Urban Farming for Empowered Communities (and Sustainable Cities)

by Thor Ritz 

.

PopTech 2009: Will Allen from PopTech on Vimeo.

Over the past year, folks here at the Institute have become more and more interested in the practice of urban farming.  We have been particularly keen about it’s role (mostly potential but sometimes actual) in the project of building more sustainable cities.  They can convert dis-used, industrial land into green spaces which could help to improve air quality, control storm water run-off, mitigate the urban heat island effect, etc.

Just as important as these ecological considerations, however, are the social dimensions of urban agriculture.  Many cultivation projects in American cities dedicate their produce to alleviating food insecurity and design their programs for community empowerment (right here in NYC there is Bed-Stuy Farm and East New York Farms).  The video above, courtesy of PopTech, sums up the issues at stake quite nicely and features an icon of this blossoming movement, Will Allen of Growing Power.  For those of us fighting for urban sustainability, these sort of projects represent a crucial opportunity to prioritze the tenet of equity (a concept better expressed as social justice, I think) in the work that we do.

Urban Food Growing in Havana, Cuba

Posted by Keith Johnson

Strengthening the role of R&D in boosting eco-innovation and eco-efficiency

RTD:Workshop "Strengthening the role of R&D in boosting eco-innovation and eco-efficiency" (13/11/09)

			Session I: Research priorities	8	pontose@cec
			Session II: How to measure Eco-innovation and Eco-efficiency	7	pontose@cec
	i		Background paper		pontose@cec	65K	10/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Participants List		pontose@cec	27K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Workshop agenda		pontose@cec	102K	11/11/2009	1.0	English (en)

SESSION I

	i		Arnold Black		pontose@cec	13342K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Catia Bastioli		pontose@cec	79140K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Doreen Fedrigo		pontose@cec	15599K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Martin Charter		pontose@cec	15K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Martin Jänicke		pontose@cec	3722K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Rainer Walz		pontose@cec	308K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Theodoros Staikos		pontose@cec	10071K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Uffe Bundgaard-Jørgensen		pontose@cec	1889K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)

SESSION II

	i		EUROSTAT		pontose@cec	1520K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Igor Jelinski		pontose@cec	4412K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Raimund Bleischwitz		pontose@cec	1673K	25/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		René Kemp		pontose@cec	1220K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Roberto Zoboli		pontose@cec	170K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Tomoo Machiba		pontose@cec	4716K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)
	i		Ugo Pretato		pontose@cec	3804K	20/11/2009	1.0	English (en)

Seattle as North America's First Carbon-Neutral City

by Alex Steffen, 23 Nov 09

Last week, I stood on the stage at Seattle's Town Hall and called on Seattle to become North America's first carbon-neutral city, dropping its per capita climate emissions to nothing by 2030.

Since then, I've gotten a whole slew of great emails and calls from people who are thinking that goal through, and have questions. Mostly, folks have been wildly supportive, generally wanting most to know how they can help build the movement to do that. I'm a writer, not an organizer, and I don't have the plan, but I can explain a little more my thinking, and share some observations about what seems to be needed right now. Hopefully those will help.

The timing and target come from the now-common observation that we need to aspire to return the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350 ppm. In order to do that, we need to at very least level off at 450 ppm mid century. To do that, while billions of young people in the developing world rise out of poverty (and escape the problems of poverty), we need to create a new bright green model of prosperity, one that can be shared equitably and sustainably by all. For that model to be widely adopted by 2050, I reckon, we need to have it up and running by 2030. Because of the vastly unequal distribution of formal research and innovation capacity in the world, because of the developed world's near-complete responsibility for the climate problems we already face and because of the central role of cities in climate action, that model needs to come from the wealthier cities of the Global North. We have to invent that model and be living it in 20 years.

Building bright green cities: that's the great moral and political challenge of our day. That is our generation's Abolition, our era's World War Two. If we can achieve this, we'll provide component innovations, new mental models and more time for billions of people around the world to blaze their own trails to their own new models of prosperity. We'll address the major causes of planetary environmental destruction, relieve the suffering of hundreds of millions of people and protect the rights of future generations -- all while improving our own lives and preparing our region for the economy of the 21st century. This isn't just a win-win proposition, it's the possibility of multi-dimensional, cascading, feedback-loops full of win.

The only "non-win" about it is that it will involve change -- not sacrifice, because all the evidence suggests that most people's lives will improve; and not expense, because all of the steps we need to take return more money than we'll spend, over time (and if it makes money it's not a cost, it's an investment). Of course, people hate change. Most people want everything to stay exactly the way it was about 10 or 20 years ago; and the idea of plunging forward into a future of dramatic transformations makes many people grumpy, and a few downright psychotic.

