Democracy blasted by vicious lawsuits

I’ve been hearing more and more about how developers and big business have been using civil lawsuits against anyone who opposes them.  They’ve got the money – lots of it.  We’re talking about lawsuits in the millions.  Most people can’t afford to take on such attacks and have been forced to withdraw or stand silent.  Rick Smith of Environmental Defence and Devon Page from EcoJustice are at the forefront of a counter movement to stop this “chilling” effect on our right to speak freely.  Their comment article in the Toronto Star appeared recently.  The Ontario government could stop this as we well know.  Alas, it is obvious that government support for big business may well trump support for the people.  

****

Democracy suffers under barrage of strategic lawsuits

February 26, 2008

Rick Smith

Devon Page

As the old saying goes, “Big oaks from little acorns grow.”

 

So it has been in recent years in southern Ontario with small local land management disputes mushrooming into much more widespread and profound debates.

 

The standoff between concerned citizens and developers on the crest of the Oak Ridges Moraine in October 2003 led the newly elected McGuinty government to expedite its greenbelt commitment. Sometimes the very name of a specific controversy – “Ipperwash” for instance – comes to symbolize much larger social issues.

 

What we are witnessing at the moment is the making of another such seminal land use conflict.

 

On the western shore of Lake Simcoe at a place called Big Bay Point a dispute between concerned citizens and a developer is fast becoming another key test for all Ontarians and their provincial government.

 

What is at stake is nothing less than the democratic process itself. And whether ordinary citizens can continue to defend their communities and their environment without fear of devastating financial liability.

 

The proposed Big Bay Point development is a resort proposal of unprecedented size for this part of the province. In December, the Ontario Municipal Board approved a huge hotel and condominium complex including substantial commercial space and a 1,000 slip mega-marina.

 

Because the developer, Geranium Corporation, actually owns only about 200 feet of expensive lake frontage, the creation of this huge project will necessitate the digging of a new thirty-acre lake, the equivalent of more than 15 football fields.

 

Not surprisingly, the Big Bay Point development has elicited opposition because of its potential negative impact on the already threatened Lake Simcoe and the precedent it will set.

 

Opposition to the project is hazardous: Geranium has filed at least four separate lawsuits against its critics for a total of approximately $90 million. These lawsuits allege things like libel, intentional interference with economic relations and conspiracy.

 

In addition, the local ratepayer group (the Innisfil District Association or IDA) and its lawyers are the subject of an extraordinary cost claim for $3.6 million at the OMB. The developer has taken the highly unusual step of seeking the award against the lawyers personally and against their firm. As a result, the law firm has had to withdraw from the case and hire its own lawyer to defend itself.

 

Geranium has indicated that opposition to its project was justified until the various public agencies signed off at the OMB. From that point on, it argues, the actions of the IDA and its lawyers were vexatious and they should receive indemnity for every penny spent.

 

Some local residents were too frightened to testify at the OMB hearing despite being given assurances their testimony was protected privilege. And at least one other citizens group in Simcoe County has dropped its opposition to an ongoing development project specifically citing their fear of liability for the kinds of costs being sought in the Big Bay Point case as the reason.

 

This type of litigation could be characterized as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) as the phenomenon has been recognized by some legislators and judges in the United States and British Columbia. An action which effectively silences any and all criticism.

 

According to the SLAPP Resource Centre at the University of Colorado, a “SLAPP” is a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against individuals or organizations arising from their communications to government or speech on an issue of public interest or concern.

 

SLAPPs often are brought by corporations, real estate developers, government officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose them on issues of public concern. SLAPP filers frequently use lawsuits based on ordinary civil claims as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits.

 

Statements of defence filed by members of the IDA are nearly identical: “This action, like many actions commenced by Geranium in this and other jurisdictions, is being brought by the plaintiff for the improper purpose of exerting pressure on (the IDA member) so that he would not publicly oppose the Plaintiff’s project (Big Bay Point resort).”

 

While most SLAPPs lose in court, they succeed in the public arena. This is because defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defence is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time and resources. The resulting effect is a “chill” on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. This chilling effect is not limited to the SLAPP target(s): fearful of being the target of future litigation, others refrain from speaking on, or participating in, issues of public concern.

