Egg rationing

Due to avian flu outbreak in the US they are now experiencing egg shortages and egg rationing has officially begun according to the Washington Post.  Avian flu has different strains and while there is currently no threat considered to humans if one bird in the flock gets the flu all must be destroyed.  So the US & Canadian poultry market has been completely destroyed with this current outbreak where farms are destroying entire flocks.  Up to 40million birds have been killed. However, this article states that backyard chickens are not being affected by the current outbreak.  While those in the know are still trying to work out why this is so it seems that sunlight and warmth are the key to fighting the virus and factory farmed birds see little of this. Higher egg prices and egg rationing in the US means that processed foods that use eggs will also see an increase in price. It seems to me another argument of localising our food sources.  The US are in this situation because most of their countries eggs are produced by a few states in large industrial farms.  Smaller farms would create more resilience and hopefully healthier populations of birds.

Image: diaryofanocd.wordpress.com

Getting rid of the rubbish

I’ve been thinking about removing rubbish bins.  What if council stopped collecting our rubbish?  What if we had to deliver it and sort it at a station?  Would we just litter?  Or would we become aware of how much waste we were creating and try to reduce it?  There could be public compost stations in schools and parks and churches so people didn’t have to take their organic waste too far or store it too long.  There could be pigs and chickens and goats at these public sites to process other vegetative waste.  Everything else could be processed at a station where people would have to arrive and declare their waste and be charged accordingly.

Would we sneak and dump our waste on our rubbish and into lakes and parklands?  Or would we stand up and change our buying habits, stand up and admit our waste?  Perhaps if there was a reward system and like children, we received a star for every visit to the waste depot, perhaps then we would take responsibility for what we consume.  Perhaps then we would force producers to think cleverly about their packaging.

Image: http://www.telegraph.co.uk

Platinum – the Rich Man’s Gold

Google :substances more valuable than gold” and you’ll get a list of that includes drugs and elements used in weaponry, and you’ll get platinum.

80% of all platinum is mined in South Africa and according to Mudd & Glaister in The Environmental Costs of Platinum-PGM Mining: An Excellent Case Study in Sustainable Mining (Monash University 2009) the environmental costs of mining platinum can be considered worse than gold because of the way it needs to be processed (five times harder than cleaning gold).  Platinum is widely used not only in jewellery but also in technology.

The mining process involves large volumes of mine waste, high energy consumption, which in turn mean high green house gas emissions from coal use, as well as significant water use.  So no better than gold.  Possibly five times worse.  Certainly not to be used if one wants sustainable jewellery.  Again, if we knew the environmental cost of what we wear and what our technology uses, would we make different choices?

In Conclusion

As much as I would like to believe in grassroots change I believe we need top down leadership in matters of sustainability .  Perhaps we need both.  However my feeling is that we are all playing around the edges and making them look pretty while the big boys dig a giant hole in the middle that we are all about to tumble into.

I love the ideas of consumer muscle.  Of making our spending dollars count.  Of making frugality hip.  And while Facebook may make it look like there’s a growing trend towards a shared economy I think the general population is still sucked in by cheap products and our desire for an easy life.  Encouraged by our treasurer to spend, why wouldn’t they when everyone else has one?  Why should their children do without when all the other kids in the class have?

So we need a leader to stand up and act like it’s war time.  A leader who tells us of course if you pay $5 for a t-shirt or $8 for a chicken someone else is paying the real cost of the product somewhere down the line, be it social or environmental or both.  A leader who knows that education is the key and that in sustainability we find better human health, mental and physical, for everyone even if it might mean some of us have to put on another jumper instead of turn up the heat or do without that overseas ski trip.

There is such promise in sustainability of an environment where people and planet are cared for.  Where social problems can be addressed alongside environmental ones.  In a country like ours, so reliant on mining and large agriculture, and so lacking in leadership, I wonder how as an individual you are able to make any kind of difference that actually makes a difference.

Let there be Dingoes

Research coming out of UNSW by Viyanna Leo supports the idea of the reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park saying that dingoes kept kangaroo and cat numbers down and farmers who didn’t bait for dogs may lose a few cows but gained by the lessening of kangaroos.  I note she is fairly offhand about the loss of a cow or two without actual numbers of how many cows are lost but it sounds like not only is it ecologically better to keep the dogs it’s also financially better as farmers are no longer investing in poisons to control dogs and kangaroos.  The point here is that kangaroos are graziers so compete with livestock for grazing land whereas dingoes are hunters so not a direct competition for food.

