The Story of Stuff: People & Planet

The Story of Stuff is a fascinating, fast 20 minute overview about how making “stuff” has impacted not just the environment – it has impacted our communities and the way we deal with each other.  It is funny and quirky and a must see movie.  In fact I am highly tempted to set up a screening of this film.  The animation is warm and to die for.  (grins)

 

The makers of the Meatrix (http://www.themeatrix.com/), Free Range Studios (http://www.freerangestudios.com/) have proven themselves to be accomplished in the art of educating with an amusing flair.  

****

What is the Story of Stuff?

 

From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It’ll teach you something, it’ll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever.

 

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Defining “Fair” in Fair Trade

As we move into a world full of chaos and change in more ways than one, ethics and fairness is finally coming to the forefront.  We cannot change the world if we cannot change ourselves and our relationships to each other.  If we treat each other unfairly how can we hope to reverse the environmental disasters that continue to occur from these same exploitative relationships?  

 

When I talk fairness I’m not just talking First World and Third.  I’m also hoping you will realize the relations between people of different cultures and nations.  For I assure you, what you do not address as a small wound festers to become a large one.  Think of the rioting around France not long ago – the inevitable consequence of rage after the immigrants’ existence were ignored by the mainstream.  What does this have to do with fair trade?  I call it the trade in relationships not just coinage.

****

Editor’s Note: This report from FoodFirst reviews Fair trade initiatives over the last decade, and proposes new strategies to boost its impact. 

 

Over 25 million people earn their livelihood growing coffee, and fair traders were among the first to show that the wealth from the world’s second most traded commodity was not being shared with producers. The global coffee market is shaped like an hourglass – five corporations regulate coffee transactions between the millions of coffee farmers and billions of coffee drinkers. In 1962, coffee producing countries signed the first International Coffee Agreement (ICA) in order to buffer price fluctuations, but it fell apart 27 years later, leading to the “coffee crisis” of 2001-2002, which reduced prices to a 30 year low. 

 

Enter the fair trade response to the “coffee crisis” – an effort to drive fair trade sales by “mainstreaming” the product in conventional stores.   Many fair trade advocates were uncomfortable about the mainstreaming of fair trade products by multinational corporations – the very market structures that provoked the “coffee crisis” in the first place. Some argue that large corporations use fair trade as a PR moment. Are corporations embedding such practices of fairness into their corporate culture, or is it mere tokenism? 

 

The FoodFirst study attached below argues that fair trade success can be attributed not only to certification and sales, but to sustainable local development and social capital developed in farming communities. The study suggests alternatives to “mainstreamed” corporate fair-trade, such as the Fair trade Direct market model in which farmers grow, process, roast, package and distribute coffee – feeding into the local economy and allowing farmers autonomy over the value added process. Looking forward to building “market sovereignty,” the report suggests that farmers need to be shareholders in the business of fairtrade and in this dynamic lies the consumer, in solidarity with farmers in the movement for social change. 

 

As a contribution to food policy, the FoodFirst paper makes us ask ourselves: Can markets become engines for social change, or do social movements need to organize to change markets?-AP

 

www.foodforethought.net

Green Workplaces: Why People Don’t Want to Work for Polluters

When I was back in university it was pretty easy to see what the author is describing:  we need to become more sustainable and yet our workplaces just aren’t making the cut.  The paradox has irked me to no end.  Only the School of Environmental Studies (of course) was making significant efforts at Queen’s University to green its practices.  The School had also conducted a sustainability audit for the university and there was still room for significant improvement on the rest of the campus.  

The article discusses the current situation and the challenges (which are massive).  Again, policy has to change the incentives to encourage employers and workplaces to go green.  Grassroots initiatives are a start yet they are not the entire solution.  If I draw an analogy to evolution:  we need the environment to be disrupted or to change so we are forced to adapt.  In this case it’s the policy and economic environment.

 

**********************************************

 

By Melanie Joy Douglas, Monster.ca

Many Canadians recycle diligently, choose environmentally-friendly products whenever possible, and narrow their eyes at shoppers who actually still use plastic shopping bags. They feel good about the ‘green’ choices they’re making because it all adds up; they are making a difference. 

And then they get to work, where, in most offices, the lights and computers have been on all night. The printers and photocopiers are constantly in use throughout the day. The building is frosty cold in the summer and searing hot in the winter. The parking lot is rammed full of cars that carry single employees back and forth from home to work. 

What’s wrong with this picture? 

Workers are increasingly becoming aware of this glaring discrepancy in their home and work life and are starting to look for “greener pastures” at work, according to series of online polls by Monster.ca.

Currently, commercial and institutional buildings account for over 30% of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The average office worker uses a quarter ton of materials each year, including a whopping 10,000 pieces of copier paper. 

It’s no wonder that in Monster’s first poll (“How environmentally-friendly is your workplace?”), 81% of 1,275 participants reported that their employer was either “polluting the environment,” “ignoring the need to be environmentally friendly,” or in need of “help to become greener”. Only 18% of employees considered their employer to be extremely green. 

Just how serious are employees? Of 2,854 respondents to a second poll, 78% said that given a choice, they would leave their current job in favour of a greener workplace. Recruiters are now reporting that candidates are demanding to know a company’s environmental specs before taking a job. 

Canadian workers are realizing that wellness at work goes beyond flex time, extended health benefits, and extra vacation days, and they’re increasingly weighing environmental issues in the context of a healthy work environment. 