 

The developer at Big Bay Point argues the citizens and their lawyers wasted a lot of time at the hearing. The total length of IDA’s direct evidence was five days, the whole hearing lasted less than 25, making it one of the shorter OMB hearings in Ontario history for a project of this size.

 

Environmental Defence has launched an application before the OMB to intervene and oppose the motion for $3.6 million in costs. Specifically, it will put before the OMB the latest legal understanding of SLAPP suit litigation to enable the board to evaluate this unprecedented cost application in a proper legal context. Environmental Defence has hired eminent civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby to argue this case on its behalf.

 

The threat of chilling public participation in planning is already occurring and the McGuinty government has the power and is obliged to stop it. As a party to the original OMB hearing, the Ontario government must oppose this cost application as being inimical to democratic participation and Ontario must catch up to the 20 or so U.S. states and British Columbia that have passed anti-SLAPP legislation to protect their citizens. Ontario needs such legislation as soon as possible.

 

Protection for the public from future intimidation must become the legacy of this awful episode in land-use planning history. In the absence of government action, no citizen in their would ever again appear in front of the Ontario Municipal Board.

 

Rick Smith is executive director of Environmental Defence. Devon Page is acting executive director of Ecojustice Canada.

 

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/306752

Seeds of Ignorance: GM Foods Anyone?

Dr. Aruna Handa on the World Food Day 2007 panel at Ryerson University told the audience of a story where Loblaws managed to threaten a beer brewery (a local Toronto one – I believe she said they were called Uno) the right to label their beer as GMO free.  This occurred while she was looking for suppliers for her 100 mile dinner event.  Loblaws apparently did not want to compete against any companies that had such a label since all of their products are GMO sourced.  

 

I don’t doubt the impacts of GM have been hidden.  There are only a few trickles here and there.  Such as the failure of genetically modified Bt cotton in India to provide promised wealth and other instances of increased herbicide use with GM crops, GM crops getting into the food supply causing fatal allergic reactions, so on and so forth.  

****

From: , Organic Consumers Association

Published January 29, 2008 02:11 PM

Eco-Farm: Seeds of Ignorance: Investigative Journalist Reveals Serious Safety Concerns About GM Food

Note: For the next few days I’ll be reporting from Eco-Farm, the annual conference held by the Ecological Farming Association of California. At Eco-Farm, some 1,400-1,500 organic farmers, Big Organic marketers, and sundry sustainable-ag enthusiasts pack into a rustic, beautiful seaside conference hall an hour-and-a-half south of San Francisco to talk farming amid the dunes.

I’ve been writing about genetically modified food since I first took up food-politics writing back in 2005. My lens has always been corporate power and biodiversity. I saw GM seeds as yet one more way corporations siphon profit out of the food system, brazenly claiming ownership of a broad chunk of humanity’s seed heritage.

I also saw the explosion of a few GM seed varieties — particularly for cotton, corn and soy — as a reckless narrowing of the already razor-thin genetic basis of modern agriculture.

In short, I’ve been portraying the GM phenomenon as an intensification of an industrialization process that began a century or so ago; but I haven’t written much about the radical break with the past the technology represents — and in particular, its health implications.

Honestly, since GM food entered the food supply so suddenly and broadly — introduced in 1995, GMOs were appearing in 70 percent of U.S. by 2000 — I figured it must be just as nutritionally suspect as normal industrial food, but no more. After all, if GM food actually introduced new dangers, wouldn’t we know it by now? Wouldn’t there be some huge outcropping of disease or something?

 

After attending an Eco-Farm workshop by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, I see that I may have been hoodwinked. Smith delivers compelling evidence that GM foods do pose significant health risks — evidence that the GM seed industry has managed to suppress.

Eric Schlosser, Michael Pollan, Marion Nestle, and other writers have driven home the point that our food system can only thrive under a cloak of broad, industry-generated ignorance. The explosion in GM foods represents a great triumph in the history of manufactured ignorance. Smith reports that polls show that 55 percent of Americans believe that GM foods haven’t entered the food supply. Another 15 percent say they’re not sure.

It’s in that context that we have to interpret the recent statement by a food-industry flack that “most consumers are not concerned about biotech.” That’s a lie. Most consumers don’t know that their food supply is shot through with biotech.