I would argue that there would still need to be another element of protection for farmers such as the introduction of livestock guardian animals as I suspect farmers don’t like to lose a cow or two.  However I would also argue that the environmental benefits of a healthy ecosystem would in turn be of financial benefit to farmers in the long run.  I would also question if dingo numbers would grow and who their natural predators are.

Ultimately it would all be better if we just forgot the cows and ate the kangaroos.

Image: seuss.wikia.com

Gold, do we really need it?

Browsing the Australian Museums annual exhibition of Wildlife Photographer of the Year a photo of an illegal mine in South America stays with me.  Maybe it was because we attended the exhibition with a friend who works in gold mining and regularly works in South America.  I am not game enough to ask him what he thinks of the photo.  But I keep thinking about it and wondering how relevant gold still is.  Do we really need to still mine it?

Gold is now rarely found along river beds, there are no longer stories of men tripping over lumps of gold as they are walking along.  Nowadays gold is mined in open cut mines where large amounts of ore are dug up for just a small percentage of gold (ie a good mine rate is a few tenths of an ounce per ton of ore) – An article in the Washington Posts refers to mining watchdog Earthworks estimate that an 18 karate wedding band takes 20 tons of ore and waste rock to produce.

But despite the energy used and the damage to the earth, the biggest negative impact of gold mining is the toxic runoff.  Sulfuric acid, arsenic, copper, mercury and cyanide are all released or used in the process of gold mining causing a huge amount of damage to the environment and wildlife as well as any human water sources that may become contaminated as in the photograph I saw at the exhibition.

So do we really need gold?  Have we not dug enough up to just recycle what we’ve got?  Have we not moved past it and into other more modern and hopefully less harmful valuables?

Gold, according to the Department of Mines and Petroleum in WA is used for investment, alloys, jewellery, catalysts, electronics, medicine, dentistry, art, religion and gold plating.  It’s also used for it’s reflective ability (astronauts are given sunglasses tinted with gold to protect their eyes) and it’s used as a film over windows to retain heat in winter and reflect heat in summer) and as a catalyst in paints and glues (and possibly to reduce odours from public toilets in Japan).

So I guess to answer my own question, gold is used for a lot more than just decoration and value hording but how do you measure it’s value against it’s damage?  If mining companies truly had to pay for the damage to the environment they cause I suspect rather than see less mining we would just see more illegal mining.  If we in urban city understood the damage our wedding rings or jewellery caused would we still buy them?  Or would we demand to know where our gold was coming from like we demand to know where our palm oil is sourced?

Now I need to go and see what environmental damage this platinum wedding ring I have caused.

Image: moomblr.com

Plastic Eating Mushrooms

I like mushrooms.  I spent a weekend learning how to grow them once.  I find them fascinating but I wasn’t good at growing them.  I think I’m too much of a gardener.  You need to be part scientist to grow mushrooms.  Or at least grow them the way I was taught.

I don’t like plastic.  My elder son and I used to spend a lot of time talking about how to change plastic into something useful.  Dissolve it in the oceans or turn it into food.  Our conversation was just fantasy.  He is 12.  Probably 11 at the time of the conversations and I am a gardener, not a scientist.

But scientists do seem to be doing it.  Just the other day I saw this.  A man turning plastic into oil.  I’m not convinced but like the idea of plastic having a second life.  It makes it more valuable.

And then there’s this.  A fungi that can break down polyurethane and leave behind a fluffy edible mushroom.  It’s going to take a big shift in behavior to get people to eat these fluffy mushrooms given some of us have trouble eating from trees that have been fertilised with urine but maybe they could be used for animal feed.  Would be interesting to see the nutritional breakdown and whether there are any suspected carcinogens absorbed from the plastic.

Image: ModernFarmer

Do Solarpanels mitigate Urban Heat Island effect?

In discussions on Urban Heat Island effect the colour of roads and roof tops are discussed but I was left wondering if rooftops are covered by solar panels would this also mitigate the effects of urban heat islands?

