Monday, May 17, 2010

Growth As Cancer

GrowthBustersPosterMedium

Everything you thought you knew is wrong!

Okay, maybe not everything. But what if some of our core beliefs about how the world works turn out to be myths?  This documentary flips our world upside down to see what makes it tick, as it explores the most critical question of our time:

How do we become a sustainable civilization?
Water shortages, hunger, peak oil, species extinction, and even increasing depression are all symptoms of a deeper problem – addiction to unending growth in a world that has limits. Hooked on Growth goes way beyond prescribing Band-Aids to slow the bleeding. This film examines the cultural barriers that prevent us from reacting rationally to the evidence current levels of population and consumption are unsustainable.
It asks why the population conversations are so difficult to have. Why it’s more important to our society to have economic growth than clean air. Why communities seek and subsidize growth even when it destroys quality of life and increases taxes.
Our growth-centric system is broken. It’s not providing the happiness or the prosperity we seek. But that’s good news; it means a shift to a sustainable model will be good for us. We’ll be happier and more prosperous!
Individual and public policy decisions today are informed by a powerful, pro-growth cultural bias. We worship at the Church of Growth Everlasting. Undeterred by the facts, we’re on a collision course powered by denial and the myth that growth brings prosperity. Before we can shift our civilization meaningfully, effectively, and substantially toward true sustainability, the world must be “prepped.” We must become self-aware and recognize the programming that keeps us hooked. Hooked on Growth will do just that. We’ll hear from leading thinkers of our time – scientists, sociologists, economists – to help us separate fact from superstition.
How does a film have some fun while shaking up the fundamental underpinnings of our modern civilization? We follow the travails of an everyday citizen who dares to stand up in his own community and declare, “The emperor has no clothes!”  We follow his adventures as he attempts to provide an intervention in a community addicted to growth. The cultural resistance to getting unhooked is amply illustrated as filmmaker/activist Dave Gardner spars with his city council, chamber of commerce and growth profiteers. He even runs for city council. All the while, we follow Dave’s adventures in getting this film made. He nearly goes broke as humanitarian foundations fund efforts focusing on symptoms rather than a film that dares to expose the system creating those problems. As the film plays out, we find belief in growth everlasting is deeply entrenched around the world.
We’re approaching the end of growth. Will we embrace it? Or go down fighting?

From Las Vegas to Atlanta, Mexico City to Mumbai, the White House to the Vatican, Hooked on Growth takes us on a whirlwind tour of growth mania. It’s Wild Kingdom with a twist: the cameras are turned on humanity as our own survival skills are examined. Hooked on Growth looks into the psychology of denial and crowd behavior. It explores our obsession with urban and economic growth, and our reluctance to address overpopulation issues head-on. This documentary holds up a mirror, encouraging us to examine the beliefs and behaviors we must leave behind – and the values we need to embrace – so our children can survive and thrive.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Bottled Water Bullsh*t

found at Dr. Joseph Mercola's site.
The next time someone offers you a bottle of water, take a stand and say something clever like, “No thank you, I don’t believe in it.” This simple move will open up a conversation about the massive swindle that is bottled water … and possibly persuade one more person to give it up entirely.
Please also make a point to see this fantastic new movie, "Tapped", which is playing in select theaters in the United States and is available on DVD.
Even beyond the issues of your health and the environment, bottled water represents a novel form of privatization, in which private corporations have succeeded, and quite successfully I might add, at making water a commodity.
I would say, and I suspect you would agree, that water is more a “right” than it is a commodity. And private corporations should have no more control over the selling of water than they do the selling of our air supplies. Well, this is already occurring to some extent as corporations make a profit selling water -- which at times even makes water less available to the people living in the area.
Even public water supplies are being increasingly taken over by private corporations, and in some areas of the world are up for grabs by the highest bidder.
This has been publicized in countries such as Bolivia, where residents battled police and the military to protect their water rights from the US-based Bechtel Corporation, but you should know water privatization initiatives are being pushed all over the world … including in the United States.
If you’re interested in learning more, an excellent, eye-opening film on this topic that I highly recommend is Thirst.
Getting back to bottled water, however, many, many Americans still drink it, believing it is somehow healthier than tap water.
In 2008, U.S. bottled water consumption reached nearly 9 billion gallons, raking in revenues of more than $11 billion.
Folks, this is for a “product” you can get virtually for free by turning on your kitchen tap!

Are You Paying 1,900 Times More for Unhealthy, Earth-Damaging Water?