Of course, change is the only given; and when it comes to our collision with planetary boundaries, our choice isn't whether to change or not, it's whether to act or be acted upon by vast forces we're unleashing as a consequence of our way of living today. Our current way of living is toast in either case, and will vanish within the next few decades; the only question is, what will replace it? Will our way of living be followed by millennia of ecological impoverishment, increased human suffering and diminished cultural possibilities; or will it be followed by a better way of life, one that prevents catastrophic collisions with ecological reality, and leaves us (and billions of others) wealthier, healthier and happier? That's the only real choice we have in front of us.

Now, we are really and truly on terra incognita here. No one knows exactly what a carbon-neutral North American city would look like, or what the best, fastest routes there will turn out to be. There is no map for these territories, and we'll need to cultivate an attitude of experimentation, innovation and learning as we go.

Even some of the most basic questions will demand debate: How do we define carbon-neutrality? What do we include in our carbon footprint and what do we leave out? How much can we ethically rely on offsets or other "shifted changes" to make up for the damage caused by some of our existing systems that are very slow to change? How do we wrest away the regulatory authority and fiscal capacity to make these changes, in the face of what has already been determined opposition from those industries most invested in continued ecological destruction? How do we envision the end result and help our fellow citizens connect to it as a goal? The questions go on...

But developing answers to those questions in ways that make sense in our context is part of the model we're trying to create: the conversation about change is itself part of the change we seek. Indeed, having made the case for this shift to those in our own region who are skeptical (or in some cases, directly hostile) is part of what will arm other cities, in different contexts, with information and insight to build their own cases for change. All of this is hard work, but it isn't wasted labor.

The most important part is the standard: if any sustainability plan we find ourselves discussing isn't hammering out a pathway built of measured steps and leading to zero impact in a definable and relatively immediate time-frame, it's just no longer good enough. I think zero carbon emissions by 2030 (with the interim goals of 10 percent immediate cuts and a 50 percent reduction in the next 10 years) makes sense. Others may differ. The important point is that we stop investing energy in small steps that cannot add up to the large leaps we know we need to make, and stop accepting modest (or even lame) goals as sufficient.

In fact, I'm increasingly suspicious of any proposal to make something less unsustainable, rather than following a measured path to zero impact. Surrounded by a global leadership culture that values above all else civic incrementalism, compromise and moderation (sometimes for very good reasons), many of us tend to assume that progress is gradual and that steps in the right direction are at very least a good start. But that thinking is dysfunctional for the times in which we find ourselves. We need (for really direct and documented reasons) bold, rapid action and the completion of goals on a strict timetable. If any particular action can't make a case for itself as part of a bold and rapid shift, I increasingly suspect it's a sparkly distraction, not a stepping stone.

That absolutely does not mean that everything we do must be perfect, or even produce a specific measurable impact. Steps that are specific and limited, but lead nonetheless to a larger goal are great, even if they alone won't solve the whole problem. Compact fluorescents will not save the planet, but they clearly lead to reduced energy usage, and so there's nothing wrong with encouraging their uptake as part of a march towards zero emissions in twenty years.

Even more important are cultural actions. All of the largest barriers to bright green innovation are cultural and conceptual, not technical. The technical challenges of implementation are pretty huge, but they can't be faced at all without changing the way at least an active core of people see these issues. What does a zero-impact society look like? What is the definition of prosperity? What actually makes us happy? What parts of our lives already fail to work as advertised, and what would it feel like to transform them? How would we live in this new world?

These are questions that, fundamentally, we can only tackle through art and design, creative inquiry and intellectual exploration, conversation and media. We need a movement of people engaged in this work. For while it's true that changing attitudes alone is not enough, inspired minds driving forward a cause is the only formula for real change that has ever worked: free your mind, and your ass will follow.

Free your mind, Seattle.

Image credit: Craig Allen, CC

Searching for a Miracle - ‘Net Energy’ Limits & the Fate of Industrial Society

by Richard Heinberg

Perhaps the most significant limit to future energy supplies is the “net energy” factor—the requirement that energy systems yield more energy than is invested in their construction and operation.

