Wisdom Magazine's Monthly Webzine

Wisdom is a web compendium of information with articles, services and products and resources related to holistic health, spirituality and metaphysics.

Home About This Month's Articles Calendar of Events Classified Listings
Educational Programs Sacred Journeys & Retreats Holistic Resource Directory
Article Archives Wisdom Marketplace Web Partner Links
Advertising Information

EarthTalk®

by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I understand that there are many kinds of automatic features that can be incorporated into a home—even some that can be operated remotely—that can save energy and provide other environmental benefits. Can you enlighten? -- Robert Goodman, Taos, NM

Home automation may indeed be the next big trend in what consumers can do today to stand up for the environment. By setting up a wired (or even wireless) system, homeowners can optimize lighting level efficiency, cut heating and cooling energy costs and deactivate energy-consuming devices and appliances even when no one is home.

“An automated home brings together security, fire, lighting, temperature control, audio, video, pool, spa, drapery control, sprinklers, and anything else that you want so that these systems can talk to each other and work together,” reports Jay McLellan of Home Automation Inc., a leading manufacturer of integrated automation and security systems for residential and commercial use. “In an automated home these devices work together to make the home more energy efficient, comfortable, more convenient and safer.”

One easy way to dip a toe in the water of home automation is to swap out regular light switches for occupancy sensors, which can tell if a room is occupied and will turn lights on and off accordingly.

Upgrading to a programmable thermostat that will regulate heating and cooling according to a set schedule is another way to reduce energy consumption and save money. Some newer models, such as Nest from California-based Nest Labs, can program themselves based on occupants’ routines and also offer the option to adjust heating and cooling settings remotely via the Internet. A built-in occupancy sensor signals to the Nest whether and when people are around, and the unit then adjusts heating or cooling accordingly. The newest version, Nest 2, can tell within a half hour when occupants have vacated and will set the indoor temperature to more energy efficient level on its own.

Shelling out $249 for Nest’s so-called “learning thermostat” may seem a little extreme, but the feature may save enough money and electricity to pay for itself in as little as a year. Nest Labs helps consumers track their energy usage and savings with monthly “energy reports” that detail why home heating and cooling costs have gone up or down (based on usage and time away, as well as other factors, such as weather). These reports also contain tips on how to optimize Nest as well as other tips to increase energy savings accordingly. Nest thermostats can replace most existing thermostats and do not require upgrading to a newer furnace or air conditioning system—although newer heating and cooling systems, especially those that meet the U.S. government’s EnergyStar criteria for efficiency, do tend to save much more energy than older ones. Some 56 percent of the energy used in a typical American home goes to heating and cooling, so automation can make a big difference for the environment and the pocketbook.

Beyond lighting and thermostats, whole-house automation systems connect home electronics (including appliances and security systems) into an integrated wireless network that allows occupants to control from off-site, including via the Internet or a mobile phone app. A Sylvania Z-Wave Starter Kit from SmartHomeUSA.com is one affordable way to get started with whole-house automation; you can start small and gradually add electronics to the system.

CONTACTS: Home Automation Inc., www.homeauto.com; Nest Labs, www.nest.com; SmartHomeUSA, http://www.smarthomeusa.com/ShopByManufacturer/Sylvania/Item/SH50102.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is “biomass” and why is it controversial as a potential source of energy? -- Edward White, New Bedford, MA

Biomass is plant matter that is burned as a source of energy. Fallen or cut wood that is burned for heat is one primary form of biomass, but another includes plant or animal matter that is converted into biofuels.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), which was formed during the oil shocks of the early 1970s to help ward off future energy shortages, biomass combustion is a carbon-neutral process because the carbon dioxide released at burning has previously been absorbed by the plants from the atmosphere.

Biomass resources, reports IEA, include agricultural residues, animal manure, wood wastes, food and paper industry residues, municipal green wastes, sewage sludge, and a large variety of grasses and crops.

But while biomass may be in theory carbon-neutral, green groups point out that there is no free lunch. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), for example, points out that some American timber companies are targeting whole trees from forests as an easy source of biomass and are pressuring Congress to open up additional National Forest acreage for this form of energy generation.

NRDC says that, practically speaking, burning whole trees for biomass energy is far from carbon-neutral, given that the carbon dioxide that trees accumulate over decades is suddenly released into the atmosphere upon combustion, just like when coal is burned. “But unlike coal, however, trees will continue to absorb carbon if left alone.” Therefore, the burning of forests for biomass energy both emits considerable amounts of carbon and destroys an important way carbon is prevented from entering our atmosphere.