If you drink bottled water, yes, you are!
Bottled water typically costs more than $1.50 per bottle, which is 1,900 times the price of tap water.
Yet, that very same bottled water that you’re paying a premium for is, in about 40 percent of cases, simply bottled tap water, which may or may not have received any additional treatment.
On top of that, most municipal tap water must actually adhere to more strict purity standards than the bottled water industry. Further, while the EPA requires large public water supplies to test for contaminants as often as several times a day, the FDA requires private bottlers to test for contaminants only once a week, once a year, or once every four years, depending on the contaminant.
An independent test performed by the Environmental Working Group revealed 38 low-level contaminants in bottled water, with each of the 10 tested brands containing an average of eight chemicals including disinfection byproducts (DBPs), caffeine, Tylenol, nitrate, industrial chemicals, arsenic, and bacteria were all detected.
So what you are paying for is often no different, or even worse, than the water that comes out of your faucet.
When you factor in other elements, like the chemicals that can leach from the plastic bottle and its impact on the environment, bottled water becomes a losing proposition no matter how you look at it.

Drinking From Plastic Bottles is Not a Wise Health Move

When drinking bottled water you need to think not only about the water but also about the bottle itself. Plastic is not an inert substance as its manufacturers would like you to believe. It contains chemicals like BPA and phthalates, which mimic hormones in your body.
Even tiny concentrations can cause problems such as:
  • Structural damage to your brain
  • Hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, and impaired learning
  • Increased fat formation and risk of obesity
  • Altered immune function
  • Early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development, disrupted reproductive cycles, and ovarian dysfunction
  • Changes in gender-specific behavior, and abnormal sexual behavior
  • Stimulation of prostate cancer cells
  • Increased prostate size, and decreased sperm production
Anytime you drink from a plastic bottle you risk exposure, but if you leave your bottle of water in a hot car or reuse it, your exposure is magnified because heat and stress increase the amount of chemicals that leach out of the plastic.

Plastic is Hurting the Earth in a Major Way

About 1.5 million tons of plastic are used to manufacture water bottles each year around the world, and the processing itself releases toxic compounds like nickel, ethylbenzene, ethylene oxide and benzene. Further, according to the Sierra Club, the U.S. alone uses 1.5 million barrels of oil to make plastic water bottles, the majority of which then end up in landfills.
In fact, 1,500 water bottles are thrown away every second!
This massive waste is one reason why there is now a plastic “stew” twice the size of Texas swirling through the Pacific Ocean.
Also extremely harmful to the environment is the way corporations are pumping water from underground aquifers. These natural springs serve as water sources for nearby streams, wells and farms, but the aggressive pumping can easily dry them out prematurely.

A Simple Solution is at Your Disposal 

One you realize that many sources of bottled water is:
  • No safer than tap water
  • Extremely expensive
  • Often contaminated by plastics chemicals
  • Contributing to massive environmental harm
… the choice to stop using it becomes simple. Fortunately, the alternative to having pure water is also simple: filter your own at home.

Unfiltered Tap Water is NOT Better than Bottled Water!!

My favorite filter is a reverse/osmosis filter as it will remove virtually all of the pollutants, such as disinfection by products, fluoride, arsenic, lead, drugs in the water supply, rocket fuel, bacteria, viruses, you name, it removes it. Unfortunately the down side is that it also removes minerals that should be in there. Fortunately the solution is quite simply.  Add some high quality salt, like Himalayan salt, about 1/4 teaspoon for gallon.
I currently use a R/O system that is not yet commercially available. It is a tankless system in which I fill a glass container directly that is easy to clean. This eliminates the stagnant water in the holding tank and inevitable mold/slime contamination with using a R/O system with a holding tank.  We hope to bring this to system to market in the next year.
Additionally the filtering process damages the structure of the water. A simple way to restructure the water would be to create a vortex. You can do this by putting a large spoon in the container and swirling it around very fast for awhile. This will clearly start to restructure the water. Getting the water cold, down to about 4 degrees Centigrade or 39 degrees Fahrenheit will also work.  The best way to do that would be to store your bottle outdoors in the winter (when it doesn't go below 39 F) or put the bottle on your cement garage floor at night and the earth will remove much of the heat from the bottle. Store the water in a cool area.
You could cool the water in a refrigerator but that would impart negative EMF into the water so it is less than ideal. Similarly there are vortex machines you can purchase for about $500 but they will also impart these EMFs into the water.
This enables you to rely on your own well or municipal source for safe, clean water. If you need to take some with you on the road, store it in a glass jar or bottle.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Preparing, REALLY, for Collapse

From a slide show by Dmitry Orlov
Our Future and the End of the Oil Age:
Building Resilience in a Resource-Constrained World



Scraping the bottom of the oil barrel
The new oil is not like the old oil:
Energy Returned on Energy Invested has gone from 100:1 to 10:1 and is heading down
We are using up the dregs: deep offshore, heavy/sour crude, tar sands, arctic oil...
Oil consumers will run out of money before oil companies run out of places to drill.
The agony of the industrial age can be prolonged by destroying what's left of the biosphere.