Green Buildings 

So, what is a ‘green’ workplace anyway? 

“A green office is one that minimizes its environmental footprint through high efficiency office equipment, is non-toxic to employees – so, no chemical cleaners, air fresheners, artificial scents, or  toxic glues - and is housed in an energy efficient building that is easily accessible by foot, bike, and bus route,” explains Camille Labchuk, Press Secretary for the Green Party of Canada, in an interview with Monster. “Recycling/composting programs can also help ‘green up’ workspaces.”

When it comes to talking about sustainable buildings, the term ‘green’ is used very carefully, at least if LEED has anything to say about it.  LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a third-party consensus-based rating system for designing, constructing, operating, and certifying the world’s greenest buildings.  The LEED designation defines “green” by providing a standard for measurement, and helps to prevent what’s called “greenwashing” (false or exaggerated claims). LEED’s license holder, developer, and administrator in Canada is The Canada Green Building Council, a national nonprofit organization founded in 2002 and located in Ottawa. LEED-certified buildings meet the highest environmental performance standards in six areas: site development, water and energy efficiency, material selection, indoor air quality and innovation of design. 

According to LEED, green buildings are often high performance, intelligent buildings, self-monitoring and self-adjusting, and may include features such as high efficiency air-handling and lighting systems, day-lighting, water conservation, rainwater harvesting for landscape irrigation and toilet flushing, green roofs, green power, green housekeeping, and more sustainable material choices such as recycled content, local materials and rapidly renewable materials, as well as low-VOCs (volatile organic compounds) found in paints, carpets and other materials. 

The Colliers International 2007 Canadian Office Tenant Survey released just last week found that 90% of commercial tenants surveyed agreed that it is important for landlords and developers to “green” their buildings. 63% of tenants are actually prepared to pay a premium to occupy green space, with 14% willing to pay more than 10% extra. Furthermore, in terms of attracting candidates to their organizations, tenants believe that having a location close to public transit, with excellent indoor environmental air quality and thermal comfort, and high levels of natural light are very important. Sustainability is clearly becoming an important motivator for business. 

“[In green buildings] some tenants report reductions in absenteeism and health complaints,” said Nancy Searchfield, a LEED AP and green building specialist at Colliers International. “When you combine these potential productivity benefits with the opportunity to reduce utility costs by 20-30 per cent or more, the question, really, is not whether we can afford to go green, but whether we can afford not to.” 

Green Policies 

Aside from the physical building itself, an organization has a great opportunity to make a positive environmental impact through its policies. 

In a third Monster online poll of 1,211 participants, 13% of employees would like to see incentives for environmentally-friendly transit options, another 13% want a more comprehensive recycling program, 10% responded with a more energy-efficient office, 5% preferred manufacturing/delivering greener products and services, and 57% thought their employer should implement all four options. 

Some corporations are listening carefully. Earlier this year, U.S. Media giant News Corp. announced it was going 100% carbon-neutral. Nike, Google, and Sun Microsystems are becoming well-known for providing alternative commuting options, such as incentives for using public transit, buying hybrid cars, carpooling, providing employees with a bio-diesel bus (that’s Google), or avoiding the roads altogether by working from home. 

Other companies are ensuring their products and services are environmentally-friendly. In British Columbia, Capers Community Market provides biodegradable take-out containers made of corn, offers customer incentives for re-useable shopping bags, and promotes earth-friendly products. Meanwhile, Vancity Credit Union champions employee transit incentives including a Bike Share program and provides grants and loans for local environmental projects (from wildlife conservation to renewable energy). Still others, like Novex Couriers (hybrid car couriers) are making sustainability their business. 

For companies wishing to make their operations more sustainable, but have limited funds and don’t know where to start, there are affordable resources such as the Green Workplace Program. Having served over 750 businesses and government agencies with staff from five to one thousand, GWP provides businesses (from small and medium-sized companies to large corporation or government agencies) with real and practical solutions to reduce their footprint by focusing on their use of paper, waste, lighting and energy. With a client list that includes Lululemon, BC Hydro, Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation, and the City of Vancouver, The Green Workplace Program also conducts customized training programs for companies on procurement (green purchasing), behaviour change (paper use reduction), and skills training (fuel efficient driving). 

In total, the GWP has verifiably reduced 31 tonnes of greenhouse gases, 180 trees, 2,509 litres of gasoline, and over 400,000 litres of effluent per year… and it is growing rapidly. 

Greening the Bottom Line: Why Should Employers Care? 

There’s a new saying in sustainable businesses: Where green goes, so does the bottom line. 

It goes without saying that green businesses reap environmental, economic, and health and safety rewards. The return on investment is staggering. Through its LEED-certification, Stratus Vineyards in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, reduced its annual energy consumption by 42%, and a new waste management system diverts a whopping 95% of process waste materials from landfills. Since ‘going green,’ EMS Headquarters and Fleet Centre in Cambridge, Ontario, has experienced a 62% increase in energy savings, a 54% decrease in power consumption, and a 90% reduction in overall water usage. One-fifth of the actual building material comes from recycled content, with 40% of building materials locally harvested, and 70% of components manufactured locally. Similarly, BC Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver, BC, which contains 24% recycled construction and finishing materials, saw 42% increase in energy savings and 43% in water savings. 