Deforestation isn’t the only problem with biomass. Burning biomass also produces sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and other toxins harmful to our health. Two California wood-fired power plants were fined $830,000 under the Clean Air Act recently for violating emissions standards.

And then there is the issue of the efficiency of biomass as a fuel feedstock. Researchers have found that some common forms of biomass yield only 25 or 30 percent the amount of energy as an equivalent amount of coal. The 2011 closure of a biomass conversion plant in Georgia that reportedly spent $320 million to produce just 100,000 gallons of ethanol stands out as another black mark against biomass.

Despite such downsides, reports NRDC, some policymakers seeking to promote alternative fuels are proposing actions and policies that would greatly increase the use of biomass. At the same time, the group says, industry lobbyists are pushing to relax biomass sourcing safeguards and “pushing to give industrial biomass burning a ‘free pass’ on complying with Clean Air Act mandates.”

Biomass can be a part of the effort to cut back on fossil fuels, but only if it is harvested and used in ways that reduce pollution, cut emissions and protect forests. NRDC and other green groups would like to see Congress impose stricter rules to rein in soot, smog and greenhouse gases at biomass power plants and pass measures that safeguard forests from deforestation for biomass development.

CONTACTS: International Energy Agency, www.iea.org; NRDC, www.nrdc.org.

EarthTalk®

E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: How are droughts and wildfires cause by global warming? I thought warming mostly brought on wet and flooded conditions. -- David Mossman, Albuquerque, NM

By throwing the planet’s climate regulation systems out of whack, global warming is likely to cause more extreme weather events of every kind, including additional precipitation and flooding in some cases and more drying and drought in others—sometimes within the same region.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a leading non-profit, increased temperatures on the Earth’s surface due to global warming accelerates evapotranspiration, an otherwise natural process that takes moisture from land, plants and water bodies and moves it skyward into the atmosphere.

“In drier regions, evapotranspiration may produce periods of drought—defined as below-normal levels of rivers, lakes and groundwater, and lack of enough soil moisture in agricultural areas,” reports UCS. “Precipitation has declined in the tropics and subtropics since 1970. Southern Africa, the Sahel region of Africa, southern Asia, the Mediterranean, and the U.S. Southwest, for example, are getting drier.” Even areas that are typically wet, says the group, can experience long, dry spells between extreme rainy periods.

This drying trend is expected to continue through mid-century as the amount of land affected by drought grows significantly. Water resources in affected areas are predicted to decline by as much as 30 percent. “These changes occur partly because of an expanding atmospheric circulation pattern known as the Hadley Cell—in which warm air in the tropics rises, loses moisture to tropical thunderstorms, and descends in the subtropics as dry air,” adds UCS. “As jet streams continue to shift to higher latitudes, and storm patterns shift along with them, semi-arid and desert areas are expected to expand.”

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) adds that the sea level rise expected to accompany global warming (as the polar ice caps melt) could further complicate matters for water-constrained areas by contaminating critical inland underground freshwater reserves with salt (so-called “saltwater intrusion”).

Another effect of unmitigated global warming will be a increased frequency of large wildfires and an expansion of burned over areas in already fire-prone regions like much of the Western U.S. NWF reports that researchers there are already noticing longer fire seasons, drier conditions persisting later into the year, and an increased frequency of lightning as thunderstorms are becoming more frequent and severe. The group adds that forest fires are expected to burn over twice as much of today’s affected areas across 11 western states by later this century if conservative predictions about warming come true.

So what can be done? NWF stresses that every one of us can play a role by cutting back on our fossil fuel use (less driving and flying, less home heating and cooling, more efficient appliances, etc.). Another way to help is to take into account our own water use and making a concerted effort to cut back and conserve this most vital of all natural resources. NWF also wants land managers and policymakers to consider global warming when choosing water management strategies to meet multiple demands and to work to protect natural forest and wetland systems that absorb flood waters and provide efficient water storage.

CONTACTS: UCS, www.ucsusa.org; NWF, www.nwf.org.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Has the McDonald’s restaurant chain made significant improvements in recent years with regard to the environment? -- Max Andria, Laval University, Quebec

Long a poster child of environmental ills and health concerns, McDonald’s has worked steadily over the last two decades to clean up its act. The company will never win over vegetarians, who eschew meat for health, animal welfare and even world hunger concerns (we’d feed more people by using the land used to grow animal feed to grow food for people instead), but it has otherwise made some significant strides.