Searching for a Miracle

‘Net Energy’ Limits & the Fate of Industrial Society

Post Carbon Institute & International Forum on Globalization - September 2009

Read the full report:
»  Download the PDF (2.61 MB)

Overview

THIS REPORT IS INTENDED as a non-technical examination of a basic question: Can any combination of known energy sources successfully supply society’s energy needs at least up to the year 2100? In the end, we are left with the disturbing conclusion that all known energy sources are subject to strict limits of one kind or another. Conventional energy sources such as oil, gas, coal, and nuclear are either at or nearing the limits of their ability to grow in annual supply, and will dwindle as the decades proceed—but in any case they are unacceptably hazardous to the environment. And contrary to the hopes of many, there is no clear practical scenario by which we can replace the energy from today’s conventional sources with sufficient energy from alternative sources to sustain industrial society at its present scale of operations. To achieve such a transition would require (1) a vast financial investment beyond society’s practical abilities, (2) a very long time—too long in practical terms—for build-out, and (3) significant sacrifices in terms of energy quality and reliability.

Perhaps the most significant limit to future energy supplies is the “net energy” factor—the requirement that energy systems yield more energy than is invested in their construction and operation. There is a strong likelihood that future energy systems, both conventional and alternative, will have higher energy input costs than those that powered industrial societies during the last century.We will come back to this point repeatedly.

The report explores some of the presently proposed energy transition scenarios, showing why, up to this time, most are overly optimistic, as they do not address all of the relevant limiting factors to the expansion of alternative energy sources. Finally, it shows why energy conservation (using less energy, and also less resource materials) combined with humane, gradual population decline must become primary strategies for achieving sustainability.

***

The world’s current energy regime is unsustainable. This is the recent, explicit conclusion of the International Energy Agency1, and it is also the substance of a wide and growing public consensus ranging across the political spectrum. One broad segment of this consensus is concerned about the climate and the other environmental impacts of society’s reliance on fossil fuels.The other is mainly troubled by questions regarding the security of future supplies of these fuels—which, as they deplete, are increasingly concentrated in only a few countries.

To say that our current energy regime is unsustainable means that it cannot continue and must therefore be replaced with something else.However, replacing the energy infrastructure of modern industrial societies will be no trivial matter. Decades have been spent building the current oil-coal-gas infrastructure, and trillions of dollars invested. Moreover, if the transition from current energy sources to alternatives is wrongly managed, the consequences could be severe: there is an undeniable connection between per-capita levels of energy consumption and economic well-being.2 A failure to supply sufficient energy, or energy of sufficient quality, could undermine the future welfare of humanity, while a failure to quickly make the transition away from fossil fuels could imperil the Earth’s vital ecosystems.

Nonetheless, it remains a commonly held assumption that alternative energy sources capable of substituting for conventional fossil fuels are readily available—whether fossil (tar sands or oil shale), nuclear, or a long list of renewables—and ready to come on-line in a bigger way. All that is necessary, according to this view, is to invest sufficiently in them, and life will go on essentially as it is.

But is this really the case? Each energy source has highly specific characteristics. In fact, it has been the characteristics of our present energy sources (principally oil, coal, and natural gas) that have enabled the building of a modern society with high mobility, large population, and high economic growth rates. Can alternative energy sources perpetuate this kind of society? Alas, we think not.

While it is possible to point to innumerable successful alternative energy production installations within modern societies (ranging from small homescale photovoltaic systems to large “farms” of threemegawatt wind turbines), it is not possible to point to more than a very few examples of an entire modern industrial nation obtaining the bulk of its energy from sources other than oil, coal, and natural gas. One such rare example is Sweden, which gets most of its energy from nuclear and hydropower. Another is Iceland, which benefits from unusually large domestic geothermal resources, not found in most other countries. Even in these two cases, the situation is more complex than it appears.The construction of the infrastructure for these power plants mostly relied on fossil fuels for the mining of the ores and raw materials, materials processing, transportation, manufacturing of components, the mining of uranium, construction energy, and so on. Thus for most of the world, a meaningful energy transition is still more theory than reality. But if current primary energy sources are unsustainable, this implies a daunting problem. The transition to alternative sources must occur, or the world will lack sufficient energy to maintain basic services for its 6.8 billion people (and counting).

Thus it is vitally important that energy alternatives be evaluated thoroughly according to relevant criteria, and that a staged plan be formulated and funded for a systemic societal transition away from oil, coal, and natural gas and toward the alternative energy sources deemed most fully capable of supplying the kind of economic benefits we have been accustomed to from conventional fossil fuels.

By now, it is possible to assemble a bookshelf filled with reports from nonprofit environmental organizations and books from energy analysts, dating from the early 1970s to the present, all attempting to illuminate alternative energy transition pathways for the United States and the world as a whole.These plans and proposals vary in breadth and quality, and especially in their success at clearly identifying the factors that are limiting specific alternative energy sources from being able to adequately replace conventional fossil fuels.