And that’s no accident. Industry has scotched every effort to require labeling for GM food.

It has also managed to squelch evidence that GM foods cause all manner of health troubles. In his presentation, Smith pointed to several studies from the 1990s showing rats fed GM food suffered liver damage, reproductive problems, and more.

That evidence was suppressed within the FDA — and suspect industry-funded research was accepted in its place. Since then, the further study — needed, no doubt — of the health impacts of GM food has gone unfunded. I don’t have time to tease out particulars of this story now, but will soon, as I feel that it has been dramatically underreported.

How did that happen? Good old crony capitalism, evidently. In 1994, Smith reports, the Clinton administration created a new position within the FDA for a man named Michael Taylor: deputy commissioner of policy. His charge was to oversee safety concerns around GM food. Before taking that portfolio, Taylor had been a lawyer for Monsanto.

He spent much of the rest of the decade breaking down regulatory hurdles to GM food. For his good work, Monsanto later rewarded him with a lucrative vice president position. Someone should ask Hillary Clinton how her own view of Monsanto and GM foods differs from that of her husband.

But if GM foods are inherently unhealthy — even worse than regular industrial food — why haven’t we seen more health troubles? When I contemplate that question, I reflect that everyone I know who’s over 30 either rigorously avoids industrial food — or relies on the pharmaceutical industry to get through their days. And I think about accelerating obesity and diabetes rates, a seeming epidemic of allergies and asthma among children, etc., etc.

It’s a brilliant strategy, really. In a society already beset with chronic ailments and reliant on pharmaceuticals, you can introduce a whole array of dangerous foods, and no one would even notice.

Cloned burgers, anyone?

 

 

http://www.enn.com/agriculture/spotlight/30217/print

Can Organics Feed the World? Riposte?

An article by Taste TO written about the recent Visionary Farmers and Visionary Consumers organic conference (Feb 16) that I helped to organize.  It’s a good summary of some of the major issues that came out that day.  The conference overall was a success from the intense energy and the overwhelming number of people who attended.  Nearly everyone stayed to the end (felt like 90%).  Must have been Helge (grins).  

 

When I did my article on organic food (http://homepage.mac.com/sunny.lam/articles/goodcleanfair2008original.pdf) – I also looked into the question of whether organics could feed the world.  To say the least, it’s still quite the question and I’ve yet to reserve a final judgment.  

 

I think the key idea here is food sovereignty or the right for people to control the food system – produce and eat what we want to eat and not have our choices made for us.  (http://www.nyeleni2007.org/spip.php?article290)

****

 

Can Organics Feed the World?

Posted by Sheryl Kirby in SOLE food, event reviews, events, farm to table, politics on February 19, 2008 at 7:29 am

 

 Can organics feed the world?

 

This question was posed to the closing panel at this year’s Canadian Organic Growers Conference. Organic farmers, food producers, nutritionists and writers convened in Toronto this past Saturday to examine the issues and explore how organics is changing the world.

 

The day-long event included a keynote speech by Helge Hellberg of Marin Organic from Marin County California, who is hard at work to make Marin the first completely organic county in the United States. Hellberg, a Certified Holistic Nutrition Counselor recounted a visit to Marin County by Prince Charles, who is one of the world’s leading supporters of the organic movement to visit the Marin County farmers market. Hellberg’s inspiring speech set the tone for the day, as participants broke off into different seminars that ranged in topics directed towards farmers, food producers and consumers.

 

 

With The Canada Organic Regime coming into effect as of December 14th, 2008, organic farmers and food producers are working hard to ensure organic integrity. Everyone in the industry is excited about the new regulations as a means to differentiate organic products from mainstream ones, but much discussion centred around the fact that the government, whose job it will be to enforce certification standards, does not have a background in organic principles.

 

This certification doesn’t mean, of course, that organics will automatically be available everywhere. The struggle to not only make organics more accessible, but to encourage stores to stock them and customers to buy them, continues.