...the bottom of somebody else's barrel
The US has to import over 2/3 of its transportation fuels.
High oil prices mean extra revenue for oil exporters.
Oil exporters invest that money in their domestic economy.
Their domestic oil consumption increases.
Consequently, there is less oil for them to export.
Net exporters become net importers even while they are still pumping some oil (just as the USA did in 1970).
Many oil importers end up left out in the cold.
Oil importers who ride scooters and use kerosene lamps do a lot better than oil importers who drive SUVs.
This is not a contest for who can use the most oil.
This is a contest for who can grow their economy using the least amount of oil.
We have already lost; let's regroup and try again.


Why can't this show go on?
A system that evolved in conditions of continuous growth of material resources cannot shrink controllably.
The key ingredient is confidence; once faith in the future is lost, everyone's behavior changes radically.
Everyone at the top already knows that this show cannot go on and are (attempting to) plan accordingly, for themselves.
The name of the game is "Keep the rest of them fooled for as long as possible".
People are still paying down their mortgages, putting money in their retirement accounts, etc.
Being fooled this way can make people very angry.


The logic of diminishing returns
Joseph Tainter, in his Collapse of Complex Societies, pointed out that social complexity increases until further investment in complexity becomes counterproductive.
He also pointed out that complex systems do not self-simplify; they collapse catastrophically and are eventually replaced with much simpler systems.
Diminishing returns are observable and measurable.
Diminishing returns cannot be explained using the internal logic of the systems involved.
The people involved in maintaining these systems struggle along, but are eventually forced to give up.


Examples of diminishing returns
Each additional dollar of debt causes the economy to shrink even faster.
Each additional dollar of defense spending makes the country less safe.
Each additional dollar spent on health care makes the country sicker.
Each additional dollar spent on education makes the people more ignorant.
Each additional dollar spent on the justice system increases injustice.
Each additional dollar spent on job creation increases unemployment.
Each additional dollar contributed to a political campaign makes the people even more powerless.


Escaping from diminishing returns
What can we do to avoid wasting our efforts on perpetuating doomed systems? How do we construct alternatives?


Lower your official exposure/profile
Decrease your environmental footprint and burn rate
Avoid financial arrangements and legal documents
Rely on personal connections and relationships
Avoid the mainstream, look for fertile margins, fringes, niches
Be hard to classify


Reasonable expectations
Money will not be very common or useful (government defaults, growing joblessness, savings wiped out or taxed away, access to imports lost, etc.).
As the US loses ability to import 3/4 of transportation fuels, economy will stall and population will become stranded.
Political system will maintain appearances as long as possible - "Proud and Purposeful Paralysis".
Many local authorities will fail (close police stations and fire departments, stop supplying sewer, water and garbage removal services).
Other local authorities will try to charge confiscatory rates, and fail just a little bit later.
Various officious busybodies will have a hard time figuring out whose side they are on, and will probably need help.


The Big Transition
BEFORE                                        AFTER


Cars and trucks                             Bicycles, boats, 2 feet
Municipal water supplies              Rainwater collection, wells
Municipal sewage                         Composting toilets
Trash removal                                Local junkyards, incinerators
Garbage removal                          Local compost piles, recycling, reuse
Fast food                                        Community kitchens
Supermarkets                                Open-air markets
Hospitals                                        Local clinics
High Schools                                 Home Schooling
Colleges                                        Apprenticeships
Office work                                    Physical labor


The future is very unpopular
Each resident of North America employs the equivalent of 100 "energy slaves": services provided by machinery that runs on fossil fuels. But emancipation is at hand!


People do not like to be persuaded by fact or logical argument.
People like their comforts: cars, HVAC, etc.
People are seduced by TV, consumerism.
Manual labor and farming are low-status activities.
People lack the skills to lead a non-mechanized existence.
It is almost impossible to convince people to do what will be necessary - until it becomes necessary.
It will be almost impossible to do what is necessary without a significant amount of preparation.
Those who take the trouble to prepare will be a tiny minority.