It is a central purpose of this document to systematically review key limiting factors that are often left out of such analyses.We will begin that process in the next section. Following that, we will go further into depth on one key criterion: net energy, or energy returned on energy invested (EROEI).This measure focuses on the key question: All things considered, how much more energy does a system produce than is required to develop and operate that system? What is the ratio of energy in versus energy out? Some energy “sources” can be shown to produce little or no net energy. Others are only minimally positive.

Unfortunately, as we shall see in more detail below, research on EROEI continues to suffer from lack of standard measurement practices, and its use and implications remain widely misunderstood. Nevertheless, for the purposes of large-scale and long-range planning, net energy may be the most vital criterion for evaluating energy sources, as it so clearly reveals the tradeoffs involved in any shift to new energy sources.

This report is not intended to serve as a final authoritative, comprehensive analysis of available energy options, nor as a plan for a nation-wide or global transition from fossil fuels to alternatives. While such analyses and plans are needed, they will require institutional resources and ongoing reassessment to be of value.The goal here is simply to identify and explain the primary criteria that should be used in such analyses and plans, with special emphasis on net energy, and to offer a cursory evaluation of currently available energy sources, using those criteria.This will provide a general, preliminary sense of whether alternative sources are up to the job of replacing fossil fuels; and if they are not, we can begin to explore what might be the fall-back strategy of governments and the other responsible institutions of modern society.

As we will see, the fundamental disturbing conclusion of the report is that there is little likelihood that either conventional fossil fuels or alternative energy sources can reliably be counted on to provide the amount and quality of energy that will be needed to sustain economic growth—or even current levels of economic activity—during the remainder of the current century.

This preliminary conclusion in turn suggests that a sensible transition energy plan will have to emphasize energy conservation above all. It also raises questions about the sustainability of growth per se, both in terms of human population numbers and economic activity.

Read full report

Ecological Impacts of Climate Change

Life on Earth is profoundly affected by the planet's climate. Explore some of the ecological impacts of climate change that have already been observed—right in your own backyard.

This 28-page booklet is based on Ecological Impacts of Climate Change (2009), a report by an independent panel of experts convened by the National Research Council. It explains general themes about the ecological consequences of climate change and identifies examples of ecological changes across the United States. Download PDF Version (8 MB) Order FREE Printed Copies [This product is currently out of stock. Please check back or refer to the PDF and online versions.] Download Presentation Modules Explore Booklet Online

Powerpoint Presentation Modules on Ecological Impacts

These Powerpoint presentation modules were developed to assist educators, museum docents, and other interested parties in sharing information about the ecological impacts of climate change.

Presentations can be personalized to your geographic region. For your convenience, presenter notes are embedded in the Powerpoint files.



Step 1: Download Introductory Powerpoint Slides (5.8 MB)

Step 2: Download Powerpoint Slides for Your Region

• Pacfic Coastline (151 KB)
• Alaska and the Arctic (236 KB)
• Western Mountains (1 MB)
• Southwestern Deserts (133 KB)
• Central U.S. (291 KB)
• Southeast (222 KB)
• Northeast (98 KB)

Step 3: Download Conclusion Powerpoint Slides (335 KB)

Step 4: Combine Powerpoint Slides into a Single Presentation and Enjoy!

If you prefer, you may download the Full Presentation (5.9 MB) including all geographic regions.

Explore Ecological Impacts of Climate Change Online

Browse the contents of this booklet online by navigating through the sections below. Figures from the booklet are also available for downloading here.

• Introduction
• What do we know about climate change?
• What are the ecological impacts of climate change?
  • Impacts in the Pacific Coastline
  • Impacts in Alaska and the Arctic
  • Impacts in the Western Mountains
  • Impacts in the Southwestern Deserts
  • Impacts in the Central United States
  • Impacts in the Southeast
  • Impacts in the Northeast
• What does the future hold...and what can we do?

About These Products

The Ecological Impacts section of this website was developed by the National Academies based on Ecological Impacts of Climate Change (2009), a report by an independent panel of experts convened by the National Research Council. The report, its companion booklet, and the presentation modules were created with support from the United States Geological Survey.