 

Dr. Laura Telford of The Canadian Organic Growers offered the following advice:

 

customers should demand organic food from all places they buy food, such as supermarkets, farmer’s markets, etc

take responsibility for getting the right info. This may well be the most difficult and time consuming aspect of figuring out what we’re eating but is imperative to being an informed consumer

inform yourself about the reality of conventional food systems

being informed helps to avoid “grocery store paralysis” in which consumers are overwhelmed by opposing information and marketing and don’t know what to buy

Dr. Telford also spoke on the second panel I attended on the topic of organic and local. At that discussion she stated that she preferred to see the word “local” purged from our lexicon in favour of the term “food sovereignty”, a system that would empower farmers to control food systems, and give consumers the right to sustainably-grown food. She questioned some of the given assumptions of the locavore way of eating, such as the purported economic and environmental benefits, citing instead that creating shorter foodchains overall would be a wiser goal.

 

Potential confusion comes into the mix with Local Food Plus (LFP), represented on the panel by founder Lori Staalbrand. LFP offers their own certification system for local foods and works to foster systems between farmers and processors, as well as consumers. LFP has set up partnerships with businesses like Il Fornello, Fiesta Farms and even University of Toronto.

 

She points out that farmers involved in the LFP partnership with Fiesta Farms have seen their sales double, and as LFP’s goal is to support local farmland and diversity (and by extension local farmers) Staalbrand feels that we can have a sustainable system that includes both local and organic. With half of LFP-certified farms also carrying organic certification, creating produce that is both local and organic seems an achievable goal.

 

In the final seminar of the day, in which the panel was asked “Can Organics Feed the World?” panelists determined that at present, it could not. Currently, demand exceeds production and organics are seen as a threat to conventional food production. A plethora of issues that include First World subsidies and an increased demand for conventional crops to produce ethanol all offer the potential for organics to expand considerably in coming years, but consumers need to keep themselves informed of the issues and both buy organic products and demand them when they are not available.

 

Telford suggested that organic farmers and producers sift through the practices of the conventional food world to see what works and what procedures could be adapted to an organic system. With most organic farmers working on smaller farms, co-operative systems could also be put in place to allow each farmer to maximize output and profit.

 

Can organics feed the world? There was a time, not too many decades ago, when organic was the default system, and farmers managed to feed the world reasonably well. The most poignant moment of the day came when Alvin Filsinger got up to accept the Lifetime Organic Hero award. A video showed Filsinger and his wife working their apple farm back in the 40s, while Filsinger related their first use of DDT, a product he had been told would make his life easier and more productive. He had come across a robin’s nest full of eggs about to hatch, and checked the thing daily. Shortly after he sprayed the orchard with DDT, he checked the nest again to discover all the eggs had rotted, the chicks dying without ever having hatched. It was then that he made the decision to abandon the pesticides and continue to farm organically.

 

Feeding the world is a huge goal, one that we cannot, at present, heap onto the shoulders of organic farmers. However, there are myriad reasons to choose organic products, to buy them where available, and demand them where they are not. Supporting organic food systems, particularly local ones, not only provides the food sovereignty Telford advises, but makes the earth a better place overall.

Food Comparisons Around the World

From my friend Hilary Davies, who’s coordinating the GreenUp 2008 Festival in Kingston and one of the current co-coordinators of the the local food initiative Food Down the Road. So how much do families around the world buy and eat in one week? Check out the link below… ****This link is worth checking out- it compares what families eat from different countries. It makes one think about food, lifestyle, marketing, consumption, eating habits and coffee room snacks….http://www.popoonworld.com/whatiseaten.html–Hilary Davies (BSc, BEd, MES) GreenUP! 2008 Coordinator A Celebration of Earth-Friendly Living www.greenupfestival.ca Sunday, March 30th 10am-4pm Bioscience Complex Atrium at Queen’s University

Crop biofuels ‘create carbon debt’

 

According to some recent studies, biofuels can in certain cases produce more greenhouse gas emission than burning fossil fuels.  The reason?  Changing land use in order to grow the crops offsets any advantages of growing the biofuels.  Of course it depends on the crop used and the area.  For the EU and the US, using corn ethanol (which we know is a pretty bad idea all round) it would take 167 years to make up for all the carbon we released from converting the land just to grow the ethanol.  In fact, greenhouse gas emissions of “corn” based ethanol could be twice that from gasoline.  

 

Soybean – a very demand crop – would create biodiesel that would take 320 years to make up for changing the land.  Brazil has it better as their biodiesel and sugarcane based ethanol would take 37 and 17 years to pay back for changing the land.  