Food
Enough food to feed a family can be grown on 2000-3000 sq. feet (It takes a bit of practice to get this going.)
Some foodstuffs (cooking oil, grains, wine, coffee, chocolate) need to be "imported" somehow.
A lot of wild foods can be gathered (berries, mushrooms, roots & shoots, nuts, [white] acorns.
"Edible Forest Gardens" can be planted on public lands - useful plants surrounded by thorny thickets.
Community kitchens are more efficient than personal ones.
Eliminate all food waste: chickens, rabbits, guinea pigs, carp, catfish, crayfish - something out there will eat it all up.
Nanny goats can provide milk for infants/children.
Seasonal migration out to the land to grow food.
Harvests have to be "floated out" (road transport expensive).


Water
Municipal water = bad risk.
Flushing with potable water = insanity!
Many grades: drinking water, washing water, irrigation water, gray water, "lively" water.
Sewage is a very bad idea; composting much better.
Roof rainwater collection, barrels, filters for drinking water.
Swales dug into hillsides can boost groundwater.
Hot water for washing: rocket stoves fed by brush piles.
Passive irrigation systems instead of pumps and hoses.
Runoff from disused parking lots and other structures can be saved in cisterns.
Flat roofs can be planted with sod to soak up water and keep buildings cool.
Proper placement of shade trees and evaporation pools can make air conditioning unnecessary.

Shelter

Single-family dwellings are no longer affordable for nuclear families; single-family dwellings become extended-family GULAGs where the residents eventually go insane.
There is a lot of unused commercial real estate that will belong to nobody in particular once all parties are bankrupt.
There are a lot of unused shipping containers that are very easy to customize for a wide variety of uses.
Large structures are cheaper and easier to retrofit for off-grid use than small ones.
Transportation needs are much reduced if the entire town relocates into the shopping mall and the office park.
Basements of demolished suburban houses can be flooded and used for aquaculture, or for tree nurseries, etc..
Freed-up land can be used for community agriculture.


Medical "care"
Stay healthy: eat little, mostly vegetables, avoid exercise, but do some physical labor, sleep plenty and get lots of rest, avoid stress, have a sense of humor
Avoid doctors and hospitals (they prescribe toxic drugs, spread disease and deplete family savings)
Know how to treat/cure yourself and the people around you - good hygiene, herbs, massage, rest & TLC
For serious medical needs, have a medical evacuation plan in place - to a country with a functioning medical system (Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Russia...)
Know when it's time for you to go (your life isn't worth half a million to extend by a year or two, no matter who you are - the country can't afford it)
Avoid American medical "care" if at all possible.
Making a profit off of sick people is deeply unethical.
Health is not insurable. If all houses burned down, there would be no fire insurance. Nobody dies healthy..
Resist efforts to tie you to a "job" by the threat of cutting off your access to medical "care".
Resist efforts to force you or your family into medical bankruptcy through medical extortion.
You have no choice of doctor who isn't an American doctor and violates the Hippocratic oath by putting financial and legal considerations ahead of what's good for the patient.
And now, you have no choice but to buy federally mandated private health insurance.


Transportation
To recap: 2/3 of transportation fuels are imported, and these entire 2/3 are going away.
Daily trips to town by private motor-car will once again be reserved for the aristocracy (chauffeur not included).
There is not much hope for continuation of air travel, air freight or interstate trucking.
Rail freight could actually be revived at very little cost (much more cost-effective than road freight).
Water freight is supremely efficient, especially if by sail.
Our harbors, bays, sounds, estuaries, rivers and canals are our prime regional transportation assets.
Many people will be delighted to once again be able to make a living on the water.


In conclusion
Many people can't be persuaded by either fact or reason. Let's hope you are not one of them.
Running out the clock on our current living arrangement is a bad idea: the longer you wait, the fewer options you will be left with
A rather exciting time to be alive, wouldn't you say?

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

VIDEOS OF JOEL SALATIN

VIDEOS OF JOEL SALATIN
Here's a whole collection of Joel. Watch and learn.

FDA Says "You may not eat the food of your choice."