Slow movement - Making connection

Making the connection to life

By joining the slow movement we have the opportunity to connect to life. What does connecting to life mean? To connect to life is to connect to every aspect of our lives. Most important of all is to connect to ourselves, and to our own movement within life. That is, to connect to our body and our mind, to connect to
Interconnectednessspirituality, to our stage in life, to connect to the natural rhythms that guide us, and to connect to death and dying – a natural part of life.
So many of us do not connect to life. We search for something not knowing what it is. We search for happiness and fulfillment. But we search in the outer world not realizing that we find these things by looking within.
When we look within we see that we are complete and our life is complete. We no longer have to strive to climb the employment ladder or to improve our social status. We see that we are part of an infinitely complex whole – the interdependence of all things.
The most difficult part of connecting to life is to slow our mind enough to even see what we need to do. Many people in the west are now recognizing they need to make connection and are searching for how to do this. These people are aware that it has to do with slowing down and moving back to basics – away from the hectic stress-filled life they are leading.
More and more people are downshifting or seeking a seachange. In different countries different physical environments are seen to epitomize a slow, fulfilling life. For example, in some countries it is the peaceful rural village or farm-life, whereas in others it is the sleepy seaside village. Perhaps in some countries it is living in the mountains.
Real connectionEach culture identifies with a certain topographic or geographic landscape as being the ‘best’ one. Australians have always been drawn to the surf. It is a nation of surfers or fisherfolks.
Some people choose not to move where they live in order to join the slow movement, but to stay and dramatically slow down and change their lives in order to connect to life. We can downshift or seachange no matter what our life circumstance or position.
Death and dying has become a bit of a taboo subject in our culture. We are so divorced from the process that it is all a bit scary – something we don’t want to discuss, especially when it is our death and dying that is the subject.
Why has this unnatural fear arisen? Mostly this fear exists because death is unknown. Because it is unknown people have developed one of three basic attitudes: one is to fear death to such as extent that we become a slave to our emotions. Some people ignore the possibility of death by becoming so engrossed in living that they do not have time to think about it. And lastly, some people accept the inevitability of death and make emotional and spiritual preparations for it.

Making the connection to people

The slow movement is about slowing down and having richer relationships with people. Not just our partner, but our entire family, our friends, our workmates, our neighbours, and anybody else we meet. How many of us don’t know the names of our neighbours?
We are all one
A rich relationship is one where there is a deep connection based on loving-kindness. Some people think it takes time to develop a rich relationship and a deep connection. Yet a deep connection with another person can be made in minutes. It is all about where we focus. Do we focus on ourselves, or do we focus on the other person? When we focus on the other person, and that is, when we truly focus on the other person, we make a deep connection.
When we make a deep connection we make rich relationships and … 
Rich relationships make rich lives
When we connect to people in our community or neighbourhood we also connect to place and to the slow movement. In the fast-lane lives people don’t have time to slow down and talk and listen to others. Either they drive to work in stressful traffic, or they catch a bus or train and spend the duration of the journey reading a newspaper or trying to avoid eye contact with their fellow passengers.

Stopping for a chat Why do people do this? What are they afraid of? What are they doing that is more valuable and rewarding than talking and connecting to people?
This fear or denial of other people’s existence is seen in the current attitude to older people in western countries. It seems that so many times, once a person reaches their latter years they are ignored at best, and at worst subjected to discrimination and abuse.
Other cultures have maintained the respect and sense of responsibility for their aged that we have in our cultural past. Why is this? Is it a result of our crazy desire for
Just Talkingindividuation? Or is it because we have believed the propaganda the media has fed us about youth, looks, health etc, that has led to some of us placing value on these things and conversely placing no or less than no value on aging, wrinkles/saggy skin, declining health etc.?
How does the connection to people relate to how we earn our money? How many of us question the practices of our employer, not just in the workplace, but the effects of the business in the community in terms of social, economic and environmental impacts. Does the business create more division between rich and poor, or any other social groups?
As can be seen the slow movement is about slowing down and making connection. These connections enrich our lives and the lives of others. They also build the social fabric of our communities and provide a strong and resilient fabric to support us all.

Making the connection to place

One of the tenets of the Slow Movement is to preserve cultural heritage. This is especially clear in the slow food movement where one of the emphasises is on traditional ways of preparation, serving and consumption of traditional foods, using traditional recipes. The emphasis on cultural heritage is no less important in other areas of the slow movement where we make a deep connection to place, people, and culture.
Cultural heritage refers not only to the physical qualities and attributes (both natural and human-made) of places but also to their historic, or
Connection to placesocial value for past, present or future generations. These qualities and attributes include such intangible qualities as people’s associations with, or feelings for a place. That is, there are both tangible and intangible aspects to cultural heritage.
We in the west are a mobile population, often seeking connection to place but many times not finding it. Perhaps the inability to develop a deep connection to place is because of the lack of processes whereby this can happen, and because of lack of value placed on connection.
When we focus on developing or maintaining a connection to place our emphasis is on bioregionalism and supporting local economies, and through that, supporting local communities to engage in traditional activities. When we live, work, eat, source our food, and pursue recreation within our bioregion, we are building a connection to place and to the cultural heritage of the bioregion.