Creating a workplace with natural light alone is proven to significantly boost productivity, if not sales. Did you know that studies prove retail sales increase by 40% with natural lighting? While some businesses might be intimated by the upfront costs associated with ‘greening,’ according to Canada Green Building Council, an increase of only 3.7% in worker productivity can pay for all facility costs over a thirty-year period; a statistic that does not even factor in the immense savings in operating expenses. 

But beyond all this, as employers increasingly focus their efforts toward worker retention, a sustainable workplace is climbing to the top of employee wish lists. 

“As the workforce gets younger, employers are going to have to recognize that in order to remain competitive in the job market and attractive to their employees, they will have to change the way they do business. That is to say that they will have to take into account their triple-bottom line,” explains Grace Myong, Engineering Consultant and Operations Manager of The Green Workplace Program. “The young worker today does not care so much as to how their company is faring in the stock market, but more so, what their company is doing to give back to its community.” 

Karun Koernig, Manager of Green Technology and Biodiesel Business at the Green Workplace Program agrees: “Increasingly we are seeing companies wanting to engage their workforce in corporate greening programs, not because it saves the company money on environmental resources, but because it engages employees personal values. The next generation of employees grew up thinking they could change the world and now the find themselves a cog in a machine.” 

“This frustration leads to higher churn rates, lower morale, and lower productivity,” Koernig continues. “Smart firms recognize the additional value of a manager, sales, production or customer service employee who actually believes in their company and is willing to go the extra mile, not to mention the reduced training and HR costs.” 

Obstacles: What’s Putting the Red on Green? 

Sustainable workplaces don’t have the green light just yet. There are some major obstacles in the way. Not only is there a lack of education among decision-makers, but financial barriers as well. “[Sustainable] concepts are fairly complex and the generation currently in management is just barely waking up to the idea, and has little understanding,” points out Koernig. “More fundamentally, saving the environment does not save a lot of money relative to the necessary upfront investment. We undervalue environmental services, so that in a competitive business environment firms spend their resources on other initiatives that have higher potential paybacks.” 

Making sustainability part of every-day thinking hits a wall with government as well. “One of the biggest obstacles I see is convincing government to get aligned with what is already happening within communities and businesses,” notes Myong. “The Canadian public has far surpassed the government in what it has done and is doing for the environment. What government needs to do is create mandates for the large corporations to reduce its environmental impacts and to make them accountable.” 

Camille Labchuk of the Green Party agrees that “currently, it is too cheap to pollute and be ‘ungreen’ and more expensive to be sustainable.” 

Just as Canadian employees are demanding to know how employers are contributing to a sustainable future, Canadian citizens must ask the same of their elected officials. 

The Green Party, for example, sees tax system reform as essential to reducing Canada’s environmental impact, and therefore advocates additional taxes levied on polluters while sustainable organizations are taxed less. 

Environmental advocates find hope in what seems like an approaching paradigm shift: “It’s very encouraging that the environment is first and foremost on the minds of Canadians right now. The environment consistently tops the chart when Canadians are polled on their political concerns,” says Labchuk. 

So, as an average employee in an average workplace, what can and should you do? “At the very least, you should demand that there be recycling facilities available in your workplace. You would be appalled at the number of workplaces in Canada today that does not have even a basic paper recycling program in place,” says Myong. “You should ask that your employer take the simple steps to make the workplace more energy efficient. This could be as simple as switching existing light bulbs to compact fluorescents, which would help them realize not only environmental, but financial savings as well.” 

Those employers who start making sustainable changes will retain employees and attract new ones that much easier, while those who ignore the need for green, will fall behind. Make no mistake: Canadian workers do not want to work for polluters. 

“Climate change is here and it’s picking up speed unless we all rally together and make a concerted effort to put a wrench in the gears,” concludes Myong. 

Put knowledge to action!  Read Fifteen Tips for a Greener Workplace.

Essential Resources for Greener Workplaces:

Green Workplace Program

Canada Green Building Council

LEED

Green Party of Canada

General Workplace Greening Guides and Manuals 

Corporate Knights

Government of Canada’s Climate Change site 

Diabetes, Cars and Poverty: Viewpoints

Philip argues that diabetes is not entirely due to car culture.  It’s about rampant poverty and access to unhealthy foods.  It seems however that the media hasn’t completely got the “root causes” right in their minds.  As Dr. Dennis Raphael once said – diabetes is an epidemic of the low income.  As the rich poor gap continues to grow, even those in the lower middle income bracket are beginning to feel the pinch – wallet wise and health wise.  

 

Last time I looked at the stats overweight and obesity (a major factor in developing diabetes) had struck nearly 1/3rd of adults and nearly that many children – some of whom are younger than age 14.  How many are low income I wonder?  A recent UN report found that many of the impoverished were children.  My experience so far has been that the statistics have underestimated the extent of this problem.  

 

****

Preville on Politics

When a Paradigm Turns Smug

Posted on November 16, 2007 by Philip Preville

The blog entry you are about to read probably should have been posted one week ago, when its topic—diabetes in suburbia—was more prominent in the news. But reading the Toronto Star’s coverage of the issue had me so hot under the collar I thought I ought to cool off before I wrote anything.