The Untold Story of Milk: Green Pastures, Contented Cows and Raw Dairy ProductsFDA Steps Up Enforcement Against Raw Milk

THE RAID
On April 20, two FDA agents, two federal marshals and one state trooper descended on the Kinzer, Pennsylvania farm (Rainbow Acres) of Dan Allgyer to execute an administrative search warrant against Allgyer's premises. The group set foot on the farm at 5 a.m. to conduct the inspection even thoughthe warrant called for the inspection to take place "at reasonable times during reasonable business hours." The warrant allowed the FDA agents to inspect "all portions of Rainbow Acres facility (except for the private residence located therein) and all things therein, including all equipment, finished and unfinished materials, containers and labeling therein." The warrant also called for the "use of reasonable force" to gain entry to any area the agents were authorized to search.

Later that day after the agents reported their findings to officials at FDA's Philadelphia district office, Philadelphia District Director Kirk Sooter sent Allgyer a warning letter stating that FDA had determined that "you are causing to be delivered into interstate commerce, selling or
otherwise distributing raw milk in final package form for human consumption, such distribution is a violation of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, Title 42 United States Code, Section 264(a), and the implementing regulation codified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 1240.61(a)."
THE INTERSTATE BAN

The regulation [21 CFR 1240.61(a)] issued by FDA in response to a 1988 court order provides, in part, that "no person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized."

The statute [42 USC 264(a)] authorizing FDA to issue the regulation prohibiting raw milk for human consumption in interstate commerce provides, in part, "The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases...from one state or possession into any other state orpossession." In FDA's view all raw milk is a communicable disease and is "adulterated"; so, a product that is legal to sell under the laws of two
neighboring states is a "communicable disease" and illegal when it crosses from one neighboring state into another. The federal ban on raw milk is a prohibition on a product that is legal to sell or distribute in at least twenty-nine (29) states and legal to consume in all fifty (50).

FDA'S STRATEGY TO TARGET FARMERS
AND ACHIEVE STATE-BY-STATE BANS

In spite of the booming demand for raw milk, FDA's position has not changed. The agency is at the center of the opposition to raw milk and wants a complete ban on the product's sale and distribution. In the Chicago area,the FDA has targeted for enforcement (one at a time) twenty (20) different buying clubs the agency suspects of having obtained raw milk from
out-of-state sources. FDA has a similar strategy for the states, with the plan being to pressure one state at a time to ban raw milk sales. If the food safety legislation currently before Congress passes, FDA will have increased leverage over the states so this threat will be greater; the agency does not have the manpower to conduct the inspections mandated by the food safety bill(s) and will in effect be putting state agriculture and health department employees on the federal payroll to carry out its workload.

In taking action against farms, like Rainbow Acres, whom FDA suspects of transporting raw milk across state lines, the agency is attempting to deny the people's right to obtain the food of their choice from the source of their choice. FDA allows Vioxx, Avandia, melamine, aspartame, and
genetically modified foods on the market but is now trying to take off the market a food that has benefited human health for thousands of years.

Interestingly, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution nor in any Supreme Court decision that specifically mentions freedom of food choice. Freedom of food choice is 'the rights issue' of the twenty-first century; ultimately, consumers will be the ones to win the fight.

RAW MILK AND YOUR FREEDOM OF FOOD CHOICE
Raw milk is at the heart of the battle for food freedom. The key to securing the right to obtain raw milk from the source of choice is to overturn the federal ban; without the ban, FDA will not be able to put the pressure on states that it currently does to make raw milk sales and distribution illegal. Efforts are being made to overturn the ban. In February of this year, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking a court ruling that the federal ban is unconstitutional as applied to its members and other individual plaintiffs. Congressman Ron Paul last year introduced HR 778, a bill that would effectively overturn 21 CFR 1240.61.

Readers can do their part to help by contacting FDA and asking that the
agency not harass farmers like Dan Allgyer whom the agency suspects of
transporting raw milk across state lines. John F. Sheehan, the Director of FDA's Division of Plant and Dairy Food, is the official most responsible for carrying out FDA's agenda of completely banning the sale and distribution of raw milk. Sheehan has stated: "Raw milk should not be consumed by anyone, at any time, for any reason."

TAKE ACTION
Call, fax and/or write Mr. Sheehan at the contact information provided below, telling him to leave Dan Allgyer alone. Here are some points to make:

1. FDA should respect the right of consumers to obtain the food of their choice.

2. FDA has no business trying to deny consumers the right to drink raw milk since consumption of raw milk is legal in all fifty states.

3. Consumers are perfectly capable of making food choices for themselves and their families and don't want FDA dictating what foods they should and should not consume.

