still happens today where it is estimated that a female scientist has to work about ten more years than a male scientist for the same prestige).

Everyone is pretty confident and takes the notion quite seriously that technology will solve all the problems we made for ourselves environmentally, science just needs time to catch up. Obviously things haven’t changed much. Instead of pushing for alternative fuels already proven to work without too much of a hitch (especially compared to fossil fuels) such as kitchen grease, or even just pushing consumers to stop using so much gas where instead we have government subsidies for highways and attraction of the masses to the Hummer H2. America just waits it out for the scientific truth to come along and solve all our problems because we are so deeply entrenched in a patriarchal system of capitalism where immediate money is all-powerful (Anything in the long-term or semi-distant future is all speculation).

In the past, men have stepped up to create the culture we must all deal with today. Now, women have a larger presence in this male-created culture, and must play like the boys if they want to be taken seriously. So we now strive to make linear progression together. BUT, what I propose is that there is a greater urgency for more people to step down to the occasion rather than step up. It’s okay to admit failure (if not okay, maybe a potential first step for some to recovery. Just say it, “My name is ______, and I’m addicted to oil”), but now we can keep the successes and lose the mistakes. Yes, science and technology should continue, but not in competitive pursuit over that one truth, the enlightening discovery that’s going to save the world because it isn’t going to happen. There’s no time to wait for the “experts” to tell us what to do. What to do is common sense, simple, cyclical, and natural. Respect the “resources” we have and don’t only think about how to use them to your benefit. Extreme examples: Native Americans were once seen as a natural resource by European colonists. Seeds are currently being patented! Nature is being claimed and capitalized and turned into someone’s intellectual property because he has improved it??

But is controlling nature also our only hope? Do we need to figure out how to harness wind to turn on a light bulb? Are we just looking for the next scientific discovery to lead us to the new species that we can claim, make valuable only in the sense that it is used, manipulated, exists solely for our purposes as we see fit?

Please comment… I’m really interested in all your opinions

global water crisis and bottled water

I heard an interesting interview about the global water crisis on the radio this morning. Maude Barlow, Canadian environmentalist and co-founder of the Blue Planet Project, was discussing how the American view on natural resources, particularly water, is different from the view of Canadians. She said that the Canadian view of natural resources is very similar to their view on socialized health care– survival of the population as a group. In contrast, the American view is more of a survival of the fittest. Barlow explained that the American view is that a person is entitled to whatever water rights they can afford, regardless of moral implications such as how it will affect the local ecosystem and people who live where the water source is. When water is bottled, it is often removed from a location where local people need it.

Also, relating to our bottled water count info in class today, Maude Barlow explained why (in the US) drinking tap water is much better than drinking bottled water. In addition to environmental and sustainable reasons, tap water has much tighter regulations and inspections than bottled water. The EPA requires that utility companies test municipal water hundreds of times per month, while the FDA, which regulates bottled water, requires only one water test per week by bottling companies. More information about this can be found at  http://foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled, the website mentioned on the radio program.

Going green, corporate style

Last week, a few of us drove to Indy to attend an event hosted by the Indiana Sustainability Alliance. The speaker was Mike Molnar, Director of Sustainability for Cummins Diesel Engine company, and he spoke about his company’s recent commitment to sustainability and massive effort to reduce their carbon footprint.

It was interesting to see some of the business logic that would propel a global industrial corporation to embrace environmentalism. I think there are 3 important factors at work:

• First, Cummins is primarily acting in anticipation of future carbon tax or cap legislation, whch explains why the program is almost entirely focused on greenhouse gas reductions.

• Second, the company is leveraging public concern about climate change to improve their brand image. This is supported by public carbon diclosure programs which allow Cummins to advertise their environmental responsibility relative to competitors.

• Finally, by focusing especially on reducing electricity use, Cummins is able to see a huge return on investment. Roughly, the company invested $11 million up front and is now seeing $7 million savings in energy costs annually.

Overall, it is really encouraging to see such progressive action from the private sector. One point, however, stuck out as impetus for critical discussion.  Cummins’ massive effort resulted in a 20-30% reduction in carbon intensitiy, measured as emissions divided by dollars of revenue. However, because the company’s business was growing so rapidly during this time, the absolute reduction was only about 2%. In order to address climate change, we need to significantly reduce total emissions below current levels. How can this be achieved in an economy that is constantly growing?