A recent Star cover story proclaimed that, according to a new study, “Diabetes lurks in suburbs.” The coverage included a map showing how the far reaches of Etobicoke and Scarborough had the highest rates of diabetes in the city. What frustrated me was the suggestion—forcefully made by the story’s authors, despite the researchers’ quotes to the contrary—that somehow car culture was partly to blame for the epidemic. This angle was even more pronounced in an ensuing Christopher Hume column, covering a second report on the matter by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, which argued that the suburbs were unhealthy and that “planners must be on the front lines in the battle to get drivers out of their cars and build ‘active communities.”

What’s pernicious about all this is that it overlooks numerous basic facts inherent to the situation. One: driving a car doesn’t cause diabetes. Two: even if it did, the people who are afflicted with obesity and diabetes in these communities are too poor to own a car. The real chain reaction at work here goes like so: malnutrition causes diabetes, and poverty contributes to malnutrition. And the story of how poverty found its way out to the suburbs is more fascinating and more regrettable than anything that’s been reported thus far.

Not long ago, common sense held that downtown was the unhealthy place to live. The poor gravitated there; the streets were unclean and unsafe. So, the affluent (affluence being evidenced by ownership of a car) moved to the suburbs, where living was believed to be healthier and safer—which, if we’re going to be honest about the matter, it truly was, at least for a while. The built form helped make it so: low-density single-family housing meant cleaner air (at least in its early days) and also made it easy to keep track of your neighbours (you could count them on two hands, and you recognized their cars), which in turn made strangers immediately conspicuous.

Today, downtown has returned to a period of ascendancy. Gentrification is everywhere, and condos are selling like hotcakes. But gentrification is a culprit here because it has displaced those too poor to own a car to areas of the city where car ownership is essential to their ability to stay connected to the rest of the world. The affluent moved to the suburbs as a lifestyle choice, but the urban poor did not.

Yes, built form plays a role in the current problem. When fast-food outlets are more numerous and more easily accessible than grocery stores, as is the case in the suburbs, it can contribute to malnutrition. But it’s not the source of the problem. The evidence is right there on the Star’s map: the still-affluent suburban corridor up Yonge Street, where people own lots of cars and use them for all their basic routines—getting to and from work, school, the grocery store, the drycleaner, the fitness club—shows no evidence of succumbing to the diabetes scourge. One of the lessons here is that you can forge a healthy lifestyle out of any built environment if you have enough money.

But what’s truly bizarre about this debate is the general willingness to view a human-health problem as a bricks-and-mortar one—to turn a story about diabetes into a story about low-density housing. The buildings don’t need fixing; the people need help. And given that gentrification played a role in creating this problem, I am not inclined to believe that some sort of downtown-style re-gentrification of the suburbs will solve it.

http://www.torontolife.com/blog/preville-politics/2007/nov/16/when-paradigm-turns-smug/

Grains of truth: Growing Opportunity

Dr. Roberts, Director of the Toronto Food Policy Council gives us yet another look at a golden opportunity to grow a livelihood and inclusiveness.  There are a lot of ethnic or specialty crops that are changing the fortunes of near-urban farmers and peoples.  According to Roberts:

“…new agriculture will feature small and nimble entrepreneurial farmers who use their expensive and high quality land to serve nearby customers with special needs”

 

North American farmers have a history of growing foods to meet the needs of newcomers since the 1600s.  What was fascinating was the history and value of dandelions, purslane and amaranth:

“Dandelions became a cash food crop because they were favoured by members of the mass Italian migration to Canada during the 1950s and 60s.”

“Purslane, one of Ontario’s most common weeds, fared less well. A valued salad green in many parts of the Middle East and Asia, it’s only used here as chicken feed or killed as an invader.”

“Amaranth greens, too, grow wild here (one version is known as pigweed), but is rarely grown commercially, despite the fact that UN agencies see it as a prime crop for preventing malnutrition and Caribbean islanders use it in callaloo soup.”

Personally I don’t use amaranth as much as I use quinoa.  Amaranth, quinoa and teff are all highly nutritious grains.  Great for baking and as a side dish.  

 

According to Dr. Roberts, many of the world’s most nutritious grains survive because they’re fed to animals or birds (oats for the former and millet/hemp for the latter).  Another is sorghum:

“…sorghum is featured on Rwanda’s coat of arms and is a nutrient-dense staple eaten as a cereal and converted on special occasions into the local version of champagne. Geez, we only grow it for livestock…”

 

What’s coming to the forefront in all of this is that having enough food and nutrition isn’t enough to define food sovereignty or the right to control one’s food in all ways.  These foods will be increasingly seen as efforts towards fostering inclusion.  

 

Dr. Roberts also discusses the bitter melon which is found to be of great medicinal and health value in terms of reversing chronic diseases and perhaps diabetes.  It seems like a great opportunity.  Personally I was never a fan of that melon and yet if it helps out other farmers, individuals and communities I say we should go for cultivating it.  I know my grandmother used to grow these melons 10 years ago when she was still alive.  Might be interesting to see their return. 

****

Grains of truth

Guru asks why our ethnic diversity hasn’t prompted local farmers to grow the world’s most savoured grasses

By WAYNE ROBERTS

Now Toronto – Toronto,Ontario,Canada

I’m sitting in Addis Ababa, an Ethiopian restaurant on Queen West, trying to do a selling job on an ethnic farming specialist.

Try this, I tell Rutgers University’s Bill Sciarappa, offering him a piece of injera, the tart flatbead served with beans, veggies and meat. I’m hoping to convince him that teff, the grain from which it is made, could be grown in Ontario instead of imported, as it almost all is, from Idaho.