How to make the connection to food

We can create a strong connection with our food, local farmers, community members and others by:

Growing our own

• Joining or starting a community food system;
• Eating food grown in your local area or bioregion;
• Eating organically or sustainably grown food;
• Starting a back-yard vegie garden; or helping someone else to do it;
• Joining or starting a community food garden;
• Encouraging local shops and restaurants to buy from local farmers;
• Becoming acquainted with local farmers;
• Volunteering to work on a local community supported agriculture project or community food system;
• Growing and promoting traditional foods;
• Refusing GM food;
• Promoting community food systems amongst your friends and fellow workers; and
• Growing fresh produce to donate to food kitchens
• Joining a local slow food group. 

• www.slowmovement.com/

Slow City

Air Date: Week of November 20, 2009 (Photo: Don Genova) Cowichan Bay, a small Canadian town, has become the first Slow City in North America. Towns or cities have to meet certain criteria to gain slow city certification - pedestrian walkways, no big box or chain stores, a population of less than 50 thousand. Producer Don Genova visited Cowichan Bay and found a community proud of its newly gained status. RealAudio for this Story (Requires RealPlayer) Download this Story (mp3 format) Links Related to this Story

YOUNG: A village in British Columbia has scored a North American first by becoming something called a Cittaslow, or Slow City. A Slow City is an offshoot of the Slow Food movement; it's a sort of quiet resistance to fast lane, drive-thru homogenization. The seaside town of Cowichan Bay, north of Victoria on Vancouver Island, doesn't have a single fast food restaurant in sight. As Don Genova reports, the villagers want to keep it that way. [RAIN SOUNDS; SEAGULL SOUNDS] GENOVA: It's a grey, rainy morning in Cowichan Bay. Seagulls call, fishing boats bob gently at the pier. A hungry sailor arriving from dockside won't find a McDonald's or KFC in this town. Instead, eateries are called the Rock Cod Cafe and the Masthead Restaurant. Radway Fair Trade and Cow Bay's Pirate Shack take the place of The Gap and Costco.    (Photo: Don Genova) [SOUNDS OF BAG RUSTLING; WOMAN SAYING, "I'D LIKE A LOAF OF THE PANNED LOAF MULTIGRAIN, SLICED, PLEASE, FOR STARTERS"; SLICER MOTOR SOUNDS] GENOVA: The True Grain Organic Bakery sits in the middle of the narrow strip of shops lining the seaside. A slicer carves through fresh loaves of bread as Bruce Stewart emerges from the milling room. He's owned the bakery for two years now. STEWART: Yeah, my wife Leslie and I were living in Toronto, and for a little while after that we were living in Calgary, and we decided that it was time to start a family, and we realized that we didn't want to raise our children in a large city, having both grown up in small communities. GENOVA: The previous owner had started a ball rolling, and Stewart quickly found himself leading the bid to designate Cowichan Bay a Cittaslow, Slow City. Bruce Stewart owns the True Grain Organic Bakery and led the bid to make Cowichan Bay a slow city. (Photo: Don Genova)    STEWART: What Cittaslow is going to allow us to do is take all the hard work that's been done by so many different individuals and so many different groups and put it all together and allow us to use it as a framework and move forward to do better. We can be doing a lot better in terms of recycling in the community; we could be doing a lot better in terms of environmental infrastructure. GENOVA: Cittaslow is an international network of 120 towns in 16 countries. It was founded a decade ago by mayors of some small historic towns in Italy, looking for a way to preserve their culture. They were helped by the same man who founded the Slow Food movement, Carlo Petrini. Mara Jernigan is the president of Slow Food Canada. [CROWD SOUNDS]    (Photo: Don Genova) JERNIGAN: So they started to identify the characteristics that defined that kind of cultural identity for a town, so pedestrian walkways, you know, bicycle, not too much light pollution, and just decided to put together Cittaslows. [VOICES TALKING IN CROWD] GENOVA: It seems like the whole town of 3,000 is on the docks of the Cowichan Bay Maritime Museum, preparing for a Cittaslow celebration. Towns must have fewer than 50,000 people to qualify. They are judged on many factors: environmental policy, land use, availability of local food ingredients, encouragement of craft products and independent businesses. Marks are even given for a community's friendliness and hospitality. Jernigan says Cowichan Bay was an ideal candidate given how it stands out from neighboring urban areas. JERNIGAN: You know just south of here in Langford it's full of big box stores, and we've got fast food restaurants all over the highway in Duncan, I think one day I counted and there's 16, within a one-kilometer basis right in the heart of downtown Duncan and that kind of thing is really destructive to the health and the economies of small, local places, and Cowichan Bay, you know, for one reason or another, is different. It's more about what we're not, you know. MAN: I'm honored to have the privilege to officially announce that Cowichan Bay is North America's first Cittaslow community. [APPLAUSE AND CHEERING; CROWD SOUND] (Photo: Don Genova)    GENOVA: A crowd welcomes the announcement, the celebration made more complete with local wine, seafood and bounty from nearby farms. The Cittaslow committee is a volunteer group. But keeping the nature of Cowichan Bay intact is in the hands of politicians who pass municipal bylaws and approve changes in zoning. Cowichan Bay is an unincorporated village, administered by a much larger regional council, which has approved big box growth in other areas. Lori Iannidinardo sits on that council. She says a new Official Community Plan is in the works. IANNIDINARDO: It's the community's input, it's not my say, it's the community making this document, it is a living document, but it's also, if a developer comes and they have a look at our official community plan, they'll go wow, this is the style of this community, this is the design, and we hope to work on that. GENOVA: It's not just developers that will get the message. Guests to Mara Jernigan's farmhouse bed and breakfast are quick to pick up the feel of the region. JERNIGAN: By the time they leave they say, 'Wow, I feel like I met all these people in the community, I know where the chicken comes from, I know where the vegetables come from, where the cheese and the bread', and that's a very, very special thing that we have. [SEAGULL SOUNDS; WATER SOUNDS] GENOVA: Naramata in British Columbia will join Cowichan Bay to become Canada's second Cittaslow, and Sonoma, in California, will become the USA's first Cittaslow at the end of November. So, it looks like this idea of slowing down life in small towns in North America is gathering speed. For Living On Earth, I'm Don Genova in Cowichan Bay, British Columbia. YOUNG: Well, you can see pictures of Cowichan Bay and learn more about Slow Cities at our website, LOE dot org.