4. If FDA has no choice but to "enforce the law" then the agency should advocate for overturning that law.

NOTE: FDA has never taken action against any individual obtaining raw milk for their own consumption from another State; but it is possible that FDA could interpret the ban to include prohibiting even consumers from crossing state lines to get raw milk. FTCLDF strongly disagrees with this interpretation and takes the position that people have the right to cross state lines to obtain the foods of their choice.

MR SHEEHAN'S CONTACT INFORMATION
John F. Sheehan, Director
Div. of Plant and Dairy Food
Office of Food Safety
CFSAN-FDA
Bldg. CPK-1, Rm. 3D-055
5100 Paint Branch
College Park, MD 20740
Main phone for Office of Food Safety
1-301-436-1700 (If the receptionist refuses
to put you through to Mr. Sheehan, respectfully
leave a message.) Fax 1-301-436-1700
eMail:  john.sheehan@fda.hhs.gov 
A sample letter to Mr. Sheehan can be found at 
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/aa/sample_consumer_letter_to_sheehan_042610.pdf

Thanks,
Pete Kennedy, Esq. - President 
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund

Monday, April 26, 2010

Sharecropping Reimagined

Shared Earth Re-imagines Share Cropping for the Modern World

So you want to be a gardener but lack any hint of a green thumb? Have excess available land in need of a nurturing gardener to till the area? Aspiring horticulturists and land owners now have an online space to connect, garden, and share homegrown fruits and vegetables. Founder Adam Dell’s Shared Earth aims to bring sharecropping back by connecting open land with gardeners hoping to cultivate their own food. Motherboard reports:
It's kind of like a dating site, but instead of romantic dinners, people come together around backyards and empty lots. In the process, they get to reduce wasted land, fight greenhouse gases, grow their own food, harvest extra crops for food pantries, and maybe make some extra cash. It's ground-breaking. Literally.
The environmental benefits of unused land being transformed into farmland aside, Shared Earth seems like a great way to meet other local food enthusiasts and finally take advantage of the small patch of land between apartment buildings. The venture is already a success, with nearly 26 million square feet of land already being shared across the country—particularly impressive considering the fact that the site only launched this Earth Day. Head over to Motherboard for an interview with Dell; it just might convince you to abandon your thriving Farmville area and try your hand at the real thing for a change.

Photo via Motherboard

Agriburbia - A Logical Step in Relocalization

While I might not have made the drawings exactly the same, I admire and support thinking that re-imagines combining farms with cities and suburbs. It's seems somehow blatantly obvious that food production near and in cities is a correct and fruitful way of meeting one's food needs without the costly energy of long distance shipping and schlepping of over-processed food by fuel-guzzling trucks and planes. Local food ought to be a primary aim of any sensibly relocalizing culture / economy. Let there be more examples!
From Good.is (magazine and website offer news viewed through the lens of "good"). http://www.good.is/

Agriculture is the New Golf: Rethinking Suburban Communities

There is new movement to plan suburban communities around farms instead of golf courses. Can it catch on?