“Oh, you mean Ethiopian lovegrass,” he says, as he and the owner joke about the fact that the grass is treated as a weed in New Jersey and fed to livestock.

Sciarappa’s business is repositioning ethnic food as what he likes to call “world food.” That’s why FarmStart, an org promoting the needs of immigrants who want a career in food production, invited him in the last week of November to address three southern Ontario workshops in Toronto, Guelph and Durham Region.

Sciarappa, who wants to let a thousand bitter melons bloom, likes to tell farmers in New Jersey, the Garden State, to “get progressive or get out.” The phrase is a jab at the infamous slogan of 1950s agribusiness: “Get big or get out.” His mission is to help local farmers start serving an untapped billion-dollar market for “ethnic” fruit and veggies.

And he’s clear that Ontario’s hard-pressed farmers have the same bigbuck opportunity, since the GTA is home to as many immigrant taste buds as the market he’s targeting – the entire U.S. eastern seaboard.

The argument for hundreds of new (to North America) crops is only partly about farmers shielding themselves from low prices by finding “specialty crop” niches unaffected by the glutted markets and panic sales that typify meat, peas and potatoes.

Sciarappa tells policy wonks that specialty crops are reorienting the economic landscape of near-urban farming. The new agriculture will feature small and nimble entrepreneurial farmers who use their expensive and high-quality land to serve nearby customers with special needs.

“Think of how your food looks on a plate,” the ag adviser at a leading U.S. university tells farmers, many of whom know more about what their crop looks like on a loading dock, because they were trained to leave the “value-added” of preparing food for the table to giant processors.

But there’s a lot more involved here than helping farmers find new markets. Let’s remember that North American farmers have been growing new crops for immigrants since the 1600s, when they pushed Aboriginal peoples off the land and started raising wheat, chicken, pigs, cows and steers along with key native crops like corn, potatoes, squash and tobacco. So there’s nothing new about reorienting food production to newcomers.

We’ve already had broad experience with encouraging new growing patterns, though we still have a long way to go. Dandelions became a cash food crop because they were favoured by members of the mass Italian migration to Canada during the 1950s and 60s. Purslane, one of Ontario’s most common weeds, fared less well. A valued salad green in many parts of the Middle East and Asia, it’s only used here as chicken feed or killed as an invader.

Amaranth greens, too, grow wild here (one version is known as pigweed), but is rarely grown commercially, despite the fact that UN agencies see it as a prime crop for preventing malnutrition and Caribbean islanders use it in callaloo soup.

Sciarappa was also intrigued to learn from Rwanda-born Patrick Habamenshi, a staffer with FarmStart, that sorghum is featured on Rwanda’s coat of arms and is a nutrient-dense staple eaten as a cereal and converted on special occasions into the local version of champagne. Geez, we only grow it for livestock, says Sciarappa. Indeed, many of the world’s most nutritious grains survive mainly because they’re fed to animals (oats for example) or birds (millet or hemp).

Sciarappa grew up on a small New Jersey farm owned by his Italian grandparents in the days when pizza, parsley and eggplant were known as ethnic foods. He hopes today’s generation of immigrants can have even greater success influencing the North American diet.

The new mindset on world foods also comes out of the growing recognition that access to “culturally appropriate foods” (“comfort foods”) is part of what food security experts term “the right to food.”

Sufficient quantities and nutrition are no longer adequate to define the right to food in an increasingly multicultural world, and “specialty” crops may soon be rebranded as inclusive, rather than ethnic.

As well, many world foods come from cultures where they’re defined as having healthful and medicinal, rather than fuel and entertainment, value. A leading light in that trend is bitter melon, or bitter gourd, important in Chinese and Indian cuisines. A growing body of medical research links bitter melon to prevention and reversal of diabetes and related chronic diseases.

Dr. Youbin Zheng, who is experimenting with year-round and fresh bitter melons in Guelph University’s greenhouse, got Sciarappa thinking along those lines.

In some ways, the U.S. is way ahead of us in fostering farming innovation, offering grants for research and assistance. In a country known for its hostility to government intervention in the economy, thousands of experts like Sciarappa are paid to help farmers grow and process new crops.

Maybe that’s another good food idea we could import from elsewhere.

Cultivating diversity

The GTA draws folks from all the corners of the planet – so why aren’t Ontario farmers growing and marketing many of the world’s most nutritious grains and plants?

Amaranth

• An annual herb, not a true grain, a relative of pigweed, also called lamb’s quarters

• One of the staples of the Incas

• Used by ancient Aztecs, who thought it had magical powers; they made images of gods with it

• Burned and banished by the Spanish

• Can be cooked as a cereal, ground into flour, popped or toasted

• Amaranth greens are also called Chinese spinach and callaloo

• Extremely adaptable to adverse growing conditions

• Amaranth, Ontario, is named after the plant, which grows there

Teff

• Ancient grain originating in Ethiopia between 4000 and 1000 BC

• Used for making injera, porridge or flour for baking

• Rich in calcium, protein, carbohydrates and fibre

• Contains no gluten, so it’s good for those with gluten allergies

• Rapid maturation and cold tolerance make it suitable for Canada’s short growing seasons

NOW | DECEMBER 13 – 19, 2007 | VOL. 27 NO. 15

 

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2007-12-13/news_story5.php

What Could $93.8 Billion Extra a Year Do to End Poverty?