Cowichan News Leader article on Cowichan Bay becoming North America's first slow city Citta Slow originated in Italy. Here's a description of some slow Italian towns. Slow Movement

Living on Earth wants to hear from you! Email us at comments@loe.org, or call our listener line (1-800-218-9988). Our mailing address is: Living on Earth 20 Holland Street Suite 408 Somerville, MA 02144-2749

10 ways to reduce your environmental footpritn

Eat less beef, pork, and lamb

Beef’s carbon footprint is 3 to 7 times larger than chicken’s.
Producing 1 pound of beef uses up 29 times more water than 1 pound of chicken and 50 times more water than 1 pound of soybeans.
Three liters of oil are required to produce one pound of beef.

Eat out at restaurants less

11-13% of the food served on an average plate at a restaurant goes to waste.
In the UK, 30-40% of all food at restaurants is never eaten.
The lighting, cooling, operation of the restaurant, and the energy used to drive there all cost the environment more than cooking that same meal at home.

Eat fewer dairy products

Together with meat, dairy products are responsible for emissions such as CO2, nitrous oxides and methane — all big factors in global warming.
Cheese can be just as energy intensive as some meats.
Ten liters of milk are used for one kilogram of cheese

Drink fewer soft drinks

Soft drinks are carbonated sugar water in a plastic bottle.
200 billion beverage containers were sold last year — and over 130 billion of those ended up in landfills or incinerators.
If all of the beverage containers discarded last year had been recycled, 15.6 million metric tons of greenhouse gases would have been avoided.

Eat fruits and vegetables that are in season (and local when possible)

Fresh fruits sold in the winter are often imported or grown in greenhouses, both of which require significant energy use.
Importing food by air has a carbon footprint 6 times larger than by ground.
A fruit’s origin can have a significant impact on the environment — the energy used to transport grapes from Chile to San Francisco is far greater than transporting them from Napa Valley.

Eat fewer packaged snacks and junk food

The boxes, bags and packets that hold our food account for 10-12% of the cost of our food products.
More than half of all plastic packaging is used to package food.
One third of the energy used to produce food goes to snacks, candy and soft drinks.

Upgrade to an energy efficient refrigerator

Your refrigerator is likely the biggest energy sink in your house using up to 5 times as much electricity as your television.
Switching to an Energy Star certified refrigerator will save you money and reduce your CO2 emissions.