 

Of course, as always we recall the food security issues involved.  If we use land to grow crops for energy we have less food for ourselves.  I’m not going to harp any more on the negative.  Let’s just keep things in mind shall we?

****

Published February 18, 2008 09:17 AM

Two studies have shown that changes in land use to produce crop-based biofuels can actually result in more greenhouse-gas emissions than burning fossil fuels.

The studies, both published in Science last week (8 February), estimate the impact of converting forests and grasslands into cropland for the production of biofuels.

Both conclude that the resulting carbon emissions, released through decomposition or burning of biomass, create a ‘carbon debt’ that takes decades or even centuries to be paid back through biofuel usage.

This finding undermines previous claims that substituting fossil fuels with biofuels should offset greenhouse-gas emissions because biofuels sequester carbon while they grow.

According to Timothy Searchinger, researcher at Princeton University and the lead author of one of the studies, previous assessments did not include the carbon storage and sequestration sacrificed when diverting land from its existing use.

 

 

Searchinger and colleagues looked at the use of US cropland to produce corn-based ethanol and calculated it would take 167 years to repay carbon emissions resulting from land-use change, and that in 30 years greenhouse-gas emissions from corn ethanol could be nearly double those from gasoline.

“Biofuels in the US and Europe are increasing the price of crops, which naturally results in more efforts to clear land. In that way, farmers make more money,” he says.

Much of this land clearing will occur in Brazil, China and India, the authors write.

In the other study, by the Nature Conservancy and University of Minnesota, researchers estimate carbon debts and pay back years for different cases of conversion from native vegetation.

They found soybean biodiesel produced on converted Amazonian rainforest would take around 320 years to gain a ‘carbon benefit’ over petroleum diesel. For biodiesel and sugarcane-based ethanol produced on Brazilian cerrado — tropical savannah — the estimations are 37 and 17 years, respectively. 

Improving the productivity of agricultural land, creating biofuels from waste biomass and municipal waste, or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural land, are all ways to avoid the need for a change in land use, the authors suggest.

The results of the studies do not surprise Roberto Schaeffer, researcher at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. “Nobody thought deforestation for biofuel production would be a good solution,” he told SciDev.Net.

“Biofuels are only effective in specific situations, as in the case of Brazilian ethanol. It is possible to increase production without devastating forests.”

Link to the article by Searchinger et al [85kB]

Link to article by Fargione et al [93kB]

 

http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/spotlight/31344/print

Any Sense? Burning Waste?

The issue here is whether there is enough methane in landfills to be worth doing this, whether all of this gas easily accessible and whether doing this simply means that we keep dumping more organic waste in landfills in order to produce methane.  Though biogas may reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than composting in some cases, it means we’re losing out on nutrients to return to the land, maintain life at its base or to grow food.

 

There are other ways to reduce greenhouse gases which are more effective and make more sense.  Like increasing automobile efficiency, public transport or reducing the size of massive livestock farms.  Of course, taking into account the local situation is the biggest point to keep in mind in all cases.  

****

Combustion Of Waste May Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2007) — A joint research project of VTT and Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) has proved that development of waste management is a cost-efficient means to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Considerable reductions can be achieved by combustion of waste and by collecting methane from landfills. The collected methane can either be used directly in energy production or flared off, i.e. eliminated through combustion without energy production.

 

Landfills are significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions, mostly because of methane. Compared with carbon dioxide, methane is a twenty times stronger greenhouse gas, and landfills originate 4 % of the anthropogenic emissions. To reduce the emissions, the greenhouse gases generated in landfills should be collected, and biodegradable waste should be treated by other methods than landfilling.

According to the results of the study, treatment methods for biodegrad-able waste – composting and digestion – reduce the greenhouse gas emissions compared with landfilling. Biogas production in a digestion plant yields more emission reductions than composting, if the biogas can be utilized for production of heat, electricity, or traffic fuel. The efficiency is even better if the separation of waste components takes place already at the source and if fossile fuels are replaced by biogas.