The most surprising thing I saw in this article was the fact that Americans believed that 25% of the gross national income was spent on foreign aid.  I found that to be quite funny.  According to Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University), the US spends only 0.22% of the GNI in direct foreign aid or roughly $27.6 billion.  Sachs usually claims that if the developed world spent 0.7% of its total GNI on official foreign aid they could eliminate poverty in the rest of the world.  That amounts to roughly $93.8 billion each year in foreign aid.  Some may dispute that claim yet we have no doubt that it is within the means of the developed nations to do more for the developing nations.  The question is whether those who rule over us will ever willingly do so.  Sweden may have the ability to pull it off yet they are hardly like the giant USA in terms of thinking or culture.  Often when I run across Sach’s comments or articles similar to this I wonder:  “Just imagine if we spent a similar fraction of that money on renewable technologies and sustainable food production.  Think of what we could accomplish!”  

 

****

Humanitarian Response Index: What Could $93.8 Billion Extra a Year Do to End Poverty?

EMILY GERTZ

NOVEMBER 30, 2007 3:24 PM

We’ve written before about making disaster and humanitarian relief efforts more effective. Here’s a new tool to aid such efforts: the Humanitarian Response Index, created by a Madrid-based nonprofit called Dara. Per Foreign Policy’s blog, the index “ranks 22 developed countries plus the European Commission in five categories: response to humanitarian needs; integration of relief with development; work with NGOs; implementation of international law; and promotion of accountability.”

FP highlights findings related to aid given by the United States: in absolute terms, the US ranks high in money given for aid, thanks to the size of the US economy. But it falls well down on the list’s rating overall, because just 0.22 percent of our gross national income (GNI) is spent on aid (based on 2005 numbers), adding up to $27.6 billion.

The funny thing is, most Americans seem to think their country is opening the spigots when it comes to foreign aid. According to statistics compiled by Columbia University professor and FP contributor Jeffrey Sachs, the typical American believes that 25 percent of the gross national income (GNI) is spent on foreign aid. In actuality, the OECD reports that the U.S. provided just 0.22 percent of its GNI in direct foreign aid in 2005, or $27.6 billion.

Sachs claims that poverty could be wiped off the map if the developed world spent 0.7 percent of its total GNI on official foreign aid, yet only five countries do so: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. If the United States followed their example, American taxpayers would shell out approximately $93.8 billion each year in foreign aid…it’s astonishing what could be accomplished if the United States were more like Sweden—in other words, if it increased the U.S. foreign aid budget to 0.7 percent of GNI. For a mere $93.8 billion, the United States could keep all of its current funding commitments and also:

• Fully fund the $22.1 billion needed in 2008 to fight HIV/AIDS in low and middle-income countries, according to UNAIDS.

• Supply the World Food Program with the expected $3.3 billion needed to pay for all of its project operations in 2008.

• Treat the 425 million people infected with malaria every year for $2.40 a pop, for a total cost of $1.02 billion.

• Single-handedly fund the $5.03 billion U.N. peacekeeping budget in 2006.

 

 

Emily Gertz

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007650.html

Local food moving into the mainstream

Local isn’t the end all and be all of everything as much as I love its necessity. It is one of the vital stepping stones we need to rediscover and renew in order to achieve real progress for society and the environment. We cannot change in a night and we must remember the principles of fair trade, ethical purchasing and a living wage for all. No single solution alone will solve all our problems. 

****

Local food moving to the mainstream

By Allison Finnamore

 

One of the hottest trends in food marketing these days is the local food movement. Promoting the benefits of buying agriculture products grown right in consumers’ backyards is breaking through in nearly every sector.

 

The marketing is taking many forms, too. Some programs point out how far food travels to reach consumers’ plates, while other promotions highlight the economic and health benefits of purchasing food grown closer to home.

 

The marketing seems to be working. Statistics show the public trend towards purchasing sustainable food has increased 92 per cent since the beginning of 2007, according to Mike Schreiner, vice president of Local Food Plus, an Ontario-based local food organization.

 

“What’s clear to me is that the local food movement has gone mainstream,” Schreiner says.

 

By pointing out that local food supports local agriculture, which supports the local economy while protecting farmland, Schreiner says it creates a winning combination for producers. In addition, local food programs need to stress that food purchased from nearby farms is often as affordable as non-local food, and of higher quality. Price is often the scapegoat of why shoppers stray to imported food, but Schreiner believes consumers are willing to pay more now.

 

“The number one desire of consumers is an authentic food experience. People want the real deal and they vote with their dollars,” he states.

 

And while it creates the opportunity to turn much of agriculture into a “value driven market,” Schreiner also acknowledges the realities encountered by farm producers. It’s hard to compete with imported food produced in countries with lower wages, but he maintains that consumers are ready to make the switch to local food.

 

“Buyers are willing to pay more for products that reflect their values,” Schreiner says, adding that if local food practices are agreeable to neighbouring residents, customers will support the initiative.

 

Schreiner believes this rising interest is about to plateau and hold steady.

 

“We’re in this huge spike upwards – the interest is going to wane soon and local food is going to become the new norm,” he predicts.

 

In 1999, Bob Kerr and his team decided to focus on growing for the local market. The driver? Farm income was declining with traditional farming practices. He saw the need to identify a niche market and opted to venture into organic food production, embracing the opportunity to promote local food at the same time.