“Sea of Trash” New York Times article by Donovan Hohn

Today the New York Times featured an article by Donovan Hohn discussing the severity and complexity of the problem of oceanic debris. It highlights one of the more tangible ways in which our disregard for the environment may prove to be very harmful to humans in the long-run. For anyone who is set on dismissing global warming as a legitimate motivator for sustainability initiatives, this argument may be more compelling. The full article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/magazine/22Plastics-t.html?hp

Some excerpts are below.

One of Hohn’s interviewees cites a study, suggesting that “remote oceanic islands may have similar levels of debris to those adjacent to heavily industrialized coasts.”

And the problem is not “merely cosmetic…or symbolic”:

Oceanic debris is a threat to wildlife: Scientists estimate that every year at least a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles die when they entangle themselves in debris or ingest it.

They also pose potentially significant threats to human health: “Plastic polymers, as has long been known, absorb hydrophobic chemicals, including persistent organic pollutants, or POPS, like dioxin, P.C.B.’s and D.D.T. … such substances are surprisingly abundant at the ocean’s surface. By concentrating these free-floating contaminants… particles of plastic could become “poison pills.” … Toxins in the plastic itself — phthalates, organotins — have been known to leach out over time. Once fish or plankton ingest these pills, poisons both in and on the plastic may enter the food web. And since such toxins concentrate, or “bioaccumulate,” in fatty tissues as they move up the chain of predation — so that the “contaminant burden” of a swordfish is greater than a mackerel’s and a mackerel’s greater than a shrimp’s — this plastic could be poisoning people too.”

“We still have limited tax dollars to spend and scarier nightmares to fear…. Depending whom you ask, that honor goes to global warming, agricultural runoff or overfishing. But unlike many pollutants, plastic has no natural source and therefore there is no doubt that we are to blame. Because we can see it, plastic is a powerful bellwether of our impact upon the earth. Where plastics travel, invisible pollutants — pesticides and fertilizers from lawns and farms, petrochemicals from roads, sewage tainted with pharmaceuticals — often follow.”

Center for Sustainable Living

As we work to advance sustainability on our campus, we would do well to take a look at some of the initiatives currently being undertaken by members of the Bloomington community. The Center for Sustainable living has a very useful website that provides links to many projects and events related to alternative transportation, composting, gardening, affordable, environmentally friendly housing, and many other issues related to sustainability.

This is their site: http://www.simplycsl.org/index.html
The Center was also recently featured in a Cultureweek article, which can be found here:

http://cultureweek.com/?p=168

Farmers’ Market

For sustainable, healthy food (and a good time) go to the Bloomington Community Farmers’ Market, located at 401 N. Morton St. in Bloomington in Showers Common next to City Hall.

Saturdays, April – September, 8 a.m. – 1 p.m.
Saturdays, October – November, 9 a.m. – 1 p.m.

The Tuesday Market is located at 6th and Madison Streets next to Bloomingfoods Near West.
Tuesdays, June – September, 4 – 7 p.m.

For more information: http://bloomington.in.gov/sections/viewSection.php?section_id=53

After the market today there will also be an event which may be of interest:

The 26th Annual Taste of Bloomington will take place on June 21st, from 3 to 11 pm at Showers Common (7^th & Morton Streets).

Tickets will be available on the day of the event.

Admission prices are $6 per person; children under 12 are free.

All food items will be priced at $3 or less.

Taste of Bloomington is a non-smoking event.

Parking is available in City garages at the following locations: 7th & Walnut Streets – 4th & Walnut Streets – 7th & Morton Streets

A portion of the proceeds from Taste of Bloomington will benefit the Hoosier Hills Food Bank and the Community Kitchen of Monroe County.

SPROUTS Garden

The SPROUTS garden, located on the corner of 8th and Fess Ave. , is a student- and community-run organic garden that donates its crops to those in need.

Everyone is welcome to volunteer during workdays, every Saturday 11 to 3.

This is their facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2463327844

I would personally like to see more initiatives like this one on campus. If any of you know of groups or individuals that would be interested in taking on the project of replicating this model, please let me know.

Climate Change Legislation Resource

The following link was recommended by Professor Auer:

“Comparison of Legislative Climate Change Targets”:

http://pdf.wri.org/usclimatetargets_2008-06-04.pdf

This is a useful comparative summary of the climate change policies that have been under consideration by our government.