More research on recycled material needed

According to the results of the project, the use of recycled material does not always reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. This result is based on a comparative life cycle analysis of products made of recycled and virgin materials, respectively. Emission reductions are usually obtained when recycled materials replace fossile fuels. If the replaced material is of biotic origin, it is not always possible to obtain reductions. Even other factors, such as the treatment of the waste material and the fate of the products after the use, affect the emission balance.  

In the case studies, the recycled plastic profile was a construction material made of plastic waste, and it was compared with board made of impregnated wood. An oil-absorbing sheet made of recycled textile was compared with oil-repellent products made of virgin polypropylene fibre. In all comparisons, the recycling of textiles led to emission reductions compared with the use of virgin plastic. 

The use of recycled plastic as raw material for construction material was founbd to be better than the use of impregnated wood only in case the combustion of plastic was avoided. If the replaced material had been fossile-based, or concrete, or steel, the result would probably have been more favourable to the recycling of plastic. More research on the emission balances of recycling would give us more accurate information on the benefits of recycling processes.

Changes in waste management

The waste management branch is undergoing a period of changes. Landfilling will be reduced and new methods to use the waste are developed. The EU has set the goal to cover 20 % of the energy demand by renewable energy sources by 2020. By using the energy content of waste it is possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as the energy produced by the combustion of wastes can replace energy produced by using other fuels. 

Waste management systems are complex, and it is not possible to give universally valid instructions for cost-efficient reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In local waste management development plans, each of the alternative measures should be assessed considering the local conditions. When the decision is made, not only greenhouse gases but all environmental effects should be regarded.

Results were used by the IPCC

The joint research project of VTT and SYKE compared the greenhouse gas reduction efficiencies and the cost efficiencies of various waste management concepts. The project was a part of the Climbus Technology Programme of Tekes, and it was funded by Tekes, YTV (Association of the municipalities of the Helsinki region), Kuusakoski Oy, and Vapo Oy. 

Adapted from materials provided by Technical Research Centre of Finland.

 

Technical Research Centre of Finland. “Combustion Of Waste May Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” ScienceDaily 8 December 2007. 9 December 2007 <http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2007/12/071207001203.htm>.

Turning Things Down, Saving Plenty of $

In New York, the energy used in buildings accounts for 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions of the city.  Considering the fact that most buildings keep the vast majority of their lights on and the heat running 24/7 (like the downtown district in Toronto) I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s fairly similar in most North American cities.  

****

Greening the Co-op: Improving Energy Efficiency Means Saving Money

EMILY GERTZ

JULY 21, 2007 10:12 AM

Around 85 percent of all the buildings that will exist in New York City in 25 years are already standing, according to reporter J. Alex Tarquino in this past Sunday’s edition of The New York Times. 80 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas pollution is created by building energy use — with residential buildings taking up about one-third of that energy.

So however advanced green building methods become, however energy-efficient, we’re going to make the biggest gains in cutting energy use — thus lowering particulate and greenhouse gas pollution — by transforming these older buildings.

Even though the New York way of living is inherently very energy-efficient, compared to other American cities or communities, we can do better, reports Tarquino:

Sure, New Yorkers have the benefit of an extensive mass-transit system, which means lower auto emissions, but the city’s residential buildings are less energy-efficient than those in many other places in the country, particularly in eco-friendly states like California and Vermont.

“The main reason that New Yorkers use much less electricity is that our apartments are so much smaller” than homes in other cities, said Rohit Aggarwala, the director of the Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Office, part of the Mayor’s Office of Operations.

In fact, most big New York buildings, both commercial and residential, are wasting thousands of dollars a year on energy, the city says. Energy use by buildings accounts for almost 80 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions, and residential buildings for about a third of that. These gases are released in creating the energy used to heat, cool and light the buildings, as well as to run myriad household appliances and gadgets.

Apparently, most co-ops haven’t even picked the low-hanging fruit when it comes to cutting energy overhead by changing out their incandescent light bulbs in common areas for compact fluorescents. This simple step can be done by in-house staff and provides the satisfaction of an immediate and detectable reduction in the electric bill; my own co-op’s bill went down by about $200 a year after we made the switch. (And then there’s worker satisfaction: From what I hear, our super’s happy not to be going up and down ladders all the time replacing burnt-out bulbs). And we’re slowly installing the thermostatic radiator valves mentioned in the article, which allow much more precise control (than opening a window in the dead of winter, say) over how much heat a radiator emits.