 

Kerr farms 1,700 acres of crop and pasture land at his farm in Kent County, Ont. Of that, 1,100 acres is certified organic land where he has field-scale production of crops like tomatoes, eggplant, asparagus, squash, feed corn, soybeans and green peas for both processing and fresh food markets as well as beef.

 

“The commodity prices were low; farming was not as profitable,” Kerr recalls. “What could we do to get back to a decent level of income? I set out to make changes and farm organically and develop niche markets.”

 

Kerr believes in a strong future for local food production with room for the industry to expand. However, he cautions producers just entering the field to be patient as they develop their new contacts and get themselves established as local producers.

 

“It’s a new opportunity to make a living and make a better living as the market develops, but there is a learning curve,” he says.

 

Kerr says the key ingredient to success is selling shoppers on the opportunity to buy locally grown food.

 

“Local food is important because that’s a competitive advantage that the greenhouses in Mexico can’t take away from us. It opens new markets and creates new opportunities for local farmers.” ?

 

Local food production programs abound across the country. In some cases, agriculture producers are joining together to form marketing groups. In other cases, the grower groups are taking on the job. Various levels of government are also starting local food promotion programs, with provincial governments, counties and municipalities in various locations in Canada getting in on promotion.

 

Here is a brief overview of some programs across the country:

 

Ontario’s Local Food Plus is a non-profit organization bringing “farmers and consumers to the table to share in the benefits of environmentally and socially responsible food production.” Producers and processors go through a certification system and are linked with local purchasers.

 

Eat B.C.! campaign is a provincially operated program targeting restaurants, grocery stores, farm markets, universities and cafeterias and some health care facilities.

 

Select Nova Scotia is a provincially driven program backed by support from the food services sector, agriculture and grocery stores. The program is working to increase awareness and consumer knowledge. Increased consumption within government is also a goal. Already, local products have been made available in health care and justice institutes.

 

January/February 2008

AgriSuccess Journal

http://www.fcc-fac.ca/en/LearningCentre/journal/index.asp?main=4&sub1=journal&sub2=na&sub3=na

Making Clean Energy Real in China

The clean energy project in Rizhao below illustrates the potential for a “race to the top” where we set the bar higher and watch businesses innovate to meet it instead of trying to find the cheapest, dirtiest and most human/environmentally unfriendly way to make a quick buck.  The clean energy project is an excellent example of why policy is integral to making green and socially just solutions viable & lightning quick to implement.  North America could learn a thing or two from Rizhao.  It would be useful if we could capture even a fraction of the Asian work ethic on the environmental front in terms of economics and policy in some cases.  

 

One impressive example that I came across:

“Solar water heaters are currently installed in 99 percent of all buildings in Rizhao’s urban area, and in more than 30 percent of residences in rural areas. Additionally, more than 6,000 families in Rizhao use solar cookers in their kitchens. During the fallow months, a transparent, biodegradable film is used to cover approximately 470 million square meters of the city’s farmland to allow for an increase in the land temperature and faster maturation of crops in the spring. The city is also home to more than 560,000 square meters of solar photovoltaic panels, which have effectively reduced conventional electricity usage by 348 million kilowatthours per year.”

 

I wish my house had a solar hot water heater and cooker.  What brings a smile to my face is the fact that their building codes are actually forward thinking and progressive!  It requires solar water heating in all building designs.  Of course there’s similar things going on in Germany, Japan and Portland, Oregon (in terms of integrating green roofs into building designs).  

 

Another fascinating innovation was their marsh gas technology.  It allows Rizhao to generate energy from agricultural waste water which means they use 3100 tons less coal per year.  I’m in support of this as long as it doesn’t take all the nutrients that food production needs to thrive.  They claimed that their power generators would reduce coal use this year by 36000 tons which has me a bit confused as to their previous claim.  Regardless I am somewhat heartened to see another attempt at making green a mainstream thing though we’re a long way from reaching a widespread milestone.  

****

Mainstreaming Clean Energy in Rizhao, China

WORLDCHANGING TEAM

JULY 31, 2007 8:08 AM

On June 15, the city of Rizhao, China, received a 2007 World Clean Energy Award (WCEA) in the category of “Policy and Lawmaking” for its popularization of clean energy. The award’s presenters noted that in a nation known for its heavy dependence on coal, Rizhao represents an inspiring example of the mainstreaming of renewable energy sources. Large-scale solar power and marsh gas applications in the city directly benefit more than 1.5 million residents, dramatically reducing their yearly energy costs while providing other environmental and health benefits.

Policy and lawmaking by Rizhao’s local administration have been instrumental in bringing about the city’s energy revolution. Since his appointment in 2001, Mayor Lizhaoqian and the Rizhao Municipal Government have adopted several measures and policies aimed at popularizing clean energy technology, including the Regulations on Implementing Solar Energy and Construction Integration that standardize the use of solar energy—particularly solar water heaters—in new buildings. Building examiners must approve all construction procedures before the buildings are sanctioned, and any blueprints that lack built-in solar water heaters will fail to pass final approval.

Solar water heaters are currently installed in 99 percent of all buildings in Rizhao’s urban area, and in more than 30 percent of residences in rural areas. Additionally, more than 6,000 families in Rizhao use solar cookers in their kitchens. During the fallow months, a transparent, biodegradable film is used to cover approximately 470 million square meters of the city’s farmland to allow for an increase in the land temperature and faster maturation of crops in the spring. The city is also home to more than 560,000 square meters of solar photovoltaic panels, which have effectively reduced conventional electricity usage by 348 million kilowatthours per year.