It has often been observed that suburbia is a place where the developer displaces animals and rips out trees, and then names the streets after them.
Whether you see that as destruction or reinvention, the tendency is nothing new. All of America was built on this sort of land transformation, some of it smart, much of it not. But the devastation wrought from decades of intervention by heavy equipment has manifested itself in a range of ills from economic collapse to loss of biodiversity. So today we’re faced with a strange scenario: Our relentless pursuit of the American Dream now has us scrambling for a return to Eden.
“We’re at a watershed in terms of reaching the limits of sustainability both environmentally  [and in] time and expense,” says June Williamson, coauthor with Ellen Dunham-Jones of Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. “There are many dynamics pushing and encouraging a rethinking of our development patterns. The opportunity is there to reshape those settings in a way that will reflect changing demographics, recognize climate change, and acknowledge the need for new suburban development patterns.”
Look at Google Maps images of any platted but unbuilt or unfinished subdivision—all remaining evidence of what stood before erased, replaced with flattened house lots with nothing on them, paved streets including curvy cul-de-sacs, and even street signs, but no signs of life—and you’ll understand the impulse to do things differently. According the American Farmland Trust, more than 6 million acres of agricultural land in the United States were lost to development between 1992 and 1997 alone. Consider that many of those acres were lost to developments that never saw the light of day. Is it too late to restore that acreage? And is it possible that agriculture could be suburbia’s best hope?
Well, sort of. It’s not as if Orange County, California, despite its dire decline in home values, is going to revert back to acres of orange groves. But around the country, there’s a growing interest in looking at the ways agriculture might help retrofit ailing suburbs and cities, and offer an alternative way of thinking about new developments. Growing Power, run by the urban farming expert, MacArthur Foundation “genius,” and GOOD 100 honoree Will Allen, has already demonstrated the potential of urban (and suburban) farming with six greenhouses on nearly two acres of land in Milwaukee as well as a 40-acre rural farm 45 minutes away in the suburb of Merton. And in Detroit, the entrepreneur John Hantz is moving forward with an ambitious but controversial plan to build the world’s largest urban farm—and with it, create green jobs, help the environment, and supply food to the region.
In cities, agriculture might be able to take the place of vacant lots. And in suburbia? Well, in 2008, the New Urbanism evangelist Andrés Duany, of Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), architects and town planners, proclaimed that “agriculture is the new golf,” a prescient and deliberately provocative claim that is helping frame the conversation about suburbia’s future. “Only 17 percent of people living in golf-course communities play golf more than once a year. Why not grow food?”
Why not indeed? While we may have a way to go before we achieve a reality of agricultural urbanism, Duany’s idea seems increasingly reasonable: that we design around agriculture just as golf communities were designed around courses. (Though even the most fervent fan of farming might concede the disparity in cachet between bogeying and back-hoeing.)
The opportunity to design a development from scratch is rare in this period of housing-market implosion. So DPZ is exploring how it might improve upon existing scenarios to assimilate agriculture in ways that are palatable to our contemporary lives, ranging from vertical farms to individual window boxes. Because as attractive as the idea of suburban agriculture is, it’s not quite that simple. Residents may clamor for a house overlooking a pristine green; the realities of farming (smell, flying dust, muck, etc.) demand greater separation between land and house. 




That was just one of the challenges facing the planners from the architecture and land-planning firm Hart Howerton when it was approached by California’s Solano County, a region that already had the agriculture but couldn’t figure out how to create a community within it. In recent years, the region, once blooming with cherry orchards, has been overrun with gas stations and fast-food restaurants. The county hoped Hart Howerton could help it solve a long-standing conflict between the open space desired by neighbors and development rights desired by landowners. Many of those landowners were farmers whose livelihoods had vanished and who had no option but to sell to the highest bidder, resulting in what the architect Brendan Kelly describes as “crap development. You know, the  sort of ‘take a nice orchard and turn it into Stonebridge/Meritage/Quail Run’ crap. If nothing was done lands would remain fallow.”

In Solano, Kelly and his colleague Amie MacPhee created a plan for a clustered rural community that marries innovation with deeply rooted farming patterns. The big idea here is that they’ve retrofitted not buildings but the typical pattern of development: The existing agricultural land is clustered into a 1,400-acre plot, while the rest of the community is preserved open lands, habitat preservation, and a village of 400 homes at the center. A land conservancy, partially funded by a percentage of home sales, would provide a mechanism with which to manage and monitor the land. As MacPhee explains, “Agriculture is an amenity. You can’t just wish for it, you have to support it.”
MacPhee and Kelly believe that the local community embraced their plan in large part because, as MacPhee explains, “We got to design this without a developer over our shoulder, and that helped us break out of any conventional practice.” Developers—and the banks that fund them—are decidedly risk-averse, and their hesitancy to commit to anything unknown is one of the major obstacles deterring all but the status quo in suburban design. MacPhee and Kelly are convinced that their project for Solano will “pencil out” for developers: “If agriculture is the new golf,” says Kelly, “then this plan is a fabulous 72-hole resort.”
In Colorado, a planner and farmer named Matthew “Quint” Redmond has found that to be true. He is working on a similar suburban re-envisioning, with his own version of house-meets-farm that he’s calling “agriburbia.” Marketing his efforts with the tag line “Growing sustainable communities by the bushel!,” Redmond recalls being laughed out of the room for a similar idea back in 2003, though developers now seem to be taking him more seriously. New developments, such as the 3,000-acre Sterling Ranch in Colorado, typically mix housing, commercial development, and significant acreage dedicated to professionally farmed land that will provide produce to the neighborhood as well as the larger region.