Eat wild fish that are not endangered

High-tech fishing practices are depleting fish stocks, endangering entire species, and damaging habitats.
Some farmed fish have been found to contain concerning levels of PCBs and dioxins.
Look for fish that are sustainably managed. Check out the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s list of sustainable seafood.

Drink less bottled water

Producing the bottles for US consumption of bottled water for one year requires the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil.
Bottling this water produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide.
It takes 3 liters of water to produce 1 liter of bottled water.

Walk to your local farmer’s market or grocery store

The food on the typical American family’s dinner table has travelled an average of 1,500 miles.
Most American meals contain ingredients from at least five countries.
One Canadian study estimated that picking 58 selected food items locally and regionally could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 49,485 tons annually — the equivalent of removing 16,191 vehicles from the road

• http://www.goodguide.com/slideshows/2009/4/11/reduce-your-environmental-footprint
  

Restorative Commons: Creating Health and Well-Being Through Urban Landscapes

by: U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station and Meristem

Restorative Commons: Creating Health and Well-Being Through Urban Landscapes is a new collection of 18 articles inspired by the Meristem 2007 Forum, ''Restorative Commons for Community Health'' include interviews, case studies, thought pieces, and interdisciplinary theoretical works that explore the relationship between human health and the urban environment.

This publication is a joint endeavor of Meristem and the U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station as they work to strengthen networks of researchers and practitioners to develop new solutions to persistent and emergent challenges to human health, well-being, and potential within the urban environment.

The publication can be viewed or downloaded as a PDF at the link below. Hard copies can be ordered free of charge at www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/order/8810.   

 

Resource(s): http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p-39.pdf

Conservation: An Investment That Pays from Trust for Public Land is intended to help agency personnel and community conservationists make the case for conservation as a long-term economic investment.

Conservation: An Investment That Pays, a white paper from Trust for Public Land (TPL), is intended to help agency personnel and community conservationists make the case for conservation as a long-term economic investment.

Too often the argument is made that creating parks and conserving land is too expensive, especially in hard economic times. TPL hopes that the research and examples cited in Conservation: An Investment That Pays will help promote conservation for its many benefits, including the boost parks and open space can give to a community's bottom line.

Read more at the resource link below.

Resource: http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=23056&folder_id=188

www.smartgrowth.org

EPA Green Homes Website

Home owners, buyers and renters have a new resource for going green indoors and outdoors. EPA’s new Green Homes Website will help people make their homes greener with tips on reducing energy consumption, carbon footprints, waste generation and water usage, as well as improving indoor air quality.

The latest federal survey of American housing (2007) reported 128 million housing units across the U.S., accounting for nearly 54 percent of national energy use and nearly 31 percent of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, the most common greenhouse gas contributing to climate change.

Many green building practices and technologies have yet to make a dent in the existing residential market, in part because it is hard for people to find clear, consolidated, readily accessible, and credible information. The Green Homes Website addresses that need by providing guidance on approaches to greening each room of the home as well as the surrounding yard. Information also is available on building new homes and finding an energy- efficient mortgage, which takes into account the savings derived from energy efficient homes to enable the applicant to qualify for better terms.

Renters will find information to help them identify a green property before moving in and tips for working with their landlord to add green features to an existing property. Users can also find references, such as a list of common green home terms, and links to dozens of EPA Websites with more specific information on a wide variety of green home topics.   

 

Resource(s): http://www.epa.gov/greenhomes

Green Homes

Click on a room of the house to link to information on greening that room. Or use the links at top right to go directly to each section. You can also click on the attic and on the outdoor areas. For information on whole-house issues such as heating and cooling, lighting, insulation, and windows and doors, go to the whole-house section.

Whether you are a homeowner or a renter, in the market for a new home, or making home improvements, this Web site identifies the key environmental and energy issues at hand, and suggests solutions that will add value to your home, reduce energy use and energy costs, fight climate change, and help protect your health. See the Overview page for information on this site, or use the house graphic above or green home solutions links to navigate to topics of interest.

Green Home Solutions

• Overview
• Reducing Energy Use
• Conserving Water
• Choosing Green Materials & Products
• Reducing Waste
• Protecting Your Health
• Home Selection/Site Selection

Rooms of the House

• Kitchen
• Bathroom
• Living Room & Office
• Bedroom
• Laundry Room & Basement
• Garage
• Attic & Roof
• Outdoor Area
• Whole House

Tools

• Top Green Home Terms
• Renters Checklist
• Water Use Checklist