More than 15,000 residential units in Rizhao use technologies that allow them to generate marsh gas from agricultural waste water, with the units capable of generating up to 230,000 cubic meters daily. Currently, the city’s annual marsh gas production is 4.5 million cubic meters, which replaces the use of some 3,100 tons of coal annually. Installed marsh gas power generators have a total production capacity of 13,500 kilowatthours, which would reduce the use of coal this year by 36,000 tons.

Mayor Lizhaoqian and his team note that one of the key challenges for China is finding solutions to develop and rapidly scale up the use of sustainable, clean energy. Speaking of China’s economic advancement, he articulated that, “to maintain a high growth rate of the economy, restriction by energy and environment is nowadays an inevitable problem in China. Therefore, it has been an important task during the economic and social development in China to search for new energies, develop energy efficiency technologies, reduce environmental pollution, and build a resource-saving society.”

According to the WCEA presenters, Rizhao’s many achievements highlight the great potential for government policy and legislation to achieve major changes in the energy sector in a relatively short period of time. Upon receiving the award, Mayor Lizhaoqian said it was “a great honor and encouragement for our work…. Winning the award enhances our confidence and determination to make more efforts on clean energy, and it will have significant and long-term influence on the popularization and utilization of clean energy in our city.” He noted that his administration will continue to explore new approaches to popularize and utilize clean energy, in an effort to build Rizhao into “an eco-city featuring energy efficiency, sound ecology, and a beautiful environment.”

Ishani Mukherjee writes for Eye on Earth (e²), a service of World Watch Magazine in partnership with the blue moon fund. e² provides a unique perspective on current events, newly released studies, and important global trends.

Mainstreaming Clean Energy in Rizhao, China

The Weight of Place: Gender & Poverty

The study in the journal below looked at the impact of poverty on the weight of women and men using the body mass index measure (BMI).  Granted BMI isn’t perfect however after one considers the groups involved in the study there are likely to be massive differences that will come out even with a BMI measurement.  

 

The study accounted for factors that might have confused things such as smoking, etc.  Overall it found what we already knew from a large amount of evidence in the past:  people living in greater poverty tend to weigh a lot more than people who are well off.  Capiche?  We’ve heard about this for what seems like ages now.  

 

What the researchers found striking was the huge difference between men and women.  Women living in high poverty areas often weighed 11 lbs more than women in the wealthiest neighbourhoods.  For men it was the reverse – wealthy fellows weighed 7 lbs more than men living in very poor areas.  

 

What does this tell us?  It tells us that poverty do different things to men and women – so we’ve got to consider the gender differences.  It means that lifestyle and behaviour of individual people doesn’t explain everything about weight gain.  It means that we need strong government policy to change things.  Not everyone has the iron will to save themselves.  We’ve got to create an environment that fosters good and healthy habits, provides significantly more access to good and healthy foods and that provides a living, sustainable wage.  It seems these days that governments are more interested in profits for already rich owners of big business than overall well being of the populace.  That’s what has to change.  

 

****

Social Science & Medicine 

Volume 66, Issue 3, February 2008, Pages 675-690   

 

The weight of place: A multilevel analysis of gender, neighborhood material deprivation, and body mass index among Canadian adults 

 

Flora I. Mathesona, d, , , Rahim Moineddinb, c,  and Richard H. Glaziera, b, c,   

aCenter for Research on Inner City Health, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B1W8 

bDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T1W7 

cInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4N3M5 

dDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3M7 

 

Available online 26 November 2007. 

 

Abstract 

This study examined the impact of neighborhood material deprivation on gender differences in body mass index (BMI) for urban Canadians. Data from a national health survey of adults (Canadian Community Health Survey Cycles 1.1/2.1) were combined with census tract-level neighborhood data from the 2001 census. 

 

Using multilevel analysis we found that living in neighborhoods with higher material deprivation was associated with higher BMI. Compared to women living in the most affluent neighborhoods, women living in the most deprived neighborhoods had a BMI score 1.8 points higher. For women 1.65 m in height (5′4″ inches), this translated into a 4.8 kg or 11 lb difference. For men, living in affluent neighborhoods was associated with higher BMI (7 lb) relative to men living in deprived neighborhoods. The relative disadvantage for men living in pockets of affluence and women living in pockets of poverty persisted after adjusting for age, married and visible minority status, educational level, self-perceived stress, sense of belonging, and lifestyle factors, including smoking, exercise, diet, and chronic health conditions. 

 

The implication of these disparate findings for men and women is that interventions that lead to healthy weight control may need to be gender responsive. Our findings also suggest that what we traditionally have thought to be triggering factors for weight gain and maintenance of unhealthy BMI—lifestyle and behavioral factors—are not sufficient explanations. Indeed, these factors account for only a portion of the explanation of why neighborhood stress is associated with BMI. Cultural attitudes about the body that pressure women to meet the thin ideal which can lead to an unhealthy cycle of dieting and, subsequent weight gain, and the general acceptability of the heavier male need to be challenged. Education and intervention within a public health framework remain important targets for producing healthy weight. 

 

Keywords: Body mass index (BMI); Neighborhoods; Gender; Multilevel model; Material deprivation; Canada; Gender 

 

 

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 416 864 6060; fax: +1 416 864 5485.