Redmond’s vision of agriculture-based development is notable not just for the farming itself but for its mention of a secure food supply in the marketing materials. As concerns around food health and safety continue to make their way into national discussions, a community that produces a trusted food source is a community in possession of a meaningful market differentiator.
“The issue of where your food comes from is disturbing to everyone,” says the activist and architect Fritz Haeg, whose Edible Estates project has urged homeowners to take back their lawns and replace them with edible landscaping. “When my aunt in Omaha is aware of these issues, I know it’s taken off.”
Even in its infancy, it appears that this model might help new development, which is at a relative standstill these days. But how viable is it for the communities that are already here, whether built, partially completed, or abandoned? Peachtree Lane or Chipmunk Court may have been farmland once, but is thinking about returning to that little more than a bucolic fantasy?
Not necessarily, says Galina Tachieva of DPZ. “Almost every project we’ve done is looking at ways to incorporate food production, in both urban and suburban settings,” she says. DPZ has several projects that have been retrofitted to some degree to include agricultural urbanism, including the New Town at St. Charles in Missouri, and Sky in Florida, where land is preserved and sustainable building is encouraged in a predominately rural (and formerly agricultural) community.
But agricultural urbanism is not a cure-all for what ails suburbia. After all, not all suburbs are created equal. “If you’re thinking about remaking suburbia you have to recognize the patterns we have today,” says Egon Terplan, the regional planning director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. “You can’t treat suburbia in a monolithic way.”
Alex Steffen, the executive editor of Worldchanging, agrees. “We have to get smarter about suburban taxonomy: Inner-ring suburbs—with relatively dense single-family neighborhoods and semi-auto-dependent cores, within easy transit reach of a central city—are in a completely different position than outer-ring suburbia, with its big houses on large lots, cul-de-sacs, and arterials planning, and long drives to get anywhere. In the inner ring, it’s not that hard to imagine adding lots of infill development and new transportation infrastructure to make livable, fairly walkable, much more sustainable communities.”

But “visions of subdivisions turned nicely into habitat and farms,” Steffen believes, “are delusional.” The outer rings of suburbs, especially those recently built “with funny loans at the far edges of sunbelt cities, are probably just destined to become the ruins of the unsustainable.”
The opinions are as different as the kinds of suburbs, and it’s an understanding of difference that will inspire creative solutions to how to retrofit suburbia. Says Williamson, who also teaches architecture at the City College of New York/CUNY: “Local conditions will drive retrofitting.”
That focus on local solutions inspired the creation of Tachieva’s forthcoming book of techniques, The Sprawl Repair Manual. The book will offer pragmatic solutions by scale and type, from the big picture (which would include addressing transportation, employment, and green space) to the individual block (how a street lined with McMansions can gain population density with little intervention if townhouses and senior housing are added). It’s painstakingly detailed because it will take just that level of hand-holding to bring about real change.
But will lenders, builders, and developers see the big picture? “I think developers well understand that things need to change—that when the economy comes back it will be different,” says Tachieva. “The majority of leaders, politicians, and planners know that things will be different. It’s not possible to do the same from a financial point of view.”
“I’m optimistic,” says Williamson. “But it won’t happen tomorrow. It took us fifty or sixty years to 
get where we are today, and it will take us that long to fix it.”
This article first appeared in GOOD Issue 19: The Neighborhoods Issue. You can read more from the issue here, or find out what it's all about by reading the introduction.

Paintings by Carrie Marill, courtesy of Jen Bekman Gallery.
Read 
More

Friday, April 23, 2010

The Crash Course — Exponential Growth Meets Reality

The Crash Course — Exponential Growth Meets Reality
pm166_150.jpg
“The next twenty years will be totally unlike the last twenty… We’ll face the greatest economic and physical challenges ever seen by our country, if not humanity.”

So opens Chris Martenson’s much-viewed online Crash Course illuminating the relationship between economy, energy and the environment. Starting with the power of exponential growth, he tidily sums up our economic problems: Too Much Debt. Chris discusses the implications if we continue the status quo, and ways to prepare. He believes that “if we manage the transition elegantly we can actually improve things.” (www.chrismartenson.com).

Preparing for Disasters and Hard Times

pm170_150.jpgIn this animated dialogue, natural resource analyst Sean Brodrick provides a sharp-eyed perspective on what may be coming in this precarious economy and how to prepare for it. The author of The Ultimate Suburban Survivalist Guide, Sean is hip to peak oil and other resource declines as well as the Katrina hurricane lesson - don’t rely on government to save you during disasters. Urging us to prepare for hard times while we’re in good times, he covers smart money moves, food and water storage, basic preparations in case you have to evacuate, and creating bonds with your neighbors to increase home security. [UltimateSuburbanSurvivalist.com and UncommonWisdomDaily.com].
Sean’s Financial Crisis Survival Kit (pdf) goes into far more detail than our conversation, and covers personal financial preparedness and investment advice.