The company first came under fire from greens in the 1980s for sourcing beef for its hamburgers from ranches on newly cleared, former rainforest tracts throughout the Amazon basin. In response, the company committed in 1989 to refuse beef sourced from recently deforested rainforest areas.

Environmentalists were also on the company’s case about the waste it generates. So in 1990 McDonald’s partnered with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and began phasing out its polystyrene “clamshell” food containers and increasing the recycled content of the other food containers and boxes it uses. EDF and the fast food giant developed a waste reduction plan that eliminated 300 million pounds of packaging, recycled a million tons of corrugated boxes and reduced waste by 30 percent in the decade that followed.

More recently, Greenpeace exposed the fact that expanded soy farming in Brazil—which feeds chickens used by McDonald’s and other large food companies—had become a threat to the Amazon rainforest. In response, McDonald’s partnered with Greenpeace to develop a zero deforestation plan for all its products.

Likewise, McDonald’s beef purchasing executives have gotten in on things: In November 2010 the company was lead sponsor of the World Wildlife Fund’s first Global Conference on Sustainable Beef, an international meeting of stakeholders in the global beef system convened to discuss how to approach sustainable beef production in socially, environmentally and economically viable ways.

Another green highlight for McDonald’s is its commitment to matching 30 percent of the electricity used at its company-owned stores with renewable energy credits from American wind power providers. And several Japanese McDonald’s are participating in an energy-saving campaign employing 13 different green technologies with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20 percent overall.

While McDonald’s is moving in the right direction, it is still widely criticized for the waste it generates and its contribution to health woes such as obesity. For its part, the company has limited control over the 80 percent of its stores that are run by independent franchisees, so change under the golden arches is slow.

This past spring, McD’s released its Global Best of Green report highlighting advances made in energy efficiency, sustainable packaging, anti-littering and greening the workplace at hundreds of its restaurants around the world, underscoring it’s commitment to sustainability moving forward. The company hopes the new report will serve as a catalyst for franchisees to make similar improvements in their businesses.

CONTACTS: EDF, www.edf.org; Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org; McDonald’s Best Practices, bestpractices.mcdonalds.com.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I understand that many of the world’s fisheries are on the brink of collapse, “fished out,” to put it bluntly. How did this happen and what is being done about it?

-- Mariel LaPlante, New Orleans, LA

Many of the world’s fisheries are indeed in crisis today due to years of overfishing, pollution and habitat destruction. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, 57 percent of global fish populations are “fully exploited” and another 30 percent are ”overexploited or collapsed.” This leaves just 13 percent in the “non-fully-exploited” category, down from 40 percent less than four decades ago.

The non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports that many of the most popular fish, such as cod, snapper and tuna, are dangerously depleted yet continue to be overfished.

Fishing operations have only been able to satisfy rising demand for fish and shellfish in recent decades by using increasingly high-tech strategies like on-vessel refrigeration and processing, spotter planes and GPS satellites. Furthermore, says Matthew Roney of the non-profit Earth Policy Institute, “Industrial fishing fleets initially targeted the northern hemisphere’s coastal fish stocks, but then as stocks were depleted, they expanded progressively southward on average close to one degree of latitude annually since 1950.”

“The escalating pursuit of fish…has had heavy ecological consequences, including the alteration of marine food webs via a massive reduction in the populations of larger, longer-lived predatory fish such as tunas, cods and marlins,” reports Roney. In addition, he says, sophisticated fishing techniques aimed at maximizing catches, such as longlines and bottom-scraping trawls, kill large numbers of non-target species such as sea turtles, sharks and coral.

Roney is optimistic despite the trends. “In several well-studied regional systems, multiple fisheries have bounced back from collapse after adopting a combination of management measures,” he says. “These include restricting gear types, lowering the total allowable catch, dividing shares of the catch among fishers, and designating marine protected.” He cites an example of Kenyan communities removing beach seine nets and creating “no-take” zones leading to an increase in total fish, fish sizes and fishing income. And no-take reserves established around parts of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef led to a doubling of fish stocks and size within the boundaries of protected areas and larger populations throughout the region.

“It’s not too late to get our fishing practices back on track,” reports NRDC. “Using smart laws, policies, incentives, and market demand, we can help sustain fish populations at healthy levels for years to come.”