In an article for Frontiers in Environmental Science, Valery Masson et al claim that solar panels do mitigate urban heat island effect (http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00014/full).  The article was based on a study in Paris (so a city not influenced by sea breezes) and found that while there was some shading of roofs in winter, which meant an increase in the need for domestic heating, there was a far greater reduction for the need of airconditioning in summer and that UHI was reduced during the day and night.  Panels used were not photovoltaic but thermal which they claim to be more effective.

To reach their conclusion simulations of the Paris metropolitan area were conducted.  They found that during summer solar panels on roofs would significantly impact temperatures, particularly during the night.  They also highlight a few interesting issues in relation to installing panels in Paris such as visual intrusion and pollution that affect the solar panels from producing effectively.

Urban Meat Farming

Despite being a vegetarian I have had an interest in urban meat farming for a number of years.  A few years ago I attended a workshop on the principles of permaculture led by the co-originator of permaculture David Holgrem.  I asked David to discuss whether or not he felt goats were appropriate in an urban context and he got very excited about the idea.

Initially my interest in goats was for milk, urban exposure and education about animals other than the chickens, who are our go to creature in urban gardens, and for weed control.  They are also excellent at processing green waste ie small branches and garden cuttings that are too small to mulch and too big to compost.  David also pointed out that there would be excess meat in the form of any male goats born and that these could be harvested giving local communities a local source of meat.

In Bega you can already hire goats to help with weed control.  In the US goats are regularly used for weed control in cities as well as country areas but there is little discussion about their use for meat.

People, even meat eaters, are funny about killing animals and this is a good thing. I would not like to think we are thoughtlessly killing animals.  But like death of humans, death of animals for food is something we push to the outer areas where we do not have to be confronted by the sounds and smells of animals dying.  I suspect if we had to slaughter our own meat we would not only consume a lot less, we would also consume it more thoughtfully.

At Randwick Primary School where I run the edible garden, I have permission from the Principle to start introducing other animals.  We currently have chickens and I was very upfront with everyone that when the chickens hatched we would have a couple of roosters and they would need to be slaughtered and I wanted them slaughtered for meat.  I lined up someone who was confident with killing birds and someone who knew how to process the carcass.  However both of these people became attached to the rooster and then backed out of the arrangement.  This experience thwarted my idea of introducing piglets at the start of a school year that would be slaughtered at the end of the year.  If they got so attached to a rooster, imagine how attached they would be to a pig.

However I still think there is value in the idea.  I think we’d benefit from the animal interaction, from the production of local meat and from the experience of really understanding what it is to eat meat.  So I continue to explore the idea with thoughts that perhaps high schools would be a better place or local public land where only those with a willingness for such things would be involved.

Image:www.flickr.com

Composting toilets and methane gas

Mentioned in passing during tutorial as to what the issues would be for composting toilets in regards to methane I thought I would take a closer look.  If organic matter is composted anaerobically (without air) then it produces methane gas.  This is the problem with organic waste going into landfill.  However if organic waste is composted aerobically then the methane produced is significantly lower (according to this report on large composting facilities) or possibly no methane as reported by this composting toilet system.

Here is a nice run down of where methane occurs, stating that methane is a short lived gas, lasting only 12 years so one we could possibly have an impact on in a relatively short time frame.  Cows of course are always getting the blame but landfill has a lot of answer for as well.  I’ve probably said before that I think throwing away organic matter should be illegal.  I have easily available compost bins at the side of my property so those who are squeamish about having their own composts in my neighbourhood can contribute to mine instead.  Vancouver has made it illegal but they have green bins where all food waste can be thrown making it a lot easier for residents as they don’t have to deal with it themselves, they just get it in the right bin.

But back to composting toilets.

Composting toilets come in a range of styles and complexity from buckets with seats on them to full porcelain or wood constructions that resemble a standard flushing toilet.  And according to this thread on trying to harvest methane from humanure as biogas it doesn’t look like humans produce enough methane in their manure to make it worth harvesting.  They are suggesting you need a few cows and a pig to make the harvesting worthwhile which suggests to me that the methane produced by an aerobically composting toilet would not be a significant amount.  If those people and the composting toilet companies are right.

Images: motherearthliving; rotaloo.com; pinterest.com