Weatherizing is another simple step any co-op can take right away to cut energy costs.

So, how do we decide what our next steps ought to be? Tarquino profiles the experiences of co-ops that made changes after energy audits. A Manhattan co-op spent almost $8,000 updating its internal heating system, and paid $8,500 less on fuel in the first year alone. And, the apartment dwellers within were a lot more comfortable.

This kind of change, which makes back its costs within a year or two, is very appealing. Others take longer. It still takes around 15 years for an installation of solar panels on the roof to pay for itself, even after cashing in on currently available subsidies and tax breaks. New York State offers some help with paying for solar installations, and Mayor Bloomberg is apparently proposing an additional solar panel subsidy.

The NRDC’s Ashok Gupta suggests that co-ops develop a broader perspective on assessing these costs:

Mr. Gupta of the Natural Resources Defense Council contends that environmentalists often sell themselves short by focusing too much on payback periods. “Nobody asks what the payback period is for a marble lobby,” he said. But if a lot of large commercial and residential buildings installed solar panels, he said, that could go a long way toward reducing the city’s overall impact on global warming.

“From a societal perspective, the benefits are huge,” Mr. Gupta said.

One approach to putting a more realistic spin on how long these investments take to recoup their costs — on how we would make back the expense of stemming the emission of climate-disrupting gasses — would be to include the economic and health benefits of the ecosystem services that current methods of accounting take for granted — all of which will be changed for the worse if climate change isn’t slowed — like our mild climate, wealth of urban forest, and rare encounters with extremely destructive storms.

Emily Gertz

Diet For A Hungry World – Urban Agriculture

Urban agriculture was featured on The Current CBC Radio One.  My friend Joe Nasr who teaches at the Centre for Food Security at Ryerson was in it as well as myself.  I was discussing the potential for urban agriculture in Kingston.  

****

As part of our ongoing series Diet for a Hungry Planet, we took note of three unassuming chickens causing a disproportionately large stir in Halifax. Their names were Captain Crochet, Bernadette and Chicken. They provide Louise Hanavan with fresh eggs. But they’re ruffling the feathers of some of neighbours like Reg Harper. Ms. Hanavan and Mr. Harper explained the situation as they each see it.

 

The Halifax Regional Municipality allowed the chickens to stay until the end of February 2008, but what happens then is still very much up for debate. The community council held a public meeting on the issue, voicing some conflicting thoughts on chickens.

 

In January 2008, a similar battle played out in New Westminster, British Columbia. In the end, a family there was told their property was just too small to keep their six chickens.

 

For most city dwellers, the idea of raising chickens — or other food — in your backyard probably just seems quaint; a throwback of sorts. But for The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), it’s a key part of a sustainable food system for the future.

 

In February 2008, the WMO called for greater investment in urban and indoor agriculture as a way of safeguarding food security in the world’s mega-cities. Robert Stefanski is a scientific officer with the WMO and explained the thinking behind the proposal.

 

And according to Sunny Lam, urban farming could make a big difference in the size of your carbon footprint. He’s an independent researcher who studies food and environment issues. He looked specifically at Kingston, Ontario and what would happen to its greenhouse gas emissions if more of the city’s residents grew their own food.

 

Some ever-optimistic people look at these various threads and see a future where cities can feed themselves with community governments, food co-ops and even large, commercial market gardens all playing a part.

 

To get the lay of the land on that idea, we were joined by Joe Nasr, co-founder of the North American Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture Alliance who teaches urban agriculture at Ryerson University in Toronto.

 

 

Listen to The Current:Part 2

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200802/20080212.html

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/media/200802/20080212thecurrent_sec2.ram

Democracy’s Edge: Reviving It and Community

An interesting book by Frances Moore Lappe who also wrote a Diet for a Small Planet.  

****

DO-IT-YOURSELF DEMOCRACY

Democracy’s Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country by Bringing Democracy Back to Life

by Frances Moore Lappé. Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2006, $24.95.

by Carol Van Strum

 

Oscar Wilde famously scorned democracy as “the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.” Even the cynical Wilde would be appalled at how totally the people relinquished their grip on that bludgeon over the ensuing century. Blindly and meekly, we have handed over control of our economy, media, health, environment, and foreign affairs to inhuman corporate and moneyed interests.

