Returning to Nature

This week's reading in Nature's Operating Instructions provided me with new hope that a sustainable future is not only possible, it is going to happen. Part 1 of this collection of essays reminds us that the answers to the sustainability problems are already being answered in other natural systems. People such as John Todd are already mimicking nature's systems and applying their concepts to human issues. For example, the Eco-machine created in South Burlington uses a small aquatic ecosystem to purify water. Janine Benyus also illustrates in her writings about biomimicry that many other organisms already employ efficient systems that not only enable their survival but contribute to their environment. I loved her story of the hummingbird, which is an elegant example of an efficient, sustainable being. She explains how the tiny bird can fly across 600 miles of open ocean on 2.1 grams of fuel having already pollinated up to 1000 blossoms per day (p.6)!

In all of the readings for this course I have seen a repetition of two main themes: first to reinvent how we look at problems, and second to turn waste into food. At first the idea of sustainability seemed to be a problem for bureaucrats and scientists. New laws would be passed to regulate toxic emissions and unsustainable practices, and I would do my part by buying new energy efficient light bulbs and buying products made from recycled materials. I completely bought into the idea that "less is more" and that reducing was the key to sustainability. Now I realize that the real goal can be more than just being "less bad" as William McDonough would say, and in fact rebuild in a way that contributes to the environment.

Other natural systems are living proof that waste can equal food. What are we humans waiting for? I agree with Benyus that experts in unrelated disciplines such as engineering and biology should come together and look at sustainability problems together. The solutions are there for us to find, but we have to ask different questions and look at the problems in untraditional ways. After all, we are part of nature and must therefore work with it and not against it.

Farm for Your Life

The NCGA, or National Corn Growers Association, has a rather compelling website. They state the many valuable and viable attributes of corn, it's uses and how it can move us into a new ideal. "...A reliable supplier of food, feed, fiber and fuel for the United States and the world marletplace." Ethanol, a renewable fuel derived from corn, already stands to produce 11.5 billion gallons annually.* Amazing! Domestic jobs, no more foreign fuel, a resurgence in farms! The NCGA is fully motivated to relax our dependance on foreign fuels and diversify and accumulate domestic jobs....what could be better? The incredible, edible corn.
As a country, we utilize corn in almost every product we use from day to day. It is very vital to our society...more than we realize. Maybe it's time to rethink...
According to Wessels, "large industrial farms produce(s) a limited number of crops -- low diversity -- and consume(s) great quantities of petroleum..." (p 79). This is not necessarily a turn towards the future that I think we as society should be looking for. As a culture, unhealthy, filler foods consumer us, products and materials overwhelm us. Providing a large part of these, corn may be to thank, or not.
Again referencing Wessels, farms were once deverse, offering many crops and options for farmers to explore. Agribusiness has changed how farms fuction and who controls them. As lobbyists and policy makers push for business, a way of life held in the highest regard in our country has been diminished under their control. If we attempt to take government out of farms, they will suffer. Less funding could destroy them completely. What should be done? What can we do to regress our alliance...to corn?

*www.NCGA.com

Too Little, too late?

I certainly hope not. The readings brought a few very interesting points up that cause me to be fearful of the future for the human race. For instance, the key to survival of anything on our planet is truly species richness. As discussed by Wessels, this is dependent on a few very key factors:

- stable physical environment
- the amount of physical structure in an ecosystem
- an ecosystem that finds the balance of species levels of competition

Well, the species of homo sapiens could be in a world of trouble if we don't find some equilibrium. The Earth as we all know is ever changing and evolving, with natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, and the recent destruction in Haiti. We've proved humans are resilient, but natural disasters are like death and taxes... they're going to happen. Yet we create our own destruction by means of polluting, not recycling and re-using, then force war upon one another. Our own ecosystem is actually being destroyed at an unrecoverable unsustainable rate. There is no question about it, we as humans want to ever increase our status among ourselves in our environment, but at what cost? "...real progress will be attained only if we develop a socioeconomic model that fosters diversity and energy conservation and achieves a dynamic equilibrium in which the amount of materials and energy consumed annually remains the same and can be supported by the biosphere. " - (Wessels, 97-98)
McDonough summarizes that an ant, small and seemingly harmless has a more effective and sustainable lifestyle and has for millions of years, (as it nourishes plants, animals, and soil...) whereas human in a little more than a century have brought decline to nearly every ecosystem on the planet. I worry that if drastic measures are not taken into consideration by both law enforcement and the individual, what chance of sustaining does the human race truly stand? That to me is a notion of a truly sad nature.
"Do Whatever you can, no matter how inconvenient, to limit your 'consumption.'" (McDonough, 6)

"Cradle to Cradle" and the Toxins Inside of It

Upon picking up the book “Cradle to Cradle”, one can’t help but notice that this book is different from others. The pages have a different weight, texture, sheen, even smell (I had to check). The introduction of the book explains that it is not printed on paper but on plastic resins. This enables the book to be waterproof, durable, and recyclable. Are books like these more sustainable? The authors believe that a tree “is not a fitting resource to use in producing so humble and transient a substance as paper.” Will we be better off with plastic books, or will this be a problem in the future?

The authors, William McDonough and Michael Braungart talk about off gassing and the presence of toxins in many items we come into contact with everyday. I am familiar with this because of research I completed when shopping for my first mattress. When people shop for mattress most think about size and firmness. Many fail to realize the amount of toxic substances in the foam and covering. These toxins are released by off gassing and are inhaled by the people sleeping on said mattress. Now one can avoid this problem by buying a mattress from a company like Hastens which uses all organic products like horsehair, cotton, and wool, but this comes at a price. A Hastens bed costs anywhere from $4,500 to $60,000. That being said, I am currently breathing in toxins every night.

The reading from last class dealt with GDP and how it wasn’t a good indicator of economic growth as it accounted for all growth either positive or negative. We can’t honestly look at an increase in revenue from a mattress plant and an increase in revenue from a cancer center and call it progress. If we look at the mattress example, we can see just how expensive it is to be environmentally friendly. We have to look at these costs and ask ourselves “What is the best choice for the long term?”. Too frequently we forget to think about the long term effects of our choices. Someone may be ok with buying a pair of shoes dyed with heavy metals, but would they buy them for their children?