The decisions of policymakers play the key role in marine protection, but individual choices and consumer advocacy also make a difference. “We can all support sustainable fishing by wisely choosing which fish to eat, spreading the word to friends and family, and contacting our lawmakers to make sure they support responsible policies,” says NRDC. Consumers can learn which fish are OK to buy by consulting with the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program, available for free via the web and phone apps.

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; Earth Policy Institute, www.earth-policy.org; Seafood Watch, www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve read conflicting reports about the dangers of non-stick cookware. I have a set of older non-stick pans and am not sure if I need to replace them. Are they harmful to use, particularly if they have a few scratches? -- Miriam Jones, Montgomery, AL

Non-stick cookware has been around since 1960s when the first Teflon-coated “Happy Pan” appeared on store shelves. Cooks and dishwashers have loved the pans ever since, given how easily they clean up since no food residues can stick to the slippery surface coating. The issue with non-stick cookware emerged when people began to worry about whether we were ingesting or breathing in trace amounts of the chemicals used into the production of the non-stick coating every time we ate a meal cooked in one of the pans. Indeed, 98 percent of Americans carry trace amounts of the main chemical of concern, PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid), around in our bloodstreams every day. This synthetic “fluorosurfactant” has been used in the manufacturing process of the coating on non-stick cookware and many other products (microwave popcorn bags, Gore-Tex jackets, medical implants, etc.) for decades.

“The EPA classifies PFOA as carcinogenic in animals, causing testicular, pancreatic, mammary and liver tumors in rats,” reports Melissa Breyer of the website Care2. “Workers exposed to PFOA have increased risks of dying from or needing treatment for cancers of the pancreas and male reproductive tract.” She adds that numerous studies have shown “that PFOA alters reproductive hormones in the male, causing increased levels of estrogen and abnormal testosterone regulation and that PFOA or chemicals that break down into PFOA damage the thyroid gland.”

Of course, the risk of exposure is very low for a person frying an egg at home than for a factory worker manufacturing PFOA. In 2007, Consumer Reports tested non-stick pans from several manufacturers and found harmful airborne emissions of PFOA to be minimal. “The highest level was about 100 times lower than levels that animal studies suggest are of concern for ongoing exposure to PFOA,” reported Consumer Reports. “With the aged pans, emissions were barely measurable.”

Regardless, most new non-stick cookware available today is not made using PFOA. In 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) called on companies making non-stick coatings to voluntarily phase out their use of PFOA in cookware applications by 2015. Teflon and other non-stick pan brands will continue to be available, but consumers can rest assured that they are made with safer, less environmentally persistent processing agents than PFOA.

Meanwhile, other manufacturers are working on alternative forms of non-stick cookware using ceramic or silicone coatings. But a 2009 survey of eight such alternatives by Cook’s Illustrated did not give any of the new choices out there especially high marks. “Not a single one of these ‘green’ pans was without flaws,” said the magazine. “In some, delicate eggs burned, thin fish fillets stuck, and steak charred on the outside while remaining raw within. Others stained or transferred heat inconsistently.” Some pans accumulated the browned bits known as fond when steak was seared, indicating unwanted sticking power.

For those who would rather just avoid non-stick pots and pans altogether, tried and true cookware like cast iron, aluminum, copper and stainless steel each get high marks for even heat distribution and for holding up well at high temperatures and frequent use.

CONTACTS: Care2; Consumer Reports’ Kitchen Cookware; Cook’s Illustrated “Green Skillets”

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I understand that the “environmental justice” movement seeks to protect the poor and non-white communities from being unfairly targeted to host activities like sewage treatment plants, landfills and polluting factories. Have there been notable victories? -- P. Silver, Peekskill, NY

The environmental justice movement was born in September 1982 when a group of poor residents of rural Warren County, North Carolina laid down in front of trucks transporting waste containing toxic PCBs to a nearby landfill. Those primarily African American activists eventually lost their battle to keep toxic waste out of the area, but their actions eventually led to an executive order by President Clinton in 1996 that institutionalized the U.S. government’s duty to identify and address “disproportionately high adverse health or environmental effects of its policies or programs on low-income people and people of color.” It also mandated that the federal government look for ways to prevent discrimination by race, color or national origin in any federally funded programs dealing with health or the environment.