Democracy’s Edge is a do-it-yourself manual for taking back the bludgeon into our own hands, one workplace, one school, one market at a time. Below the radar of major media and national politics – in mean streets, fields, gardens, towns, even in prisons and banks – Frances Moore Lappé finds ordinary people discovering the exhilarating power of community problem-solving. Every page of her book reveals truly amazing feats of democracy in action.

Ironically, as faux-democracy invariably withers at the top, the real thing sprouts vigorously at the root. From cities like Ithaca, N.Y., issuing their own currency to thriving community-owned retail shops and worker-owned cooperatives revitalizing local economies, Lappé finds people taking back control of their immediate environment, bit by bit. Local independent radio, television, film, and music spread the word, giving voice to those disenfranchised by corporate media.

Outstanding of the many success stories collected by Lappé is ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). From its unassuming creation in 1970 by a handful of Little Rock welfare recipients, ACORN has grown into a nationwide organization with eight hundred fifty neighborhood chapters in eighty cities, actively engaged on its members’ behalf in battles involving livable wages, affordable rents, predatory lending, functional schools, fair credit, foreclosures, and other issues that plague low-income people. Together with labor unions, faith-based organizations, and other groups, ACORN has had massive local as well as national impact on banking laws and practice as well as on land use, fair wages, and municipal development.

As ACORN demonstrates, success is contagious. A national revolution in food consumption and marketing has followed a similar trajectory. From coast to coast, more and more people are literally acquiring a taste for democracy by reclaiming control over their food supply through farmer cooperatives, community-supported agriculture, local farmers’ markets, and community gardens. The parallel growth of the organic food market nationwide reveals how powerful consumers’ spending choices can be.

“The technology we need most badly is the technology of community,” Bill McKibben noted recently, lamenting our loss of knowledge about how to cooperate. “We Americans haven’t needed our neighbors for anything important, and hence neighborliness – local solidarity – has disappeared.¹

As a nation, and for a tiny moneyed elite, McKibben’s bleak perception is accurate, but out at the fringes and down in the boonies, Lappé finds solidarity and cooperation to be alive and well. Democracy, Lappé emphasizes, is not a thing to be installed and imposed, but a process, a perpetual work in progress for every living part of it. With no illusions or false optimism about the difficulties ahead, she offers a resounding antidote to helplessness and self-fulfilling despair:

“Democracy’s edge. It’s not an easy place to be, but here we are – on the razor’s edge, at risk of losing our hard-won democracy. Yet at the very same time, all around us, Americans are pushing forward democracy’s edge – its edge of inclusion, discovery, and innovation. Fortunately, their breakthroughs also give us an edge, just what we need now to meet our toughest challenges.”

 

 

¹  How close to catastrophe? By Bill McKibben, October 22, 2006, in:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102306L.shtml

Please visit their web site and learn more about the author, her colleagues, and the Institute: http://www.smallplanetinstitute.org     or visit the book’s web site: www.democracysedge.org

Tea and stronger bones: a cup a day

The study mentioned below by Stephen indicates that older people who drink tea manage to keep more calcium in their bones in the long run – about 2.8% more than non-tea drinkers.  Of course this just adds to the growing evidence of the benefits of tea.  This may be due to the special compounds in the teas called polyphenols and when combined with the other wholesome elements in the tea that modern science has yet to figure out (i.e. see the big picture), we get the health benefits seen here and elsewhere.  

****

Excerpt:  

Daily cuppa may compare to calcium for bones

 

By Stephen Daniells

08/10/2007- Drinking tea regularly may lead to improvements in bone health similar to that observed with calcium or physical exercise, suggests new research from Australia.

Writing in the October issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Amanda Devine and co-workers from the University of Western Australia report that bone mineral density levels were 2.8 per cent greater in tea drinkers than non-tea drinkers, suggesting the beverage has the potential to aid in the prevention of osteoporosis.

 

The condition is currently second only to cardiovascular disease in terms of global healthcare burden, according to the World Health Organisation, affecting some 200 million people today but the number of sufferers is set to increase steadily with growing numbers of elderly living longer, and obesity adding extra strain on bones.

…

 

http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=80374-tea-polyphenols-osteoporosis