In the time since, many other low income or minority groups—Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and others—have learned to raise their voices and stand up against the discriminatory locating of hazardous waste landfills and transfer stations, polluting factories and utilities, and other triggers for bad air quality and compromised waterways and soils across the U.S. and beyond.

Some of the better known environmental justice groups came to be out of specific struggles in their own local neighborhoods. Concerned Citizens of South Central LA (Los Angeles) was created to fight the now infamous LANCER incinerator in the late 1980s, and today provides leadership on environmental and other social justice issues throughout southern California. Likewise, Mothers of East LA, originally formed to stop the siting of a prison in an East Los Angeles community, has become a strong voice against incinerators and other waste processing and landfill facilities interested in moving to the area.

Elsewhere, West Harlem Environmental Action formed in 1998 to fight (unsuccessfully) the building of the North River Sewage Treatment Plant in West Harlem in New York City. Despite that defeat, the group is now a leader on environmental justice issues around New York State. And the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice began with humble activist roots but is now in high demand helping rural communities in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” protect themselves from further degradation and harm at the hands of oil refineries and other heavy industry located there.

Several national organizations now devote significant resources to these issues. The Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ), which emerged out of the 1970s Love Canal controversy when the U.S. government relocated 800 families from their polluted Niagara Falls, New York neighborhood, today functions as an activist clearinghouse for related issues. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has devoted significant resources to environmental justice efforts, including helping to identify cancer clusters in poor communities near heavy industry. Many Sierra Club local chapters battle environmental discrimination in their neighborhoods. And the federal government today provides millions of dollars to environmental justice projects through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies.

CONTACTS: Mothers of East LA, www.mothersofeastla.com; West Harlem Environmental Action, www.weact.org; Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, www.dscej.org; NRDC, www.nrdc.org; CHEJ, www.chej.org; Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org; EPA; www.epa.gov.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: There’s been a lot of coverage on the topic of organic foods and how they aren’t actually any healthier than conventional foods. Is this true? -- Gina Thompson, Salem, OR

There is no doubt that organic foods are healthier—for our bodies individually as well as for the environment—than their conventionally produced counterparts. The question is how much healthier and does the difference warrant spending more on your grocery bill.

Conventional food is produced using synthetic chemical inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, hormones and antibiotics to repel pests, boost growth and improve the yield of marketable product. It stands to reason that trace amounts of these chemicals are likely to get ingested into our bodies.

Before such chemicals became widely available, most food was produced organically. Recent awareness about the dangers of synthetic chemicals and antibiotic resistance has triggered a renewed interest in organic food. As a result organic farms constitute the fastest growing sector of the U.S. agriculture industry. Given that these farms are smaller and have more of a niche clientele, they must charge more for organic products. These costs get passed on to consumers willing to spend extra to be healthy.

But after surveying over 200 other studies comparing organic and conventional foods and in some cases their effects on the body, Stanford medical researchers found that, while eating organic produce can lower exposure to pesticides, the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was also well within safety limits. They also found that organic foods were not particularly more nutritious than non-organic foods. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in September 2012.

The one area where the team found a divergence was regarding antibiotic-resistant germs in meats. While the chances of bacterial contamination are the same for organic and non-organic meats, germs in conventionally raised chicken and pork had a 33 percent higher risk of being resistant to multiple antibiotics. Many farmers and ranchers rely on antibiotics to fatten up their animals and keep them healthy until slaughter, but converting to more organic meat could help stem the oncoming tide of antibiotic resistance that threatens to make many of our medicines obsolete.

Of course, consumers may opt for organic foods despite the lack of much difference in nutritional content or chemical residues. According to the Mayo Clinic, a non-profit medical care and research institution and a leading voice on public health and health maintenance, some people simply prefer the taste of organic food. Others like organic food because it doesn’t typically contain preservatives, artificial sweeteners, coloring and flavorings. Meanwhile, others take a longer-term view and go organic for the sake of the environment, as organic agriculture reduces pollution and conserves water and soil quality.

If you’re trying to be both healthy and frugal, selectively buying organic is one option. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) publishes its Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce each year to let consumers know which produce have the most pesticide residues and are the most important to buy organic. EWG’s 2012 “dirty dozen” non-organic foods to avoid were apples, celery, sweet bell peppers, peaches, strawberries, imported nectarines, grapes, spinach, lettuce, cucumbers, blueberries and potatoes.

CONTACTS: “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier than Conventional Alternatives?” http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685; Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org.

Add Comment

Article Archives This Month's Articles Click Here for more articles by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss